Are SUVs better than pick-up trucks yet?
If I could make an inkjet print by hand (instead of a machine) on homemade materials, I might actually go with inkjet prints.
Are SUVs better than pick-up trucks yet?
If I could make an inkjet print by hand (instead of a machine) on homemade materials, I might actually go with inkjet prints.
Last edited by Vaughn; 29-Mar-2012 at 12:43.
I have been showing silver prints along side inkjet since 2005 in museum and gallery shows with a great deal of success. At this point I am quite satisfied with both. I don't try to make an inkjet print look like a silver print, but try and make it rich and expressive on its own. I have found that some images print better one way than the other. Generally I try everything shot on film in silver first. If it works there that is where I stop. If not I will have a drum scan done and work on it in ink. Digital capture of course I work up in ink first. I'm very tempted to try Carnies silver prints from digital files and will probably give that a try this coming year.
Thanks,
Kirk
at age 73:
"The woods are lovely, dark and deep,
But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep,
And miles to go before I sleep"
I printed in a darkroom for about 15 years, mostly b&w but some color. I've been printing digitally for about 9 years, b&w and color. I've exhibited darkroom and ink jet prints side by side in various exhibits and nobody has ever noticed any difference, or if they have they haven't said anything about it. I've shown both type of prints in portfolio reviews at photography workshops and neither the instructors nor the participants have realized they were two different types of prints until I told them. I happen to prefer ink jet because I can do so much more in Photoshop than I can in a darkroom and because so much time in a darkroom is spent doing drudge work (mixing chemicals, jiggling trays, cleaning up, etc.) rather than actually working on a print. Others prefer darkroom prints and that's fine for them.
Brian Ellis
Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you do criticize them you'll be
a mile away and you'll have their shoes.
While this thread still remains civil, I will comment. Yesterday, Michael Smith and Paula Chamlee were at the house for lunch and an afternoon of conversation. Those familiar with their work, will appreciate their years of dedication to the silver contact print on Azo and Lodima papers, developed in Amidol.
I never thought that I would live to see them take on the digital printing process. They have in a big way (and with big prints)! In their judgement, their ink prints are indistinguishable from their silver prints. It has not come easily, with months and years of perfecting the process. They are in fact perfectionists, and their conclusion carries a lot of weight in any such discussion.
By all means, David, do work with that method which is practical for you. Although I don't particarly care for setting up the trays, cleaning them when through, and drying the RC prints with a hand dryer or setting up the screens for the fiber, the silver print is the most practical method for me since I am currently a better silver printer than digital printer.I tend to see better "depth" from a wet print, however, the control with the digital workflow is simply more practical for me. Wet printing is a very time consuming in art unto itself and I have a great respect for people who can do it well. I have two small children and can easily take a break from my processing workflow to be with them/tend to their needs. I went with the digital workflow when I compared wet/piezography side by side and have been very pleased with the results thus far.
But lets face it: How many images are you really going to print regardless of the method? True if you are an accomplished software jockey you can probably work thru a successful print quicker than in the darkroom but the savings in time shouldn't be all that great as it takes the printer time to print the negative just as it takes 3 to 3.5 minutes to process an RC or Fiber print. You have to dry the wet print – about another 2 or 3 minutes with a hand dryer for RC but you have to wait for the ink to stabilize too (Epson says to wait at least 15 minutes before touching the print). The real savings in time comes when you need to print several copies of the same image. With digital you simply tell the printer to print x copies and can walk off; with wet prints you must print each one personally which, if you made careful notes of how you arrived at the final working proof, is simple but monotonous. You're just a machine at that point. You can't just walk away from it at that point like you can with digital. But how often do you do that?
Perhaps more compelling is the need to work with hazardous chemicals in the wet darkroom – the “fume room” so many have complained of. Using a citric acid stop bath and TF-5 for a fix I have eliminated practically all the fumes except from the Dektol which in my case is minimal as I process the paper in a separate room which is ventilated by an exhaust fan. I'm only in there 3 or 3.5 minutes at a time depending on the paper I'm printing on.
Finally I find silver printing more straight-forward and intuitive than digital printing where it is necessary to master the software which has the tendency to change. For example a certain keystroke on PS Version X may not produce the same result on Version Y with printer Z.
Thomas
Agreed - especially with the last paragraph.
Thomas
After 20+ years of intensive silver printing in the darkroom and 8+ years learning digital and exploiting the evolving offerings, I have also come to the conclusion that both mediums have equal expressive quality. Like Frank, I have preferred the "traditional" B&W fiber-based look in my digital printing. After 2 years of working with Cone's K6/K7 inks for glossy papers, I have found the look I want with digital printing. The thing that put it over the top for me was using the glossy inks on glossy papers with a gloss overcoat made the image appear to be "in" the paper rather than "on" the paper that I found using matte inks/papers. This is the same look that I have enjoyed with darkroom prints for years.
To the OP's other question, I have found that the density range with glossy ink/paper/overcoat is greater than what I accomplished in the darkroom. For reference, my old Zone VI Brilliant paper (that I loved) had a max density range of approx 2.3 log. With either Canson Infinity Baryta or Cone5 and gloss overcoat, I find my max density range is 2.6 to 2.7 log. This can make a difference depending on the density range of the image you are printing and the way you are trying to print it. Another large difference, besides productivity, is that you can more easily use the entire tonal range in digital due with all of the tools available.
for the OP, I would say that they are both of equal quality and will provide an equal quality of expression - however they are still subtly different - to a knowledgeable audience that is looking for it.
Merg, I knew that was happening with them. It is not surprising at all to me given the response I have personally gotten from top notch "old school" silver printers, and knowledgeable curators. I do think however that printers with a background in fine silver printing have a distinct advantage when they take up ink printing.
Thanks,
Kirk
at age 73:
"The woods are lovely, dark and deep,
But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep,
And miles to go before I sleep"
[QUOTE=Kirk Gittings;867974]Merg, I knew that was happening with them. It is not surprising at all to me given the response I have personally gotten from top notch "old school" silver printers, and knowledgeable curators. I do think however that printers with a background in fine silver printing have a distinct advantage when they take up ink printing.[/QUOTE]
I think you raise an interesting a valid point there, my 40+ years of darkroom printing has certainly made if very much easier for me to make digital prints as well.
Ian
Yes, good points Thomas. I think it boils down to being comfortable with your system enough to produce repeatable and predictable results that satisfy the most important critic, oneself!
Thanks,
Kirk
at age 73:
"The woods are lovely, dark and deep,
But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep,
And miles to go before I sleep"
Bookmarks