Now, now, Kirk ... Just how far do you want to take that line of reasoning? For all we know
the cave painters of Lascaux were buying their charcoal and ochre from some shaman at
the end of the passage, and not actually grinding it themselves.
Now, now, Kirk ... Just how far do you want to take that line of reasoning? For all we know
the cave painters of Lascaux were buying their charcoal and ochre from some shaman at
the end of the passage, and not actually grinding it themselves.
I just find it hard to imagine a situation where handmade really aplies to photography. It might describe at most one small part of the process of making images, but that is usually really a stretch. However even an inkjet printer is just a tool and what defines an artist is his/her control of the tools not the tool itself.
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"
What you say is true. But compared to inkjet, dye transfers were hand made in that lots of hand work and personal control had to be put into them.
An inkjet print can be shot out in a minute or maybe ten or fifteen minutes if it is large size. A dye transfer took the better part of a day to make. There were no guarantees you would get a good dye transfer unless you were a good printer. It is not like an inkjet where almost anyone can get great results. And the amount of handwork and skill needed for inkjet is to load paper and ink and push a button. (Unless one is doing more advanced printing.)
The inkjet alows the vast majority of us to make dye transfer quality prints with almost no skill. Without the inkjet, most of us would not be able to make anything that approaches that level of print quality. And the few of us that can print high quality wet prints without an inkjet can increase their production to much higher levels with the inkjet. I am able to print much more on an inkjet than I ever could by hand trying to balance colors and all in the darkroom. What took me a month to print out at night with Type C, I can now get out in a half a day with inkjet. This is all due to the machine - not my skill.
With dye transfer, you had some basic items and your skill was needed more so than the machinery. You could make a dye transfer via contact printing method. So an enlarger was not even needed if you had large format film and were a minimalist.
Now, you could argue the few guys that have coated their own matrix film are doing even more hand work that the ones that don't. But my point was not to try and nitpick who is doing more hand work. I was just trying to distinguish the difference between the traditional dye transfer and inkjet or modern day dye transfer, when one compares how much of us gets invested in making the print.
So maybe my original words were a poor choice. But hopefully you can get my meaning I had hoped to convey comparing the two printing methods.
Yes you can spit out a crappy or "adequate" inkjet prints in minutes or........you can spend weeks working on a print as I do (as do many of the best printers-some who post here). Its the difference between a fine print and a pretty placemat. Last fall I spent a few months working on a suite of five prints for a museum show. After weeks of work I started over with new scans-the best scans from the best scanner I could find. I then tried different papers and different ink sets (and these days I even mix my own custom ink blends). The process took months. You used to be able to get automated silver prints from a lab for less than a buck-that doesn't mean that all silver prints are easy and quick and cheap. In those days I spent many days working on a given silver print. FWIW I don't find ink prints quicker or easier to make than silver prints. To the contrary I spend much more time making a good inkjet print.
I feel like I am derailing this thread and will bow out now.
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 have no experience in making dye-transfer prints, and I doubt that even back in the day I would have attempted making them. Even so, this has been one of the best and most interesting threads I have read in a long time. Lots of good, solid information being passed, and the debates among the posters have been excellent examples of solid, reasonable discussions done in a respectful, courteous manner. I've enjoyed the exchanges, and learned a few things. Thanks!
Keith
I don't particularly like the merit argument, I.E. a print is more worthy because of the difficulty of the process. You can beat your head against an inkjet printer or your dye matrix or your enlarger. The viewer doesn't care really. The important thing is that however you make it, it is good.
Personally I never talk about how hard a print is to make. Some series are a piece of cake to print and some are grueling. I don't really think it matters much at all except to me. Over the years I have seen some pretty dull images with a long explanation of how hard or complicated or rare the process was to make them. They are still dull images. I have seen master printers make their first print so perfect it was like drinking water to them. The only thing that matters is how beautiful the print is.
The dye prints I have seen in my life didn't really do much for me. Eggleston's work for example looks better in books. I am sure that his large prints auctioned recently were quite amazing and probably could never have been made as a dye transfer at that size. I could be wrong though. It would be interesting to know.
Nah, that is OK. Discussion does not derail a thing. We are all allowed our opinions. You are passionate about your printing...good for you. We need more people that care about doing great work nowadays. Declining standards are the norm for the most part it seems.
Now where we are going with this may be off a little from the question the OP asked about. But I will get around to answering the OP best I can in about 6 months when my dye stability test is complete.
Although I would like if some of you could send me some sample dye transfers from different time periods to compare the dyes. I only have transfers from the late 40's to early 50's to use. I was thinking about using one of my own transfers from the 70's. But I don't think I will.
Your wrong about spitting out crappy prints though. Sure some inkjets are not as good as others. I've only tested maybe 6 or 7 models. And yes, big differences with the paper and print IQ...real big.
But on average most people don't bother to do what you do and they get excellent prints with almost no work. Their crappy place mats as you call them were previously only available as high grade dye transfers before the inkjet arrived on scene. But as I said earlier, inkjeting can be tweaked if we want to spend more time on it, so no one is arguing you on that fact.
Why don't you send me some of your custom dyes you mixed up in the form of reject ink prints and I can add them to my dye stability test? I asked about donations at this forum and at another forum and only got one offer at the another forum...nothing here? Real disappointing with the response I got requesting samples to test.
Don't send some giant size print, just a 8 x 10 section. I started the test yesterday with a couple of vintage dye transfers and an inkjet. I decided to not use foil. I just cut them in half and put half in the sun and half in the file cab.
This is true.
But 'hardness, human investment and skill' are always part of the human equation in evaluating worth. That is what separates a Rolex from a Citizen watch...hand made, human investment, quality as well as an ego boosting type of thing.
The Citizen I wear keeps better time than my Rolexes ever did. So, from the utility argument Citizen should be worth more than the Rolex. But there are other factors in play here that make that not so. As such, we cannot look at just one area when we value a thing.
Lets compare a painting to a photograph. If we are looking at IQ only, then a photograph usually surpasses a painting. Yet paintings in general are worth more than photographs, even though photographs, in general have much higher IQ than a painting does in terms of faithfully reproducing a subject.
As far as the prints?
I like easy and high quality. I'm very busy and don't have time to screw around. I have many activities that take up my time. I'm not a pro printer and just a hobby photog. So inkjet is a dream for me compared to the wet darkroom I was trained in back in the late 60's.
But, it would do me no good to brag about how hard a print was to make by hand if it looked like crap compared to an inkjet print that was superior to the wet print in every way. But...if all things were equal as far as IQ, archival qualities, etc...I'd choose the wet darkroom print over a ink jet print any day. (As long as I did not have to get in the darkroom to print it!)
Last edited by slackercruster; 17-May-2012 at 08:41.
Glad you like the thread Keith!
I will add a little more feedback once my dye fade tests are done on 6 months.
I also hope to do a shootout between ink jet dye transfer and trad dye transfer comparing print IQ. But that one will be just a half-ass job. I don't have access to the 'old master' dye trasfers, their originals and the best in ink jet dye transfer printers. But it can give us some idea, anyway.
Last edited by slackercruster; 17-May-2012 at 08:45.
Bookmarks