Inkjet better than wet prints yet?

[Greg Miller]

The one difference between the two that will always differentiate them is that inkjet prints are machine-made and wet prints are man-made. The common expectation is that the latter are more valuable and should cost more than the former because a human being was fully engaged in its creation and was not the output of an automated mass production line of machines.

Thomas

Well, they are both mad made. The artist just has the ability to be more consistent with the output in one. That can be good or bad. One can easily make a point that inkjets are more valuable because each print most closely represents the artist's vision (less variation due to tighter control over the process). I know for my digital prints I am fully engaged in making the print look the way I want it to. And I like the fact that each print looks exactly the way I want it to. And I respect the fact that you may find that less appealing than I do. You personally may find that variation in wet prints make them more valuable, but it is very subjective and others will have different opinions. Just like most things photographic, it is highly subjective and personal. I personally do not care either way - I just want to see prints that the artist is proud and that move me in some way.

This never ending debate over how one process is superior over the other is tiresome. Find a process that works for you. Love your process, and let others love theirs.

[Drew Wiley]

Yeah Tom ... I've heard exactly the same argument made of silver prints versus something
like carbon or pt/pd which are hand-coated. Some people also refer to dye transfer prints
as handmade, but others not, simply because they can be serially replicated using one set
of developed matrices. So it's all relative. Darkroom work is certainly more tactile than seeing things spun off an inkjet printer or Lightjet, and that is rewarding to many of us.
But it all involves some form of technology, even if it's just an enlarger lamp turning on due
to billions of dollars of energy infrastructure in place.

[Drew Wiley]

Jay, I don't want to get into an endless semantics feud with you, so I'll simply state it this
way. Inkjet is best when that is what the specific photographer or his choses lab happens
to do best, and which more closely replicates his concept of how he wants a specific image to look. Darkroom, in whatever chosen paper or technique, is best when it happens
to give the desired look and dovetail into that particular photographer's skill set. Agreed?
It's all so damn evolved at this point, that one can pick and choose. But if people want to
do art, they've been quite successful at it for over 30,000 years now.

[Jim Noel]

Question#1 - No, not even close

[Vaughn]

Greg, I agree that one should use the medium that one can best express him or herself with. But there is an artistic tradition, most highly refined in Japanese art, that values the imperfections that are in a piece made by a master of that art form. Repeatability never enters into it at all -- in fact, repeatability would be the antithesis of this artistic tradition.

When I was making silver gelatin prints, they had to be "perfect". One of the many aspects of carbon printing that I have grown to appreciate is the opportunity to leave this concept of "perfection" behind and craft an art object that best expresses what I see and feel -- to take my use of photography beyond just image-making. Inkjet printing (or having Bob Carnie print out a chemical print from a digital file) just would not satisfy my needs and desires.

But I also realize that inkjet printing can satisfy the needs and desires of other photographers/artists.

I am curious if an inkjet reproduction of a painting will ever fetch the same price as the original. After all, if it is all about the image, then that could happen. But it is unlikely.

[Brian Ellis]

The one difference between the two that will always differentiate them is that inkjet prints are machine-made and wet prints are man-made. The common expectation is that the latter are more valuable and should cost more than the former because a human being was fully engaged in its creation and was not the output of an automated mass production line of machines.

Thomas

When I printed in a darkroom I took film (made by others) out of my camera (a machine), put it in an enlarger (a machine), put a sheet of paper (made by others) in the enlarger, turned on the light for a while, removed the paper, put it in trays (made by others) of chemicals (made by others), jiggled the trays for a while, then put the paper in a washer (made by others), let it sit there for a while, and then placed it on a drying screen (made by others). The only thing "hand made" about it was the likelihood that I dodged or burned using my hands while sometimes holding a wire or some other tool under the enlarger light.

When I make an ink-jet print from film I take the film (made by others) out of my camera (a machine), scan the film in a scanner (a machine) while using my hands to manipulate the tools in an editing program (made by others), then with another editing program (made by others) in a computer (made by others) I use my hands to manipulate numerous different tools included in the program. Then I send it to a printer (made by others) and get a print.

Where's the difference from a "hand-made" standpoint between that and what I did in a darkroom? The only difference I see in terms of being "hand-made" is that in one case I use my hands under an enlarger light to effect changes in the print and in the other I use my hands to manipulate tools in a program to effect changes. But in each case I'm the person using my hands and my own creative efforts to make a print. And I'm at least as "fully engaged" in the creation of a print digitally as I was in a darkroom.

I'm not aware that your "common expectation" is in fact a common expectation. It may be the way you think things should be but from all I've read here and elsewhere, people don't generally pay more for a print solely because it was made in a darkroom.

As far as mass production is concerned, I see no difference between making multiple copies of the same print in a darkroom and making multiple copies in an ink jet printer except that there's no physical drudge work involved in doing it digitally. But once the first print is made neither method involves any further creative effort, it's just a matter of moving things around in a darkroom vs pushing buttons in a printer.

[Frank Petronio]

The one difference between the two that will always differentiate them is that inkjet prints are machine-made and wet prints are man-made. The common expectation is that the latter are more valuable and should cost more than the former because a human being was fully engaged in its creation and was not the output of an automated mass production line of machines.

Thomas

Every time I used to drive by Kodak I saw the slaves laboring over the paper coating stadium, pushing the clay slurry over the steaming wood pulp and then transferring it to giant drying screens, in the early stages of making "man-made" photo paper. I think it was their sweat and juices that made the paper so good.

[Greg Miller]

I am curious if an inkjet reproduction of a painting will ever fetch the same price as the original. After all, if it is all about the image, then that could happen. But it is unlikely.

To make an inkjet reproduction of a painting, you would have to scan the painting. In photography, I don't think any one is scanning inkjet prints to make more inkjet prints - each print comes from the same master file.

[tgtaylor]

Stop and think about what some of you are saying: that a handmade object has no more added value, nor is it valued, over the same object that is machine made. Is that in your “common experience?” If you went into, say, a furniture store and there were two seemingly identical tables, one hand-made by an artisan and the other machine made by XYZ corporation, which one would you expect to have the higher price tag?

Further consider the posters that Ansel Adams created and sold during his lifetime. Did he sell them for more than he sold the print or were they priced the same?

Thomas

[Ken Lee]

"Stop and think about what some of you are saying"

To determine whether something is made by hand, is not an absolute Yes or No proposition. It's akin to claiming that something is "natural" or "locally made": merely a reflection of our definition of the term.

As Brian pointed out so well, we hold tools in our hands, and those tools may have been made by other tools, or by hand. To stop and think about it, we often discover that things aren't as simple as they appear.

There are many contexts where tools are welcome, even preferable. For example, if we are getting surgery, most of us would rather pay the surgeon to use a sharp metal scalpel than tear us open with his teeth or bare hands. At the dentist, we'd rather pay for anesthetic than be clubbed into unconsciousness.

Whether someone charges more, is not always in indication of artistic value. Artistic value is only loosely coupled to price - just as an individual being famous is not always a reliable indicator of the quality of their work. Price fluctuates. Today something or someone may be very popular: tomorrow you can't give their work away.

There are some things in life that are absolute, but many are relative, a matter of perspective. In fact, perspective is one of the reasons we like photography