Inkjet better than wet prints yet?

[Drew Wiley]

Kirk - from an archival standpoint, a C-print done from fresh one-shot chemistry done in a
drum and thorougly washed afterwards would probably be the best. I wash my prints about
three times as long as one run through a roller processor, with six changes of water. But
any C-print is going to eventually succumb to yellowing from residual couplers. I don't have
a problem with that, because I don't know how anyone could stand to look at the same
thing on a wall anyway for fifty years. For archival nitpickers and portfolio boxes in the dark, there are better choices.

[Drew Wiley]

Bob - I know folks who could easily do this optically, and did so for years. The paper is the
same, the roller presses for mounting are the same. But the market has changed. Most big
prints went to store displays, and they're going to switch out things every few months.
C-prints are much cheaper to make per materials than inkjet, but most retailers really don't
give a damn about the quality.

[Kirk Gittings]

Drew you may be right when talking about a careful worker. I just know from watching students work the opposite is true.

[bob carnie]

Metro Imaging in London can do 72 inch paper prints Kodak product.. others are out there.

I am not sure of this but I think that a 72 inch lambda device is used to create his prints. I will check on this. This would require scan and PS work.

I do know about making 72 inch x longer c prints off an enlarger,as I have done them myself , there are very few labs in the world with C print capability at this size.

[Brian Ellis]

Nobody is dancing around anything. You're simply wrong in your notion that a digital print is made by a machine except in the most literal sense (and in that most literal sense, a darkroom print is also made in a machine). Since your basic premise is wrong everything that follows from it is also wrong.

You guys are dancing all around it without directly answering the question. What's the matter? Are you afraid of admitting that the individual work of the craftsman is worth more than the craftsman’s machine output of the same piece?

Kirk: WikiPedia identifies both Gursky prints as Chromogenic C-Prints, which implies that they were created in the traditional darkroom. Suppose, though, Gursky did himself create a traditional darkroom print of the same image. Which one would you suppose to have the greater value: the darkroom version created by Gursky or the “machine made print” in your statement? If you were the buyer, which one would you buy (price not a consideration).

Thomas

[Drew Wiley]

Gosh Kirk - I'd panic if one of my cats snuck into the darkroom. Students will eat things a
cat would never touch. The four former labs in this area which could do really big C-prints
were meticulous about running process control strips thru their processor daily and keeping
the replenishment exact. I could take over their mothballed gear if I wanted to, but really don't like my own work enlarged bigger than 4X. And I also really want to gear down in
anticipation for retirement. A 30x40 print is plenty big for my occasional clients. But the
best Kreonite or Hope processor in the world isn't any good if the party which inherits it
doesn't have some analogous level of process control, or uses out-of-date chemistry.
But wheter a formal lab or an individual, one is ultimately reliant upon their personal integrity.

[Oren Grad]

You guys are dancing all around it without directly answering the question. What's the matter? Are you afraid of admitting that the individual work of the craftsman is worth more than the craftsman’s machine output of the same piece?

There's nothing to "admit", because as a universal rule it's not true.

If the items are truly identical, then no, I won't pay more just because it's hand-made. If they're not identical, I'll decide on a case-by-case basis whether the distinctive attributes of the hand-made version make it worth more or less to me, or don't make any difference. Other people will make different decisions.

[tgtaylor]

HaHaHa, consider Rembrandt being brought back to life via DNA cloning (which may, all jokes aside, be possible in the not too distant future). He paints a masterpiece which he scans and prints on an ink-jet and then puts both up for auction. Which one do you think will command the higher market price?

Now Ansel Adams is also brought back via DNA cloning, makes another darkroom masterpiece which he also scans and makes an ink-jet copy of and puts both up for auction. Which one do you think will command the higher market price?

Now let's take you! You create a darkroom masterpiece, scan it and make an ink-jet copy. Like Rembrandt and Ansel you also put yours up for auction. Which one do you think will command the higher market price. Suppose instead that you put both up for sale in your studio gallery. Which one are you going to price the higher or are you going to price both identical?

Thomas

[Oren Grad]

HaHaHa, consider Rembrandt being brought back to life via DNA cloning (which may, all jokes aside, be possible in the not too distant future). He paints a masterpiece which he scans and prints on an ink-jet and then puts both up for auction. Which one do you think will command the higher market price?

Now Ansel Adams is also brought back via DNA cloning, makes another darkroom masterpiece which he also scans and makes an ink-jet copy of and puts both up for auction. Which one do you think will command the higher market price?

Now let's take you! You create a darkroom masterpiece, scan it and make an ink-jet copy. Like Rembrandt and Ansel you also put yours up for auction. Which one do you think will command the higher market price. Suppose instead that you put both up for sale in your studion gallery. Which one are you going to price the higher or are you going to price both identical?

Thomas

You're conflating two different questions. Inkjets have neither the same look-and-feel nor the same stability characteristics as silver prints or as paintings. One might prefer one or the other for reasons that have nothing to do with machine- vs hand-made.

Let's make the hypothetical more precise. Suppose Ansel had a mad-tinkerer friend who built for him a darkroom robot which did the drudge work of shoving the paper under the enlarger, doing the dodging and burning, and stuffing the paper into the processing trays. Assume that the resulting prints are literally identical to - indistinguishable from - those that Ansel made the hard way. Assume also that he signed both of them, indicating that he considers both to be valid expressions of his creative intent.

Would I pay more for the non-robotic one? No.

[Vaughn]

...Now Ansel Adams is also brought back via DNA cloning, makes another darkroom masterpiece which he also scans and makes an ink-jet copy of and puts both up for auction. Which one do you think will command the higher market price?Thomas

Actually, besides the cloning part, the AA Gallery is doing this and selling them at the gallery, and yes, of course they sell for considerably less than the original printed-by-AA prints. For a matted 16x20, unframed, is $480. They are very well done. I think about $130 for an 8x10.