report from Chicago [Archive] - Large Format Photography Forum

Joe Smigiel

24-Jul-2005, 07:46

FWIW, I have only seen a few inkjet prints that I would ever consider purchasing. (Those were exclusive to some of Jon Cone's early inkjet work several years ago. They also were very small, maybe 5x7 and not the 30x40 prints his studio full of IRIS and wide format Epson printers was capable of producing. The images would have suffered severly from that treatment.)

I've seen thousands of inkjet prints since and many were nicely printed and probably more "perfect" than any silver or Pt/Pd, etc., counterpart the respective photographers could hope to produce. Yet, the inkjet prints simply have a different look no matter how well they are printed and it is a look I don't care for. I'm truly surprised how many former darkroom workers have embraced inkjets, made the switch and feel their inkjet prints are somehow better. It also seems I am less attracted to their imagery and more attracted to the work of traditionalists. Regardless of the opinion of the workers who advocate and embrace inkjet printing and the gallery acceptance, I don't think you'll ever find me acquiring/collecting an inkjet rendition of a photograph. Some people may be selling them, but I wonder how many images they might be selling in a more traditional medium. Really apples and oranges and quantity and (not vs) quality impacting this I suppose.

OTOH I was extremely disappointed with the last print I purchased. I saw it on the web and assumed it was a monochrome silverprint. In correspondence with the photographer he let me know he would not be printing the image himself due to becoming sensitized to darkroom chemistry. Rather, he would have a professional lab print the photo for him. While this was not ideal in my eyes, it was OK since I really liked the image. However, when I received the print I was severely disappointed as it turned out to be a C-print rather than a conventional B&W silverprint. I should have thought to ask beforehand but didn't since the computer screen image looked so good. I didn't bother to return the print for a refund since it was fairly inexpensive and an international transaction. I will be sure not to repeat this mistake and I can assure you that I will not purchase any more c-prints or inkjet prints, and for similar reasons related to longevity and in particular, facture.

My point here is that the medium was not optimized for the image and I think that is a common-strike that- an overwhelming occurence which is on the increase with the general acceptance of inkjet printing. IMO, the image looked better on the screen in the case of the c-print I purchased and the same holds for almost every other inkjet print I've ever seen. IMO, the image potential, if not being entirely lost, is certainly being underutilized by the attempt of inkjet printers to mimic photographic prints with their efforts. (Cone's prints were different and truly matched the medium with the image.)

darter

24-Jul-2005, 08:06

What this forum needs is yet more pompous pronouncements from the self-appointed "professors" of large format photography.

Wayne

24-Jul-2005, 08:29

Kirk, are you sure you are the right person to be representing all of us on the Freestyle Advisory Board? This post is a childish and unprovoked attempt to stir things up between LF photographers and fauxtographers. Its pretty obvious you are taking great pleasure in dismissing , even ridiculing, opposing viewpoints.

Brian Ellis

24-Jul-2005, 09:02

"Are you able to make black and white ink jet prints which rival your wet chemistry prints."

Since Kirk hasn't answered I'll answer for him. : - )

With both processes it's the person doing the printing that's by far the most important ingredient and that always seems to get lost in these discussions.

But having spent a lot of time making black and white prints both in a darkroom and digitally, in my mind there's no question that printing digitally carries the potential for most people to make better prints than they could ever have made in the darkroom. Whether that potential is realized or not depends on their inherent talent and on how much time and effort they're willing to devote to learning the process and making each print.

So I would rephrase the question as follows: "do you think you can make wet chemistry prints that rival your black and white ink jet prints?" My answer would be "it depends." I think an exceptionally talented darkroom printer (somebody like John Sexton) will make great prints regardless of the method used. But I think the vast majority of silver printers making enlargements will be able to make black and white ink jet prints that are consistently superior to their darkroom prints, if (big "if") they enjoy the process and are willing to spend the very large amounts of time and effort needed to learn how to do it.

Despite that belief I certainly don't think everyone should switch to digital printing. There are plenty of perfectly legitimate reasons for making black and white prints in a darkroom. My problem comes with people who have little or no personal expeience making digital prints but who nevertheless claim that digital printing is an inherently inferior process. To those persons I'd say "try it, you might like it" (or if you don't want to try it, at least withhold judgement until you've seen a lot of digital prints made by a lot of very talented people).

Bobby Sandstrom

24-Jul-2005, 09:15

Food for Thought as I try to verbalize what I feel re digital/analog process. ( I posted this in a similar forum at apug..

For those who are not aware, there are traditional concert grand pianos that will record an actual performance and then spit it back out pretty much the way you played it. Now, would you rather sit in a room and listen to a "More Perfect" performance by Van Cliburn that is spit out by the piano from a previous recording ---OR--- would you rather be there in the room with Cliburn playing LIVE albeit a less perfect rendition. The latter is DYNAMIC and will be different every time. It has a pulse... it has energy... it has LIFE... and most importantly it is UNIQUE! The recording is static. It will be EXACTLY the same every time you hear it! Kinda like the twilight zone where the guy is on a toy train that goes round and round in circles stopping at the same place.

william linne

24-Jul-2005, 09:21

Here's my opinion. I work as a photographer, teacher (at a small private art college, and as a assistant in the prints dept at San Francisco Museum of Modern Art). At the museum inkjet prints are not considered archival and all recent evidence we have is that forty years is about the most we can expect. At best. Inkjet prints are NOT preferred or bought unless that is the sole medium the artist works in or if it is a piece that is important for other reasons. A similar situation happened a decade or so ago, when some Richard Misrach c-prints started to color shift. He produced new prints (on his own accord, with no prompting from us) on more stable color paper. One of my colleagues had an interesting comment about inkjets, "If Leonardo couldn't do it with ink on paper, what makes you think Epson can?" In my job as teacher, I see students abandoning the wet darkroom in droves. It's easier and cleaner to work in digital. It's easier to produce a nice print digitally than it is to spend hours in a b@w darkroom learning to print. Not to diminish at all, the incredibly hard work it takes to produce a FINE print digitally. In all the different arenas I work in, I see a wide variety of prints. Traditional black and white, color, inkjet, platinum. I haven't seen inkjets yet that have the dimensionality and tonality of conventional prints. They certainly can mimic the sharpness and color on traditional prints, but always end up looking like a photocopy of a really nice silver or color or platinum print. That being said, I love that people who don't have access to darkrooms, finally have a way of producing work. I firmly believe that is to better to produce things digitally than not produce at all. And soon the paradigm will shift, we will move from spraying ink on paper to some other method and that will be nicer or have more dimensionality. Then we can talk about how inferior IT is to silver, platinum and inkjets.

good day!

John Kasaian

24-Jul-2005, 09:45

Not being a Professional, I'm certainly out of my league here but really, does it matter what museums want to collect" Or what galleries want to sell? If I want to share my photographs with others, is it significant that they'll fade away in twenty years? Perhaps, but only if money is the issue---or historical record. If a museum or collector pays the big $$$ for a print it is reasonable that they intend to have it around for exhibition or as an investment for 100 years or so. It has been proven in practice that prints from a wet dark room can hold out in the long run. New technology is speculative. Does it matter to me that a viewer appreciate what I do in the dark room? No, not really but I enjoy it---not because of the control (after a night of printing in the Barbie darkroom the phrase that comes to mind is "Out of Control") but because I feel I've truly made the print from start to finish (critics can say I didn't make the film or paper, but I'm headed there---a 8x10 glass plate holder is on the way from cyberspace to join my 5x7s, and I'll someday start coating my own paper when I can manage pt/pd in my budget) If I ever want to sell a print, is it reasonable to expect that I can cover the cost of my labor in producing it? I hope so if I want to stay solvent. I'll wager that it takes more time to print in the wet dark room than to press a print button, so at a very basic level, is a darkroom print more costly than an inkjet? Is a carved stone statue more cosatly than a resin cast one? Is an illuminated manuscript more costly than a paperback? Passion and craftsmanshipp aside, If you apply a like value to the content of the finished works ( hey, an intesting ink jet is better than a bad photo, right?) then you've got your answer. The question then is, will the public buy it? My 2-cents.

Brett Deacon

24-Jul-2005, 09:45

Is it me, or was Kirk simply making an observation? I didn't interpret his post as a childish and unprovoked attempt to ridicule those who prefer wet chemistry prints. I found his comments to be an interesting and highly relevant source of information about this important issue.

As Brian pointed out, it's the skill of the printer, more than the medium itself, that is the critical issue in print quality. I've never set foot in a wet darkroom and thus can't compare my own chemical prints to my inkjet prints. I have seen side-by-side comparisons of color landscape (not B&W) prints at galleries and high-end art fairs and have found inkjet prints to be at least as good as traditional darkroom prints, while Lightjet/Chromira prints are even better. I have also been in low-end galleries where the inkjet prints were awful.

I can understand how traditional darkroom printers believe their finished products to be superior because of the work and skill that is required in this process. However, I wonder if these individuals appreciate that the amount of work and skill required to achieve an optimal inkjet print is also extensive? Most art buyers don't purchase a print out of reverence for the method by which it was created. This is where I think Bobby's grand piano analogy fails. Buying a print is not like sitting in a room listening to a pianist (or a recording of the pianist). It is like buying a CD of the recording - what's important to most buyers at this stage is the quality of the finished product, not the method by which it was created.

One last point - can someone point out the practical advantage of a print that lasts 500 as opposed to 150 years?

Jorge Gasteazoro

24-Jul-2005, 09:47

Thank you Samuel! It is good to read the opinion of someone who actually works at a museum as opposed to the sales clerk at the Calumet counter.

Will Strain

24-Jul-2005, 09:56

Kirk was not expressing an opinion, or a preference. His observation was that from the perspective of the gallerists, buyers and curators he spoke with, any preference or bias about the print medium has become a non-issue. Not that they favor one process. Or have abandoned another...they are doing what they always have. Showing, collecting and buying photographs.

His point about the argument being dead was specific to those who assert that they won't use inkjet because the art world won't buy it. There are plenty of reasons for and against... but that particular one seems to have been refuted.

robc

24-Jul-2005, 09:59

I take a really simplistic view on this topic.

A Photograph is produced by projecting light on to paper (or other medium) and then developing.

A Digital Print (in the context of this discussion) is produced by a computer spraying a programmed array of ink droplets onto a piece of paper(or other medium). The output is not a Photograph.

Logically, a Digital Print can never be a "Photograph" since its production does not include the light element of the word Photograph. Whether it the image was captured in camera or not is irrelevant since the finished print is NOT a photograph, it is a Digital Print.

I challenge you all to give a logical and reasoned explanation of why you think digital printing has anything to do with Photography.

Personally, I think there are a lot of very confused people out there who can't tell the difference between the two or more probably are trying to convince themselves that the two are the same thing.

Whether a digital print or a photograph produces a better result is a highly subjective opinion. One small observation I have made is that you rarely hear people on digital print forums discussing whether digital prints are better than photographs. I wonder why?

If I'm not mistaken, the purpose of this forum is to discuss Large Format Photography.

robert_4927

24-Jul-2005, 09:59

Yes Brett your portrait in platinum can be viewed by your family for the next 7 generations as opposed to 2 generations or as opposed to .5 generations in respect to an inkjet. The ever changing landscape can be recorded just how it is in this moment and time to be viewed 500 years from now for historical references. I could go on and on but I think by you just asking this question you won't seem to grasp this concept.

Kirk Gittings

24-Jul-2005, 10:03

Jim,

Ink prints are different. I actually love the look of ink on mat paper. It reminds me of stone lithography. Ink prints have their own strengths, weaknesses and unique look. For me there is some tonal control I can achieve that I could not get any other way and believe me in 30 years of trying I had tried everything, masking, split filtering, selective toning, selective intensification, platinum/paladium, Van Dyke, etc. etc. etc. But I manipulate tones allot. I am not a "straight" printer.

After almost a solid year of 80 hour weeks I have reached a point where I am satisfied with my ink prints and prefer them in many cases to comparable silver prints. Of course I am primarily printing images that I was never entirely happy with in silver. I have an upcoming show at a local museum that I largely reprinted 60% of the images in ink rather than pull them from the museums collection of my silver prints. That may tell you allot. Next year when things slow down some I am going to explore digitally enlarged negatives as I have seen some interesting work done that way.

I will basically try anything that gives me a more expressive print. I love the fact that there are more choices out there. Ink prints are still in their infancy. This is a technology that will only improve in terms of d-max, dynamic range and archival life.

I love the fact that my daily tool kit includes a 50 year old 4x5 rail camera, a 25 year old wooden field camera, a 50 year old Hassleblad, a traditional b&w wet darkroom and a state of the art digital darkroom. I percieve photography right now as extremely exciting.

Jorge Gasteazoro

24-Jul-2005, 10:05

His observation was that from the perspective of the gallerists, buyers and curators he spoke with,

Uh, where does it read that he spoke to any of the above? From what I understood in the post he spoke with fellow professors and people at Calumet. Hardly a representative sample of" gallerists, buyers and curators."

Jorge Gasteazoro

24-Jul-2005, 10:17

After almost a solid year of 80 hour weeks I have reached a point where I am satisfied with my ink prints and prefer them in many cases to comparable silver prints

So, the purpose of your post was a little bit of gloating and a little bit of self reaffirmation about choosing to go digital? Did you really thought that just because you talked to a few instructors (who have a personal interest in their choice) and a sales clerk at Calumet that those of us who disagree would go "ah well, Kirk said it so it must be true I was wrong and better start learning PS?" Given Samuel's response, apparently the argument is not as "dead" as you say it is.

Will Strain

24-Jul-2005, 10:20

"I have allot of opportunity to interact with photo professors (at SAIC, Columbia and other schools), museum and gallery people and friends at Calumet etc."

And for what it's worth... the SAIC is attached to the Art Institute, and several of the professors also work with the curatorial staff, and the curators have been known to teach courses at Columbia too...

It's a tight knit photo world here in Chicago. Kirk is squarely in the middle of it at the moment.

Kirk Gittings

24-Jul-2005, 10:26

For whatever it is worth.....

I have spoken with friends and colleages in all the institutions mentioned above-that was my point, but this is not a scientific survey. It is the result of casual questions over lunch or a few to many glasses of cheap white wine at an opening. The SAIC is a very rich environment for networking with people in the field even during the summer session when things are slow, because of pre-opening events for faculty and staff at things like the new Toulouse Lautrec show.

The drawback though of such a casual survey is that my circle of friends and colleages in Chicago are very much in the vein of cutting edge contemporary art who have never been to concerned with the issues of craft etc. that we labor over here. I have always been a bit of an old school curmudgeon at SAIC. It has amazed some people here that I have gotten into ink printing as I am percieved as "old school" a perception that I have been very comfortable with.

Brett Deacon

24-Jul-2005, 10:36

Thank you Robert. I am speechless with awe at your sheer brilliance. I see now that a print that only lasts 150 years is essentially worthless.

John Berry ( Roadkill )

24-Jul-2005, 10:43

I'm with Kirk on this one. I don't do it for a living and I don't do it for galleries. I'll use whatever it takes to get what I want. I came back to film after 4 years of doing nothing but digital because I just enjoy it. In fact I went backwards, I now do carbon printing.

David A. Goldfarb

24-Jul-2005, 11:25

In the New York galleries there has been some color inkjet, but very little B&W inkjet. It might be that I'm not going to galleries that would show it.

Jeffrey Sipress

24-Jul-2005, 11:42

Thank you, Kirk, for sharing your 'real world' observations. And thanks to Brett as well, for the excellent supoport.

Apparently I don't buy into the 'greater than thou' attitude of some chemical workers who have either never worked an image digitally, or never learned to do it well. I'm guessing that I now have an equivalent number of years of experience manipulating images on the computer as many experienced lab printers have. So they spend a few hours making a series of increasingy improved prints until they are satisfied, always going back and masking, dodging, burning, and so on. Well, I do the same thing. And they want those perfect tonalities, blacks and brightness, just like me. And they all want long lasting materials, the respect of the 'art' community, gallery sales, and success. Well, so do I. When are they going to finally see that we are all doing the same thing, with the same desires and goals? We simply use different tools!! Get over it, people! So I don't know a thing about dektol or pyro? Have you ever created a custom shape graduated mask with a variable opacity and a defined feathering on an adjustment layer? Who cares! I just want to realize my photographic vision, and enjoy yours... We should be associating, not argueing.

Jorge Gasteazoro

24-Jul-2005, 11:45

Have you ever created a custom shape graduated mask with a variable opacity and a defined feathering on an adjustment layer?

Nope, I do photography not graphic arts......

Wayne

24-Jul-2005, 11:58

When are they going to finally see that we are all doing the same thing, with the same desires and goals? We simply use different tools!!

When are computer imagers going to get it? Why cant they just acccept and embrace their differences?

This isnt a dead argument, its an emerging one.

robert_4927

24-Jul-2005, 12:03

"can someone point out the practical advantage of a print that lasts 500 as opposed to 150 years" Nowhere in my post did I insinuate that a print that lasts 150 years was "worthless" You asked for a practical advantage and I merely pointed a couple out that to anyone who is aware of the various mediums in which we work would not need to ask for. I'm sorry I don't know your level of experience and I apologize if my remarks came across as condescending. But as you said you have never set foot in a wet darkroom so I doubt very much if you're qualified to beat on this dead horse with the rest of us. If someone is telling you that your inkjets will be around in the same condition or very near the same condition 150 years from now as they are today I suggest you find another mentor because the one who is telling you this is leading you astray. Now with that said let me encourage you to continue working in what ever medium you chose. What's important is you're creating and that's what it is all about.

Mark Sawyer

24-Jul-2005, 12:06

Jumping back to the crux of Kirk's original post:

" the big debate that is waged in this forum over the validity of archival ink prints is a complete non-issue in the art photo community here. I suspect that this is true in other major metropolitan centers also. All the major galleries are selling them and the museums are actively collecting them."

If process and archival quality are non-issues, are the more prominent museums, collections, and galleries now collecting/showing b/w RC prints with the same seriousness as fiber-prints and inkjet prints?

(This is a serious question, not baiting or a set-up for some future arguement. For decades, RC was not considered a "valid" process for fine art photography for some of the same reasons that some now criticize inkjet prints for. If inkjet work has found acceptance, has it opened the door for RC?)

Jeffrey Sipress

24-Jul-2005, 12:25

"When are computer imagers going to get it? Why cant they just acccept and embrace their differences?"

When are chemical imagers going to get it? Why cant they just acccept and embrace their similarities?

Jorge Gasteazoro

24-Jul-2005, 12:32

Uh, what is a "chemical imager?"......

julian_4860

24-Jul-2005, 13:14

why don't you all agree?? Jorge is the list fascist. he decides what is and what isn't and there are no deviations from his well laid-out norms (normas in spanish works better). accept it. don't waste space arguing about it. go to museum exhibits, look at the processes on display and ask - in the real world, does his views hold sway? (I've been to three this weekend - nary an analogue process in sight). Is he going to set the world alight with his work? I doubt it. How can I say that when I haven't seen any? Easy, he talks about process, not vision, and he spends too much time defining by exclusion - he's a reductionist. His work will best be displayed in those old craft centres - 'hey Dad, is THAT how they used to do it?' Let the bloke be, the last wimper of the dinosaur as the climate changed.

Jorge Gasteazoro

24-Jul-2005, 13:17

LOL....well I rather be the list's fascist than the list's fool.... :-)

julian_4860

24-Jul-2005, 13:39

>>LOL....well I rather be the list's fascist than the list's fool.... :-)

you are proving that the two categories are not mutually exclusive...

Jorge Gasteazoro

24-Jul-2005, 14:03

you are proving that the two categories are not mutually exclusive...

And you are proving that more often than not they are.... ;-)

julian_4860

24-Jul-2005, 14:21

From other threads, I understand you have to have the last word... that was a good one, I'd leave it at that

tim atherton

24-Jul-2005, 14:25

"Thank you Samuel! It is good to read the opinion of someone who actually works at a museum as opposed to the sales clerk at the Calumet counter."

Is that Samuel? William Linne? W? Bill? You show up as all those in your posts - is it Samuel William Linne?

Exactly which small private art college is that. I'll be talking to at Sandra Phillips SFMOMA early next month about an article I'm editing - maybe I could mention your name? Which do you go by?

Joe Smigiel

24-Jul-2005, 14:27

Jeffrey wrote: "Apparently I don't buy into the 'greater than thou' attitude of some chemical workers who have either never worked an image digitally, or never learned to do it well...When are they going to finally see that we are all doing the same thing, with the same desires and goals?...Have you ever created a custom shape graduated mask with a variable opacity and a defined feathering on an adjustment layer?"

You make an error assuming the first. Many of us who have come to prefer the traditional, nondigital methods are/were fluent in the digital techniques before we made the decision to reject the medium. I learned to do it well, actually won a juried show prize with a digital piece, and taught a course in the subject at the college level, finally finding it to be a vacuous medium for my own work. I much prefer traditional and especially alternative process photography.

I suggest that you learn a few things about the Dektol and Pyro you mention before making your comparisons and pronouncements. By your own admission, it is you that lacks the alternate experience. Similarly, an increasing number of digital advocates share your lack of experience with traditional darkroom processes and I'm afraid that trend will unfortunately continue with more exclusively digital imagers naively claiming the two media are the same thing. I also suggest that if you wish " to realize (your) photographic vision" that you actually attempt photography using photographic materials and processes rather than trying to imitate the media with digital technology. OTOH, if you wish to enjoy and succeed in your digital vision, more power and success to you. But please don't confuse the two. Enjoy what you do and take pride in your accomplishments with it but also realize it is a different medium and please promote it as such.

Second, we are all not "doing the same thing, with the same desires and goals." I already have "long lasting materials" and could care less about "the respect of the 'art' community, gallery sales, and success." I'm in it for me and am not motivated to be in the limelight. You again presume to much and project your own motivations upon others erroniously.

As to your final statement, true, I have to admit I have never done that using an adjustment layer. I learned to do it on my own before adjustment layers were incorporated into Photoshop. Without shoes, in the winter, uphill...

Brian Vuillemenot

24-Jul-2005, 14:49

O.K., guys, let's stop arguing, and go make some photographs...

Jorge Gasteazoro

24-Jul-2005, 14:56

From other threads, I understand you have to have the last word... that was a good one, I'd leave it at that

Atta boy.... :-)

Jeffrey Sipress

24-Jul-2005, 15:41

Thanks, Joe, for your reply. Some clarificarion is in order:

You said "You make an error assuming the first. Many of us who have come to prefer the traditional, nondigital methods are/were fluent in the digital techniques before we made the decision to reject the medium"

That's why I included the word 'some'. I'm glad you are involved with both, and not specifically the type of person I was referring to.

You said "I suggest that you learn a few things about the Dektol and Pyro you mention before making your comparisons and pronouncements. By your own admission, it is you that lacks the alternate experience. Similarly, an increasing number of digital advocates share your lack of experience with traditional darkroom processes and I'm afraid that trend will unfortunately continue with more exclusively digital imagers naively claiming the two media are the same thing."

Yes, I know nothing of the chemical darkroom, yet I made no comparisons or pronouncements. Re-read my post. Yes, the trend is strong, but not unfortunate. And where did you see any claim that the two media are the same thing? At least not in my post. I was, however, indicating that we usually all want a satisfying piece of work when our process of choice is complete, typically a print.

You said " I also suggest that if you wish " to realize (your) photographic vision" that you actually attempt photography using photographic materials and processes rather than trying to imitate the media with digital technology. OTOH, if you wish to enjoy and succeed in your digital vision, more power and success to you. But please don't confuse the two. Enjoy what you do and take pride in your accomplishments with it but also realize it is a different medium and please promote it as such.

Yes, I create photography using photographic materials and processes. Just different ones that yours. Not an imitation, just different. I fully acknowledge the differences, and am not confused by the two.

You said "Second, we are all not "doing the same thing, with the same desires and goals." I already have "long lasting materials" and could care less about "the respect of the 'art' community, gallery sales, and success." I'm in it for me and am not motivated to be in the limelight. You again presume to much and project your own motivations upon others erroniously."

I presume nothing about any one individual. I simply gathered up the many common comments and motivations that I hear on the boards and was creating a stereotype in order to make a general point. I'm sorry if that idea offended anyone.

Mark Sawyer

24-Jul-2005, 16:09

"When are they going to finally see that we are all doing the same thing, with the same desires and goals?..."

Every photographer who has ever made a photograph has his own unique desires and goals.

Except me.

Joe Smigiel

24-Jul-2005, 17:48

Jeffrey, the crux of the problem, debate, whatever one wishes to call it is contained in your statement:
"Yes, I create photography using photographic materials and processes. Just different ones that yours. Not an imitation, just different. I fully acknowledge the differences, and am not confused by the two."

IMO you are confusing the two. IMO and that of other purists (dinosaurs, dogmatists, whatever) an inkjet print or CRT tube/LCD image is not a photograph since it has not been directly formed by the action of light on a photosensitive substrate. Where do you use photographic materials? You are certainly making images, prints, illustrations, giclees, etc., and they may be wonderful and creative, but they are not photographs. They are transcriptions of photographs. You may be a gifted digital imager, digital illustrator, digital artist, printmaker, graphic artist, camera operator, video artist, etc., but your use of the camera does not make your final product a photograph and so at some point the label "photographer"gives way to another in my belief system.

Popular opinion, the opinion of a digital photography rag, or the opinion of museum curator or institution does not change the fact that to me and many others, photographs are only made using light-sensitive materials. Inkjet prints are something else. One process captures and the other expels. A narrow and perhaps archaic definition, but nonetheless a significant one that will not allow a different interpretation. An inkjet print is no more a photograph to us than is a cereal box printed by an offset printing press.

Apparently this debate will never end, enlightenment will be achieved by neither party, and we will never, ever convert one another.

Good luck in your artistic endeavors.

Jeffrey Sipress

24-Jul-2005, 18:21

Joe, I certainly see your point. Some say the classic definition of photography is 'Painting With Light'. I can't disagree. The light you must be referring to is the light landing upon your sensitized paper. I don't have that. I do have light landing on my films or sensors, so maybe there's a little 'painting' going on there, but clearly not what you are doing on the print end. I think the more contemporary term I was searching for earlier is 'imagemaking'. We both do that, and had I used that term then, I might have made a clearer statement. We both create images on paper (or some physical medium). That was the common ground I was seeking. I've enjoyed our discussion. Thanks.

tim atherton

24-Jul-2005, 18:37

"IMO you are confusing the two. IMO and that of other purists (dinosaurs, dogmatists, whatever) an inkjet print or CRT tube/LCD image is not a photograph since it has not been directly formed by the action of light on a photosensitive substrate. Where do you use photographic materials? You are certainly making images, prints, illustrations, giclees, etc., and they may be wonderful and creative, but they are not photographs. They are transcriptions of photographs"

Joe

When I was a youngster I used to enjoy attending the Leica slide show extravaganzas (six or twelve projectors, big screens, exotic locales) as well as a number of slide shows by famous mountaineers.

Most of these images were never ever printed (a few were - for magazine and promo purposes). But the vast majority were only ever produced on slide film and projected.

My father, like many of his generation, shot boxes and boxes of Kodachrome of us all growing up. He still has them - stack upon stack of slide cases. I think he has maybe had a dozen at most printed over the last 40 or 50 years. All the rest have only ever been projected to view.

Presumably those Leica camera carriers, those mountaineers and my fathers generation - because they never output their "images" by means of light onto to some kind of light sensitive material, were never really photographers, nor did they ever take or make photographs. What exactly was it that they were doing then?

BTW I make my photographs on negative or transparency film. I work on them in photoshop and then produce them by means of light on a light sensitve substrate. I presume those are photographs?

William_4390

24-Jul-2005, 18:42

WHAT THE FUCK??

I have had about 15 emails since this morning in my account about the posting by "Samuel". I have not posted in this thread and don't know what the fuck is going on. When you post in this forum, it asks for your email address and someone typed mine in to be funny, so that the post is ascribed to me. I would like to invite "Samuel" and Tim Atherton and every other asshole who emailed me to come talk to me like a man about it (you know where I work) instead of being some asshole posting semianonymously.

regards,

William Linne

Paddy Quinn

24-Jul-2005, 18:46

"You are certainly making images, prints, illustrations, giclees, etc., and they may be wonderful and creative, but they are not photographs. They are transcriptions of photographs."

Every photograph is itself only ever a transcription of whatever appearances were before the lens of the camera at the time the shutter was opened, so that's a pretty good description of any photograph really

Jeffrey Sipress

24-Jul-2005, 19:11

William, cool down. Perhaps you could use a little psycological counseling or a session or two in anger management.

Wayne

24-Jul-2005, 19:18

BTW I make my photographs on negative or transparency film. I work on them in photoshop and then produce them by means of light on a light sensitve substrate. I presume those are photographs?

I flew from LA to KC, then drove to Chicago, then flew from Chicago to NY. I presume I flew from LA to NY?

Joe Smigiel

24-Jul-2005, 19:49

"My father, like many of his generation, shot boxes and boxes of Kodachrome of us all growing up. Presumably those Leica camera carriers, those mountaineers and my fathers generation - because they never output their "images" by means of light onto to some kind of light sensitive material, were never really photographers, nor did they ever take or make photographs. What exactly was it that they were doing then? "

Uhh Tim, Kodachrome transparencies are photographs. However they are not prints. I never said all photographs were prints. I did say not all prints are photographs. Get it?

FYI, since they didn't output to inkjet printers, they were not inkjet printers or digital imagemakers either. As far as I can tell from your brief description your father was a photographer but not a printmaker.

And BTW, you don't need a camera to make a photograph and not all cameras are used to make photographs. Not all photographers are camera operators and not all camera operators are photographers.

Any other dilemmas I can help clear up for you?

tim atherton

24-Jul-2005, 20:10

""My father, like many of his generation, shot boxes and boxes of Kodachrome of us all growing up. Presumably those Leica camera carriers, those mountaineers and my fathers generation - because they never output their "images" by means of light onto to some kind of light sensitive material, were never really photographers, nor did they ever take or make photographs. What exactly was it that they were doing then? "
Uhh Tim, Kodachrome transparencies are photographs. However they are not prints. I never said all photographs were prints. I did say not all prints are photographs. Get it?

FYI, since they didn't output to inkjet printers, they were not inkjet printers or digital imagemakers either. As far as I can tell from your brief description your father was a photographer but not a printmaker.

And BTW, you don't need a camera to make a photograph and not all cameras are used to make photographs. Not all photographers are camera operators and not all camera operators are photographers.

Any other dilemmas I can help clear up for you"

Convenient isn't it

tim atherton

24-Jul-2005, 20:20

Bill, William, W (Dubya?) - chill out mate

I ahve no idea where you work? is it the same minor art college and SFMOMA as Samuel?

BTW - so was Samuel's whole line on SFMOMA, curators, collectors, Leonardo and ink prints complete BS then? Presumably. Interesting what the darkroom mafioso are having to resort to to bolster their arguments.... ;-)

Looks like you were had Jorge

tim atherton

24-Jul-2005, 20:22

"Uhh Tim, Kodachrome transparencies are photographs. However they are not prints. I never said all photographs were prints. I did say not all prints are photographs. Get it?"

So when do you "take" the photograph? when you click the shutter or make the print? what is a photograph?

Photograph = writing with light. Photons on light sensitive material or Photons on light sensitive sensor.

paulr

24-Jul-2005, 20:25

I'm happy to hear that Samuel is a fake, because SFMOMA has a silver print of mine that I've never been happy with, and I'm planning to offer to replace it with an ink print of the same image that I like much better.

I don't know what policy they have (if any) about inkjet prints, but most other major photography departments i've looked at, including MoMA ant the Met in new york, collect and display inkjet prints along with every other process--including other photographic print processes that don't involve light sensitve paper, like photogravure and dye transfer.

These collections also have plenty of c-prints and polaroids, which by most accounts are less archival than any of the best inkjet processes currently available.

Joe Smigiel

24-Jul-2005, 20:51

"So when do you "take" the photograph? when you click the shutter or make the print? what is a photograph? "

Ok Tim. Now really try to pay attention to what I actually write rather than to what you project into my words.

You don't need a shutter to make a photograph. You don't need a camera to make a photograph. You don't need a camera/enlarger to make a print. And, you don't need to print to have a photograph.

A photograph is essentially a stain made by light. (Sometimes chemical development helps that along.) "Writing with light" = photography. A image written by light onto a light-sensitive material is a photograph. A photograph may be produced on light sensitive film or paper or plate surfaces. But, the surface must be light-sensitive to produce a photograph.

Something written with light is a photograph. Something printed with ink is an ink print.

The print on a light-sensitive substrate made from a digital negative or through any other light attenuator is a photograph. The digital information in the digital camera, a film scanner or print scanner, CPU, CRT, LCD, LED, etc., is not a photograph. It may be a digitized camera image, or an electronic signal, but it is not a photograph.

Milla Jovovich's tan lines are photographs. Her tattoos are not. Your inkjet prints are not. However, in this example the longevity of the images may be similar.

Brian C. Miller

24-Jul-2005, 21:23

Hmmm, very odd. Samuel's personal info gives me "William Linne" with a hotmail address, and William Linne's personal info gives me "william" with a completely different hotmail address. Neither are new users. Too bad that its so easy to spoof somebody's identity on this system.

paulr

24-Jul-2005, 21:31

"A photograph may be produced on light sensitive film or paper or plate surfaces. But, the surface must be light-sensitive to produce a photograph."

What about photogravures? Dye sublimation prints?

It's fine if you don't want to call these photographs ... just know that most of the world's curators and photo historians and critics do call them photographs. Same for inkjets, by the way, if they are indeed made from a photographic image.

Lisa Simpson: "Why does your flag only have 49 stars?"

Grandpa Simpson: "It'll be a cold day in hell before I recognize Missouri!"

Jorge Gasteazoro

24-Jul-2005, 21:47

What about photogravures? Dye sublimation prints?

It's fine if you don't want to call these photographs ... just know that most of the world's curators and photo historians and critics do call them photographs. Same for inkjets, by the way, if they are indeed made from a photographic image.

Once again Paul, at least photogravures and dye transfer prints (not dye sublimation, this is another printing machine) at least have more in common with photographs since light is necessary to create the master plates. It is understandable that they could be mistaken for "photographs," but ink jet posters have nothing in common with a photograph and more in common with the printing industry method of making posters.

Hopefully Joe can explain it better to you, since I apparently have failed.

Brian C. Miller

24-Jul-2005, 21:49

Oh, yeah, a post on topic:

And now for an Itchy and Scratchy Show thread recap:
Itchy: Its photography because it uses light all through the process.
Scratchy: Its photography because it uses light at the beginning.
I: Yours isn't photography!
S: Yes, it is!
I: No, it isn't!
S: Yes, it is!
I: No, it isn't!
S: Yes, it is!
I: No, it isn't!
S: Yes it is, and yours is dying out!
I: No it isn't, and yours sucks!
S: No, it doesn't, and lots of people buy my stuff!
I: Mine is more valuable than yours!
S: No, it isn't!
I: Yes, it is!
S: No, it isn't!
I: Yes, it is!
S: No, it isn't!
I: Yours is more difficult to learn!
S: Yours is more difficult to learn!
I: Yours is obsolete every year!
S: Kodak thinks yours is obsolete!
I: No, they don't!
S: Yes, they do!
I: No, they don't!
S: Yes, they do!
I: No, they don't!
S: Yes, they do!
I: Mine will last longer than yours!
S: Is this about photography or Viagra?
<small>(both whip out baseball bats)</small>
I: WHACK!!
S: WHACK!!
I: WHACK!!
S: WHACK!!
I: WHACK!!
S: WHACK!!
I: WHACK!!
S: WHACK!!
I: WHACK!!
S: WHACK!!
I: WHACK!!
S: WHACK!!

Fight fight fight
Fight fight fight
Its the Itchy and Scratchy Show!

paulr

24-Jul-2005, 22:00

"Hopefully Joe can explain it better to you, since I apparently have failed."

you guys don't have to explain anything to me ... at the end of the day i don't care what my medium's called. you just have to explain it to the whole curatorial establishment, which evidently has it all wrong (except for Samuel, who seems to be the only enlightened one, if you don't mind that he doesn't exist).

Jorge Gasteazoro

24-Jul-2005, 22:06

you just have to explain it to the whole curatorial establishment, which evidently has it all wrong

Baby steps Paul, but we are getting there. We might just have to do that... ;-)

Joe Smigiel

24-Jul-2005, 22:20

paulr wrote:"What about photogravures? Dye sublimation prints?

It's fine if you don't want to call these photographs ... just know that most of the world's curators and photo historians and critics do call them photographs. Same for inkjets, by the way"

I believe I've already covered that:"Popular opinion, the opinion of a digital photography rag, or the opinion of museum curator or institution does not change the fact that to me and many others, photographs are only made using light-sensitive materials. Inkjet prints are something else. One process captures and the other expels. A narrow and perhaps archaic definition, but nonetheless a significant one that will not allow a different interpretation. An inkjet print is no more a photograph to us than is a cereal box printed by an offset printing press.

Apparently this debate will never end, enlightenment will be achieved by neither party, and we will never, ever convert one another."

An inkjet print will never be considered a photograph by me and many others regardless of any tyranny of the majority or opinion of misguided curators. You may as well tell me I'll be going to hell since I don't belong to the same religious faith as you.

As for your other post:"you guys don't have to explain anything to me ... at the end of the day i don't care what my medium's called.", I would comment that WE care what OUR medium is called, and we don't want it confused with something else or the terminology adulterated. This issue has been run into the ground in previous posts so I won't get into another debate on it here. Suffice it to say we simply don't want the terms photograph, carbon pigment print, orthe term platinum applied to inkjet prints. There are unscrupulous individuals who are applying those terms to their ink prints hoping to fool the public for financial gain. That's what we are against. We are not against inkjet printing as a medium of expression.

evan clarke

25-Jul-2005, 06:19

HaHaHa, If inkjet had been invented in the 17th century and silver was just making it's mark, we would be having the same argument in reverse. Maybe it is all about vision...EC

paulr

25-Jul-2005, 09:50

"I would comment that WE care what OUR medium is called, and we don't want it confused with something else or the terminology adulterated."

It's perfectly fine go against the grain, to protest changes in language and conventions.

I just wonder what you're hoping to accomplish by ranting about it here. These are decisions being made on a larger stage. To make any difference you'd want to get the ear of editors, curators, gallery directors, etc. etc. .. and see if you can make a case to them. Because countless thousands of artists with opposing views have evidently convinced them otherwise.

"You may as well tell me I'll be going to hell since I don't belong to the same religious faith as you."

It's not a matter of religious faith for me, as it seems to be for you. I'm interested in doing my work. And when I want to know what to call it, I tend to look for guidance from the people and institutions that play an educational roll in our society, and whose recognition and support I'd like to have. I'm probably not going to look to the opinions of a small group of people on the internet. I mean no offense by this; just stating some logic that I'd think would be easy to grasp.

I certainly don't agree with every idea floating around in the art world (it wouldn't even be possible ... so few pillars of contemporary art even agree with each other). But I'm not going to waste my energy choosing battles over minutia like definitions and naming conventions. Especially when the decisions have already been made.

paulr

25-Jul-2005, 09:51

"Maybe it is all about vision...EC"

Evan, this is the scarriest proposition of all for people who have no vision, and it won't win you many friends!

tim atherton

25-Jul-2005, 10:24

"Are ink-jet prints considered archival by museum curators? For any number of reasons, museums may buy them but still think of them as temporary."

In this context "archival" is a fairly meaningless term and isn't really sued this way. In this sense "archival" is entirely relative.

I believe most such institutions still collect watercolours? Compared to a platinum print (and probably to an ink print made with carbon pigment inks) the waterolour is rarely "archival" if you are chosing to use the term in that way.

A marble statue can be archival (yet badly damaged by atmospheric contaminants)

An oil painting can be archival

A watercolour can be archival

But the lifesapn of each may be completley different

It's fairly meaningless.

tim atherton

25-Jul-2005, 10:25

hmm - used this way

paulr

25-Jul-2005, 10:29

"For any number of reasons, museums may buy them but still think of them as temporary."

Sure, just as they buy polaroids and ektacolor prints.

If you talk to a conservator (which I've done a few times) they'll tell you that there's no magic designation of "archival." Everything changes; everything is damaged by time, light, and pollution. The questions they ask are how, how fast, and what can they do about it.

They would love it all artists used materials like granite that last as long as civilizations, but know that this isn't the case. Especially since the 60s, when especially unstable and untested materials became popular.

As far as inkjet prints, conservators know that this isn't just one process. There are many kinds of ink, many kinds of paper. At one end of the spectrum there would be dye-based inks on plain paper, which tend to deteriorate quickly. At the other end is carbon monochrome inks on rag paper. These are shaping up to be an extremely stable process. In the middle is the better color pigment inks on rag papers. These fade over time, but more slowly than other color processes.

David Luttmann

25-Jul-2005, 10:31

Paulr,

Haven't you learned not to bother with Jorge yet? Anyway, I've been noticing the same thing as you at galleries local and out of town....

- They DON'T care about how the image was put on paper.... they just care about the image.

-They call them ALL photographs (Jorge is the only one I hear preaching "Posters").

-Archival tests of inkjet are well enough established to be good to at least 100 years.

- The photographic community at large does not care what a few people on the LF Forum have to say on the matter.

There, that should stir it up a bit. I know this thread ain't over yet as Jorge hasn't got the final word in....not that the photographic community is listening.

And finally, congrats to Chris Jordan & Kirk Gittings who displayed their work using inkjet, and were recognized for the images.....not the process. Funny how other photographers and the press weren't concerned about whether or not they sniffed fumes in the darkroom.

Cheers,

Jorge Gasteazoro

25-Jul-2005, 10:48

LOL...what is the matter, had to work overtime this weekend at the one hour lab?....

David Luttmann

25-Jul-2005, 11:06

Michael,

In general, the museums treat all photographic work as though it were NON-archival. In that respect, they treat the work as safely and as best possible under present theory for storage. I've seen plenty of silver and color work over the years fade, yellow, etc, etc, because of mediocre storage. Because of this, they use the term "archival" with a grain of salt for ALL photographic work.

tim atherton

25-Jul-2005, 11:18

"But, if there is a category called archival, there must also be a
line between objects that fit into that category and those objects that
are considered ephemeral."

Michael, this is a fundamental missundersanding. There is no category called "archival" as such.

"Archival" refers to the standards, proceedures and protocols used to store and/or display something based on the best determined practices for doing so in order to minimise damage and deterioration. That can be everything from flood protection, to the correct RH/temperature to freezing to light levels (or lack thereof) and so on.

The longevity of any particular type of object based on these standards and proceedures is purely relative depending upon what the object is.

The use of the term "archival" became popularised in photogorpahy and latterly with things such as CD's - especially "archival" slide sleeves, "archival" CD's and so on and is a meaningless use of the temr in the context of advertisising

When you talk about say archival processing of B&W fibre prints, what that is shorthand for is that the proeedures followed are based on the standards set out to assist in the best lognevity for B&W fibre paper - all other things beign equal - i.e. that the print is then sotred and handled according to archival standards.

There is no one category called archival which is a standard of longevity against which the life of museum and archives object are judged - it depends entirley on the object.

Is it a granite statue? is it a Jackson Pollock painting with chips of paint falling off? Is it a watercolour, a colour photographic print? Or is it one of David Hockneys Xerox or colour copier prints?

How "archival" each one is - your use of the term - i.e. what the accepted longevity of the item is - is entirely different for each item, as are the the standards and protcols for storing and handling. They aren't judged against each other.

tim atherton

25-Jul-2005, 11:37

"But, if there is a category called archival, there must also be a
line between objects that fit into that category and those objects that
are considered ephemeral."

Perhaps more sucinctly - Conservertors, museum curators, archivists etc just don't say "is this archival?" in the sense I believe you are meaning it. It's just not how they use the terminology or concepts

Michael, to answer your other question, I write as someone who spent ten years as a senior archives imaging (analog/darkroom for many years and then latterly digital as well) technician in a government archives and museum.

As well as working with curators, conservators and archivists on a daily basis I worked on projects with senior paper and photograph conservation scientists at the Canadian Conservation Institute and attended plenty of international conferences over the years addressing numerous aspects of all these issues.

On what we are talking about here we are covering basic Conservation and Archives practices and terminology

David Luttmann

25-Jul-2005, 11:38

Michael,

I can only say what I have been told. They treat ALL photographics images.....be they Silver, Inkjet, Platinum, Dye-Transfer, or Cibachromes, as though they do not possess archival properties. I think this is the safest way to treat images.

I've got RC prints from the 70's that have lost more than half their density behind glass. I've also got inkjet prints that have been exposed to daily sunlight behind glass for years that have not exhibited ANY fading. There's plenty of silly conjecture as to pigment inks, etc fading in 5 years....mostly made by those with no experience....just opinion.

And finally, who really cares about the museums anyway? My work is sold to people and companies. If the prints last 75 to 100 years.....then that is entirely sufficent for the intended purpose. Much too much time is spent blathering on about 100, 200, 500 years of life.

tim atherton

25-Jul-2005, 12:28

Michael,

As a simple overstatement, these institutions don't care about how long something lasts.

Now that's obviously not quite correct, but what they are more concerned about is how to make something - whatever it be - last as long as possible.

As for testing - I'm not sure the Library of Congress actually does its own in depth research into conservation science? Most institutions don't - they rely on third parties doing that research - the various conservations institutions round the work - CCI, IPI at RIT, Wilhelm and others around the globe. Mainly for the simple reason most can't afford to - their budgets are already stretched and why duplicate work already being done (which is why the Getty, for example, - with oodles of dosh - does do some of this). For instance, I'm pretty sure that the LoC bases most of it's standards for colour photographic work and motion picture film on Wilhelm's seminal and standard book.

The CCI has done research on this, as has IPI - I'm not sure if you can buy the papers from them - much of it is being done as PhD research some has been done, some is underway. But that said, there isn't a huge amount of the research out there, because institutions don't really need it and it's not a big or imprtant area, to say the least. They need to know how to store and display ink prints to allow for their optimal longevity within certain parameters - and most of that information is out there (much based on existing standards for paper).

It's the marketing folk who need to be able to say - it will last for 25, 50, 100, 500 years or whatever - and who are willing to pay big bucks to respected institutions (as do the pharmaceutical manufacturers) to test them. Collecting institutions and archives generally don't have the inclination or budget to do that.

Yes, there are certain uses where an established longevity is important - say historic surveys - and those commissioning them have to make up their minds on materials standards and have usually adopted a conservative approach. But the discussion here is about art/creative work.

In that context - and again, simplified, the curator asks "is it good art" and says to their Conservator - "make sure this is looked after in the best way possible".

paulr

25-Jul-2005, 12:37

Michael,
Tim's answers are all correct. If you're looking for more specific answers as to which media are seen as more stable than others, you might want to get in touch with an archivist who specializes in photography. Or a conservation scientist. There's a yahoo group called photo conservation, and the people there are friendly.

It's important to remember that this is an evolving science. Not just for newer media like inkjet but for all art materials. Old assumptions are constantly coming into question.

You can get some clues from how major collections display work. At MoMA, there are different display and lighting conditions for different work. 19th century and some of the early 20th century photographic processes are shown under very, very dim light. Some of the galleries that show paintings feel like a meat locker inside, and have automatic doors to keep the cold air in.

Paddy Quinn

25-Jul-2005, 13:45

"I really should let this drop. From the response, I conclude that there is no one here who can point the forum to actual independent testing of ink-jet prints. With that in mind, I question the worth of Kirk’s assertions."

70 years ago there was no independent testing of gelatin silver pritns to establish their longevity (nearly of of it came after the fact). Compared to most other works of art they looked ptretty dodgy. But museums and curators began collecting them

We have a reasonable idea (with much still based on testing) about how long C-Prints will last. Some collections have paid a couple of hundred thousand for C-Prints knowing their longevity is limited.

As I udnerstand it, one of the more srtious issues facing large collections of photography today is that while the silver based image itself has survived admirably, the substrate on a significant number of photographs is deteriorating badly - a preocess which is accelerating. Lots of attention was focused on "archival" processing standards, but not so much on what the manufacturers made their base paper substrate from. Lots of well known paper brands have turned out over the years to be rather acidic, for example. Musuems and archives are having to deal with yellowing and cracking paper substrates on some very well know prints (and numberless not so well known ones).

tim atherton

25-Jul-2005, 13:52

"" I'm not sure the Library of Congress actually does its own in depth research into conservation science?"
Tim, as part of a conference of paper conservators, I visited the extensive underground paper conservation labs at the Library of Congress. They do first-rate research there, in a facility that made everyone envious. I just don't know if they have tested ink-jet prints, so I thought I'd ask. I should add that I work as a book-publisher, and I have experience in conservation issues as related to fine printing. "

I knew they had a first rate lab - I wasn't sure how much actual Conservation Science research they did there as opposed to high level conservation work.
-----

"“But the discussion here is about art/creative work.”

I don’t see how this makes any difference,--that is, if one cares about these issues at all."

My point was, that was the first premise of this discussion based on Kirk's initial post - he was talking about art photography and museums/collections.

Some forms of photogoraphy require the greatest longevity possible - say historical surveys. Some forms don't - photographing your spare widget to sell on ebay.

Longevity may be one factor considered by curators in purchasing works of art, but it is rarely the first or most important one. In many cases it is quite secondary. ANd I don't know of any institution that has a policy which states "every work of art we aquire needs to last at least 100 (insert whatever figure you want) years - that's what we mean by your work must be archival"

Steve J Murray

25-Jul-2005, 14:57

If we accept the assumption that only silver or pt/pd prints are archival enough to be considered "true art" or whatever that means, then that pretty much eliminates all color photography, doesn't it?

If the assumption is not true, and I don't believe it is since color photography is an accepted form of art, then the argument just falls apart.

Period.

Lets move on.

David Luttmann

25-Jul-2005, 15:09

Good point Steve.

All done!

robert_4927

25-Jul-2005, 15:43

I have two Ansel Adam prints. One is an original and the other is an inkjet of the same print. The injet just blows the original away in every phase, depth, tonal separation, luminosity. Both are for sale. Which one would you buy? Now before you answer this remember some of the previous post that image is everything and process means nothing and it's the end product is all that matters.

Jorge Gasteazoro

25-Jul-2005, 15:49

Now before you answer this remember some of the previous post that image is everything and process means nothing and it's the end product is all that matters.

Yep, fauxtographers would like us to believe that content and vision is their exclusive domain, that the more than one century of preceding photography was only about the process. It would be laughable if it wasnt so sad.

paulr

25-Jul-2005, 16:04

"I conclude that there is no one here who can point the forum to actual independent testing of ink-jet prints. With that in mind, I question the worth of Kirk’s assertions."

Kirk asserted that at a big conference of art and curatorial professionals, no one cared about the printing process of photographs. He didn't bring up the dead horse of archival issues; someone else did.

If you're interested in archival issues and want to see some independent testing, here are a few places to start:

http://www.wilhelm-research.com/

http://www.livick.com/method/inkjet/pg2d.htm

http://www.imagepermanenceinstitute.org/sub_pages/8contents.htm

paulr

25-Jul-2005, 16:14

"I have two Ansel Adam prints. One is an original and the other is an inkjet of the same print. The injet just blows the original away in every phase, depth, tonal separation, luminosity. Both are for sale. Which one would you buy?"

Personally? I'd save my money for a Weston print.

But you're confusing some issues, since Ansel never made any inkjet prints. The curatorial world and the market (not the same thing) do value prints made by the original artist more than those made by someone else. And they value older prints of the same image more than newer ones. So presumeably, an ink print of an ansel image would be recent, and would not be made by him, which would both tend to reduce its value. So the real question would be, how much does the ink print's quality offset the issues of its age and authorship? That would have to be answered on a case by case basis.

tim atherton

25-Jul-2005, 16:15

"I have two Ansel Adam prints. One is an original and the other is an inkjet of the same print. The injet just blows the original away in every phase, depth, tonal separation, luminosity. Both are for sale. Which one would you buy? Now before you answer this remember some of the previous post that image is everything and process means nothing and it's the end product is all that matters."

You are talkign the financial value of a print not it's aesthetic value? Which is an entirely different matter (personally I'd rather buy some new lenses than an Adans print - well, maybe a Robert Adams print) - what's important there is provenance, signature, vintage and rarity. And Ansel didn't make ink prints....

Now (and this is not made up) , I have two Walker Evans prints here - both from the Library of Congress, 11x14 on Fibre Paper and one printed with quadtone pigment inks.

Both look pretty much identical (except the quadtone print has far less dust spots on it and slightly better highlight and shadow detail + with the digital file you can make as many as you want).

Now, which do you pick? Not much between them imo

David Luttmann

25-Jul-2005, 16:38

Easy Tim,

You pick the Silver one that doesn't look as nice because that makes it REAL ART!

LOL.

robert_4927

25-Jul-2005, 16:52

I ask for a simple "which print would you buy". you give me aesthic values and go off about lenses and Walker Evans prints and totally dance around a very simple question that you still haven't answered. I made no mention of financial values or aesthetic value. I simply ask "which print would you buy"? You can put what ever value your little heart desires on either Adams print just answer the question and please not with a question or another scenario. I can answer your question in three words or less and will be happy to if you can do the same. So which would it be the original or the inkjet? And I'll even through in the digital file and you can print a 100,000 of them if you like.

robert_4927

25-Jul-2005, 16:54

Sorry about that...that should have read...." I'll even throw in the digital file------"

tim atherton

25-Jul-2005, 16:57

Robert

you try a very simple trick - set up a straw man so you can knock it down.

Ansel Adams didn't make ink prints - but if he did, I'd buy whichever one looked better.

Jorge Gasteazoro

25-Jul-2005, 17:04

I would go for the real photograph, not the fake one.

The ironic thing is that those doing ink jet prints who belittle the process are more chained to the process than we are. Thanks to staining developers like Pyrocat, I can print in pt/pd, silver, real carbon, gum bichromate, Kallitypes, Van Dyke all from the same negative. Having controlled the process so that I know what I will get I have at least a dozen processes I can use. Ink jet printers are stuck with ink jet machines and photoshop or at best Photoshop and some of the color printing machines.....makes you wonder how come the "final product is what matters?" I guess this is why we have "platinum toned chromira" or "platinum glicèe" It would be too much to ask you guys learned how to do and master the real thing....

Those of you doing color, if you get a chance when you are visiting a gallery, ask to see a real tricolor carbon print, you will see what real color work should be like.

Paddy Quinn

25-Jul-2005, 17:12

"Paul, wake up. Kirk was using a few sales in Chicago to somehow justify "the validity of archival ink prints," which I assume means artistic validity. If sales is the overriding measure, then calendar art wins hands down. So does Kirk's assertion make sense to you? It doesn't to me."

Michael,

First, Chicago is one of the major centres of photographic art in the US - alongside New York and LA and the institutions mentioned are major ones for photographic education and Collections. So the staff, curators and professors involved are right there in the middle of contemporary photography and practice.

Secondly when Kirk said "It is clear from a casual survey of friends and colleages that the big debate that is waged in this forum over the validity of archival ink prints (or as Jorge likes to say-inkjet posters) is a complete non-issue in the art photo community here." I took that to obviously mean he was referring to ink prints produced according to current best practices "archival ink prints" was shorthand in the same way as "archival fibre prints" might be shorthand for properly produced, developed, fixed, toned and washed silver gelatin fibre based prints. He wasn't raising the issue of their "archival" nature, rather differentiating in the same way you might differentiate between the aforementioned "archival fibre print" and an RC or R3 lab produced B&W print. Thus; "archival ink print" (say ultrachrome pigment based inks on cotton rag paper) as opposed to a photo run off from your grandmas Canon bubble jet printer using dye inks on photocopy paper.

Thirdly I didn't see the idea of sales per se being the overriding issue, but rather that major collections and curators didn't have an issue with acquiring ("archival"/quality) ink prints. The question of the longevity of such prints just wasn't an issue in consideration in acquiring such work - which is happening in most major institutions from what I see.

robert_4927

25-Jul-2005, 17:21

Jorge, Have you seen what Kenro Izu is doing these days with his Platinum Blues. I think this is a Cyan over Platinum process that he's developed.....some pretty good stuff ( sorry I know this is off topic but then again this topic could use a rest)

Jorge Gasteazoro

25-Jul-2005, 17:31

I have not seen his pt/cyan prints, but (and I hope you dont hold this against me) I am not a fan of Izu's printing. The last show I saw of him was in Houston, he was exhibiting his nudes and I think it was before he undertook the sacred places project. I found his prints had very dull highlights, I understand when you are doing 14x17 pt/pd, reprints can get very expensive, but I was dissapointed with his prints. Hopefully I will get a chance to see his new work next year and can revise my opinion.

robert_4927

25-Jul-2005, 18:25

Alan Babbitt

25-Jul-2005, 18:26

It's threads just like this that have doomed photo.net to mediocrity. Kirk, shame on you for starting this troll. Jorge, Jeffrey, paulr, Tim, and the rest of you...why don't you just whip 'em out and see who can pee the farthest, post the results and get on with your lives. Sheesh.

Jorge Gasteazoro

25-Jul-2005, 18:40

Paddy, At three o'clock this afternoon I had a nice conversation with a lady by the name of Kathy Rienholt. Kathy is a very nice lady with quite an intellect. She also happens to be a conservator at the Metropolitan Museum of Art In NYC. Before you buy into the idea that museums are aggressively "collecting" inkjet portfolios I suggest you pick up the phone and ask them yourself. Then you can sit back and laugh at these post just like I can. You see what amazed her was the difference ( according to Kirk) there was between how the art world in Chicago viewed processes as opposed to how they at the Met view process. Does the Met exhibit inkjets? Of course they do. Do they collect them? Pick up the phone and ask them.

Now, this is not fair.....you gotta dish the dirt Robert! I for one would love to hear what a real conservator working in a museum has to say. Unlike Kirk, I refrained from posting things I have been told since they are third party communications. It seems you have it from the "horse's mouth" as it were, and I would love to read about it.... :-)

Paddy Quinn

25-Jul-2005, 19:33

isn't photo.net where the wedding photographers hang out?

Jorge Gasteazoro

25-Jul-2005, 19:38

I know we have at least one here....or so he says.... :-)

David Luttmann

25-Jul-2005, 19:50

Yup Paddy,

Us wedding, portrait, and commercial photographers hang out there, here, and wherever we can obtain the newest information about techniques to not just capture their best moments, but to hand them the best enlargements possible.

Are you suggesting there is something less noble about a paying client for commercial or wedding work than someone selling photos of another nature? I always thought the dollars from both were equally green!

Will Strain

25-Jul-2005, 20:02

Does the MET collect any contemporary photography? Just askin.

tim atherton

25-Jul-2005, 20:18

"Does the MET collect any contemporary photography? Just askin."

that was my thought, but I was suprised to see they actually collect digital colour photography

David Luttmann

25-Jul-2005, 20:24

It appears the MET does refer to the digital color as "Photography." I guess there's another one the die-hards can scratch off their list. Looks like we're running out of galleries and museums that have some kind of problem with non-film capture or digital output.

tim atherton

25-Jul-2005, 21:37

Check out these large Bill Brandt pigment prints

http://www.billbrandt.com/News/Current%20Exhibitions/Press%20release/pressreleasefkg.html

http://tinyurl.com/dyk7p

interesting - are they real or Jorge's posters?

Jorge Gasteazoro

25-Jul-2005, 21:50

They are posters, the real photographs have been printed before. These are just big reproductions of the real thing. Sadly he calls them "carbon prints." These are not Carbon prints, not even by the slightest stretch of the imagination.

paulr

25-Jul-2005, 21:53

"Does the MET collect any contemporary photography? Just askin."

Yes, they have a large and important contemporary collection.

http://www.metmuseum.org/Works_of_Art/introduction.asp?dep=19

They are considered by many to be a conservative organization, which is why it's slightly more interesting that they agree with Kirk's observations on what media are considered photographs:

http://www.metmuseum.org/special/photography2001/photo_glos.htm

I haven't wandered through exhibits from their permanent collection in a while, so I can't confirm or deny what Jorge said about their collection practices. I did see plenty of inkjet prints in the permanent collection at MoMA last week. The ones on display were labelled "Digital Pigment Print."

Jorge Gasteazoro

25-Jul-2005, 22:00

LOL....Paul, I did not say anything about the MET, it was Robert. Now I gotta say, "digital pigment print" has nice ring and it is truthful. You guys might want to start using it, unless you guys like posters or fauxtographs better.... :-)

tim atherton

25-Jul-2005, 22:00

"Sadly he calls them "carbon prints." "

I think it's the Bill Brandt Archive that calling them that

Their posters are £18 - these puppies are £4,250 each.... not bad for a poster

paulr

25-Jul-2005, 22:04

There seems to be an assumption among a few people that those of us who defend inkjet prints are partisans who don't like or don't know how to make traditional prints.

I can't speak for anyone but myself, but I'll say that I love traditional photographic processes, that I learned on them, and that I spent fifteen years of my life learning how to print in the darkroom, working with some hundred year-old formulas and with some of my own devising. I still use film, and if a paper that I liked was still being manufacturered, I'd print on it. If I found myself doing a project that was well suited to platinum printing, I'd use that process. It just happes that what I'm doing now is well suited to inkjet, so that's how I'm printing now. Anyone who thinks I make my comments about inkjet to belittle traditional processes is getting some very strange ideas.

It does seem telling to me that the people who believe inkjet prints deserve equal footing with older processes have substantial experience with both ... while those holding the opposing view do not.

tim atherton

25-Jul-2005, 22:05

interesting - so the (conservative by reputation) Met's definition is:

"Ink jet print. Photograph produced by a computer printer from a digital file using water-based dyes or pigments on paper or other support. (Also referred to by the brand names "Iris print" or "Giclée print.) View an ink jet print in this special exhibition preview."

An inkjet print is a photograph -huh - who'd have thunk it?

paulr

25-Jul-2005, 22:09

"LOL....Paul, I did not say anything about the MET, it was Robert."

sorry, Jorge, I read that too fast.

"Now I gotta say, "digital pigment print" has nice ring and it is truthful. You guys might want to start using it, unless you guys like posters or fauxtographs better.... :-)"

I don't know, you got me liking fauxtograph.

robert_4927

25-Jul-2005, 22:10

Go to the Mets web site. Click on permanent collection. Then click on photographs. Then click on Curatorial Dept and its permanent collection and show me anywhere there they make reference to any (not one, but any) permanent inkjet collections.

Jorge Gasteazoro

25-Jul-2005, 22:10

I think it's the Bill Brandt Archive that calling them that

Exactly, this is what I and many others have been saying and this is clear evidence. Carbon pigment ink jet print has been shortened to "Carbon print." This is exactly what this is all about.

Jorge Gasteazoro

25-Jul-2005, 22:12

An inkjet print is a photograph -huh - who'd have thunk it?

Fortunatelly Tim, mistakes can be corrected. They wont if people dont speak up though.....

Paddy Quinn

25-Jul-2005, 22:15

Here you go Robert, so the Met doesn't collect inkjet prints?

Sounds like your friend doesn't seem to know their acquisitions very well. They've been collecting them for nearly 20 years:

Connie Chung, 1986
Robert Heinecken (American, b. 1931)
Ink jet print; 21 7/8 x 26 in. (55.5 x 66 cm)
Purchase, Charina Foundation Inc. Gift, 1986 (1986.1192)

(BTW - you only referenced their online photography collection, not their full acquisitions catalogue - there are plenty more)

tim atherton

25-Jul-2005, 22:19

Sorry - Jorge - it was the "He" that confused me. The venerable Bill Brandt has been dead for well over 20 years now I think....

David Luttmann

25-Jul-2005, 22:28

Paddy,

Gotta love a response like that. Nearly choked on a glass of wine.

Tim,

"interesting - so the (conservative by reputation) Met's definition is:

"Ink jet print. Photograph produced by a computer printer from a digital file using water-based dyes or pigments on paper or other support. (Also referred to by the brand names "Iris print" or "Giclée print.) View an ink jet print in this special exhibition preview."

An inkjet print is a photograph -huh - who'd have thunk it?"

Say it isn't so Tim. I guess we should put the museum in touch with Robert & Jorge so they can straighten out those ignorant curators.

LOL....Again!!!

robert_4927

25-Jul-2005, 22:31

Paddy, Maybe you should check the difference between acquisitions and permanent collections. But like I said Mr. Quinn pick up the phone and call them.

Wayne

25-Jul-2005, 22:37

Say it isn't so Tim. I guess we should put the museum in touch with Robert & Jorge so they can straighten out those ignorant curators.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dont forget Wayne-I'll call them to straighten them out. Once people start complaining about their obvious, easily disproved fallacies I'm sre museums will take steps to correct them. Enjoy your laugh while you can.

Paddy Quinn

25-Jul-2005, 22:37

Robert - it's been in the permanent collection since 1986.

You might want to learn the difference between the full catalogue of the permanent collection and the limited online photography one

Maybe you think they have a seperate little collection for "things they don't really consider to be art"?

(btw when an institution makes an aquisition it becomes part of the collection - apparently you don't quite understand these things - that number at the bottom 1986.1192 is its number in the permanent collection)

David Luttmann

25-Jul-2005, 22:40

OK Wayne.

I'm sure they'll adjust everything based on your phone call. Until then, I'll keep laughing!

robert_4927

25-Jul-2005, 22:47

Dave, Miss Rienholt is a conservator not a curator if you really need for me to explain to you the difference I will be happy to. And if you really need to question her intellect might I point out that she is not the one standing there with an inkjet wedding portfolio under her arm. The Met has made thousands upon thousands of aquisitions in various mediums and not made them part of their permanent collection. But to avoid sounding any more condescending than I already have I will leave this argument to you experts.

Jorge Gasteazoro

25-Jul-2005, 22:50

I too thought he was death, but when I sent an e mail to these people telling them ink jet prints are NOT carbon prints, the e mail form automagically filled their address and another one with "info@billbrandt.com. I hope he has not resuscitated, cause if he has and is doing ink jet posters then maybe I should rethink my position..... :-)

I dont know who is cashing in on this but if they sell the ink jet posters for 4500 sterling I am hiring their marketing guy.

It does seem telling to me that the people who believe inkjet prints deserve equal footing with older processes have substantial experience with both ... while those holding the opposing view do not.

Paul, let me ask you this, do you know how to print in pt/pd (and I dont mean knowing how to coat a paper and putting the print on the sun)? Because it seems to me by this sentence you are implying that you are the only one capable of appreciating the qualities of a process even if you dont know how to do it and the rest of us, I guess in your estimation,n are too stupid to be able to do the same thing. I can assure you it would take me a lot less time to learn and master PS and do an ink jet print than it would take you to master pt/pd printing, and if you really want difficult, try making REAL carbon prints and get back to me in oh...about 10 years.

paulr

25-Jul-2005, 22:51

Wayne, you might have better luck if you picket, and try to create a media sensation.

The good news is that it's pay-what-you-will at the Met. You'll have to pay $20 to picket inside MoMA and enjoy the air conditioning. It's been really hot here lately.

Jorge Gasteazoro

25-Jul-2005, 22:55

Maybe not on his one call printing tech, but maybe they will when they get 2000 calls. Who knows, till then enjoy your laugh. BTW, what do you call your wedding stuff? Fading memories?.....it is good we can all laugh...

paulr

25-Jul-2005, 23:19

"Paul, let me ask you this, do you know how to print in pt/pd (and I dont mean knowing how to coat a paper and putting the print on the sun)? "

Yes, I know how to make platinum prints. No, I don't know how to make carbon prints, and i hope i never suggested that i did.

I don't know how to compare the learning curves of these processes, because they all build on each other. Silver was the first thing I learned and so it took the longest ... because that learning curve included the part that's most important: judging what the print values should be. After getting comfortable with that part, learning other printing processes is about nuts and bolts and chemistry. Not trivial, but I think it's a matter of time and effort, and within the reach of anyone who's determined.

When I took on learning the inkjet quadtone process I'm using now, I'd been making traditional darkroom prints for fifteen years, and had been using photoshop as a graphic artist for ten. It turns out I had to relearn all the important parts of photoshop in order to use it for serious photography, and learn about color management, and then learn about the subtleties of the process. My first nice looking print took about 4 months. Now I can make a nice print in two or three days, but I'm still learning. I think I'll get more efficient with practice. At any rate, it's been a significant learning curve, and involves the same basic process as learning darkroom printing: you make a print you don't like, decide what to do about it, and try again. Repeat as necessary.

Joe Smigiel

25-Jul-2005, 23:23

"Jorge, Jeffrey, paulr, Tim, and the rest of you...why don't you just whip 'em out and see who can pee the farthest..."

There's a Giclee joke in there someplace...

robert_4927

25-Jul-2005, 23:31

Paddy, 1986 is date of purchase .1192 is a reference much like you have in a local library card file it tells them where to go find it. And because a museum makes an acquisition does not make it part of their permanent collection. Now you keep typing and grabbing at straws and I'll keep laughing at you.

Kirk Gittings

25-Jul-2005, 23:38

Most museums main concern is not with archivability otherwise they would only collect stone carvings and bronzes. If they were mainly concerened with archivabiliy they would not touch a Mondrian or a Jackson Pollack with a ten foot pole. They are collecting works by what they see are important artists in the mediums those artists are working in. The Met's photo collection (as all major collections) contain many prints of highly questionable archivability including Xerox's and quantities of ever fading Chromogenic prints (the Met readily acknowledges in their web site the archiving problems of C prints but they acquire them anyway, the site does not refer to problems with ink prints).

For example, I am willing to bet that Chris Jordan's archival ink prints will be collected by many major museums in the next few years. Why? because the work is undeniably important. It is the most interesting work conceptually that I have seen in many years. They will collect his prints even if they have reservations about ink prints because the work is significant (if you want one, buy it now because the price is going to go through the roof).

Whether museums collect ink prints or not does not does not prove anything by itself about archival ink prints. Museums will collect whatever they deem important. It has become the focus of this thread, but it is just one small piece of a much larger art trend. The vehemence of this thread reinforces my central point-that the heated debate here over this issue has not at all been reflected in my discussions with people in Chicago. No one in this thread has challenged my central (and very simple) point, that the archival potential of ink prints does not seem to be an issue amongst the contemporary art community in Chicago.

Perhaps the real debate is about the growing trend toward transitory art in general from performance to lack of archival concerns in general?

Kirk Gittings

25-Jul-2005, 23:49

and Robert,

I believe from personal experiece at other museums that Paddy is right. There is a permanent collection and there are loans. I am not familiar with a museum that has a permanent collection and a seperate "acquisition" collection. Acquisitions are to the permanent collection regardless of whether the acquisition is "archival" or not. Nothing on the Met site would lead me to believe that there is a two level collection.

Joe Smigiel

26-Jul-2005, 00:54

"It does seem telling to me that the people who believe inkjet prints deserve equal footing with older processes have substantial experience with both ... while those holding the opposing view do not."

Paul,

Are you speaking of practitioners or collectors here? Your statement seems an equivocal and untenable projection to me, an opinion at best. How are you defining the level of experience and which populations are you sampling?

I know I have extensive experience with Photoshop and inkjet printing as well as traditional and many alternative photographic processes (at least as I define "substantial"). As you are aware, I'm in the other camp.

I really don't like your statement on several levels. It may be true, but how do you prove such a thing? I believe I'm certainly an exception. I not only disapprove of, but also disprove the statement you've made. Also, what about the multitude of snapshooters and neophytes to both media who make up the majority? Do they see inkjet prints as equal to photographic prints? I doubt it. My guess is that they believe photographic printing is more difficult yet they may prefer inkjet prints since they can do them at home on their desktop printers without any knowledge of the darkroom. Would they place more value on a photographic print which they can't do or an inkjet print which they can? Would they pay for something they can do themselves and if so are they willing to pay the same rate for both? Those that may make up the overwhelming majority may actually prefer the inkjet prints (or not) while not seeing them as equal to photographs yet totally lacking any darkroom experience- a jumbled opposite of what you've projected.

Sophistication is not the same thing as having "substantial experience". Many with substantial experience also have substandard experience. Why should their opinion hold sway? Without defining the quality of experience, your reference to the quantity of both the experience and those holding an opinion seems indefensible and unjustified to me.

evan clarke

26-Jul-2005, 07:09

Archival= "we hope we can convince you it will last and you will pay a lot of money for it"...
Senior sanitation technician= "Old garbage collector"

Terminology, buzz words and crap.. all in the same category...EC

David Luttmann

26-Jul-2005, 07:13

"Dave, Miss Rienholt is a conservator not a curator if you really need for me to explain to you the difference I will be happy to. And if you really need to question her intellect might I point out that she is not the one standing there with an inkjet wedding portfolio under her arm. "

Robert,

I do know the difference. And as an aside, at least I didn't go blathering on about the MET not having or accepting inkjet.....just to proven wrong. And yes, I'll question her intellect when she doesn't seem to have an idea what is presently held on collection. I think Paddy pointed that out very well.

Rather than trying to tell the rest of the world how to operate, maybe you should just accept that inkjet is an accepted form of output for professionals and collectors. Every example that people like you try to dig up ends up backfiring on you. And while the exceedingly small minority like you have an issue with all this, the rest of us continue to take photographs with film or digital capture, or both.....and sell the output, either analog or digital. And we have happy clients for it.

evan clarke

26-Jul-2005, 07:15

The "ART" (cast this word in gold on a huge obelisk) snobs seem to be quite indignant. Art is something you do yourself for yourself. When you show it to somebody else you turn it into something else because you are trying to gratify yourself and ease your insecurities. When you sell art it is just another stinking product...EC

tim atherton

26-Jul-2005, 07:22

julian_4860

26-Jul-2005, 07:38

>>The "ART" (cast this word in gold on a huge obelisk) snobs seem to be quite indignant. Art is >>something you do yourself for yourself. When you show it to somebody else you turn it into something >>else

you really should do an aesthetics 101 course. Most philosophers dealing with aesthetics consider 'communication' to be an integral form of art. Ah but then, you probably deride any sort of intellect applied to image-making. as Tim has mentioned, masturbation is the term often used for your approach, and people who glorify it are called w.....s

paulr

26-Jul-2005, 07:39

" I believe I'm certainly an exception. I not only disapprove of, but also disprove the statement you've made."

You may well be an exception. Which is fine. By substantial experience I mean someone who has spent enough time using the process to produce what they would consider competent results. I don't mean if you've mastered one and played with another on the side ... or used one for serious artwork and another for a calendar for the office. Maybe you're an exception by this standard too; i'd be happy to hear what your experience is with both types of process. It would help me understand where you're coming from.

Likewise, if you ever find yourself on the phone with a curator, as some other have suggested they would soon, it might help you to try to understand where they're coming from also.

paulr

26-Jul-2005, 07:46

"Acquisitions are to the permanent collection regardless of whether the acquisition is "archival" or not."

exactly. acquisition means it's theirs. They use that silly word because some things are bought, others given, others some combinatoin of the two. either way, they acquired it. It''s to draw a distinction between work that's permanently theirs and work that's on loan.

Wayne

26-Jul-2005, 07:59

Maybe not on his one call printing tech, but maybe they will when they get 2000 calls
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Forgive him, he has never been on the receiving end of one of my phone calls. ;-) I can assure him that few will want to be on the receiving end twice.

I dont know why he would care though, because by their own admission

1) The name doesnt matter to digital fauxtographers
2) The name doesnt matter to museums

This should make it pretty easy. Once the matter is cleared up, they will have what they want-just the image, standing on its own feet, not propped up by deception.

evan clarke

26-Jul-2005, 08:05

"The "ART" (cast this word in gold on a huge obelisk) snobs seem to be quite indignant. Art is something you do yourself for yourself. "
I thought that was masturbation?

"When you show it to somebody else you turn it into something else because you are trying to gratify yourself and ease your insecurities. "

and flashing?

Exactly the same kind of activities.... People here are trying to make themselves feel special about what they do by trying to diminish the efforts of others. Feeling important is just like masturbating and flashing!!..EC

Mark_3899

26-Jul-2005, 08:08

Just to interject, as I sit here at my desk at a major NY art museum! When a museum acquires a work there is a formal process which is known as accessioning. Most museums both small and large have art commitees which are made up of trustees of the museum. When a curator wants to add a work to the collection they have to present it (sell it) to the art commitee. The art commitee has the ultimate say on what gets accessioned. When a piece is accessioned into the collection it gets assigned an accession number which is the year followed by the next chronological number of works accessioned that year. 1986.1192 would be the one thousand one hundred and ninety second work accessioned in 1986, get it? So, if the piece has an accession number it is part of the permanent collection, whether it ever sees the light of day or not. The only other thing I'm going to say is this. Museums collect everything for a variety of reasons (some of them highly unethical) but that conversation would be reserved for a beer and not this public forum.

David Luttmann

26-Jul-2005, 08:10

Thanks Wayne,

You go clear up the entire photographic world for us. I guess we won't be hearing from you for a few years as it will take quite some time to call a few thousand musuems and, what the heck, tens of thousands of galleries, to tell them they are all wrong and you are right. I'm sure they all quake while awaiting your telephone tongue lashing!

Thanks for the laugh....yet again.

paulr

26-Jul-2005, 08:31

"This should make it pretty easy. Once the matter is cleared up, they will have what they want-just the image, standing on its own feet, not propped up by deception."

Wayne, you've made it clear that a lot of curators disagree with you, but not that they're deceiving anyone. The example of Bill Brandt's dealer calling an ink print a carbon print could be seen as deception (or at least confused to the point of being misleading) but no one's pointed to a museum doing that. The met has some things labelled "inkjet print," and MoMA has some things labelled "digital pigment print." No deception there.

I realize you don't like that these things are in the collections of the department of photographs, but that's a philosophical difference, not a matter of deception.

paulr

26-Jul-2005, 09:03

"Just to interject, as I sit here at my desk at a major NY art museum! "

Mark, which one? what do you do for them?

Wayne

26-Jul-2005, 09:27

Paul-this is what we are talkingt about-do try to keep up

An inkjet print is a photograph -huh - who'd have thunk it?"

Say it isn't so Tim. I guess we should put the museum in touch with Robert & Jorge so they can straighten out those ignorant curators.

tim atherton

26-Jul-2005, 09:49

Robert,

when a Museum or Archives acquires something whether as a donation, by purchase or government mandate (and whatever their decision making critera and process for acquire it), it receives what's known as an Accession Number, which lives with it forever onwards, at which point, it becomes a part of that insitutions collection.

I believe "1986.1192" would be the acquisition number for that inkjet print in the Met's (permanent) collection. Accessioned in 1986, item number 1192.

I'm not sure your friend quite knows what she is talking about - Conservators do have a reputation for living in their own little lab coated world, and often have their own contrary agenda ... f0r example, they would often really prefer that institutions didn't actually display work or let anyone except themselves touch it :-) - rather like architects who find people an awaful annoyance in their buildings....

(stand by to be bludgeoned by my conservator friends!)

Joe Smigiel

26-Jul-2005, 10:04

" Maybe you're an exception by this standard too; i'd be happy to hear what your experience is with both types of process. It would help me understand where you're coming from."

Paul,

Rather than bore the forum I'll bore you in a personal email with the specifics, but suffice it to say I believe I have enough (>30 years) experience in both traditional and alternative photographic processes to make the critique of issues involved in this discussion from that side. I believe I also have sufficient experience with digital technology including digital printing workshops with Jon Cone and others, college-level coursework, several years experimenting with a variety of scanners and printers, fluency with versions of Photoshop previous to v7 as well as a couple other imaging software programs, etc., and the development and teaching of an art course entitled "Digital Photography I" (a title I now regret confering to it) at the community college level.

I'm no neophyte with either realm and recognize the strengths and weaknesses of both camps. I simply prefer the traditional and alternative methods and I object to what I consider to be incorrect taxonomy regarding inkjet prints. To me the digital realm is a different medium and as such it should stand alone on its own unique merits. Match the image to the process, enjoy what you do, and call it what it is. Seems simple enough to me.

I would not have any issues with all of this if practitioners would call their digital inkjet prints exactly that. Labels such "pigment-based ink print" and "dye-based ink print" seem sufficiently descriptive, neutral and honest without being derogatory terms, and therefore perfectly acceptable to me. Much as when a print is neutrally described as a "chromogenic print" or "dye-transfer print," I know immediately that the artist is not making a dye-destruction Cibachrome/Ilfochrome or type-R print or gelatin silverprint, or three-color gum bichromate print, or bromoil, etc. OTOH, aggresively refering to an inkjet print as a "Carbon Print" is rife with subterfuge and marketing deception and should not be tolerated little less supported by either camp or by institutions in my opinion.

paulr

26-Jul-2005, 10:16

"Paul-this is what we are talkingt about-do try to keep up"

While I try to keep up with this thread, here's a chance for you to keep up with the outside world. Some quotes from a few of the people you want ot call. Let me know if you'd like their numbers.

Merry Forresta
Senior. Curator, National Museum of American Art, Washington D.C:

Photography, as we now think of photography, is probably headed where it always was. There will always be photographic prints made with cameras and shown and used much as they are now. But I think what will happen to photography as a force is that perhaps the noun will change into an adjective. I think that we're headed much more to a world in which we will talk about the "photographic" aspects of things, the qualities that photography originally brought to the visual world: the ability to reproducce with some accuracy, some representation of truth, the flexibility of a medium that could at once hinge its information to art or science or its use as documents in history or to cvreate history. That element of the photographic will be transferred into perhaps a more electronic format.

Peter Galassi
Chief Curator of Photography, The Museum of Modern Art, New York City:

What does the term "photography" mean? That may be the most interesting question you've asked

When we see an image however degraded by halftone, silk-screen or xerox, when we feel it has a photographic origin, we deal with it as photography It may be that that quality is becoming dissolved. Once it becomes possible to invent images in no way distinguishable from photographs that feeling may evaporate. It may be disappearing. Even the sense of it as a feeling may go away

There has been a lot of moaning and groaning from the photojournalist community about the loss of truth in photography but, then the photograph has always been subject to manipulation. Look at the Stalin era photographs where unwanted people were regularly retouched out of photographs. Or, the decision of a photographer to only draw a frame around two people in a group of four when taking a picture. The photograph is an edited thing from the beginning

I'm not interested in maintaining a status for photographs that seems fictional from the first.

Andy Grundberg
Director, The Friends of Photograhy, San Francisco:

I guess that the question you're asking is where do we draw the boundary line between what we know and we're comfortable with, which we call photography, and some other kind of representation which is going to look like photography but not be generated in any way that we now understand lens-based representation to be. Sure. An object like that would belong on our walls because we are particularly interested in the boundaries of photography and where it slops over and gets impinged on by things outside of the medium itself.

We're more interested in being at the boundaries of the medium than feeling safe and secure that we actually know what photography is so we don't have to ask ourselves questions about it all the time.

Personally, I feel that it's more interesting to not try draw a hard and fast boundary between photography and the rest of representation, the rest of the visual world because what's always interesting about photography -- even long before electronic imaging came along -- is that it never fit neatly into any kind of container that you could erect.

There's a whole kind of 20th Century, neo-modernist attempt to kind of define photography. I grew thinking that there was medium called photography and that there was a field called photography and there were people that that were kind of arrayed in this field. Now, I think what has happened is that the arbitrariness of that construction has been laid bare. Now, it doesn't have to do with technololgy.

Dr. Sandra S. Phillips
Curator of Photography, San Francisco Museum of Modern Art, San Francisco:

You know, photography has had a very interesting history. The technological and market impulse is to make photography more and more available, since the beginning. When it was discovered, it was rather arcane and only experts could make photographs, people who were somewhat expert in physics or chemistry. But, the evolution of it has been to make it a more and more public medium. So there's more and more photographs, so I see the future of photography as being greater in terms of quantity. But, the quality of photography, the number of photographs that are interesting or personal, or visually exciting, or innovative -- or characteristic, even -- is pretty constant. So, I don't see photography as changing in quality, I see it changing in technique and availability.

Marianne Fulton
Acting Director & Chief Curator, George Eastman House / International Museum of Art and Film, Rochester:

One of the good things about digital imaging: it's the future but it actually returns photography to what it was or is ... or makes people remember that its' not some esoteric, high-flown thing that only a few people can understand, that it's a medium that can be used and you can sit down and type out your grocery list, order your groceries, over the computer or you can make wonderful images. And, it goes the whole range because it's a medium that depends on the person that uses it and the way that that person or the institution wants it to be used. And that's what we always need to remember about photography. We get kind of high-falootin' about it sometimes and this should bring us down to really looking at it and appreciating the beauty of the things that we have.

Michael Sand
Editor, Aperture, Aperture Foundation, New York City:

On the digital front as artists become more savvy about how and why they want to use the technology and get past a lot of the fear and the fetish factor with computer and all of the tools, we'll start to see a lot of interesting work emerging ...

I think it's already started to happen. I think Pedro Meyer's work is a perfect example. Here's somebody who comes out of a documetary photograpy tradition. He's very established in the field in that area. He's using the computer to now to comment on that very process and on a lot of our assumptions about documentary photography -- and he does it with wit and he does it with technical finesse. He does it with all the things that make the individual images successful, not as digital images but as images.

Sarah Greenough
Curator of Photography, National Gallery of Art, Washington D.C.:

Photography is undoubtedly heading to some kind of digital formatting. That seems fairly clear. I think that was clear as of even 1989, which I found rather of ironic, that photography should be changing so radically just 150 years after its invention, because that was, of course, the sequicentennial anniversary of the announcement of the process of photography.

Silver-based imagery that we've come to know and to love is probably rapidly disappearing before our very eyes. But it also reminded me too that at the 50th anniversary of the announcement of the process of photography [in 1889], the medium was alo going through another major, major, dramatic change as the dry plate era, in effect, came to an end at that time. More and more photographers stopped using wet plates and, instead, turned to the new gelatin processes. And, that had a profound impact. Certainly digitization is going to have a [similar] major impact on the field.

David Luttmann

26-Jul-2005, 10:26

Paulr,

I'm sure they will all love getting a call from Wayne. It appears there are many people out there that need to be enlightened by him. I'd love to hear the clicks on the other end of the line when his tirade launches ;-)

paulr

26-Jul-2005, 10:32

I don't know ... it's not so easy to get a chief curator on the phone (they're really busy). But most of the ones I've met are very nice people. I'm guessing they'd be pretty patient and respectful, and if someone really started ranting about inkjet prints, they'd probably feel sorry for that person and say something to placate them.

David Luttmann

26-Jul-2005, 10:35

You're probably right, Paul.

I think I'll move on from here as it appears the anti digital brigade has gone into hiding after having their argument disintegrate yet again. In a few years we'll hear less and less from them and more from people interested in the real art.....capturing images.

Regards,

Jorge Gasteazoro

26-Jul-2005, 10:36

Then again it would have been nice if all these quotes and platitudes you posted had anything to do with the discussion here. Nowhere did I read about how should ink jet posters should be named, nowhere did I read how should they be considered as to their longevity. You did a nice google search Paul, but nothing that addresses the discussion at hand. Nice try though....

paulr

26-Jul-2005, 10:52

Jorge, it's been a while since anyone looked at Kirk's original post, so I'll quote his main point:

"it is clear from a casual survey of friends and colleages that the big debate that is waged in this forum over the validity of archival ink prints (or as Jorge likes to say-inkjet posters) is a complete non-issue in the art photo community here. I suspect that this is true in other major metropolitan centers also."

All those quotes from curators support this. They're not talking about inkjet prints specifically; they're talking about digital processes much more broadly. And they're ideas are much farther reaching than just saying "ink prints of traditional pictures are ok, I guess." They're recognizing that the whole of what we call photography has been rapidly shifting over the last decade, in ways that make questions of one print process over another seem pretty trivial. They all not only support Kirk's point, they take it much farther.

Mark_3899

26-Jul-2005, 11:07

Mark, which one? what do you do for them?

Paul- I'm the manager of the Department of Exhibition Design and Production at The Whitney Museum of American Art and prior to this I worked at MoMA for 7 years in the same capacity.
I like your PDF portfolio by the way and I don't care how you print your images.

paulr

26-Jul-2005, 11:14

"I would not have any issues with all of this if practitioners would call their digital inkjet prints exactly that. Labels such "pigment-based ink print" and "dye-based ink print" seem sufficiently descriptive, neutral and honest without being derogatory terms, and therefore perfectly acceptable to me. ... OTOH, aggresively refering to an inkjet print as a "Carbon Print" is rife with subterfuge and marketing deception and should not be tolerated little less supported by either camp or by institutions in my opinion."

Joe, we agree completely on these points, and it seems so do most curators. As i mentioned, i've never seen a museum label an inkjet print a carbon print.

paulr

26-Jul-2005, 11:19

Thanks, Mark.

If it's alright, I'll email you some questions about the curators there. The Whitney's never given me the time of day.

Mark_3899

26-Jul-2005, 11:38

Sure Paul, I may have some questions for you regarding your PDF portfolio. I'm anxious to make one for myself.

Jorge Gasteazoro

26-Jul-2005, 11:53

I am sorry Paul, but it seems to me that these quotes are taken out of context. I dont really know that these people are talking about digital capture, digital conversion from scanned films, etc. They sound like nice platitudes given the from my experience these people never take a stance pro or con, what I see in what you posted is mainly quotes from people who do not want to take the risk of being quoted in the future as taking one stance.

Recognizing how photography is changing? Far reaching? I think you are seeing more into these quotes than what really is there. In the end, since you have mentioned nobody has read Kirk's post I think you are right. OTOH while some like Tim might question the knowledge base of a person working in a museum just because it goes against his wishes, I think I will put my money on the person working in the museum at least we had one person who actually talked to the person, not like you and Tim who continue to make assumptions without really having talked to anybody. One thing is for sure, it is not as clear cut as Kirk would have liked us to believe out of talking with his buddys, and it is certainly not a dead issue.

I sent an e mail to the gallery Tim provided the link for and they never responded. Which just goes to show it seems they would rather deceive people than be honest, specially at 4500 pounds per poster. This seems to be the attitude of those making ink jet posters, anything to obscure the truth.

I see a lot of that here too. We have a guy participating as if he was an expert who does not even know how to use a LF camera, if it is not a discussion about digital he has nothing else to offer in the LF forum, mostly because he knows nothing about LF, and who is more interested in conning people into selling them fading memories. We are not "hiding," we have simply come to the conclusion that this seems to be the direction the LF forum is taking, more of a digital site than a LF forum site and that it is no use discussing issues with people like the printing tech who is more a cheerleader than someone who has real knowledge about the precesses and what real photography is all about.

After more than 160 once again in the same issue, we do know that as much as Kirk would like us to believe this is a dead issue, it is certainly not so. And I believe it is just going to get worse for ink jet printers in the future.

paulr

26-Jul-2005, 12:19

Jorge, if you want context, those were all exerpts from interviews with a journalist name Fredric Murphy, who asked the question,

"The takeover of the visual world by digital technology is upon us. Is this the end of photography as we know it?"

Murphy's summation:

"Every photo curator I talked to started off their conversation with me by saying something like this: "Whether an image is a photograph or not is always secondary for me to the larger issue of whether the image is worth looking at in the first place." [which I think echoes Kirk's original sentiment as much as anything else here]

It's a way of saying that they first expect it to be art and that they will worry about which curator is in charge of it, the photography curator, the painting curator or the mixed-media curator, later.

But ...at one museum this means that for admission an image has to hit whatever unspecified, but clearly quite high, threshold is set by the Rembrandt's, Van Goghs, and Picassos in the rest of the building.

Another curator feels that if it is "lens based art" they'd consider adding it to their collection. Implying, of course, that if it isn't, it isn't photography and they don't really care anyway, art or no art.

As you might expect, at the dynamic end of the spectrum are the curators who say that they'll look at it if it has any kind of connection at all with photography. Their agenda: to stretch the envelope of what their image exhibits and collections have to say about the human condition as far as their board of directors will let them"

And Jorge, you say things like, "at least we had one person who actually talked to the person, not like you and Tim who continue to make assumptions without really having talked to anybody. "

Just so you know, I've probably talked to close to hundred museum curators over the years ...probably half a dozen this year. None of them are my drinking buddies, but I have a pretty good sense, based on the kinds of questions they ask, what their general interests are. The grand total number of questions about my printing process, or anything else technological, has been close to zero. Which used to surprise me, because my silver prints are somewhat unusual looking. Those who liked my work, those who didn't, and those who just had interesting comments, were all concerned with the image and with the ideas, not with the process or with what is and isn't photography.

julian_4860

26-Jul-2005, 12:22

>>We have a guy participating as if he was an expert who does not even know how to use a LF >>camera, if it is not a discussion about digital he has nothing else to offer in the LF forum, mostly >>because he knows nothing about LF, and who is more interested in conning people into selling >>them fading memories

If you are talking about me, I've used, professionally, 6x9, 4x5, 8x10, 11x14 as an architectural shooter. I also did all the BW fibre exhibition printing for the Cambridge Uni architectural dept - not as much printing experience as many here, so I tend to keep quiet, but enough. I Only get involved here when I think I can contribute, and digital scanning and printing is one area where I have more experience than many here so I can contribute without wasting bandwidth. as to 'fading memories', you really talk ignorant bullshit

David Luttmann

26-Jul-2005, 12:40

Julian,

Jorge likes to throw those jabs at me. He seems to think that because I have no questions regarding the use of my 4x5, or any of my MF gear, that I don't know how to use them. As well, he likes to try and insult me by calling me a printing tech, and minimum wage one hour photo lab employee, etc, etc, as well as suggesting that the work I do (wedding, portrait & commercial) is somehow less noble than his photos of hats. Of course, none of this in the end is true....but he likes to keep repeating it. I guess to maybe convince himself of his superiority or self importance. To get his point across, he comes up with what he assumes are annoying terms like fauxtographer, and ink jet "poster."

You see in his posts that because he has no true argument other than opinion, he resorts to attacks. I just ignore him as it makes his little jabs pretty pathetic as there is no response.

All the best,

julian_4860

26-Jul-2005, 13:17

OK, Dave i shouldn't have jumped! I have to teach a class on aesthetics on Monday, so I'm going to use his 'fading memories' email as an exercise in how NOT to frame an argument...

paulr

26-Jul-2005, 13:26

then you can move on to "how to frame a fauxtograph" ;-)

tim atherton

26-Jul-2005, 13:29

"OTOH while some like Tim might question the knowledge base of a

person working in a museum just because it goes against his wishes, I

think I will put my money on the person working in the museum at least we

had one person who actually talked to the person, not like you and Tim who

continue to make assumptions without really having talked to anybody."

I make about 50% of my income consulting for Museums and Archives and much
of my time is spent in such instiutions working with Archivists, Curators,
Museum Directors and Conservators. I talk with such people nearly every
day about photgraph and asound archives and collections, traditional and
digital - it's what I do half of the time (the other half being
architectural, editorial and my own personal photogorpahy projects).

paulr

26-Jul-2005, 13:33

One last note before I duck out of this amazing party ...

I just got off the phone with Corey Keller, who unlike our good friend Sammuel, is actually assistant curator of photography at SFMOMA. I asked her if they had an official policy on inkjet prints (and this is for reasons unrelated to this thread, in case any members of Curatorial Assault Brigade are afraid I'm going to get to your prey first).

She said they do not have an official policy, but that they collect quite a few of them. And she said that as with all new media, they are actively investigating any special conservation concerns. And that's it. No thumbs up or down, no reservations, no big deal made about them at all.

Jorge Gasteazoro

26-Jul-2005, 13:35

you really talk ignorant bullshit

Boy, your students must love you. As they say those who can do, those who cant teach... ;-)

julian_4860

26-Jul-2005, 13:56

>>Boy, your students must love you. As they say those who can do, those who cant teach...

and some people do both`... aren't you the guy that got turned down for a piece in Viewcamera?

David Luttmann

26-Jul-2005, 13:59

True Julian,

Although, he appears to only sell thru Ebay. You make your own judgement on that one ;-)

Jorge Gasteazoro

26-Jul-2005, 14:24

aren't you the guy that got turned down for a piece in Viewcamera?

Yes I was, and it seems it was a blessing in disguise. As to doing both, jack of all trades, master of none.....

At least whomever buys my prints are assured it will last more than their vegtables and I dont have to do weddings.....that should be a good indication of where each one of us is.....

julian_4860

26-Jul-2005, 14:47

you really are a nasty piece of work aren't you. No facts, loads of supposition, biased rhetoric, old wives tales instead of logic... just to correct your last attack,
Ansel Adams taught, he was also a pianist.
Gary Winogrand taught,
Alex Webb teaches,
Walker Evans taught,
Charlie Harbutt teaches,
Meyerowitz teaches,
Geoffrey James teaches,
Xavier Ribas teaches,
Jem Southam teaches,
Stephen Shore teaches,
John Davis teaches,
Alec Soth teaches /taught,
Patrick Shanahan teaches etc etc etc etc

Jorge Gasteazoro

26-Jul-2005, 15:35

LOL...no facts, or no facts that agree with you? How would you know logic? there is nothing you have posted that indicates you are a master at it either. I am no more nasty than you are, and please, do not even try to compare yourself to those you mentioned, you are not even close.....there is a world of difference between you and them.

Paddy Quinn

26-Jul-2005, 16:03

Jorge, you really are in nasty little man mode aren't you. It's not often you see a grown adult making such a fool of themselves.

For the record, what I see of Julian's work is quite exceptional and is apparently thought so by a number of galleries and collectors.

Jorge Gasteazoro

26-Jul-2005, 16:13

It's not often you see a grown adult making such a fool of themselves.

Surely you are including yourself with this sentence, right? If you take a look at this thread you will see I never addressed Julian until he started dishing it at me. Apparently your and his definition of being nasty is one where you dish it out but start whining when you get some of your own medicine back. I dont know who Julian is, I have never even discussed anything with him in this or any other forum until he decided to take his pot shot at me....so who is the little man now, huh?

Mark Sawyer

26-Jul-2005, 18:23

"you really talk ignorant bullshit"

"you really are in nasty little man mode aren't you"

"....so who is the little man now, huh?"

"you really are a nasty piece of work aren't you."

I give it three more posts before someone brings up someone else's mother...

David Luttmann

26-Jul-2005, 18:26

My mom will get ya for that.....

julian_4860

27-Jul-2005, 04:23

>> there is nothing you have posted that indicates you are a master a

Master? I make no such claims. Yet again you set up a straw man of your own devising to burn down. But I can take a stab at logic... hmm... let me see.. 'fading memories'
Everything fades, the only thing that changes is the degree and speed. You make no such qualifiers so the word is redundant and can be struck from the sentence. 'Memories'... photographs are not memories, they are images. They may or may not be involved with memory, they may or may not pertain to memory, but the objects themselves are not. So that can be struck too. You may be implying that inkjet prints fade so quickly that they rapidly become memories - there is no empirical data that with the current state of the art this is the case. Which leaves us with a useless statement.
Now, drawing from the work of Montaigne (who came up with much of his philosophy from the sometimes lack of performance of his penis, which may or may not be relevant) we can look at why you are concerned with fading memories, could be to do with inadequacy, desire to leave something behind you, an over preoccupation with nostalgia.. all of which has nothing to do with art, and nothing to do with the initial statement of Kirk's which you have hijacked. As to Kirk's statement - I have never been asked about my process. I have been asked about how I frame, as some people don't like the diasec treatment I prefer. All my work is C-prints, which actually fade faster than inkjet, but I prefer the framing options it gives me, but AFAIAC, I will not stop anyone using whichever process they prefer. I am also not arrogant enough to tell someone what is or isn't photography . I therefore don't need to provide data to counter your uninformed views as I am not trying to stop other people doing with their work what they feel.
You are engaged in a kind of photographic Talebanism which I find repugnant.
Now, following on from Montaigne's views on inadequacy (did I mention he was overconcerned with his penis?), I know that you will need to have the last word, so have it. BTW my dad is bigger than your dad...

Jorge Gasteazoro

27-Jul-2005, 05:49

LOL...well if this is the way you feel, you should stay away from addressing me, if you dont then dont come whining when I shove some of the BS you are spewing back to you. BTW, all that tirade you just posted is not "logic" is pure emotional BS.....you need to get a hold of yourself bubba, you are going to pop a vessel one of these days....

Will Strain

27-Jul-2005, 06:14

The last word ----> FIN

Kirk Gittings

27-Jul-2005, 06:52

"the diasec treatment I prefer. "

Julian, what is this? I am not familiar with this.

David Luttmann

27-Jul-2005, 07:26

Kirk,

The diasec process has to do with bonding the photographic emulsion to the surface of acrylic using a clear film forming adhesive. It's a great method for protecting RC prints.

Ellis Vener

27-Jul-2005, 08:21

Brian Miller encompassed this entire thread and argument perfectly.

Jonathan Brewer

27-Jul-2005, 12:48

Are you talking about an acrylic similar to what you can spray over a painting?

tim atherton

27-Jul-2005, 12:58

No, Diasec is what is called a face-mountingprocess - bonding the (usually a colour C-Print) to the rear surface of a sheet of acrylic (2/3/4mm plexi type stuff)

Diasec is a particular proprietary process that seems to be most preferrered by artists/museums etc.

There are similar face mounting processes using Seal Optimount and such. The Diasec process is supposed to be the best and is the most tightly controlled. Using the Seal process you are at the mercy of the quality of the shop doing the work - some very good, some not so.

Face Mounting gives a quite distinctive look to the work - a certain vibrancy and depth. It is also one good way to mount very large work.

There are downsides. While it is probably as archivally safe a process as the prints mounted this way (it may actually increase their longevity) the surface of the acrylic, which has now become the front surface of the print, is susceptable to damage.

There are threads on here from the past about Diasec and face-mounitng I think

Jonathan Brewer

27-Jul-2005, 19:36

What about heat/UV/fading/clouding up? How much does it cost?

Paddy Quinn

3-Aug-2005, 17:00

How's the Colonel Blimp/protect the worlds youth from the evils of inkjet phone a museum campaign going?

You might want to call the Library of Congress as well as I note they list inkjet under types of photograph and photographic media.

I was by the harbour in Bosham a couple of days ago and reflecting on King Canute brought back fond memories of this discussion...

David Luttmann

3-Aug-2005, 17:24

one ring-dingy......two ringy-dingy.........

Wayne

3-Aug-2005, 18:10

Be patient, children.

David Luttmann

3-Aug-2005, 19:23

Ya Wayne,

Something tells me I'll be saying the last sheets of film being produced with you still telling us to be patient....that you'll change the world and save us all from the evils of inkjet.

Yawn!

Kirk Gittings

4-Aug-2005, 09:33

I have to say that I expected this thread to generate about five responses max. It was a simple, casual observation without any big agenda. About 2 years ago my purely traditional workflow was so fine tuned both for my personal and commercial work that I could not envision anything that would change that significantly. The demands of my clients for digital files atarted to disrupted that comfortable workflow and it has been a tsunami ever since.

Next week I take my class on a filed trip to Hedrich Blessing, consevative technologically but always a bell weather of real changes in state of the art of architectural photography. Two years ago (2003) they were scanning film and retouching in PS, something they swore they would never do the year before that (2002). I'll let you know where the evolution stands now in an upcoming thread.

David Luttmann

4-Aug-2005, 11:28

Kirk,

Let us know what you hear.

roresteen

15-Jan-2011, 17:06

I learned how to ski in the Midwest, at a ski area named Wilmot Mountain, about an 1 1/2 hours north of Chicago. I have great memories from it. When I was 20, I moved to Alta, Utah. Alta has arguably the best snow and terrain in the world, let alone the country. After 7 beautiful seasons in Alta, I simply couldn't ski in the Midwest. Why bother?

This is how I see digital vs. film. Old school printing vs. 1 touch Epson.

One is easier than the other. One takes less effort (Wisconsin is much closer to Chicago than Utah to me).

Now, I have nothing against the fine prints you can get from an Epson. And I am certainly not a real printer though I hope to be some day.

But Kirk, I think you stepped in it here, all due respect. Given the quality of your images (I checked out your web site - your work is beautiful), I am puzzled why you dropped this little grenade here, of all places.

The average photographer here is probably the equivalent to 5 shooters in any other forum in terms of knowledge and ability.

A Mercedes can take me to the store just as fast or slow as a Chevy. But the comparisons are many, similarities few.

Kirk Gittings

15-Jan-2011, 21:07

But Kirk, I think you stepped in it here, all due respect. Given the quality of your images (I checked out your web site - your work is beautiful), I am puzzled why you dropped this little grenade here, of all places.

This is a 6 year old thread that you have resurrected, so I glanced back at what I wrote. You would need to look at the context of similar discussions preceding it to understand why I "dropped that grenade", though what that "grenade" was then-much less now-is a mystery to me. It certainly was true then in Chicago and is a historic debate now. Nor do I quite follow why you think this group is of one solid opinion on these matters then or now. Nor do I understand why, given your extremely limited participation here (6 posts in 2+ years?), why you think you know all about this group.

But quite frankly? I stand by those statements more than ever. Though I still enthusiastically (then and now) make silver prints from 4x5, I am more than ever convinced of the quality of inkjet prints that I can make from LF scanned film as does a large section of this membership. As a matter of fact I spend much more time on a given print if I am printing it digitally than traditional. My collectors both private and museum are buying and exhibiting my work more than than ever. In terms of commercial work, I enthusiastically shoot all my commercial work digitally now and would never go back to film for that. As per Hedrich-Blessing mentioned above, arguably the world leaders in architectural photography, they went totally digital maybe 3 years ago and haven't looked back. Like me they see it as a superior workflow and product for the needs of our current clients.

These issues (not really issues anymore-just facts of life) are far less controversial now than they were even 6 years ago. Heck, we have been discussing digital imaging here since at least 1998. So I have no idea actually where you are coming from.