Eggleston 5x7: dye-transfer and inkjet

[tim atherton]

I was just going to post a link to the post about William Eggleston's 5x7 work

http://photo-muse.blogspot.com/2007/08/william-egglestons-5x7-and-new-american.html

then I just found out that the apparently luscious dye-transfer prints (or dry-transfer as the reviewer calls them....) are in fact ink jet prints.

[url]http://photo-muse.blogspot.com/2007/08/addendum-william-eggleston-dye-transfer.html[/url

What on earth is the world coming to؟ Two colour giants (Irving Penn (http://photo-muse.blogspot.com/2007/06/irving-penn-in-inkjet.html) being the other), whose work is often closely tied to the "unique" dye-transfer process seem to have been seduced by the hype of the inkjet marketeers....

[Bruce Watson]

What on earth is the world coming to? Two colour giants (Irving Penn (http://photo-muse.blogspot.com/2007/06/irving-penn-in-inkjet.html) being the other), whose work is often closely tied to the "unique" dye-transfer process seem to have been seduced by the hype of the inkjet marketeers....

Seems reasonable to me. The people I've known (all two of them) who did dye transfer (and did it really well) really hated the process. They did it because it was the only way to get what they wanted, not because they liked doing it.

Both of them have been using inkjets for years, and are getting results they think surpasses what they could do with dye transfer, for much less pain. Which means they don't have those negatives that didn't make the first cut sitting around waiting for 30 years to get printed.

Better quality, more control, more repeatable results, more images being printed. What's not to like? Not that there's anything wrong with a good dye transfer print - some of them are just gorgeous. But there's also nothing wrong with a good inkjet print. Some of them are just gorgeous too.

[Marko]

What on earth is the world coming to?

21st century? :D


Two colour giants (Irving Penn (http://photo-muse.blogspot.com/2007/06/irving-penn-in-inkjet.html) being the other), whose work is often closely tied to the "unique" dye-transfer process seem to have been seduced by the hype of the inkjet marketeers....

I wonder if anybody will have the chutzpah to call them ignorant or at least unsophisticated, not to mention all the usual stuff about the "true art of the craft"... ;)

[Bill_1856]

I did dye-transfer for years. I find the results of inkjet color printing to be as good or better than dyes. We won't know for another 40 or 50 years how they hold up. It should certainly bring the prices of color prints down considerably. Too bad that Eliot Porter isn't around to enjoy them.

[Sylvester Graham]

I'm just wondering Tim... have you ever seen world class ink jet prints? AKA editions done for museums, etc. I'm not saying this to be degrading, but I know that many people have only had exposure to prints done by friends and enthusiasts instead of so called 'master printers' and they use these results to evaluate the process, understandably. I too was skeptical about color inkjet next to dye transfer, cibachrome, etc... until I saw some breathtaking digital prints (from 4x5 negatives, I think) at a museum, which promptly changed my mind.

Given, they were on watercolor paper, so the texture and overall feeling was very different from other processes, but I took it to be an entirely new way of printing color altogether. Different, but in many ways equal or superior.

[paulr]

when it comes to color work, I often can't tell a traditional c-print from a digital c-print from an ink print (if they're all done on gloss paper and framed behind glass). dealers i've spoken with who deal closely with the work say that each has a distinct look, but i haven't been exposed to enough to catch the nuances. they can all look really good.

In black and white, the ink and traditional processes look quite distinct to me, because i have yet to see an ink jet paper that's similar to an air dried gelatin silver surface. both can look great, but in their own distinct ways.

[mcd]

I'm just wondering Tim... have you ever seen world class ink jet prints? AKA editions done for museums, etc. I'm not saying this to be degrading, but I know that many people have only had exposure to prints done by friends and enthusiasts instead of so called 'master printers' and they use these results to evaluate the process, understandably. I too was skeptical about color inkjet next to dye transfer, cibachrome, etc... until I saw some breathtaking digital prints (from 4x5 negatives, I think) at a museum, which promptly changed my mind.

Given, they were on watercolor paper, so the texture and overall feeling was very different from other processes, but I took it to be an entirely new way of printing color altogether. Different, but in many ways equal or superior.

I spent a number of years in the 90's making fine art IRIS prints. While they are spectacular, they do not match the feeling of a good dye transfer, platinum, or silver print. Since the dye transfer material is essentially gone, it doesn't really matter to compare them. Color photography will forever now be with ink.

I am not a fan of ink jet printing. I just cannot get excited enough by prints that come out of those machines. It reminds me too much of a Zerox. They have no value to me. I have made and seen amazing inkjet prints, they just aren't sacred objects to me.

This is not a slam against ink jet printmakers, it's just not MY favorite medium. Something is being lost in photography, and everyone is in a rush to see it go it seems.

[Kirk Gittings]

Photographers, as a group, do not abandon technologies (unless the materials are absolutely gone), they keep adding new ones to the arsenal.

[Brian Ellis]

I spent a number of years in the 90's making fine art IRIS prints. While they are spectacular, they do not match the feeling of a good dye transfer, platinum, or silver print. Since the dye transfer material is essentially gone, it doesn't really matter to compare them. Color photography will forever now be with ink.

I am not a fan of ink jet printing. I just cannot get excited enough by prints that come out of those machines. It reminds me too much of a Zerox. They have no value to me. I have made and seen amazing inkjet prints, they just aren't sacred objects to me.

This is not a slam against ink jet printmakers, it's just not MY favorite medium. Something is being lost in photography, and everyone is in a rush to see it go it seems.

I'm not a fan of the process either but I sure do like the results and so I tolerate the process. I agree with you that something is being lost in photography as the old equipment and materials disappear (indeed as the entire photography industry as we once knew it disappears) and our new equipment and materials are sold by Best Buy right next to the color tvs.

[Kino]

I spent a number of years in the 90's making fine art IRIS prints. While they are spectacular, they do not match the feeling of a good dye transfer, platinum, or silver print. Since the dye transfer material is essentially gone, it doesn't really matter to compare them. Color photography will forever now be with ink.

I am not a fan of ink jet printing. I just cannot get excited enough by prints that come out of those machines. It reminds me too much of a Zerox. They have no value to me. I have made and seen amazing inkjet prints, they just aren't sacred objects to me.

This is not a slam against ink jet printmakers, it's just not MY favorite medium. Something is being lost in photography, and everyone is in a rush to see it go it seems.

www.dyetransfer.org

[Ted Harris]

It's a personal chhoice. No one is forcing any artist to use one technology or another to reach their end result for display. In my case it started out as one of time and economics. I first chose to experiment with ink jet printing because it was just too expensive to keep doing color printing in the traditional fashion; at least it was for me the way I print throwing away many before i get the print that satisfies. As for time, after using sophisticated ink jet equipment for several years I can say that there is no time savings for me. Now, after using a variety of wide format printers and papers for several years I agree with those that have found that their color prints have more vibrancy, are sharper, etc. than those produced using wet methods. I'm not going back and not because I am lazy ... I'm not going back because I prefer the prints I ma making today.

[paulr]

I agree with you that something is being lost in photography as the old equipment and materials disappear (indeed as the entire photography industry as we once knew it disappears) ...

This has been the whole history of the medium. Probably of every medium that's so closely tied to industrial materials.

Look at all the historical materials ... albumen paper, commercial platinum paper, pop, dye transfer, cibachrome ...

they all enjoyed a heydey, and then became marginalized by something new. sometimes the old material hangs on for a while (a long while if we're lucky) and sometimes it gets reintroduced for a niche market by a small maker. but the time when it's the standard, when there's bountiful choice of options and piles of r&d money going into improved versions, is always limited. the new standard always wins; it always offers advantages, and also shortcomings.

in a little while inkjet will be the unquestioned standard. and someday, something else will come along that knocks it off its perch. we'll be having the exact same debates then ... about how the new thing isn't really photography, how it will never be as good, etc. etc..

of course, the new thing will be be better. and it will also be worse. just like every other new thing that's come along since 1839.

[Brian Ellis]

This has been the whole history of the medium. Probably of every medium that's so closely tied to industrial materials.

Look at all the historical materials ... albumen paper, commercial platinum paper, pop, dye transfer, cibachrome ...

they all enjoyed a heydey, and then became marginalized by something new. sometimes the old material hangs on for a while (a long while if we're lucky) and sometimes it gets reintroduced for a niche market by a small maker. but the time when it's the standard, when there's bountiful choice of options and piles of r&d money going into improved versions, is always limited. the new standard always wins; it always offers advantages, and also shortcomings.

in a little while inkjet will be the unquestioned standard. and someday, something else will come along that knocks it off its perch. we'll be having the exact same debates then ... about how the new thing isn't really photography, how it will never be as good, etc. etc..

of course, the new thing will be be better. and it will also be worse. just like every other new thing that's come along since 1839.

I understand that, though I actually think the change from film based photography to digital is a more revolutionary and profound change than any that have gone before in the history of photography. So I don't think it's entirely accurate to analogize the demise of film/darkroom to the loss of albumen materials or coated platinum paper. But whether that's correct or not, just because the switch from film/darkroom to digital camera/digital print may be nothing more than an evolutionary process that's consistent with history doesn't mean I have to like it.

[adrian tyler]

i have some work that looks better on c-41 process and some work that looks better on injet, i'm glad to have the choice...

oh, and i'd never be printing my own c-41 at home, so i'm also glad to have a reasonably priced, calibrated colour digital "lab" to make either proof or exhibtion quality prints...

[mcd]

I understand that, though I actually think the change from film based photography to digital is a more revolutionary and profound change than any that have gone before in the history of photography. So I don't think it's entirely accurate to analogize the demise of film/darkroom to the loss of albumen materials or coated platinum paper. But whether that's correct or not, just because the switch from film/darkroom to digital camera/digital print may be nothing more than an evolutionary process that's consistent with history doesn't mean I have to like it.

I don't really think that film based photography is the same medium as digital photography, just as video "filmmaking" is not the same as film filmmaking (yes, the gap seems to be closing, according to some). These two methods are so different, the methodology so unrelated. I hear so many people saying how much they hated the darkroom and are glad to see it go. It's as if every painter switched to acrylics because they hated the smell of linseed oil.

I shoot a lot of digital images, but it is still film that is most meaningful to me. When I put a 4x5 chrome on a lightbox, or pull freshly processed black and white negatives from the fixer (who can wait for the wash cycle before you take a peek), no digital process gives me that feeling.

I will of course continue to shoot digitally, I hope that it doesn't become my only choice. It's not the same.

[Sylvester Graham]

as video "filmmaking" is not the same as film filmmaking (yes, the gap seems to be closing, according to some). These two methods are so different, the methodology so unrelated.

Maybe to someone in the business, yes there is a difference. But the average movie-goer, forget about it... Your average viewer has absolutely no clue about what kind of technology goes into film making, and they could care less. I bet a large majority of those who went to see 28 days later hadn't even the slightest suspicion it was shot on DV. Saying the two methodologies are entirely unrelated is a gross oversimplification. Pretty much the only thing done analogue in a big budget movie is the capture and distribution, everything in between is done digitally. Making the whole workflow digital just speeds things up, especially in an effects heavy production like the latest Star Wars installments.

I don't know about you, but everything I learned in the darkroom didn't just get flushed down the toilet when I started learning photoshop, etc... a great deal of the basic rules still apply.

[paulr]

... just because the switch from film/darkroom to digital camera/digital print may be nothing more than an evolutionary process that's consistent with history doesn't mean I have to like it.

I don't mean to suggest that you do. I guess another way of way of saying what I said is that the history of photography has the been the history of heartbreak! People get attached to their materials, and it's a major suck when they can't get them anymore.

A lot of great artists threatened to quit when their paper vanished. Weston was horribly upset when the platinum papers vanished. Fortunately he got over it, adapted, and went on to do much of his best work with a material he previously disliked.

Digital technology may be a revolutionary change (as color photography was) but I don't think the revolution has much to do with digital printing, which is just another category of printmaking. I think the revolution is about all the disembodied forms an image can assume ... like the pictures we look at on the web. This has gotten us to think about and use phtography in whole different ways.

[paulr]

I don't know about you, but everything I learned in the darkroom didn't just get flushed down the toilet when I started learning photoshop, etc... a great deal of the basic rules still apply.

Yeah, things like what makes a great print great. And everything you ever learned about interpreting and expressing an image on paper.

Poets didn't have to learn to write again when they started using word processors; they just had to learn some software.

[Robert Hughes]

I bet a large majority of those who went to see 28 days later hadn't even the slightest suspicion it was shot on DV.

Interestingly, their follow-on film 28 weeks later was shot in Super 16mm film. Just goes to show that no rules exist that technology transfer has to be a one way street.


Pretty much the only thing done analogue in a big budget movie is the capture and distribution, everything in between is done digitally.

Is that true? I saw a couple films this last weekend including the romantic comedy "No Reservations". I don't know, but rather doubt the film would have any digital work in it besides titling and sound track. From IMDB:

Film negative format (mm/video inches)
35 mm

Cinematographic process
Super 35 (3-perf)

Printed film format
35 mm (anamorphic)

Aspect ratio
2.35 : 1

No digital mentioned...

[Sylvester Graham]

Is that true? I saw a couple films this last weekend including the romantic comedy "No Reservations". I don't know, but rather doubt the film would have any digital work in it besides titling and sound track. From:


No digital mentioned...

Now, I've never been in the movie business, but it has been a large interest of mine. So I do know a tad more than your regular joe. The steps IMDB mentioned are precisely the steps I said would be digital; capture, and distribution, or the final prints sent to theaters. I of course, could be wrong, but let me fill in what I bet they left out, and what I have come to know as a standard procedure...

Film negative format (mm/video inches)
35 mm

Cinematographic process
Super 35 (3-perf)

4k telecine for Digital intermediate

Editing through digital platform, perhaps non-linear like final cut pro, or maybe more standard linear system

Audio editing/mixing done in 24 bit or higher (perhaps captured digitally, or transfered from reel to reel)

effects, color correction, dust removal, etc..


Printed film format
35 mm (anamorphic)

Aspect ratio
2.35 : 1

Audience enjoys, even though it's digital.

[Sylvester Graham]

I just realized. This is a bit off topic from the original question... Oops.

[Robert Hughes]

Most films don't go for 4k digital intermediates due to cost and time concerns; they settle for 2k DI which is not quite as sharp. I'm checking with some cinematographer friends to find out if "No Reservations" used a DI or optical printing process; it could be done either way. "Knocked Up", a similar style production, did indeed use a digital intermediate. And of course, all audio is digital, which is just as well; analog film sound was never much better than wretched.

Occasionally you can still see a movie print where every detail, every hair is razor sharp, but then you'd need a live projectionist on hand to make sure the print is properly focussed, and that's not very common in megaplex theaters these days.