Inkjet B&W compared to traditional B&W?

[Mahonri]

A friend brought over some inkjet B&W prints for me to look at. He used three papers that are currently touted as 'the answer to fibre B&W'. I then took the original B&W negs (8x10 and 7x17) and made contact prints on Forte Polygrade V, Azo and hand coated pt/pd using platinotype paper.

No contest. The real thing looks nicer, sharper, cleaner and doesn't exhibit off axis viewing problems.

The digital printing looks really good on all three but definately not the equivalent of real B&W prints on silver papers. The pt/pd is a wash visually as the digital looks so much like the original as to be easily confused with each other. The silver prints put side by side with the digital prints(on all 3 digital B&W papers) are much nicer. Sharper and cleaner looking to my eye.(and 7 other photogs eye in a blind comparison where they didn't know which was which until after they wrote down their impressions).

Inkjet printing is getting better. The prints he brought over were also printed on the newest Canon and HPZ31oo printers in addition to the Epson 2400 and 3800 he used for his prints. Same result. Really good work from the inkjets but when displayed side by side with the real thing, just did not stack up yet.

[Dick Hilker]

Were you surprised? A more realistic comparison might have been the enlargement of a 4 X 5 by 4X, rather than an 8 X 10 contact print.

After about 50 years of printing B&W in a darkroom, I made the change to digital printing about 10 years ago and now print with an Epson 7800 on the newest Crane and Hahnemuhle papers. Working with scanned 35mm, 120 and 4 X 5 film, I'm more pleased with the current prints than I've ever been in the past.

When you compare a contact print with an enlargement (even the "real thing,") there's bound to be a difference in all the qualities you mention, so don't rush to judgment based on your limited experiment. The best inkjet prints really do "stack up" when viewed realistically.

[D. Bryant]

He used three papers that are currently touted as 'the answer to fibre B&W'.

Which papers are you referring to?

Don Bryant

[David Luttmann]

First off, the issue of contact printing has already been mentioned. After having been through this before, inkjet and silver prints are two different mediums. They look different. There is a look to the silver print that the inkjet can't recreate. For inkjet, you can obtain deeper blacks and more control down to the pixel level. As well, control over the mid tones is better on the inkjet.

That said, this is the same as the digital vs film stuff. Even if digital capture matches or exceeds that of the film used in the comparison, they will look different. I enjoy playing with these differences.

[Bruce Watson]

As has been said many times before, inkjet prints ain't wanna-be silver gelatin prints. Inkjet is it's own media with its own look and feel.

Search the archives here. This "discussion" has been beaten to death, over and over again. Repeating it serves no useful purpose.

[Mike Chini]

I agree this has been discussed ad nauseum and then some. However, I would say that without pushing manufacturers further, the quality of papers may plateau along with any innovation. Look at what mp3's are doing to music! People are perfectly happy with highly-compressed, mediocre-sounding (IMO) files as opposed to full cd quality files or even high-res audio. I do think all of this pickiness does serve a useful purpose in the end.

[Maris Rusis]

Maybe even if B&W inkjets advance to the stage where they look absolutely indistinguishable from B&W gelatin-silver photographs the reasons for looking at the two forms will be different.

That assumes, of course, there are deep reasons for looking at a picture over and above what it looks like.

[Jeffrey Sipress]

I just love my B&W inkjet prints. I never thought to believe that silver/darkroom imaging is some sort of standard to 'live up to'. It simply is all there was for a real long time, and all images made that way have that look (for the most part). It sure works well, but still is only one method, not better or worse than others, to get your results. I've been working on digital BW for so long, since the times when you could not get anything you wanted to show to anyone. Now I most definitely can. Besides, the control one has over the way the final print will look (contrast, masking, d & b, etc) is so far beyond anything that can be done in a darkroom. I can produce images of subjects and scenes nearly exactly as I envisioned them to be. It's here. I am there.

[Brian Ellis]

Maybe even if B&W inkjets advance to the stage where they look absolutely indistinguishable from B&W gelatin-silver photographs the reasons for looking at the two forms will be different.

That assumes, of course, there are deep reasons for looking at a picture over and above what it looks like.

I don't think everyone would agree that simply making an inkjet print indistinguishable from a b&w gelatin print represents an advance. The goal is to make a b&w print that's better than a darkroom print. If I didn't know that could be done I'd still be in the darkroom.

[Andrew O'Neill]

Besides, the control one has over the way the final print will look (contrast, masking, d & b, etc) is so far beyond anything that can be done in a darkroom. I can produce images of subjects and scenes nearly exactly as I envisioned them to be. It's here. I am there.

Still more fun to work in a darkroom, though. Traditional printing is more like printmaking for me (my background is in printmaking), and I love the process. Sitting in front of a computer is not fun.

[paulr]

Anyone passing through NYC who wants to see what can be done with carbon pigment quadtone printing, just give me a shout. I have a body of work that's been printed both ways; silver prints (some of them contact prints) on fortezo with selenium and gold toning, and pigment inkjets, printed the same size.

I have yet to to see anyon compare the two without expressing surprise.

[SamReeves]

Inkjet is quickly catching up no doubt. Just plain prints on heavyweight paper from my Epson 1280 look tack sharp and quite nice. The only difference I can detect at the moment is in the texture of fiber vs. inkjet. Fiber wins in this case, dry mounted and on a nice piece of mat board. However I think that will come to pass at some time. :o

[PViapiano]

I'm leaning toward what Andrew had to say...

I love working with film, scanning and inkjet printing. In fact, I'm about to purchase a new printer...however, something is missing to me and it is exactly that tactile experience you get from massaging a print to life in the darkroom. That's why I just bought an Omega D5XL enlarger and am putting together a small 2nd-bathroom-darkroom. It's been years and years since I was in a darkroom, and I think the knowledge and technique will be greatly beneficial and feed into the rest of my work as well.

[Dick Hilker]

While it's true that I'm much more pleased with the results from digital printing, I'll also confess that I miss the sense of magic that came from watching an image materialize in the developer tray and conducting the rituals that attended the creation of a darkroom print.

Maybe it's best summed up in the old fisherman's comment that, "it's not the fish -- it's the fishin'" that really counts!

[Sylvester Graham]

A

Inkjet printing is getting better.

Dude, you need to search first. This is something that's been endlessly discussed.

But, since I'm here, I might as well contribute to the problem! A lot of people find inkjet inferior to tradition and yet often they have no idea what they're doing. (I'm not saying this is you.) They dodge and burn a little, do some curve adjustments, and then hit print, hoping for magic, when really things can get quite complicated. Have you calibrated recently, etc? Have first rate scans/files? All that jazz?

Inkjet can be breathtaking in the hands of someone who knows what they're doing. Ever heard of Irving Penn? http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=26661&highlight=irving+penn

And it's not just color. I have seen (the details are in that post) an exhibit at the Eastman House that convinced me the only purpose Platinum Printing serves is to waste my money!

Color inkjet on watercolor/matte paper (which seems to be an emerging standard) is a different process altogether, gorgeous in its own way, so comparing it to other processes is a silly waste of time. It's something no one has ever seen before.

I do agree that Inkjet printing when compared to silver gelatin is horrible. And yet... http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=28663&highlight=Digital+silver+gelatin

[Sylvester Graham]

Oh and also, if you're actually a professional photographer of any kind, and you need to make MONEY, digital is a hell of a lot easier in so many ways. And no, I'm not talking about all you retired folks who sell your prints for extra cash, I'm talking about people who have dedicated their lives to the art and/business and actually survive on print or file sales or photographic services.

"Feeling the cold developer pour over your hands" and all that crap is really just an opulent luxury.

[paulr]

"As has been said many times before, inkjet prints ain't wanna-be silver gelatin prints."

I hear the comparison so often that I odn't believe that statement.

Well, it depends on who's making the prints and what they're trying to accomplish, right? In the hands of some people, the medium will be wannabe gelatin silver. In the hands of someone else, it will be something else.

Personally, there are things I love about gelatin silver and things I don't. I love the richness. I don't love the way the prints curl, and I don't love the surface finish of any of papers I've used in recent memory. I also don't love that you have no idea about the quality of the paper stock. They never tell you anything about it.

So with a new printing process, there will be some qualities of gelatin silver I'd like to mimic, and others I'm happy not to.

[Bruce Watson]

"As has been said many times before, inkjet prints ain't wanna-be silver gelatin prints."

I hear the comparison so often that I odn't believe that statement.
Your belief or lack of belief won't change reality.

"Inkjet is it's own media with its own look and feel."

True, but with so many comparisons to film photo prints on real papers this gets lost by all those trying to match their silver based photo prints.
Your point would be?

"Search the archives here. This "discussion" has been beaten to death, over and over again. Repeating it serves no useful purpose."

If the subject really has been beaten to death so has your response. This does serve a useful purpose in bringing out the reality of the continued comparisons, the shortfalls of digital printing in comparison and the foolishness of those who spend all their time defending digital in that comparison... instead of pushing it for its own unique character.
No it doesn't. Rehashing the same argument over and over again serves no useful purpose and is insane. Albert Einstein supposedly defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results. I'll let him have the last word on this "topic."

[Jay W]

I really love the control of digital printing. The comparison I'm interested in seeing, is if it's worth making a digitial negative for silver contact printing, and comparing that to a straight inkjet print with B&W inks. (Pt is a little expensive for my taste.) So, anyone doing some Burkholder type silver work? Decent negatives out of an inkjet?

Jay

[Sylvester Graham]

It could easily be that your skill is the defining factor in 'waste my money' and that pt/pd printing by those who are good at is is worth every penny.


Ok, well, you obviously didn't read the details in the post, which is fine, maybe you were in a rush or something, or maybe you just like jumping to conclusions... Here are the details on that particular exhibit:

"There was an exhibit a while back at the Eastman House (not sure if it was travelling) by Craig Barber, called "Ghosts in the Landscape." A very excellent, very emotional landscape show about his Vietnam experience using 8x10 pinholes. There were many platinum contact prints, but there were also inkjet enlargements, often with the exact same image in platinum sitting adjacent, that were absolutely superb. Apart from the size, I saw little difference in tone/color, surface texture, and range."

So, if you still don't understand, my personal skill is irrelevant. This has to do with a comparison of prints done by a professional photographer (or a professional printer, maybe he only made the negatives, I'm not sure). I can't think of too many other purposes for displaying identical prints in different processes except to demonstrate their similarities or differences. Maybe he was getting paid off by Epson!

[paulr]

I'd concur that at least with the process that I use, inkjet is more similar to PT/PD than to gelatin silver. Partly because of the long, straight line section of the curve (actually longer with ink, if you want it to be) and partly because of the finish of the watercolor-style papers you usually print on.

[tim atherton]

"I have seen (the details are in that post) an exhibit at the Eastman House that convinced me the only purpose Platinum Printing serves is to waste my money!"

It could easily be that your skill is the defining factor in 'waste my money' and that pt/pd printing by those who are good at is is worth every penny.

For one reason or another, I have been seeing a lot of platinum prints recently many of them vintage and some contemporary by those such as Arentz and others.

while they do have a very lovely look to most of them, the majority actually look very much like fairly average inkjet prints. And the good inkjet prints by today's best printers on cotton rag paper often tend to look like superb platinum prints

[eddie]

Maybe it's best summed up in the old fisherman's comment that, "it's not the fish -- it's the fishin'" that really counts!

yup, what dick said!

i have no printer, almost zero knowledge skills and abilities for computers and PS so i guess i am stuck. now i am going to turn on the red light andgetto work........

[Tyler Boley]

the fishing does need to be rewarding, but in this case, the prints themselves (the fish) must be the reason. If they don't excel I'll alter the methods and material (the fishin I suppose).
These mono ink prints on beautiful paper present my images in a way only this process can provide. I was never able to achieve this in the darkroom. For others, silver may still be the way.
We have to gravitate to activities and materials we have some affinity for, or we won't get the work done, or it won't excel.
I gotta have these prints, or what comes next that's even better. I've done years of silver, platinum, etc.. I'm so thrilled with this process.
If I want to enjoy fishing, I'll go fishing.
Tyler

[Greg Miller]

{yawn} It is clear that great results are possible with a variety of analog and digital methods. And they all have their own attributes that make them different and similar to others. And different people will be drawn to different methods that appeal to them. That's a good thing. It's too bad that this always has to degenerate into a 'mine's better than your's" discussion. Do oil painters and pastel artists argue about whose medium is better? Can't we all just get along?

[paulr]

Do oil painters and pastel artists argue about whose medium is better?

well ... i wouldn't bet against it.

[Bill_1856]

It's much easier for most of us ordinary/average/irregular darkroom printers to get a really good B&W print with an inkjet, than the B&W that we can turn out with conventional silver papers. And finding suitable silver papers are getting a lot worse.

[Tyler Boley]

{yawn}...


So, you were expecting this particular thread to be the next Bourne thrill ride?
Tyler

[paulr]

i recognize that for a lot of people who are skeptical of the quality of b+w ink prints, it's not a matter of religious fervor ... they just haven't had the opportunity to see good ones yet.

it makes sense. the process has only been refined for a little while, and there are aren't as many people who have mastered it as there are people who have mastered silver printing. i'd just encourage everyone to keep an open mind. the process might never become your favorite, i promise you'll be impressed by what it can accomplish.

[gr82bart]

i recognize that for a lot of people who are skeptical of the quality of b+w ink prints, it's not a matter of religious fervor ... they just haven't had the opportunity to see good ones yet.I've seen the latest inkjet prints and they are outstanding. In fact, I have been printing inkjets for several years now.

This reminds me just how many people have a severe case of foot and mouth disease. I recall having a 'conversation' with someone who after I merely told them I like shooting my old fashioned Hasselblad, he went on and on about how his digital this and that was better than orgasms and how I should 'see the light', and on and on. I didn't bother telling him about my Mac G5, Nikon D2X, Epson etc... or my Holga for that matter! I just told him, he was right and smiled. Anyway, it's the new ignorance. :cool:

Regards, Art.

[Marko]

I've seen the latest inkjet prints and they are outstanding. In fact, I have been printing inkjets for several years now.

This reminds me just how many people have a severe case of foot and mouth disease. I recall having a 'conversation' with someone who after I merely told them I like shooting my old fashioned Hasselblad, he went on and on about how his digital this and that was better than orgasms and how I should 'see the light', and on and on. I didn't bother telling him about my Mac G5, Nikon D2X, Epson etc... or my Holga for that matter! I just told him, he was right and smiled. Anyway, it's the new ignorance. :cool:

Regards, Art.

The problem with most religious fanatics anywhere is that they do not seem to be having enough of them while those they eventually do get are of such poor quality that most anything they feel strong about quite easily gets to be better.

:D

[David Luttmann]

True enough Marko. I find the most amusing thing here is reading about how great inkjet prints are.....from some of the very people saying they were junk just a year or two ago.

Amazing what a difference actually seeing some prints make. :D

[gr82bart]

True enough Marko. I find the most amusing thing here is reading about how great inkjet prints are.....from some of the very people saying they were junk just a year or two ago. Isn't this so true! It's like the new ex-smoker. Ever talk to one of those guys? Oiy! :eek:

Regards, Art.

[Marko]

Isn't this so true! It's like the new ex-smoker. Ever talk to one of those guys? Oiy! :eek:

regards, Art.

Hey, what's that supposed to mean? :) I've been one of those for the past 2-3 years and having somoene else smoke next to me really doesn't bother me the least bit. It doesn't tempt me either. I quit because I wanted to and I choose to stay smoke-free because I feel better that way, not because it's fashionable or politically/ideologicaly/religiously correct.

Just like I don't think it is anybody else's business to "save me", "make me see the light", "help me make the right decision", etc., whatever that meant, I am also not nearly arrogant enough to make other people's choices my business.

[gr82bart]

Hey, what's that supposed to mean? :) D'oh! LOL

The other thing I find pathetic are the wannabe traditionalists. I just find it silly how so many ex-traditional photographers go all digital and proceed to simulate the Polaroid transfer look, cyanotype look, throw in a grain filter, heck some even simulate the brush stroke borders! The latest are the folks that use 'digital silver gelatin' paper for their inkjets. It's like walking along Canal Street in NYC and being offered a Rollex for $40. Yeah, right. :cool:

Regards, Art.

[Greg Lockrey]

D'oh! LOL

The other thing I find pathetic are the wannabe traditionalists. I just find it silly how so many ex-traditional photographers go all digital and proceed to simulate the Polaroid transfer look, cyanotype look, throw in a grain filter, heck some even simulate the brush stroke borders! The latest are the folks that use 'digital silver gelatin' paper for their inkjets. It's like walking along Canal Street in NYC and being offered a Rollex for $40. Yeah, right. :cool:

Regards, Art.

:D

I got into digital printing late by most standards (about 10 years ago) and onto the net even later (about 5 years ago) so I was never influenced by all this digital/wet process conflict crap. When I discovered the capabilities if what inkjet had in terms of getting satisfactory results, that was all it took for me. I am basically a lazy guy. Getting out of a smelly damp wet dark room was a good thing. I don't care if one is better than the other. They both have their place. I can made "Art" with both mediums. Hell, I can scribble a couple of lines with cheap water color and sell it too. :p I do however believe in mastering the craft whatever it is.

[paulr]

The other thing I find pathetic are the wannabe traditionalists.

wannabe traditionalism is an old ... um ... tradition. it's not limited to any one medium. Think about all the Olde Time photo booths that sell C-prints that look like albumen. Or the mall photographers who will make you a print on canvas, complete with simulated clear brushstrokes over the image. Or some of the pictorialists, who were hell-bent on making their hand-tinted platinum prints look like oil paintings.

there have always been goofballs, and there will always be goofballs, and it won't matter what process they're using.

[Asher Kelman]

The other thing I find pathetic are the wannabe traditionalists. I just find it silly how so many ex-traditional photographers go all digital and proceed to simulate the Polaroid transfer look, cyanotype look, throw in a grain filter, heck some even simulate the brush stroke borders! The latest are the folks that use 'digital silver gelatin' paper for their inkjets.

I wouldn't be so dismissive of the "digital silver gelatin paper" where the idea is to have print with greater dynamic range than the silver print but no metamerism and still retain depth and sparkle. This paper if it holds up to further critique will finally have dealt with most of the drawbacks of a semi gloss paper that with traditional printing took decades to perfect.

Yes, brush strokes and other conceits are totally disconcerting unless the image is part of a large multimedia collage/sculpture!


It's like walking along Canal Street in NYC and being offered a Rolex for $40. Yeah, right. :cool:
Regards, Art.I happen not to like Rolex watches, I find them crude, bulky, ostentatious and plain ugly, but select fake ones can last a lifetime, I'm told!

When I was in the Grand Bazaar, I found many such examples.

The Grand bazaar is that huge underground labyrinth in Istanbul with its branching streets, endless shops, spices, smoking pipes, gold and jewelry and odd sales men. One guy had a huge sign hawking "Genuine Fake Watches" I guess, like the U.S. fashionable name Targét for Target stores, he felt that "Faké" was a brand name, whereas in fact, "Faké is merely a state of mind!

So "digital silver gelatin paper" is neither the product of wannabe traditionalists, nor motivated by anything but practicality and economy.

Asher

[gr82bart]

I wouldn't be so dismissive of the "digital silver gelatin paper" where the idea is to have print with greater dynamic range than the silver print but no metamerism and still retain depth and sparkle. This paper if it holds up to further critique will finally have dealt with most of the drawbacks of a semi gloss paper that with traditional printing took decades to perfect.Well, let's call it high dynamic range inkjet paper then.


So "digital silver gelatin paper" is neither the product of wannabe traditionalists, nor motivated by anything but practicality and economy.So is the fake Rollex, I would argue.

Regards, Art.

[Jack Flesher]

Well, in this thread on page 10 and 11, three very experienced wet darkroom guys sall state they are pretty impressed with inkjet B&W on Harman FB Gloss...

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=28663&page=10

[gr82bart]

Well, in this thread on page 10 and 11, three very experienced wet darkroom guys sall state they are pretty impressed with inkjet B&W on Harman FB Gloss... If you're directing this at me, then you're completely missing my point. Oh well.

Regards, Art.