An interesting approach - revolutionary?

[Norm Buchanan]

Has anyone tried this digital enlarger (504DS)?

http://www.de-vere.com/products.htm

So this raises and interesting question. If I work some photoshop magic on a digital image (direct capture or scan) and then can easily reproduce it on traditional photographic paper in a wet darkroom using a digital enlarger, can I still claim that the print is a traditional gelatin silver print and charge what I would if the entire process was done analog? Perhaps this is just what is needed to level the playing field. It will be impossible to know whether a print is "traditional" or digital. Could this be revolutionary? Will all pricing be based on the talent of the photographer rather than on how the printing has been done?

N.

[Ed Richards]

There are labs that use a lightjet to print to silver fiber paper - you could say with all honesty that it is a traditional silver print.

[Brian Ellis]

If it's printed on gelatin silver paper why would there be any question that it's a gelatin silver print? The basis for calling a print a gelatin silver print has never, to my knowledge, been based on the fact that the image was projected through a negative, it's been based on the paper on which the photograph is printed.

I'm not sure what you mean by "and charge what I would if the entire process was done analog." Seems to me you'd charge whatever you wanted to charge regardless of the process used. I also don't know about "will all pricing be based on the talent of the photographer rather than on how the printing has been done?" Pricing never has and IMHO never will be based primarily on the talent of the photographer or on how the printing was done. Ansel Adams' photographs don't sell for hundreds of thousands of dollars because he was the most talented photographer in the world or because he printed in a darkroom.

[Norm Buchanan]

Hi Brian,

My understanding has been that many people feel that a print made digitally is "worth" less than one made in a traditional wet darkroom. I assumed that this was because of the original, one of a kind, nature of a darkroom print. My question was really about whether this would still be the case if a photographer could reliably reproduce prints of a traditional nature. I guess the problem with my assumption is that I was equating the paper with the process. I admit I was not familiar with lightjet printing so it appears that this has been possible for some time.

I personally feel that the pricing of photographs should be based purely on the aesthetics of the image, regardless of how it made - then again I also appreciate the economics of supply and demand and the worth of a scarce piece of art.

Cheers,
N.

[paulr]

Hi Brian,

My understanding has been that many people feel that a print made digitally is "worth" less than one made in a traditional wet darkroom.

Luckily these people aren't the ones paying the big money for photographs. The highest price ever paid at auction was for one enlarged digitally (I believe it was a light-jet type print, not an inkjet, but I could be mistaken).

[Kirk Keyes]

I've seen a digital enlarger that was made by Durst in the US a couple of years ago. It was the same kind of idea here, and used a Sony projection television LDC chip that had a microcontroller that moved the chip around during the exposure to remove the black lines that would have appeared between the pixels if they had not used this technique of "dithering" the chip around.

Prints were shown that were about 16x20 and unless there was a textureless background or area in the image, you could not tell by eye that it was not made with a negative. I'd love one.

[Asher Kelman]

Luckily these people aren't the ones paying the big money for photographs. The highest price ever paid at auction was for one enlarged digitally (I believe it was a light-jet type print, not an inkjet, but I could be mistaken).
Paul,

Do you think you might be able to get a hand on a link for that?

Thanks, :)

Asher

[Kirk Gittings]

This is about what 8-10 years old at this point if memory serves? The market has, at this point, completely disarticulated itself from from print media, process or the digital vs. traditional debate.

[paulr]

Paul,

Do you think you might be able to get a hand on a link for that?

Thanks, :)

Asher

http://www.popphoto.com/photographynewswire/3911/the-first-3m-photograph.html

It narrowly edged out Steichen's "The Pond, Moonlight," which might be the second highest price paid for a photo (though not for a contemporary one).

Of course, the Gursky is a diptych, so it isn't really fair ;)

Interestingly, both of these eye-popping prices were for manipulated photographs ... the Gursky manipulated digitally (whatever it is he does) and the Steichen manipulated with hand coloring (and ... whatever else it is he does).

[Asher Kelman]

This is about what 8-10 years old at this point if memory serves? The market has, at this point, completely disarticulated itself from from print media, process or the digital vs. traditional debate.


For sure Kirk!

However, just for the purpose of going from digital to wet process traditional printing one has to go to light jet or else make an intermediate transparency with the inkjet for a contact print.

This digital enlarger might be of value if it can compete with the quality of a large inkjet transparency. This device advertised has 17 MP in the LCD for the virtual negative. With a printed "negative" one can use larger size files such as 300 pixels/inch in a 16x20 image would be 28.8 MP compared to the 17 MP maximum of the LCD virtual negative. However for up to 11"x14" the LCD would hold it's own.

I'd love to know any real user experience!

Asher

[paulr]

My only hesitation with the technology is that by enlarging using an optical system, it loses a major image quality advantage that you get from light jet or inkjet. Enlarging optics degrade the image quite a bit. I had no idea until I started making inkjet prints ... I thought my modern apo lenses would cause little perceptible degradation.

[bob carnie]

I own a Lambda laser output device and have been printing silver prints on this machine and processing in a wet darkroom since 2003.
We started with Agfa Classic 30inch x100ft rolls , and currently use Gallerie G4 with and extended red sensitivity.

In the beginning we were using a safelight acceptable paper and now it is processed with no light.
We considered the Deveere Unit back in 2003 but since we do mainly large prints at our shop the Lambda gave us better results. I have not seen the output from the Deveere lately and I am sure its quite good.
I would not be suprised to see these devices in most major photo schools over the next couple of years.

To date I have printed a few thousand images this way and can pass on some observations.

When all elements of the workflow are correct these prints are every bit as beautiful as top notch enlarger prints.
When there is compromise in workflow methods , you will see abberations.
These prints develop, and tone exactly as expected from any other silver print material.
Poor capture, poor processing and poor PS adjustments will create a mess. Just like in the Analoque workflow.
We have decided to do full RC maginfication tests with every file that is meant to go 20x24 or above, or when we have a sneaky suspicion there is something wrong with the file. This test is invaluable to the artist to see their work on paper and not just from screen.
We have found that the screen is not a good measure of the images capabilities as well an inkjet output at high mag is not as well.
*this area is a whole can of worms that hits us in the face daily, very few people are willing to admit that their workflow may be flawed and or not up to the task of large magnification on a very unforgiving paper stock*
I hope that these enlargers get onto the mainstream someday , this will require some adjustments in the paper sensitivety and ability to work from LED as well as Laser exposure.
The more users of this technology will definately help push the boundrys of this way of printing .
I think we will buy one of these Deveere Digital Enlargers within the next couple of years, as our workload increases a unit to do the small prints indepenently from the larger unit would be good for our ability to service our clients.

[SamReeves]

It truly is a fascinating concept. It's too bad photographic paper is on the dying vine. I doubt many these digi-enlargers might be sold. :eek:

[tim atherton]

The one test print I had made a year or two ago on the devere wasn't that great at all. I think the whole lightjet (or whatever) and Ilford digital silver gelatin paper is the route to go.

BTW, as an aside on some of the points raised in the initial post, "digital" prints on various media are becoming much more widely and commonly accepted in their own right and not regarded as somehow second class to more traditional photographic materials.

Also, as the number of digital prints collected by museums and archives is rapidly increasing, there is now a conservation research project underway to provide a set of standards for their care and preservation in such institutions to go alongside those for film and traditional photographic media.

[Christopher Breitenstein]

There are labs that use a lightjet to print to silver fiber paper - you could say with all honesty that it is a traditional silver print.

I don't agree that it would be called a traditional silverprint, because the idea of traditional print implies a "camera negative," or a print made in the traditional fashion (with a silver negative). I agree it would be considered a silver print, but not a traditional silver print.

Just being a literal pragmatist.

yours;

[David Luttmann]

Hi Brian,

My understanding has been that many people feel that a print made digitally is "worth" less than one made in a traditional wet darkroom. I assumed that this was because of the original, one of a kind, nature of a darkroom print. My question was really about whether this would still be the case if a photographer could reliably reproduce prints of a traditional nature. I guess the problem with my assumption is that I was equating the paper with the process. I admit I was not familiar with lightjet printing so it appears that this has been possible for some time.

I personally feel that the pricing of photographs should be based purely on the aesthetics of the image, regardless of how it made - then again I also appreciate the economics of supply and demand and the worth of a scarce piece of art.

Cheers,
N.


A darkroom print is no more one of a kind than a digitally printed one.....it's just that the adjustments for the print are made at a different part of the process.

If I take the original digital Raw file or film scan and make my adjustments each time I make a print....then a digital print will be one of a kind as well.

[David Luttmann]

I don't agree that it would be called a traditional silverprint, because the idea of traditional print implies a "camera negative," or a print made in the traditional fashion (with a silver negative). I agree it would be considered a silver print, but not a traditional silver print.

Just being a literal pragmatist.

yours;

A Gelatin Silver print refers to the composition of the media.....it has absolutely nothing to do with light being projected through a negative. Although I see now that we are adding the word traditional into the mix.

I'll stick with my Traditional Light Jet and Traditional Pigment on Cotton Rag prints.

[paulr]

I don't agree that it would be called a traditional silverprint ...

I have a printmaker friend who fumes when I call photography a printmaking process, because unlike with "traditional printmaking" (woodcut, lithography, etc.), nothing presses against the photo paper to make an impression.

In other words, everyone's got their own idea of what's traditional or authentic ... usually it's whatever they happen to do.

[paulr]

It's been brought up before, but it doesn't get any less funny. In so many traditional craft processes, artisans have prided themselves on being able to make identical, flawless multiples. You see it in darkroom printing, in ceramics, in furniture making, in baking ...

Then someone comes along with a mechanized version of the process, and people scorn the results, because they're too flawless and uniform.

So now when I'm sloppy in the darkroom and the prints in my edition look different from each other, I've added value?

[Ted Harris]

Paul ..... except photogravures ....

On the " new" DeVere which has been around in one form or another for around 4 years, take a look at the price. If my memory is correct it is in the same ballpark, or more than many high-end scanners. Read somewhere in the 50K range with all the bells and whistle. I thought about going this route and opted for the high-end scanner and inkjet printing instead. Not gonna argue one v. the other, I just think the route I take better suits my own preferences.

[paulr]

Paul ..... except photogravures ....

Ha ... yeah, I mentioned that to my friend when she was done with her rant. She grudgingly accepted gravures.

[David A. Goldfarb]

As for the issue of identifying the method as well as the material of the print, I saw some digital Ilfochromes at the Art Institute of Chicago a couple of days ago that were referred to as something like "Digital Dye Bleach Prints," so they are marking the distinction at least in some cases. There were some large C-prints up that were labeled "chromogenic prints" that could have been Lambda or Lightjet, but weren't designated as such.

I saw prints from the current version of the DeVere about a year ago, and up to about 20x24" they look pretty good. The attraction over LightJet/Lambda/Chromira is that they can be used with any paper. You could tell though which came from a DSLR original, because the DOF characteristics of the smaller sensor and the plasticky smooth grainless visual textures.

There is a headshot lab in New York that has two of them, and this seems like the perfect application for this method. They need to produce 8x10's (well within the enlargement range), with text superimposed (easier with digital than stripping in), in batches of 100 prints usually (much faster with roll paper easel and wet processing than by inkjet or even ganged on a LightJet, I suspect, and for the cost of a LightJet, you could buy a few DeVeres).

[Norm Buchanan]

A darkroom print is no more one of a kind than a digitally printed one.....it's just that the adjustments for the print are made at a different part of the process.

If I take the original digital Raw file or film scan and make my adjustments each time I make a print....then a digital print will be one of a kind as well.
The point is that you CAN make identical reproductions with digital work flow. It is not really possible to do this with an analog flow, although I'm sure some people will argue otherwise.

[Ben R]

I used to manage a 1 hour lab, with the automated (analog)minilab machine I could make identical reproductions from a neg time after time with the press of a button. Pretty much sure that this is not what you meant though Norm.. :-)

That said I've had a very difficult colour neg hand printed to a large size where the pro LAB tech made me multiple copies because it was such a pain to do, each was truly identical though if I'd had it done again a year later they would not have been of course. Could it be that your generalisation is more aimed at hand printed B&W prints?