Digital Printing/Who are the Masters?

[Merg Ross]

We often hear reference to master printers when the subject of silver printing is discussed. The names are familiar; Adams, Weston, Caponigro, Sexton, Smith, et al.

I was curious to know who are considered to be master digital printers, in black and white. Is it simply a case of personal preference, or are there some that shine above others? When I go to a museum or gallery and view digital prints I assume that I am not always seeing the best possible results, just as is the case when viewing silver prints.

So, are there any printers in particular that I should be on the lookout for?

[r.e.]

I was curious to know who are considered to be master digital printers, in black and white.

A couple of observations/suggestions...

First, I don't think that the distinction that is drawn in the analog world between black and white and colour printing holds up in the digital world. All pixels are created equal, and are equally subect to manipulation.

Secondly, there are a lot of artists who straddle both worlds.

Crewdson captures in analog, but his printer, Ms. Kylie Wright, prints digitally.

Jeff Wall captures in both analog and digital, and exercises a great deal of personal control over the digital processing of his images. As far as I know, he is effectively his own printer.

Similarly, Ed Burtynsky has historically captured in analog, but through his company, Toronto Image Works, has directed the processing, including digital processing, of his prints.

Burtynsky's latest show, at the Flowers Gallery in London, just ended a few days ago. Apparently all of the images were done with a Hasselblad, and there is a suggestion on photo.net, by someone who saw the show, that he used a digital back.

Then you have someone like Chris Jordan, who used to participate in this site as an 8x10 photographer, who now does his capture with 35mm digital cameras, creates a composite image and then, presumably, directs the printing.

Pick up an issue of American Cinematographer these days, and the odds are that you'll see an article about the increasing involvement of cinematographers in the processing, particularly digital processing, of their work.

I think that what is happening is a continuum that does not have an obvious analog in the analog world.

[David A. Goldfarb]

I've only seen David Adamson's prints in color, but I gather he does B&W as well-- http://adamsongallery.jimdo.com/

He was one of the early Iris printers.

[David Karp]

I don't know about who are considered the "masters" of digital B&W, but I did see a B&W digital print of a photograph taken of an abandoned factory by Kirk Gittings on the wall at Freestyle a while back. (That was a digital print was it not Kirk?) Pretty d___n good if you ask me. (I always wanted to see the same photo printed on traditional materials, just to compare.) If I was to start printing B&W digitally he is someone whose brain I would want to pick.

[Oren Grad]

Richard Benson is often mentioned as the dean of photographers who have printed in ink, though I don't know how much he has done personally in inkjet as opposed to the various methods used for book production, where he is recognized as a master.

Mac Holbert and colleagues at Nash Editions are widely recognized, though I don't know how much of that is for the quality of their work and how much is recognition of their historical role as pioneers in the use of inkjet for photographs.

[Carioca]

We often hear reference to master printers when the subject of silver printing is discussed. The names are familiar; Adams, Weston, Caponigro, Sexton, Smith, et al.

I was curious to know who are considered to be master digital printers, in black and white. Is it simply a case of personal preference, or are there some that shine above others? When I go to a museum or gallery and view digital prints I assume that I am not always seeing the best possible results, just as is the case when viewing silver prints.

So, are there any printers in particular that I should be on the lookout for?

In silver times, nobody asked for their technique, chemicals or paper used, thus, only their names were relevant.

In digital times, there are 3 major printers, Canon, Epson, HP (in alphabetical order), among others. After that, comes the RIP's being used. The 'human' namely operators count thousands+

[r.e.]

It would be interesting to see Bob Carnie participate in this discussion.

[Gem Singer]

Hi Merg,

Check out the work of Charles Cramer and John Paul Caponigro.

I would classify them as master printers in the digital world.

I don't know if he prints them himself, but Jay Dussard has reprinted his 8X10 negatives into large digital prints. They certainly look masterful.

Our "old geezers" camera club paid a visit to the Afterimage Gallery, here in Dallas, this morning. We were surprised to see large pigment ink prints of Rob Kendrick's tintypes. Don't know if he printed them himself, but they were truly impressive.

Interesting that someone would interpret the words "master digital printers" as Epson, Cannon, and HP. I guess something was lost in the translation.

[r.e.]

Interesting that someone would interpret the words "master digital printers" as Epson, Cannon, and HP. I guess something was lost in the translation.

What got lost was your manners. You may disagree with what was said, but writing it off to an alleged inability of the person who posted to express himself in English is both patronizing and insulting.

In fact, he expressed a view that is perfectly understandable. Maybe you should have ended your post at the point where you described yourself as an "old geezer".

The underlying point of what Carioca was saying is that anyone with a computer and a copy of Photoshop has a darkroom - indeed, a darkroom greatly expanded in terms of the ability to manipulate images. That is a reality of major significance.

[Brian Ellis]

I'd consider George deWolfe a master b&w digital printer. About 9 years ago I was photographing with a friend in Maine who knew George and we happened to bump into him on the street in Bar Harbor. George had a few of his b&w prints in his car and showed them to us. Their quality just knocked me out and it was that experience that caused me to try scanning and printing digitally, shortly after which I abandonded the darkroom for good. I later took a one week course from George at the Palm Beach Photographic Workshops that was invaluable. I haven't seen or heard from or of him lately but I know he's recently written a book on b&w digital printing so I'm sure he's still active.

[Carioca]

Hi Merg,

Check out the work of Charles Cramer and John Paul Caponigro.

I would classify them as master printers in the digital world.

I don't know if he prints them himself, but Jay Dussard has reprinted his 8X10 negatives into large digital prints. They certainly look masterful.

Our "old geezers" camera club paid a visit to the Afterimage Gallery, here in Dallas, this morning. We were surprised to see large pigment ink prints of Rob Kendrick's tintypes. Don't know if he printed them himself, but they were truly impressive.

Interesting that someone would interpret the words "master digital printers" as Epson, Cannon, and HP. I guess something was lost in the translation.

As you state correctly, words are just words, the interpretation or 'translation', being purely subjective.
I know Rob Kendrick's tintype work, and I admire him for his work.
He is a master of his skill.
If you are talking about impressive pigment ink prints of his work, I'm afraid you won't have any words left, once you see the original tintype plates.

By the way, I'm not french, so please excuse my misinterpretation.

Kind regards,

Sidney Kapuskar

[Gem Singer]

Chill out, r.e.

My remark was meant to be humorous, not demeaning or insulting.

Never remember to include those smiling faces in my posts.

[Carioca]

Chill out, r.e.

My remark was meant to be humorous, not demeaning or insulting.

Never remember to include those smiling faces in my posts.

A 'masterful' reply!

[Brian Ellis]

I should also have mentioned Tyler Boley, who posts here occasionally, as a master b&w printer. Tyler is located in Seattle I believe. He photographs with a 5x7 camera, scans, and prints digitally. He was featured in Issue #69 of LensWork Extended so you could see his work there.

[r.e.]

My remark was meant to be humorous...

Cool.

[Bruce Watson]

We often hear reference to master printers when the subject of silver printing is discussed. The names are familiar; Adams, Weston, Caponigro, Sexton, Smith, et al.

I was curious to know who are considered to be master digital printers, in black and white. Is it simply a case of personal preference, or are there some that shine above others?

You are absolutely right. Some do shine above the others. For B&W, Tyler Boley in Seattle has to be right at the top of the list. His prints are scary good. Amadou Diallo in NYC. John Dean in Atlanta.

Jon Cone of course has been one of the prime innovators and has been making both master prints (he has printed some for Avedon just as a single example), and in making masterful inks. He made his first commercially successful grayscale inks for IRIS printers. His latest grayscale inks for Epson printers are still the state-of-the-art.

George DeWolfe can make a B&W inkjet print sing.

Kirk Gittings, one of our moderators on this forum, has quite a reputation both as a photographer and a printer, both darkroom and inkjet.

These are my top six. All six are forces to be reckoned with in B&W inkjet printing.

[r.e.]

How cool.

As a result of this little imbroglio, Sydney and I have wound up exchanging messages, the result of which is that he used to work in Paris about two blocks from where I used to live.

I'll say this. He has good taste in arrondissements :) And equally importantly, it turns out that we know some people in common in the hood, especially the people at the recently closed Imaginoir. This thread has turned into a fortuitous connection for me, pretty neat.

[Kirk Gittings]

Thanks for the votes Bruce and David. I try hard and have had some success with ink prints both in terms of sales and exhibitions. Beyond George DeWolf, Chris Jordon and Alan Labb I haven't seen allot of good digital prints first hand. Who would I dearly like to see? Tyler Boley, JPC and Charles Cramer.

[David Karp]

I have not seen Charles Cramer's B&W digital work, but his color work is wonderful. I have seen some of it at the A.A. Gallery in Yosemite, and on display at the Yosemite Lodge.

[D. Bryant]

Mac Holbert and colleagues at Nash Editions are widely recognized, though I don't know how much of that is for the quality of their work and how much is recognition of their historical role as pioneers in the use of inkjet for photographs.

Both.

Don Bryant

[sanking]

I would add Dick Arentz to this list. He does wonderful work in pt/pd with digital negatives, many from fillm scans and some with digital capture. APUG would not consider his work analog (even though his final print is a wet-processed print, and Dick knows as much about film photography as anyone in the world), so I guess it must be digital?

I would also add Tod Gangler from Seattle, probably the master color carbon printers of all time. Tod prints almost exclusively from digital separations.


Sandy King

[David A. Goldfarb]

If we're considering alt-process printers using digital negs, I'd mention Keith Taylor, who has done some fantastic work for Cy DeCosse (and I presume others, including himself) in three-layer gum and pt/pd.

[Bill_1856]

Clyde Butcher. His digital prints are even more impressive than his tradtionals.

[vinny]

[QUOTE=Gem Singer;440322]Hi Merg,

Check out the work of Charles Cramer and John Paul Caponigro.

I would classify them as master printers in the digital world.

I don't know if he prints them himself, but Jay Dussard has reprinted his 8X10 negatives into large digital prints. They certainly look masterful.

I've seen a collection of Jay's large digital prints at the Mountain Light gallery in Bishop, CA. I don't know who printed them but I wouldn't use the word masterful. Okay would better describe them. I wasn't very impressed. Charles Cramer's work on the other hand is pretty damn good.

[Robert Brummitt]

Charles Cramer is my go to guy. His work is superb and he will offer ideas if you are in a fix.

[PViapiano]

If we're considering alt-process printers using digital negs, I'd mention Keith Taylor, who has done some fantastic work for Cy DeCosse (and I presume others, including himself) in three-layer gum and pt/pd.

Agreed...Keith Taylor is an amazing printer!

[PViapiano]

Richard Benson is often mentioned as the dean of photographers who have printed in ink, though I don't know how much he has done personally in inkjet as opposed to the various methods used for book production, where he is recognized as a master.

Mac Holbert and colleagues at Nash Editions are widely recognized, though I don't know how much of that is for the quality of their work and how much is recognition of their historical role as pioneers in the use of inkjet for photographs.

Benson's new book, The Printed Picture, is great, a survey of all the methods of printing a picture throughout history.

He devised a way of printing, in registration, multi-pass inkjet printing. I believe he did this for Irving Penn in his recent revival of the Flowers series.

There are a few podcasts out there of interviews with him.

[Michael Rosenberg]

Merg,

What a great question. I would also chime in on Tyler Bodie, he is extremely good.

I would also add to the list Roy Harrington.

Mike

[chris_4622]

I haven't seen many examples of digital prints in person. I did see a couple of Kirk's prints in Chicago and was impressed. I spent some time talking to him about his process and he is very generous about sharing what he knows.

To add something new to the discussion I'll put Richard Lohmann into the mix. But I haven't seen them in person.

[D. Bryant]

If we're considering alt-process printers using digital negs, I'd mention Keith Taylor, who has done some fantastic work for Cy DeCosse (and I presume others, including himself) in three-layer gum and pt/pd.

While I don't disagree with what you or Sandy wrote, I think a wet print made from a digital neg is a different digital dog than an ink jet print.

John Dean's name has been mentioned previously in this thread and since he is local to me I can positively say that his printing is excellent. And he owns the largest Rototrim I've ever seen. :)

But what I think is also important to note is that John, Tyler, and Kirk all have a background with traditional printing which I think aids their digital printing aesthetic.

Don Bryant

[Brian Ellis]

. . . But what I think is also important to note is that John, Tyler, and Kirk all have a background with traditional printing which I think aids their digital printing aesthetic.

Don Bryant

Great point. I've always thought that a traditional darkroom background is a huge advantage when printing digitally. I think the traditional background helps you know what you want the print to look like. I used to see students in a college-level digital course who had no darkroom experience spend hours fiddling around in Photoshop with one photoraph. They didn't know when to stop because they had all these tools at their disposal but didn't know what they wanted in the print.

[aphexafx]

Great point. I've always thought that a traditional darkroom background is a huge advantage when printing digitally. I think the traditional background helps you know what you want the print to look like. I used to see students in a college-level digital course who had no darkroom experience spend hours fiddling around in Photoshop with one photoraph. They didn't know when to stop because they had all these tools at their disposal but didn't know what they wanted in the print.

This is very true, which is why it is important to "previsualize" what you want from your prints before attacking your imagery with Photoshop. Many students just jump in and see what they can get, and that is not a very productive approach. If you have some idea of a goal it is easier to get there on screen, and then the matter comes down to getting there in your prints - but at least you know where you're going.

Darkroom experience is definitely a huge advantage.

[sanking]

That is true, but then carbon, vandyke, kallitype and pt/pd prints made from digital negatives are also different digital dogs. What they have in common with inkjet prints is that there is a digital file that allows extensive controls.

The digital negative allows corrections of the tonal scale to produce linear results, unlike the curve and toe that one sees in prints made from in-camera negatives. The result is that prints made from digital negatives have a very different "look" than prints made with in-camera negatives, a look that in its arrangement of tonal values has more in common with an inkjet print that a print made in the darkroom by contact printing with an in-camera negative.

Sandy King








While I don't disagree with what you or Sandy wrote, I think a wet print made from a digital neg is a different digital dog than an ink jet print.

Don Bryant

[Brian Vuillemenot]

Charles Cramer and Joe Holmes

[Nathan Potter]

I think I have a different take on Mergs question. High quality digital printing is so new that there is yet to be any consensus about master printers within the short historical period of say 15 years.

If we were to restrict ourselves to only printing technique and exclude the issue of subject matter and attendant innovation in the image then some of the contenders have certainly been mentioned. Charles Cramer and Tyler Boley come to mind immediately as pushing the bounds of print quality and others mentioned are right up there also. But I think it to be impossible to select only several from a field in its' infancy. We have yet to have a very well defined historical context.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

[aphexafx]

Me. I'm just not quite there yet. Stay tuned. hehe

(completely joking, just in case anyone misinterprets...)

[Jim Fitzgerald]

Merg, come on over to Yosemite on the 27th for the opening of the Yosemite Renaissance. Charles Cramer has a piece in the exhibit along with myself and several other fine artists. Starts at 5:30 pm.

Jim

[Kirk Gittings]

But what I think is also important to note is that John, Tyler, and Kirk all have a background with traditional printing which I think aids their digital printing aesthetic.

Don Bryant

For myself, I agree. Knowing what I wanted in a print and what I could already achieve with a silver print made me push the envelope a bit of ink prints. I wasted allot of ink and paper before I was satisfied with an ink print.

[c.carlson]

My name is Craig Carlson, craigcarlson.net, and I began studying digital printing over ten years ago with a company which had an Iris Printer. Since then I have spent ten of thousands of dollars on printers, custom inks, calibration pucks, Studio Print software, private workshops and seminars. And for about a year, Nash editions printed Iris prints for me before they retired their Iris printer. Iris prints are most beautiful objects ever made of ink and paper, but at $100,000 per Iris printer, and parts costing in the thousands, it was not reasonable to expect that to continue.
I review digital book proposals and do technical editing for Focal Press Publishers. I have spent over 30 years teaching photography and currently teach photography in the School of Art, Design and Art History at San Diego State University. So with all that experience I thought I would tell you what I have learned about digital printing in the last ten years and what a Master is.
A silver print in the darkroom is an apple, and a hextone carbon pigment digital print is an orange. Stop the nonsense about how an image looks printed in the darkroom and how it might look as a digital print. There is no comparison in image making when you can have complete control over every step as in digital imaging. With that behind us, let me tell you the truth about who are the Masters when putting ink to paper.
If you send your disk off to be printed by a Master and expect magic to appear in your prints, you are being swept up in marketing. Most likely Espon marketing.
Please: Meet the Master and ask him what he thinks about photography! If the Master has passion about image making and can hold a conversation about it and you see his cameras, film holders and books laying about, you can probably bet the first thing he thinks about when his head lifts off the pillow in the morning is photography. You also might want to check the walls and see if the images in the frames is what you think photography is about.
Please: Photography is what digital printing is about. Not printers, inks and the rest. What Master printers do is to extend their personal vision of the world as photographers, first, then they make their prints, and then they might have time to teach you something about printing and maybe make a print for you for a few bucks. Pay the mortgage, buy some food.
Who am I talking about? I know three people who I believe are passionate photographers and by the way are also Master printers.
(1) Tom Mallonee of the Owen Valley Imaging <http://www.ovimaging.com/index.html> When Nash Editions got rid of their Iris printer, they sent me a test print of one of my files printed on a Espon. I knew then that I would have to become a student of digital printing and work with Tom in multiple workshops in his beautiful studio in Bishop California. This man has 16" trout swimming in his backyard. Ok, back to why Tom is as good a printer as a photographer. You can catch his stuff at the Ansel Adams gallery in Yosemite Valley. Tom got Studio Print (very expensive RIP) to add an ink channel to their software and then for the last eight years or so has been spent thousands of dollars on mixing the most beautiful hextone ink sets in the Universe. He also has torn every Espon printer he has owned down to the carriage screws to get it to work they way he wants it to work.
(2) Lenny Eiger of Eiger Studios <http://www.eigerphoto.com> Lenny is a romantic soul who thinks things have to be perfect. You should see his prints in his studio in Petaluma, California. Ok, so they are perfect and interesting images! Lenny has enough passion for everyone that reads this post. He does all my high resolution scans from my 5x7" negatives with his Aztec Premier Scanner. He also prints all of my large 38" prints. I go to him with files already to print and proofed. Since he understands what photography is about, he can make slight suggestions which at first don’t seem important, but after you stand back and look, and look, you can see how he understood what you were trying to do. I had this one image of the Nicasio Reservoir near Point Reyes Station. He made a small suggestion, so subtle, it was difficult to see in the end, but it did help the image, just a small curve in an adjustment layer, seen by somebody that understands tone, and it worked.
(3) Tyler Boley <http://www.custom-digital.com> I attended Tyler’s workshop up in Berkley last year. I got there six hours before the workshop started, my mistake. We went to lunch together and we started to talk about photography and that’s why he’s on my list. If Tom Mallonee spends is life mixing inks, then Tyler is spending is life working on inks, dots, quad rips and every paper including bamboo. Tyler’s studio and images are from the Northwest and they are passionate landscapes printed perfectly on some papers I would not consider a landscape would work on, but they do for him.
Whew, I am glad I was able to get my last ten years of digital printing experiences on to paper for you to think about. Craig

[Peter Langham]

I attended Tyler's workshop in Berkeley with Craig. I have seen many prints by many printers, including a wide variey at the workshop, and for me, Tyler is the man. His prints are drop dead gorgeous! I have seen prints by many of the people mentioned in this thread and all are outstanding, but for black and white, no one tops Tyler. By the way, Craig's prints were outstanding as well.

Peter

[Eric Woodbury]

http://www.huntingtonwitherill.com/

Hunter's prints are amazing, whether digi or silver. None better.

[Nathan Potter]

http://www.huntingtonwitherill.com/

Hunter's prints are amazing, whether digi or silver. None better.

Never heard of this individual.

One hates to comment on print quality from only a web image but this guys images have an impressive luminous quality from critical manipulation of scene brightness, not to mention a real focus on composition. I'd sure like to see some originals.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.:)

[Eric Biggerstaff]

Hey Merg,

Hope all is going great for you these days! Digitial printing and the equipment used changes so rapidly it can be sort of tough to figure out who is the best printer and what is the best equipment, at least it is for me.

I am not a big digital guy as you know but of the digital printers out there whose work I have seen and admire, I would say that Tom Mallonee, George DeWolf and Hunt Witherill are the top of the black and white list. Of those working in color landscape, the only one whose work I admire at the moment is Charles Cramer. There are of course several excellent color photographers and printers, but his seem to standout for me more than others.

All of these individuals are not only very solid printers, but they are excellent photographers as well.

[Tim Povlick]

<SNIP>
(2) Lenny Eiger of Eiger Studios <http://www.eigerphoto.com> Lenny is a romantic soul who thinks things have to be perfect. You should see his prints in his studio in

I'm with Craig, Lenny has done some prints for me, fixing the submitted files to improve the results. The prints have been excellent. An astro-image in B&W was an exceptional result.

Regards,

Tim

[robert lyons]

Tod Gangler, "the master carbon printer" in the world and an amazing inkjet printer as well
Richard Benson, an amazing printer in any ink on paper form....doing multiple pass inkjet prints...recently showed at Pace /Macgill Gallery in NYC
Tyler Boley in Seattle
Gabe Greenberg in NYC
andf of course Pascal Danjin.......

[Aled Hughes]

Hi, I have just returned from New York, the prints from Richard Bensons new book are on show at MOMA, well worth a visit if your in town. However the best show and prints (digital)? I have ever seen was Sugimoto 7 days / 7 nights at Gagosian, Chelsea. Anyone have any idea who prints for Sugimoto?

www.gagosian.com/exhibitions/2008-11-06/

[Bill_1856]

If one can make beautiful 8x10 B&W prints in a wet darkroom, he can easily make beautiful 16x20s, just by buying some bigger trays, an easel, and a box of 16x20 paper. Same cheap chemicals. The net cost will be about 4 times per print.
If one can make beautiful 8.5x11 inkjet prints, in order to make beautiful 16x20 inkjet prints he will have to buy a hugely expensive wide-carrrage printer, and unless it is used frequently the per print cost escillates astronomically, as well as trying to keep the ink heads clean. This is not practical for most non-professional photographers.
The only answer is to find someone who does it for a living, and outsource the digital files to him for anything larger than 8.5x11. That is my reason for following this thread. And frankly, it hasn't been much help so far.

[D. Bryant]

and unless it is used frequently the per print cost escillates astronomically, as well as trying to keep the ink heads clean. This is not practical for most non-professional photographers.

Is your opinion based on real world experience or just what you may have read on the internet?

Don Bryant

[Marko]

If one can make beautiful 8x10 B&W prints in a wet darkroom, he can easily make beautiful 16x20s, just by buying some bigger trays, an easel, and a box of 16x20 paper. Same cheap chemicals. The net cost will be about 4 times per print.
If one can make beautiful 8.5x11 inkjet prints, in order to make beautiful 16x20 inkjet prints he will have to buy a hugely expensive wide-carrrage printer, and unless it is used frequently the per print cost escillates astronomically, as well as trying to keep the ink heads clean. This is not practical for most non-professional photographers.

I wonder how practical setting up a proper wet darkroom could be for a non-professional - aka amateur - photographer. Or could it be practical, not to mention economical, at all?

The last time I checked, the cheapest 4x5 enlarger over at Freestyle had a $2500 figure attached to it. That's sans the lens, easel, timer, trays, chemicals, safelights, dryers and a host of other small and not so small supporting items that one needs to buy in order for one to make any prints in a wet darkroom.

And then there's the cost of space that needs to be set aside for such a purpose. I don't know about you, but here where I live, bust and all, real estate still costs a pretty penny per square foot and wet darkroom takes much more space than a printer, even a large one.

But that is all rather irrelevant - the specific point of this thread is to discuss people who have mastered digital printing, for whatever reason or interest one might have.

What's your point?

[eddie]

not sure if you can consider this digital printing but a fellow photo club member Dan Burkholder.

he makes digital negs and prints them with various processes.

i have seen many of his prints. awesome!

[richfrank]

Lenny Eiger has made some outstanding big prints for me. I just mailed him two more negatives to scan and print - I can't wait to see the prints.
Rich

[al olson]

Marko, I understand Bill's point. In fact I have similar problems with my 13" wide carriage printer that I use infrequently. It seems that on those occasions when I wish to print an image, the printer goes through its head cleaning gyrations and by the time it is finished there is at least one cartridge that needs to be replaced (at around $11 per).

Two days ago the yellow cartridge status was half full. By the time the cleaning was finished the cartridge was empty. This is what Bill means about the costs escalating with infrequent use. He is suggesting that it may be more economical to engage an expert to make the few 16x20 prints that he would need. I would agree.

Bill, I have seen Lenny Eiger's name mentioned several times in this thread by his satisfied customers. I can also recommend Tim Sutherland who just moved his gallery/studio to Taos. He is a superb printer. His customers have been winning awards. Sorry that I cannot give more details on how to contact him, but a Google might provide information.

Cheers,

[Bill_1856]

Thanks, Al.

[Marko]

Marko, I understand Bill's point. In fact I have similar problems with my 13" wide carriage printer that I use infrequently. It seems that on those occasions when I wish to print an image, the printer goes through its head cleaning gyrations and by the time it is finished there is at least one cartridge that needs to be replaced (at around $11 per).

Two days ago the yellow cartridge status was half full. By the time the cleaning was finished the cartridge was empty. This is what Bill means about the costs escalating with infrequent use. He is suggesting that it may be more economical to engage an expert to make the few 16x20 prints that he would need. I would agree.

Hi Al,

Oh, I absolutely agree with that point. What I was arguing was his assertion that it would be cheaper and better done in a wet darkroom.

My point was that making fine quality large prints in a wet darkroom is equally economically prohibitive as with a wide-carriage ink-jet if done infrequently, maybe even more so. If nothing else, then simply because of the cost of dedicated space that a wet darkroom commands.

My other point was that such a dismissive and simplistic comparison was out of place in this thread.

[Brian Vuillemenot]

If one can make beautiful 8x10 B&W prints in a wet darkroom, he can easily make beautiful 16x20s, just by buying some bigger trays, an easel, and a box of 16x20 paper. Same cheap chemicals. The net cost will be about 4 times per print.
If one can make beautiful 8.5x11 inkjet prints, in order to make beautiful 16x20 inkjet prints he will have to buy a hugely expensive wide-carrrage printer, and unless it is used frequently the per print cost escillates astronomically, as well as trying to keep the ink heads clean. This is not practical for most non-professional photographers.


What?!? It's just as easy to make 16X20s on my Epson 3800 as it is to make 8X10s. As far as "hugely expensive", it cost just over a grand, half of which was the cost of the 9 ink carts. Compared to outsourcing, it paid for itself after about 20 prints. Never had any problem keeping the head clean.

[Merg Ross]

Thank you to all who have replied to my query.

I am now aware of a few practitoners unfamiliar to me, and will attempt to find physical examples of their work.

Some of those mentioned, I am familiar with and have seen the fruits of their labor.

For those who read my original post, black and white imagery was the subject of my interest, not color, nor the intricacies of process. Quite simply, I was interested in viewing the best current examples of photographic images resulting from the refinements of digital presentation.

[Herb Cunningham]

Ok, just to make sure I read all these posts correctly- I gather that digital prints, whether from digital or scanned film inputs, are visually different from silver.

If this is NOT so, somebody tell me a good place to go see such.
I have looked at a few b/w digital prints, and they don't look the same. Not worse or better, just different.

Am I right??

[Lenny Eiger]

Ok, just to make sure I read all these posts correctly- I gather that digital prints, whether from digital or scanned film inputs, are visually different from silver.

If this is NOT so, somebody tell me a good place to go see such.
I have looked at a few b/w digital prints, and they don't look the same. Not worse or better, just different.

Am I right??

You are correct, mostly. However, I will add that the major paper manufacturers have gotten better and better at simulating a darkroom print. There are new luster surfaces that look a lot like a matte surface darkroom print. The latest have a baryta coating.

One could argue that the chromira, lambda, etc. glossy prints are very close to a darkroom print, just exposed differently.

I think many folks wouldn't know the difference... without looking close up. Then there are the tonalities and that depends on how people like to print...

A lof of it depends on what you mean by looks like a darkroom print...

I prefer the inkjet paper surfaces much better myself. They are beautiful....

Of course, if they look different, for that matter so do platinum prints, carbon, albumen and the like. Everyone seems to be ok with those... I think some people get upset at digital printing because they think its easy. This couldn't be farther from the truth.

Lenny

[Marko]

I think some people get upset at digital printing because they think its easy. This couldn't be farther from the truth.

Lenny

It's like with any craft - those who think it's easy have either mastered it or they haven't a clue. Or they're afraid it's going to put them out of business...

In this case, it's saying a lot for the craft that's been around barely 10 years or so.

[caleb]

for those interested in seeing what can be done with ink jet prints check this out.

http://www.podnova.com/channel/25428/episode/23/

Richard Benson is doing some amazing things with epson printers. I have seen the prints in person and they are really really great.

this link works better...
http://www.mulita.com/blog/?p=18

[Lenny Eiger]

for those interested in seeing what can be done with ink jet prints check this out.

http://www.podnova.com/channel/25428/episode/23/

Richard Benson is doing some amazing things with epson printers. I have seen the prints in person and they are really really great.

http://www.mulita.com/blog/?p=18

Benson has been one of my printing heroes over the years. I was in a show with him at the Springfield Museum called Contemporary Platinum. I thought his platinum prints were exquisite and what he did with gravure was truly amazing.

What he did with inkjet I don't find as impressive. I also saw a show of Jay Maisel's work at MacWorld, done on either a Canon or HP, don't remember which, that were really not what they could have been in my opinion. They looked waxy (there's a technical term for ya').

There are ways to use the tools that we have been given to create quite amazing prints. There are many examples in b&w and color, that don't require registration and reprinting. I do agree that color management is a black art. There are better RIP's than ImagePrint and after seeing the interview what I think Richard should have done is reach out to some color mgmt experts rather than try and remake the machine. Epson isn't likely to produce what he came up with so it leaves a lot of folks out of the picture. I do know others that have created registration systems but I don't think its really necessary to get a buildup of ink. With my printer, if I set the controls right I can put enough ink on the page to get puddles of ink dripping all over...

Just because one can doesn't mean they should....

Lenny

[Lee Hamiel]

Clyde Butcher. His digital prints are even more impressive than his tradtionals.

Ditto Bill

My son & I were at his studio while he was printing a large digital print & I was quite impressed + Clyde seemed to be having a lot of fun with the whole process. A whole lot easier than going to the 5'x7' trays although they still do wet printing as well.

These were B&W prints Merg - Not sure if you're looking for someone to print for you or examples of good work which these were.

Regards