wet darkroom vs. inkjet [Archive] - Large Format Photography Forum

Brent Jensen

27-Aug-2010, 12:14

Martin Miller

27-Aug-2010, 12:29

Yes.

Nathan Potter

27-Aug-2010, 13:05

Brent, as you suggest take a critical look at the best of both wet and inkjet prints to discern what is achievable; then understand that the great skill and craftmanship displayed in those prints took some number of years with sweat to make it happen.

I'm happy doing both wet and inkjet work.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

cyrus

27-Aug-2010, 13:14

but in the end it’s the quality of the print that matters.

Define quality. I would argue that a "wet print" has an inherent quality of being a wet print that sets it apart from a digital print (apart, not superior) Similarly, an oil painting would be distinct from a genuine reproduction of an oil painting created by computer. Both would no doubt take a great deal of toil and effort to create, but they're not the same just because they may end up looking the same.

Gem Singer

27-Aug-2010, 13:24

I use the combination of Epson V750 scanner and 3880 printer.

After wet printing in a darkroom for more than 60 years, I can honestly say that the 16x20 inkjet prints I am producing are more pleasing to my eye than any of my 16x20 wet prints.

I know that's not saying much for my darkroom skills.

It was a steep learning curve, but learning to use Photoshop has enabled me to make corrections and improvements that were difficult (or impossible) to do in the darkroom.

Steve Sherman

27-Aug-2010, 15:39

I can honestly say that the 16x20 inkjet prints I am producing are more pleasing to my eye than any of my 16x20 wet prints.

May I suggest some new glasses, (tongue firmly in cheek)

Cheers

Gem Singer

27-Aug-2010, 16:10

Steve,

I don't wear glasses (perhaps that's the problem).

Drew Wiley

27-Aug-2010, 16:25

Both methods are acquired skills, but unless you need to make special enlarged negatives for carbon or platinum printing, it is extraordinarily difficult to match a good
darkroom print digitally - in other words, generally, no, no,no. Tonality suffers, detail
suffers, just ain't the real deal. Large format films are better than ever, paper is better
than ever before, serious darkroom equipment is cheap. But I guess it all depends if
you prefers a hands-on craft or sitting on your ass punching buttons (which I'm obviously doing now, but never when printing). Of course, all sorts of folks will immediately pounce on me because I've invaded a digital thread, but I've yet to see
the work of anyone shy of serious prepress equipment in the seven-figure range who
can control an inkjet like an ordinary silver gelatin darkroom print made with a few
hundred bucks of investment.

vinny

27-Aug-2010, 16:47

Ken Lee

27-Aug-2010, 17:16

"...in the end it’s the quality of the print that matters. Will the inkjet route produce prints of equal tonal scale and subtle gradation? "

Yes.

Are "equal tonal scale and subtle gradation" the only important criteria ?

No.

"Seeing them might be a helpful."

If you tell us where you live, perhaps someone can show you some prints of either kind, or point you to a location where they can be seen.

Gem Singer

27-Aug-2010, 17:50

There are people on this planet who prefer to travel unpaved country roads in an open buggy being pulled by a horse. They ignore the heat, dust, and bumps in the road. They have learned to tolerate the slow pace, the smell of horse manure, and the clip-clopping sound of the horse's hoofs.

Personally, I prefer to travel faster on a smooth paved expressway in a comfortable air conditioned automobile listening to my favorite music.

I no longer enjoy spending hours in an uncomfortable darkroom while attempting to produce an outstanding wet print of an uninteresting subject.

AJ Edmondson

27-Aug-2010, 18:00

Gem Singer

27-Aug-2010, 18:27

Ken,

The OP stated that he lives in Oakland, CA.

I have seen inkjet prints hanging on gallery walls next to wet prints (not from the same negative, however).

After questioning a few gallery owners, I learned that their average photo buyer doesn't care whether a print is an inkjet print or a darkroom wet print.

The client's main concern is that the print accurately depicts interesting subject matter.

Peter De Smidt

27-Aug-2010, 18:48

Be careful in making comparisons. In my community, the only public gallery space is in the public library. It's a pretty nice space. That said, I've never seen first rate work there. Jpeg artifacts, poor color correction, sloppy sharpening... With a standard negative, it's easier to get a good darkroom print, a print that doesn't have any obvious technical flaws, than an inkjet print. With people with good skills, though, the quality is comparable.

Greg Miller

27-Aug-2010, 19:56

Regardless of the ultimate potential "quality" of either medium, it will really boil down to your own skills. Each medium has a very different process involved with making a print (and making a really good print). Which medium will suit your attributes and temperament better? Perhaps you can already tell based on if your really love/hate being in a darkrooom or sitting in front of a computer. Going with a medium/process that you will actually enjoy and spend time improving your skills at will ultimately be the medium that yields the best quality prints for YOU.

Steve Sherman

27-Aug-2010, 19:58

I usually stay out of discussions of this type because of the "subjective" nature of of the topic and because there is indeed a need for both approaches but... in this instance I will throw in my "two-cents." Bear in mind that I printed in the traditional darkroom for fifty+ years and I am sure that colors my response. FOR ME - the digital/inkjet approach just doesn't equal the "traditional" results. I would be hard pressed to try to quantify or even accurately describe the difference but the photographs I produce from my Epson 3880 (and 750 scanner) just can't compare to the prints from the darkroom! I decided a couple of years ago that I would "go digital" since - upon retirement - everything was "just for fun." I actually regret the decision and am glad I kept my 4x5 cameras and enlarger. I realize that everyone doesn't share this opinion, and that is fine. It may well be that others don't see the same degree of distinction.

Have to agree about the subjective part, so that immediately eliminates that anyone of us will be right or wrong with our respective spin.

Here's mine, when one has the talent / skill to consistently produce prints of the highest technical standard whether it be with the traditional wet process or the digital generated media currently available, why would one abandoned their area of expertise only to climb a new mountain which will certainly take years when the mountain you've already conquered merely provides a means to display and share your thoughts and interests, in short the art you make which is in the end all that matters!

Certainly the road we all started out on was quite bumpy with numerous pot holes and likely seemed like a ride in a horse drawn buggy, in fact that sounds exactly how I feel when I open Photoshop. Conversely, my ride through the wet process is quite streamline with hardly a desire for a new car and most of all is still rewarding.

2 cents

jeroldharter

27-Aug-2010, 22:08

I think most of us have pondered the same issue. If I were starting from scratch and had no love affair with darkroom work I would go the digital route, not expecting better quality, just a more user friendly process in line with the trends of the times. If you don't enjoy darkroom work, I doubt you would become a good printer anyway. I consider myself a decent printer so I bought some digital prints from the Lenswork portfolios to see what I was missing. They were very nice but the prints looked like they were snipped out of a magazine. Nothing wrong with that but not what I was after. I did not find it compelling. Another time, I went to a local exhibit that featured Clyde Butcher prints (wet darkroom) in one area and some color, digital, panorama photos in another area. The digital stuff was very good, but the prints looked like third world postage stamps compared with the Butcher prints.

I am an amateur and don't try to make any money doing this. If I were a pro, I would go digital because everyone else is and it is faster most of the time. And I would probably not do large format work either. So for me, I like darkroom work, I like the aesthetics of a wet print, I don't mind the expense or the time, so I choose the darkroom.

Bill Burk

27-Aug-2010, 22:37

As a printer I picked up the habit of judging every print I see by how close I can get to it before I see the halftone dots. For the average decor poster, it only takes a few seconds for me to see the halftones. With good inkjets I have to get pretty close to see the dithers. I understand there are some very nice multi-black inkjets out there that I haven't had the pleasure to see yet.
Now I judge prints by eyeball to paper, and if its in my possession under a 30x microscope. My own best prints fall short of my ideal because they are enlargements from 4x5 to 11x14. I see the detail breaking apart under microscope, though I cannot see it breaking up with the naked eye. To this standard, the 8x10 contact print is the quality to beat.
This is not a practical measure of quality. In the real world, a print might be expected to stand up to judgment at a normal viewing distance, followed by a casual step forward for momentary close examination. An average inkjet will reveal its true nature, but based on the comments on this forum I believe the best inkjets today will pass that exam.
I'll still make enlargements photographically, but I won't disparage inkjets - except those that I can tell by naked eye.

jim kitchen

28-Aug-2010, 01:16

Dear Brent,

I can tell you that I gave up the darkroom a few years ago, to produce images that are digitally produced with my scanned 8X10 black and white negatives, after I have my images scanned with a drum scanner and, or the simple Epson 750, and I have never looked back at all to the wet darkroom.

That said, I use Cone inks printed by Jon Cone directly for clients that prefer a muted but excellent black and white matte image, Epson K3 inks from a local quality master printer combined with the quality ImagePrint RIP for clients that not adverse to this coloured ink set, and I will always use Elevator Digital exclusively going forward for my silver halide images produced from my digital negatives, while Bob uses his Durst digital enlarger. Bob Carnie emphatically proved to me that he is more than capable of producing an outstanding quality silver print with my digital negative, and although he seems to be more critical than I am when it comes to my finished images, he happens to share the same passion that I do, whereto I am glad that I have found someone like him that can produce a quality image for my clients.

If you are like I am, the hardest thing I ever did was give up my darkroom because of my son's allergies, and let someone else print my finished image. I cry every time I cannot be in the darkroom, because it seems like I lose a limb in an horrific accident for each image that I cannot touch in the Dektol or the Selectol Soft. You have many quality options at your disposal, and if you need help with any digital silver halide imaging question, I would discuss this with Bob Carnie directly. His finesse, his knowledge, and his silver printing equipment are superlative.

My 24X30 inch images have too much detail... :)

jim k

Ken Lee

28-Aug-2010, 03:52

Tonality, dynamic range, image color, paper color, paper surface can all be matched or exceeded by inkjet printing. That's old news.

Detail and resolution are a function of enlargement. As Jim said, his 3x enlargements from 8x10 are plenty sharp. Even a modest scanner can handle that. Most of us can say the same about 3x enlargements from 4x5 and 2x from 5x7. In fact, they appear sharper than darkroom enlargements, because of digital sharpening. The number of people who will examine a photograph with a loupe, is very small. For viewing purposes, inkjet artifacts are invisible, especially on paper with a discernable texture.

To me, the main issue is longevity: fading and archival permanence. For permanence, it's best to avoid Silver paper in the first place, and go with the so-called "alternative" processes, like Platinum, Palladium, Carbon: those prints will last as long as the paper holds together. Given the current levels of investment, inkjet print longevity will only increase.

BetterSense

28-Aug-2010, 05:40

Define quality. I would argue that a "wet print" has an inherent quality of being a wet print that sets it apart from a digital print

I agree, and now that digital printing has advanced in technical capability to where it is no longer at a significant disadvantage, the choice between the two media can be made on more fundamental, rather than superficial grounds. As for myself, I decided a long time ago that I don't do computer graphics; I do photography. I don't make make computer printouts, I make photographs. Digital imaging does not interest me. It's an artistic choice, not a technical one, and so nobody can really help you choose.

Wayne Crider

28-Aug-2010, 07:26

If I were working full time to produce prints or files for sale I would probably go digital, especially if it were for color prints. You might have experience(?) already in working digitally and in Photoshop. If not, then be aware of the costs, time/learning curve for your photographic requirements. Personally I would actually go Jim's route in this case. Also be reminded of the constant computer/software/operating system upgrade costs; You may already. Digital outlay doesn't seem to stop.
Overall I enjoy shooting more then computer digital work, and my lower back aches after an hour in front of the screen.
For b&w and depending on format, I think anything above 5x7, especially 8x10 and 4x10 etc, would be nice as contacts. Simple, fast, don't need an over-the-top darkroom.

This btw was an interesting read. Interesting perspective although a little dated.
http://visualsciencelab.blogspot.com/2009/04/everything-old-is-new-againphotography.html

bob carnie

28-Aug-2010, 07:34

Wow Jim, thanks a bunch for the kind words, It should be pointed out that the prints Jim provided me were exceptional black and white prints , and I could not match the quality in areas , with my process.
IMO some people would prefer the fibre prints and others would prefer the ink. What Jim did not say was it took me 6 months to finish his order as I had a really hard time trying to match in quality what he provided. I felt I came short, but with time and more attempts with his files I would have more confidence. Same thing happened when Ralph Baker sent me some 8x10 negs to print , I felt totally out of my element because I could not see their eyes or follow their body language when they picked up their prints.
So please do not as Jim suggests send me files to test, the lunch bag let down is too scary for me to handle.
We were the first shop in the Galaxy producing Lambda wet Fibre prints, years before the Johnny come lately's in London, Paris and New York. I still feel that I cannot make this paper sing, as well as a wet enlarger print. It has a different pallette that I still have to massage each and every time. Because there are not a lot of operators using this process, and we do compete , there has been little or no back and forth with this process, and basically I am on my own, to make mistakes and learn the ropes. really sucks.
We are really hoping a University includes this wet process in their programs. This would put the process in young hands and allow for incredible variety.

from Kens Post* I totally agree with this*
To me, the main issue is longevity: fading and archival permanence. For permanence, it's best to avoid Silver paper in the first place, and go with the so-called "alternative" processes, like Platinum, Palladium, Carbon: those prints will last as long as the paper holds together.

I am moving in this direction, specifically Carbon and multiple colour gum for this very reason.
One only has to follow Sandy King and Keith Carter to see this is the way.

From Steves Post-
Have to agree about the subjective part, so that immediately eliminates that anyone of us will be right or wrong with our respective spin.
Here's mine, when one has the talent / skill to consistently produce prints of the highest technical standard whether it be with the traditional wet process or the digital generated media currently available, why would one abandoned their area of expertise only to climb a new mountain which will certainly take years when the mountain you've already conquered merely provides a means to display and share your thoughts and interests, in short the art you make which is in the end all that matters!

I currently print for others , 15 years ago I was quite happy making my silver prints and multiple masked cibachromes on enlarger.
Then came the dreaded digital capture and ink jets... curse the bastards.
Over night *5 years* lost all my enlarger, film process , Cibachrome business.
50 years old and completely at a loss , luckily we regrouped, invested, and put my life on hold for 8 years and took on the digital curse. I cannot tell the hours it has taken me to learn PS , Lambda output, and as well capture back a clientelle we lost .
So we took the stance of trying everything, including inkjet, and today I can say that we are not obliged to say one process is better than the other, in fact what we look for is the intended purpose for our clients prints and suggest the process most likely to fill their needs.

To the OP questions about which is better.

We tested a negative *4x5* HP5 pyro developed, three ways,
Another printer I trust , came in and made a 30x40 Ilford MG4 print on my enlarger.
We scanned on our Imocan in 8 bit and 16bit , and then made 30x40 prints on Harmon AR Gloss Inkjet off our Cannon Printer.

We then showed these prints to a few large groups of photographers and asked them to tell us which print was which.
less than 3% of the audiences could without question determine what was a wet enlarger print and what was scanned and printed by ink. We showed this to over 200 photographers and every time no one could give us an exact answer with confidence.

All this tells me was , one, we got lucky picking a negative that worked well with both processes , and two , most people when pressed cannot tell the difference.

Another small note , I want to buy from Lenny Eiger a brand new, Aztek drum scanner, even though I have been happy with our Imocan and supplied Tango Scans. WHY???

Simply perception of equipment, and maybe in time I will be able to squeeze info out of originals that I cannot do with an Imocan. Will the average viewer be able to see the difference, I believe totally not, would an experienced eye be able to see the difference maybe yes / maybe no.
But from my veiwpoint I am trying to take out all the limitations of equipment , that will then allow a sale of a show go easier with certain clients , who do believe equipment is of great importance.
Same kind of thinking we have for the different processes.

Please once again, do not send me work, I would prefer to not to hear about the lunch bag letdown. You can visit and stay awhile , then its easier to make good work face to face.

peter ramm

28-Aug-2010, 07:42

Dear Brent,

I can tell you that I gave up the darkroom a few years ago, to produce images that are digitally produced with my scanned 8X10 black and white negatives, after I have my images scanned with a drum scanner and, or the simple Epson 750, and I have never looked back at all to the wet darkroom.

jim k

I am just starting to use 8 x 10 sheets after many years of digital imaging (nonphotographic). While I admire the skill needed to print photographs, I always did hate the dark room and I lack any sort of printing talent. I will scan and print digitally.

I will be interested to see for myself how the latest flat beds compare with drums for prints up to about 16 x 20.

Jim, I note you are in Calgary. Who does your drum scans in Canada? Without solid manufacturer's support I don't really want to go back to using that technology on my own. I am hoping the flat bed will be fine for all but the special images - should I ever succeed in making one.

The rest of this post is my opinionated mumble.

The critical difference between film and paper lies in the ways we accomodate to dynamic range compression. It is a cliche, but true. Film and paper are inherently nonlinear media. Digital images are inherently linear. That difference has a variety of psychophysical consequences that we see as the analog and digital "looks".

No particular mysteries there and I am confident one could tease out major factors underlying the two looks. No one bothers as, from what I can see, the science of not of interest to anyone. We simply print analog or digital without understanding what it is that discriminates the two. While probably in the digital camp, I am particularly happy to see that there remain skilled printers with a sense of history.

I guess I can look forward to developing a look that pleases me.

Ben Calwell

28-Aug-2010, 13:09

ic-racer

28-Aug-2010, 13:16

Drew,
I wish it were true that serious darkroom equipment is cheap. I just checked B&H's new enlarger section, where 4x5 enlargers are going for anywhere from $1600 and some change up to more than $2,500. Those prices are still out of my league.

You can get top of the line enlargers for free or pennies-on-the-dollar.

Even then, if those prices quoted above were for digital hardware (which will be obsolete in 5 minutes), no one would complain.

Lenny Eiger

28-Aug-2010, 13:17

What is often left out of these discussions is the fact that scanners can't record nearly as much of a negs detail as an enlarger paper, especially high contrast negs that weren't made with scanning in mind. Just my experience using epsons, drum scanners and enlargers. I have lots of negs that I'd love to make prints of but they've got either scratches, tons of dust, or blemishes. Scanners just can't get the high and low density details. Am I wrong?
That said I've seen some really nice prints made both ways but never two of the same neg side by side.

Yes, Vinny, you're wrong on this one... The tonal range of a silver print is a fraction of a scanners range (and inkjet print). They are matched closer to a platinum print, even longer than that.. as it were. I have made comparisons with the same print and it isn't pretty. But as someone else, that's old news..

Thankfully, everybody gets to do what they want...

Lenny

vinny

28-Aug-2010, 13:51

Yes, Vinny, you're wrong on this one... The tonal range of a silver print is a fraction of a scanners range (and inkjet print). They are matched closer to a platinum print, even longer than that.. as it were. I have made comparisons with the same print and it isn't pretty. But as someone else, that's old news..

Thankfully, everybody gets to do what they want...

Lenny

Lenny, I think you read me wrong. I'm talking about a scanners ability to capture detail vs. The enlargers ability to put that detail on paper.

Lenny Eiger

28-Aug-2010, 14:46

Lenny, I think you read me wrong. I'm talking about a scanners ability to capture detail vs. The enlargers ability to put that detail on paper.

When you talk about a contact print, its very hard to beat. However, if you talk about enlarging, you are going thru another lens and you are dispersing the light across the surface. Hopefully with a enlarger that's level... and a good neg, good paper and developers, proper washing, etc.

In a drum scanner, the tolerances are quite small. The sample apertures are measured in microns, and the photo multiplier tubes are so sensitive they can detect a few photons bouncing around in the black box. The enlarger (and silver paper) is no match for for a drum scanner in capturing shadow detail, or highlight detail, for that matter. A drum scanner is capable of exceptional sharpness, and getting everything off the neg that's there.

One also has to define what "detail" is. In most of these conversations we are talking about resolution. I find this interesting, but also annoying. I don't care about critical sharpness. Personally, I would rather have depth of field than critical sharpness. That's my bias. That said, I am more interesting in tonal reproduction. A platinum print, or a scanned neg and inkjet w/b&w inks, can reproduce more approximately double the tonal range that a silver print can. Silver negs are approx 1.0 in max density, while alternative process and scanned negs go to 1.8-2.0. This doubles the amount of tonal separation that's available to the process. It's the same scale, but there are more steps in between that are possible.

I value this tonal reproduction highly. I if ever stop printing with an inkjet - I wouldn't return to silver paper. I might go back to platinum, or to carbon and/or gravure... I have no interest in dissing silver prints, I have seen some amazing ones, even made some. However, the technical argument is really over, as Ken indicated. The truth is that some folks like the look and feel of silver prints and they should be happy to print in that medium, pull out everything it has to offer, etc. Inkjet with great inks is something different. Its close, and the aesthetics are quite similar in the way people look at them, but its just different. All the technical arguments fall apart when someone likes a certain look.... either way.

Lenny

Bill Burk

28-Aug-2010, 16:34

I meant to say, I first admire photographs for the uniqueness of the photographer's vision and then secondly I take a closer look at the print quality. I agree with Bob Carne on second read that you can get your best results sticking with the process that you have already spent a mountain of time learning. And admire him for striking out on a second climb.

paulr

28-Aug-2010, 16:49

I think my negative-size inkjets generally look better than my contact prints from the same negative, if you're talking purely about smooth tones and sense of detail and texture. I'll show anyone side by side examples if they're skeptical.

As far as the nature of the tonality, and which process best serves a given image ... this is purely subjective. For my work I find I prefer ink anywhere between half and three quarters of the time. Your mileage may vary. If you've honed your skills in the wet darkroom, expect a long learning curve before being able to get good results in ink. And vice versa.

You should ignore anyone who says the wet darkroom gives vastly superior (or inferior) results. The differences are subtle and mostly subjective.

There are other differences to consider. One is the working method you prefer. If photography for you is largely about process, then your love / hate for playing with chemicals in the dark might make the decision for you.

If you're selling your work, then the preferences of your market may be a factor. In most of the contemporary art world, collectors and dealers care very little about your process. But there are corners of the art world that are into traditional craftsmanship (and corners of it that are into avant garde processes that make ink jet seem old fashioned) so you should be aware of this.

jim kitchen

28-Aug-2010, 17:28

Jim, I note you are in Calgary. Who does your drum scans in Canada?

Dear Peter,

My drum scans are done by ABL Imaging in Calgary, http://www.ablimaging.ca/ by a very qualified operator named Rob, and his associate Keith. I believe they use a Howtek 7500, where they are quite reasonable with their file size costs, and they are very good with their customer service.

I do not have every negative scanned with a drum scanner, because my operating costs would be more than I could recover, but when I do need a quality scan with a very difficult shadow detail negative, that failed miserably in an Epson 750, Rob and Keith are my choice for recovery.

jim k

jim kitchen

28-Aug-2010, 17:41

To me, the main issue is longevity: fading and archival permanence. For permanence, it's best to avoid Silver paper in the first place, and go with the so-called "alternative" processes, like Platinum, Palladium, Carbon: those prints will last as long as the paper holds together. Given the current levels of investment, inkjet print longevity will only increase.

Dear Ken,

I must agree with you that there are other processes that deliver greater life expectancy that a silver print and, or a digital inked image... :)

Unfortunately, I cannot be in a darkroom producing alternative images, because of an issue I stated earlier, so my decision to select someone like Bob Carnie and his excellent process to produce a silver halide image, happens to be my longevity choice. Bob sells himself short in my view, because his workmanship was exceptional. My original silver prints that are greater than thirty years old still looks as if I printed them yesterday. If I could produce alternative images through a trusted third party with my negative's digital file, I would find that avenue a very exciting avenue to explore, and an avenue that would open more possibilities.

jim k

jim kitchen

28-Aug-2010, 17:59

I felt I came short, but with time and more attempts with his files I would have more confidence...

Dear Bob,

I must tell you that you sell yourself short, because your finished work was excellent.... :)

I do realize that my digital files will require an adjustment curve to fit the paper choice we made and the inherent slight mid-tone drift, upon reviewing the Durst prints again, and I am certain that the selenium toning process will affect that curve structure too. The images that I sent you as a reference set had adjustment curves made for that paper stock through the printer's RIP, and I know that when I produce an image on my calibrated monitor, the printed image will look identical without question. I believe that a curve could be made to suit your enlarger, but the cost, and time to produce such a curve might be prohibitive, then again maybe someone already created a correction curve. I will work with you because of your attention to detail, and it happens to be a characteristic that I prefer.

That said, don't sell yourself short. You do great work...

jim k

Sirius Glass

28-Aug-2010, 18:01

I tried scanning and using an ink jet. After printing 10 to 12 prints, I had to buy cartridges again! It new cartridges cost a lot. I started looking for an enlarger right away. The equipment is not that expensive; having the room to set up a darkroom or temporary darkroom can be a problem.

Then when I started making prints, I realized how good it feels to hold a double weight fiber print.

Steve

paulr

28-Aug-2010, 18:24

I tried scanning and using an ink jet. After printing 10 to 12 prints, I had to buy cartridges again!

If you're making more than the occasional print, you either need a printer with big cartridges or a continuous ink system. Otherwise you'll go nuts. At any rate, it will take more than 10 or 12 prints to figure out how to print well. Just like in the darkroom.

Merg Ross

28-Aug-2010, 21:14

Hi to Everyone.

I sure could use some insight and suggestions. I haven’t practiced any serious large format black and white photography for a long time and much has changed since then. So I’m at a crossroad and I'm unsure of what direction to take. I could rebuild a darkroom and continue with traditional prints. A pain to build, but a simple if messy process once done. I never had a big love affair with being in a darkroom but the Illford Galerie FB prints were wonderful and worth all the effort. They have been hanging for 30 years and still look at good as the day I made them. Or I could get a Epson 750 scanner, ( or maybe drum scanned? ) and then print on a Epson 3880 using their inks, at least for now. It’s very temping and a lot easier than building another darkroom. There is no doubt that the computer gives one vastly more control, but in the end it’s the quality of the print that matters. Will the inkjet route produce prints of equal tonal scale and subtle gradation? I think this can be loaded question, but some informed opinions would be apprecated. I live in Oakland, Ca. If anyone knows of some really good inkjets that are hanging around here please let me know. Seeing them might be a helpful. Thanks!

Brent, you live in an area that abounds with excellent examples of ink and silver printing. Visit the many museums or galleries, most of which have displays of both techniques, and decide for yourself. First, can you tell the difference between the two techniques? If you can not see the difference, then you have answered your question.

For some, myself included, there is a visual difference between the two. However, I have friends very successful at marketing their work, who have gone from silver to ink. They have done so for convenience, and without any loss in demand for their work. The key here is that their vision has not been sacrificed and the buying public has little interest in how their prints were made.

So, I would suggest that you take the time to master either silver printing or inkjet. The learning curve is steep in both cases, and I am still trying to master silver printing after over fifty-five years in the darkroom. Inkjet will have to wait. But don't make the mistake of believing that one is superior to the other, they are simply different.

www.mergross.com

bob carnie

29-Aug-2010, 06:10

You should ignore anyone who says the wet darkroom gives vastly superior (or inferior) results. The differences are subtle and mostly subjective.

This statment IMO sums it up exactly as I feel.

Brent, you live in an area that abounds with excellent examples of ink and silver printing. Visit the many museums or galleries, most of which have displays of both techniques, and decide for yourself. First, can you tell the difference between the two techniques? If you can not see the difference, then you have answered your question.

Very good advice.

Why do I like silver printing?

Its all I have studied since leaving the logging camps,
I love the look and feel of a well printed fibre print.
I like the fact that it will last, I have seen my prints on my Grandma's wall that I gave her 1st year in college and they still rock. Ektalure
There is too many wonderful memories of time spent talking , fighting, and making fun of photographers as they go through the pains of putting on a gallery show.
I can still work on historical negatives and match the original intent of the photographer.
There is nothing better than printing during the day , listening to Van Halen, Rush, Rare Earth, Robin Trower, and not having someone tell you to turn down the music.
The beer at the end of the day is wonderful and I get paid to boot.

Much better than setting beads .

bob carnie

29-Aug-2010, 06:13

I still haven't figured out how to highlight others words in my posts , so credit must go to Merg and paulr for the good advice , I posted in the above post.

Nathan Potter

29-Aug-2010, 09:35

Merg, "over 55 yrs. of darkroom experience"! I may have you beaten by a bit but like you I'm still learning. You alluded to vision, which I believe is the more important element in a fine photograph.

Lots of good advice here with some good objectivity. But great photographs are derived from great vision and the method of realizing that on paper is less important as long as fine craftsmanship is employed throughout the process.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

Drew Wiley

29-Aug-2010, 09:36

I'll simply repeat, I have never yet myself seen an inkjet black-and-white print that
comes up to what I'd consider an excellent darkroom one. And I've looked at a lot of
prints. Maybe someone can do it, but all the really good digital work I've seen has
come through hybrid workflow or been done on expensive proprietary press technology. The public mainly buys subject matter which appeals to them; photographers themselves are more likely to buy or trade serious prints from other
photographers, though there are a few discriminating other print collectors out there. For me it has nothing to do with what will sell, however, but about the best
possible quality for my own particular form of vision. Personal workflow preferences
and considerations of chemical exposure are also part of the equation which each of
us must factor in. Note that I'm not denying that great print can be made digitally - I just have never seen one! They just look something other than "photographic",
despite all the amazing mimicry photoshop is capable of.

paulr

29-Aug-2010, 10:58

I'll simply repeat, I have never yet myself seen an inkjet black-and-white print that comes up to what I'd consider an excellent darkroom one. And I've looked at a lot of prints.

Repeating yourself doesn't constitute convincing rhetoric. It's just noisy.

Either you haven't looked at good ink prints made on affordable technology, or your definition of "good" is so specific as to be tautological (like, "good" = looking exactly like a darkroom print).

There are many of us here who were darkroom snobs, who got seduced by the qualities of ink. For me the moment happened before good inkjet printers existed, when I saw a Paul Strand book printed from quadtone separations prepared by Richard Benson. The plates looked better than any silver print I'd ever seen, Strand's included. I've had my eyes on ink ever since, and am currently happier with my piezography prints than my silver prints, at least much of the time. My printing setup, while a pain in the ass to maintain, cost less than my 150mm enlarging lens.

For me it has nothing to do with what will sell, however, but about the best
possible quality for my own particular form of vision. Personal workflow preferences
and considerations of chemical exposure are also part of the equation which each of
us must factor in. [emphasis mine]

No one will argue with you about your personal vision or your prefered working style. Use the tools you like. Other people might appreciate it if their visions are likewise respected.

Drew Wiley

29-Aug-2010, 14:51

Lenny Eiger

29-Aug-2010, 15:23

Paul - one of the original questions was about tonality. While it is easy to correct a
curve on PS and stretch it out, that's what we do routinely by our choice of film,
dev, and printing paper anyway. I can understand the advantages of inkjet on really
big prints, or for simplifying nuisance correction issues like spotting (which I'm going
to be doing in a few minutes the old-fashioned way). Inkjet just handles tonality in
a very different way, and to my eye it looks poster-ish, without the subtle distinctions I expect in a print. Inks also look like ink. It resembles a graphics process. That's OK if that's what you want; but it's not the same thing. People choose their respective media, and there are no doubt those who can do compelling work this way. But does it equal the subtle transitions of tonality in a good silver print. No way, Jose. Not to mention even more subtle media such as albumen, which I'm looking at in front of me at the moment. Permanence is another misunderstood issue. Just what do folks REALLY know about any specific media that's
only been around a few years at best?

There is more capacity for subtle transitions, not less, because there are more steps in an inkjet print. There are all levels of capability, just as there are in a darkroom.

I have a print that I did in silver, platinum and inkjet. There is no comparison. I love platinum prints, carbon print, I love looking at old albumen and gravure prints. I even own some great examples. Inkjet can match the feel and atmosphere of any of those print types, if the printer wants to. Most folks today don't have the skill and/or are too hooked on contrast.

I see no reason for people who lover darkroom prints not to continue. However, as far as capabilities go, I'm sorry, Drew, you just don't know what you are talking about. You might want to look at some work by some of the better printers.

We should all know better (yea, including me) than to engage in these threads. It's almost as bad as the mac vs pc conversation.

Lenny

Drew Wiley

29-Aug-2010, 17:24

Lenny Eiger

29-Aug-2010, 18:07

Lenny - I live right in the epicenter of tech and know big money digital printers doing proprietary things very few photographers have ever even heard of. But I personally make silver gelatin prints because it is practical for my lifestyle and obtains the particlar look I want. And with a silver-rich paper and some tricks, I can mimick a Pt/Pd effect quite nicely. But if I went around claiming that the tonality of silver is equal to that of platinum or albumen, any serious contact printer would probably howl with laughter. With inkjet you've got to use all those marvelous tools in PS precisely because the output medium isn't all that sensitive. So someone can token match prints in the two different media, so what? I could do the same thing in color: make a fuzzy Cibachrome of just the right set of hues and then have someone match it in inkjet. That's marketing, not an honest appraisal. You seem to be confusing two different issues. I'm am NOT claiming one particular media is better than another. What is "best" is what best suits the specific printmaker involved. Matisse could make wonderful scenes with nothing more than scrap colored Kraft paper and an ordinary pair of scissors. But the "tonality" was essentially zero.

It would actually be quite difficult to mimic what platinum can do with silver paper, unless you're looking at a contrasty platinum, or you're not looking very closely. However, that aside, if all you wanted to suggest is that "what's best is what suits the photographer", no one would have issue with your comments.

In another post, you suggest that the materials and the inkjet medium are somewhat lacking. You ask "But does it equal the subtle transitions of tonality in a good silver print", implying that it doesn't.

I also live here in the "nexus of everything" on the West coast. But that's another topic... I've done a lot of research, and I'm one of those people who "do things very few photographers have ever even heard of". There's only a small handful of printers who mix, or re-mix, their own inkjet ink. I know many of the top printers, and what is and is not possible. I've looked thru Jon Cone's incredible collection, I've gotten examples from other inkjet printers to show to fine printing classes. When you suggest it looks like ink, or that it looks like a poster, you just haven't seen anything by someone who knows what they're doing. San Francisco is full of mediocre printers and a few exceptional ones.

I'm not going to tell anyone to change their printing medium. I had a lot of fun in the darkroom. But you can't tell me that the prints I'm making now are any less than what I've made before. I actually think they're better.

Lenny

Drew Wiley

29-Aug-2010, 18:39

Paul - a lot of us can routinely make prints technically better than Strand, AA, or any number of famous honchos could. That won't land any of us a chapter in some History of Photography blurb, or make some neurotic rich lady scream bids at an auction; but let's face it - we have better cameras, better lenses, better film, better
paper, and know not only all the darkroom tricks of these past masters, but plenty of our own. Who knows how Strand or AA or Brett would print if they were alive
today. But except for educational purposes, a digital knockoff of any of their works
in a museum or whatever is presumptuous. They didn't print it, so it's not genuinely
theirs. We're back to the Norsigian thing. Makes no difference to me what path someone takes. I admire fine work in any media - really. But someone trying to choose in the first place would be helped by knowing the pros and cons. And I'm assuming that the original question was referenced within a finite budget, so not just anything can come into play. A few bottles and trays, a pk of Dektol etc, a box of paper, and a spare bathroom is about all one needs to start out. Without giving out names, I sold bathroom prints to certain of these very famous honchos back in the day, using very simple gear indeed. I can't even remember how many basic enlargers I've been offered for free but didn't need.

Drew Wiley

29-Aug-2010, 18:46

Wrong again, Lenny - I do know some of the best of the best, and you might be a bit
surprised what I've pulled off with silver. Granted, my background is mainly in color;
but there's nothing green about my silver skills either. And again, I really have no
prejudice against digital workflow per se. But then I truly never have seen an inkjet
print that struck me with the same awe as some of the platinum prints that Julia
Cameron made in a chicken house well over a century ago, or that Watkins could
pull off in albumen under less than ideal circumstances. Are we going forward,
backwards, or merely standing still?

Nathan Potter

29-Aug-2010, 19:32

While the dilemma of the original poster was to silver or inkjet, I would want to point out that there is no substitute for capturing the original tonal scale on the original film, be that short or long, depending on the photographers vision. What one does afterward is a matter of the photographers vision also.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

Steve Sherman

30-Aug-2010, 02:25

Joseph O'Neil

30-Aug-2010, 05:53

Well I do work in both computer and wet darkroom, and stright up, here's what I found first hand;

1) You cannot reproduce the look of a traditional print using a computer, but you can make unique looking prints on digital output that you cannot reproduce in a wet darkroom, so there can be said to be both need and use for both mediums;

2) In the long run, the "digital darkroom" is a heck of a lot more money to run than a wet darkroom. I do the books, write the cheques, do the cost analysis, and computers are a lot more money.

3) If you need to do more than one print at a time, the digital darkroom is the way to go;

4) Calibrating your monitor to match your printer output is a royal PITA, and just wait until you get everything setup and find out that they have changed or "improved" your inks, or you get a lighting surge, have to replace your computer moniter, and restart the calibration process all over again. :(

5) Unknown to most people, the enviromental waste from either system is roughly equivalent. Again, speaking from experience.

The bottom line is, you have to go out and determine what kind of "look" you want, what kind of work you want to do, what kind of audience you want to sell too.

You will also find other "sub-issues" that come. For example, one artist friend of mine, who makes a living form his artwork, does all of his own scanning, printing, mounting and framing in house because he cannot find anyone who does it to his standards. You might find yourself in a similar situation, who knows?

Another consideration is, you might be setup for both. To me, this "either / or" choice as it is often presented is not entirely realistic in today's market. I've seen people who use and sell in both mediums (geared to the specific customer or client), and then, hey, there's always "hybrids - go look at digital negatives and hand made prints from those negatives.

nope, my answer is both, but be fully aware of the costs, issues and limitations of both before you do

joe

coops

30-Aug-2010, 05:56

I have started playing around making digital negatives, using the best of both worlds as it were. When it comes down to evaluating the same file printed on say glossy Ilford RC paper and several inkejet papers (printed on a 3800) in my opinion, there is a big difference. The tonal range on the RC paper is beatiful with deep rich blacks. They look great. Several friends also agree and they have no clue what a silver print is.

Drew Wiley

30-Aug-2010, 10:06

It certainly is a kind of Golden Age of printmaking, with so many options available,
especially when one factors in an almost endless variety of hybrid possibilities.

Lenny Eiger

30-Aug-2010, 10:43

But then I truly never have seen an inkjet
print that struck me with the same awe as some of the platinum prints that Julia
Cameron made in a chicken house well over a century ago, or that Watkins could
pull off in albumen under less than ideal circumstances.

I have.

Lenny

rdenney

30-Aug-2010, 11:17

One thing that I rarely see (but often write) in threads like this: The OP will not be comparing the best possible print made using silver (or other wet chemical process) to the best possible print made using ink.

Likewise, the OP will not be comparing the cost of running a darkroom for a professional photographer with the cost of running an inkjet printing system for a professional photographer.

He, like most of the rest of us, will be comparing the best prints he can make, and his costs will be based on the sum of prints he will make.

I do not look for the artifacts of the medium in my prints. I look for whether the print looks the way I visualized it when standing behind the camera. If the artifacts of the medium are noticeable as such, they are probably undermining my visualization rather than supporting it. The computer certainly makes possible far more than was possible with a wet darkroom, within the context of my time and energies. The prints I achieve on my 3800 are closer to my visualization than they ever were emerging from the darkroom. My inability to make prints that could match my visualization frustrated me, and I actually quit photography--I was tired, as Gem has described, of putting all that effort into so-so photographs, only to discover that the photographs were so-so no matter how hard I tried to print them well.

Anybody can say that I don't spend enough time perfecting my skills. They might say the same thing to the OP. But hinting or suggested such will not lead most amateurs to a reasonable conclusion about what to do for themselves. If Jim Kitchen says he gets excellent results from an inkjet, and Drew Wiley insists that he gets excellent results from silver, then I think any of us should take as settled knowledge that excellent prints are attainable from each, and quit arguing about it except in the context of marginal differences beyond the capabilities of most of us to explore.

Another consideration is film and print size. Printing larger than 16x20 is expensive and complicated no matter what process one uses. In my former darkroom, the largest size I could develop in trays was 11x14. I used a Cibachrome processing tube for 16x20. Larger than that was just not possible in a darkroom which I could fit in a former walk-in closet in my house. And making enlargements from negatives larger than 4x5 is also expensive and complicated--5x7 and larger enlargers are not the free throw-aways that 4x5 enlargers might be. And even if they were, it still takes a good-sized room to accommodate them. But doing 8x10 requires no more space than 4x5 when scanning and printing digitally.

On ink usage and ink type: The Epson Advanced Black and White Printing mode is actually quite excellent to my eyes. There are subtleties to be gained using a dedicated ink system, but they are subtleties. ABW mode in the Epson is at least very good by anyone's standard (except perhaps those who have "Real photographs are born wet" in their signature line). I doubt that most amateurs who are having to balance this obsession with others would have the time required to consistently better what they could get from ABW. And those who make a handful of prints a year won't be buying ink that often. I'm still on my first load of ink on my 3800. But, as with my wet darkroom, I use test strips a lot and rarely do I have to print something full size more than twice to get something that is about the best I can achieve in any case.

Anybody who walks up to one of my prints with a magnifying glass gets what they deserve.

For 4x5, the Epson flatbed scanner (700 or 750) is pretty darn good, and well-matched to the 16x20 output of the 3800. I would get more tonality by wet-mounting the film to be scanned, which is possible with that scanner. And it requires some careful tweaking to get the most out of it. Smaller formats will need a better scanner, though--perhaps a used Nikon (I have an 8000ED that I bought used several years ago).

It will cost around $3000 or so to add the necessary elements to a computer to give you a decent capability for 4x5 and 16x20 prints. That is entry-level for good work at that size, and you can certainly spend more. The next step up might require four times that, and it goes up from there.

Rick "who can't achieve what the best here achieve no matter what the technology" Denney

Gem Singer

30-Aug-2010, 13:43

Rick,

I knew that you and I could agree on something if we really put our minds to it.

Very well said.

lilmsmaggie

30-Aug-2010, 14:28

Although I have personally seen with my own two eyes what Lenny Elger can produce using a quality drum scanner, I have to agree with Rick on this one.

No disrespect intended to other posters but as Rick say's: Anyone walking up to a print with a magnifying glass gets what they deserve.

Looking for halftones, dithers and inspecting a print under a 30x microscope, is the equivalent of "pixel-peeping." Is it really necessary? When was the last time you were in an art gallery and a potential buyer whipped out an eye-loupe, or magnifying glass to look at a print, silver based or otherwise?

Unless you're in the business of producing exhibition quality prints for museums, art galleries, famous photographers or people with very deep pockets -- maybe simply judging a print on its compositional and artistic qualities should more than satisfy the discerning connoisseur ... sans the magnifying glass :D

I seriously doubt photographers such as Steigletz, Cartier-Bresson, Strand, Weston and others would concern themselves with the level of minutiae that we do today when considering the quality of their own work or the work of others.

After all, it's about art ...

Drew Wiley

30-Aug-2010, 15:18

My standard is my standard. I don't give a damn what Stieglitz or Strand did - that
being said, Stieglitz was a stickler for optimizing quality, and probably would have pushed for the max today too. I simply don't buy any of that "normal viewing distance"
nonsense. But the more relevant aspect of this particular thread is, at what price does
one essentially reach parity? Just what kind of investment does one really need to
approximate a decent darkroom print digitally? And how fast does all this become
obsolete and require upgrading? I think most of us would agree that the average
desktop printer is pretty limited. By cost comparison, a simple darkroom tray or leftover
baking pan is capable of some pretty remarkable things. This whole contentious question is analogous to the disputes over whether digital cameras can equal the image quality of view cameras - maybe at best, but at what kind of staggering price, and how much fuss and maintenance? I'm glad to hear that folks like Lenny are pushing the envelope of inkjet; and my own current darkroom has some pretty fancy stuff in it - but this is not just about ideological one-upmanship. I wish realistic
anwers were more readily available when I first got into the game with a very limited
budget.

Andre Noble

30-Aug-2010, 16:50

paulr

30-Aug-2010, 16:53

Paul - a lot of us can routinely make prints technically better than Strand, AA, or any number of famous honchos could.

Well, some Strand prints are among the most beautifully crafted that I've ever seen—by anyone of any era, regardless of technology. I think he had a great technological advantage in the quality and selection of silver papers available back then. The ink prints in the book were at least the equal of the best of his silver prints that I've seen.

My point is not that the book reproductions have comparable value to the orignal print ... but that they showed how ink, broadly speaking, is a material as capable as any metal-based one. The book showed me that I hadn't seen the last word on the subject of ink.

The first adopter of Piezography I ever knew was my mentor, who is as traditional-minded as they come. His mind was open to inkjet specifically because of his extensive experience making photogravures and carbon prints. He knew first hand the capabilities of ink and other pigments on paper.

And I'm assuming that the original question was referenced within a finite budget, so not just anything can come into play. A few bottles and trays, a pk of Dektol etc, a box of paper, and a spare bathroom is about all one needs to start out.

I think in some cases a wet darkroom is much cheaper than a digital setup ... like if you have space that doesn't require much construction, you don't have a useable computer, and you plan to only make contact prints.

If these aren't your circumstances, then i don't see big differences in spending.

As far as the value of looking at prints with a magnifying glass ... I am guilty of doing this and think it's great fun. Makes me feel like a voyeur. But let's face it—this is fetishism, and it doesn't have anything to do with art, or with how anyone else will see your work. If you're using this as a quality standard, then be aware that it's that it's not likely to relevent to many other people, and might actually lead the people you're arguing with to question your judgment!

jim kitchen

30-Aug-2010, 16:59

Dear Group,

Just as a side note to this healthy discussion, which happens to be based upon a recent experience within the last month, and an event that triggered a few comments from a collector that recently made a large purchase of my framed images… :)

Our discussion started while we reviewed the images prior to their delivery, where they cannot argue nor do I wish to argue with anyone about today's quality printing issues, such as the continuous longevity issue, a paper's quality and its pulp source process issue, the constantly modified ink quality, and whether it is home brewed, manufactured, lightfast or not, the obnoxious runaway marketing hype surrounding each medium grouping, complete with their continually changing evidence, or even the darkroom print quality from my past life because I did not wash the print long enough within a changing fresh water source and, or tone the image properly in selenium. They stated that everyone has their own approach to producing a quality image with the tools that they own, the medium upon which it is laid, their own skill sets, and their own passion, whether the images originate in the darkroom or within their new found lightroom. My new finished image life just happens to be the latter, and I cannot go back to producing images in the darkroom. As I mentioned earlier, giving up the darkroom was a very painful experience for me, but life does move forward, just like collectors do…

I have a few clients that demand a silver image, so that is why I sought a qualified master printer like Bob Carnie to satisfy those clients and collectors, and I certainly have clients that demand a Jon Cone printed image because they love the softer smoother tones, the timeless depth that his inkset image projects, the thought that the image was created with carbon pigment inks and the fact that the inks are laid down upon museum quality cotton paper, and I definitely have clients that simply prefer the way an image looks when it is properly printed on Museo Silver Rag while using Epson's K3 inks. Every knowledgeable collector and client happens to have their own distinct tastes, likes and dislikes, and no matter how logical or tactful you might be about the finished image's physical quality, you cannot dictate to them what they should purchase nor should you ever try to so, because you just might lose them as a client forever once you inadvertently insult them about their choice. I lost that small scuffle several years ago and I continuously regret the irresponsible decision that I made. There are several excellent collectors that demand an old school silver image and, or an alternative process image, but unfortunately they are being overwhelmed by a new world order of younger knowledgeable and just as wealthy group of spirited collectors.

The collectors and the clients that I seem to attract, and those that purchase an odd image two, just seem to enjoy my finished images, whether they are produced upon a newly acquainted and trusted old school silver medium, or a new world medium, complete with all the new world hysteria, where it happens to be my task as a so-called wannabe artist to make certain that I did everything possible to produce an image that met my own finishing standards, before I mounted, matted, signed, and framed the image. I cannot believe that anyone else that produces a fine image, especially within this forum, would do anything less than I do, and especially when their finished work leaves their own hands, and is presented to a client that admires your talent, and just might become your future collector. There are too many gifted image makers within this group, so it would be very difficult for me to change my mind about my last comment.

That said, we all do things differently, approach our problems differently, and solve our problems differently once they are identified, and although I chose a blended film and digital print path, my choice does not make it correct for anyone else, nor would I ever imply that my path happens to be the best one to follow. Although I emphatically stated I would never look back. It was a path that I needed to follow to respect my son's issues, and since I could not relinquish my passion completely, I made a choice to explore a new evolving revolution and determine whether it could be successful, and for the moment it seems that I made the correct choice. However, my path was full of absolute misconceptions, misquoted individuals, incorrectly conceived process methods, archival myths and legends, a horrific constantly changing "mine is bigger, better, faster, and more powerful than yours," technical environment, and buried within this digital environment was the thought of carrying an enormous overhead just to be current or to surpass your next door neighbour. That is why I will never relinquish my film development and my scanning process, but I will leave my finished printing issues to a select group of trusted master printers that simply pass my digital file through their well maintained equipment. I now have the freedom to focus on capturing and authoring an image without any modern day overhead concern and, or whether I am current with my next door neighbour, and because of that mindset I do believe that I am more effective.

Lastly, and I do not want to present this statement as an arrogant comment, but I had a very important milestone occur this month, where I have now sold more digitally produced framed carbon pigment ink images to collector's, institutions, and interested individuals, than I ever produced or sold while making silver halide prints. I now have just as many collections floating around the globe, as I do years of exercising my passion, and just as many naked frameless cousins.

jim k

paulr

30-Aug-2010, 17:01

Forget inkjet prints.

Sophomore LFer, Freshman debater.

JeffKohn

30-Aug-2010, 17:07

Forget inkjet prints.

When printing color images from digital files, upload to WHCC http://www.whcc.com/ or Millers http://www.millerslab.com/ and have a real photograph in your hand in 2 days or less.
digital c-prints are inferior to pigmented inkjets by pretty much any measure you can name: dmax, gamut, resolution, and longevity. Not only that, but the RC papers those machines use just aren't as nice as the fiber-based papers most inkjet users are printing on now.

patrickjames

30-Aug-2010, 18:29

rdenney

30-Aug-2010, 19:39

One thing I don't understand is why amateurs spend so much money in the digital realm on printers and ink and paper, etc, when they can have much better prints made by someone who really knows what the heck is going on. Spend your money on a great monitor and calibrate/profile it the appropriate way. Leave the output to someone who knows what they are doing. You will be much better off.

It depends on how you measure "better off".

One of my minor hobbies is amateur radio. It thrills me to sit at my radio, which is connected to a wire strung between a couple of trees, and talk to a fellow in, say, New Zealand, with him using his radio and his wire strung between two trees. (Okay, maybe his antenna is a little fancier than mine.) I was explaining this hobby to a colleague, and he asked why I would want to talk to some fellow over radio when I can call him on the phone and hear him much more clearly. I told him that what we said wasn't the point. The point was that we had done what it took to being able to say it, and that effort provided the satisfaction. The satisfaction was in creating the ability and having the control over the entire infrastructure.

Likewise, I don't care whether I make prints in an inkjet or under an enlarger. But I want to make the prints. I don't care about developing color film--any machine can do that. But I want to watch that print come out of the printer. I want control over the infrastructure of print-making. Why? Because for me that's part of what makes the hobby interesting and satisfying.

Even when I had my own darkroom, it was important that I made my own prints, because when I showed it to someone, I wanted to know that what I was showing them had been made with my own hands at the controls. Part of the satisfaction is in creating the ability and having the control over the entire infrastructure.

That attitude, taken to a little further extreme, is what motivates people to make prints in a darkroom, and then vehemently defend doing so. For them, the darkroom is part of how they identify themselves as photographers. I understand that, even if I don't much care what process I'm controlling, as long as I'm controlling it.

Of course, only amateurs can think like that. It is the special privilege of amateurs to produce mediocre results and feel greater satisfaction than having it done by someone else to a much higher standard. Why else to we amateurs persist in making pictures of famous places when we can buy a perfectly good postcard in the gift shop?

The cost issue keeps coming up. To build a darkroom in a room that has a wet wall, no windows, and a usable electrical circuit, in such a way that it meets code and is reversible if you have to sell the house, requires quite a lot of expertise many photographers don't have. My expertise is traffic signals--wiring a house or a darkroom is trivially easy for me. But I daresay that would not be the norm. And I'm also no stranger to sweating copper pipes, even though the only time I ever nearly set my house afire was when I was soldering copper pipes in a wall cavity for my darkroom in San Antonio and caught a flap of drywall paper on fire. Oh, and that was the second plumbing solution for that room--the first was with threaded pipe and I could not keep it from leaking, amateur plumber that I am. And rooms with a wet wall don't necessarily have access to a drain--good luck with that one.

Hiring the plumbing and electrical work done to convert a room into a darkroom capable of making 16x20 prints will immediately take you into greater expense than the combined cost of Photoshop, a color management system, an Epson 750, and an Epson 3800. And we have not yet paid for trays, beakers, chemical storage bottles, thermometers, safelights, a timer, an enlarger, and an enlarging lens. Thinking a darkroom is just the cost of the enlarger is like thinking a large-format photography setup is just the cost of the camera.

Processing one's own film is pretty easy in a normal bathroom. But making 16x20 enlargements requires far more darkroom.

And I never understood this notion that the computer stuff has to be replaced every 15 minutes. My photo computer is nine years old, though I have added RAM and upgraded the hard disk from time to time. The monitor is three years old. The Epson 3800 replaced a 1270 that was about 10 years old, and the 750 replaced a hundred-dollar Acer scanner with transparency adapter that I bought at least 10 years ago. Just because something isn't the latest doesn't mean it stops working.

But I'm still hedging my bets. I may have a change of heart and decide I must have a darkroom again. I don't know where I'll build it, but I still have all the stuff to equip it, including the sink and the Omega D3. I think I even still have the Arkay print washer that I hated, and the Oriental washer I replaced it with.

Rick "thinking you can't compare today's computer setup with the darkroom you built 30 years ago" Denney

Paul Kierstead

30-Aug-2010, 20:36

Bill Burk

30-Aug-2010, 20:43

Some very thoughtful posts today! I won't apologize for looking closely at my own negatives and prints. I don't take out loupes when I look at prints at museums, shows, galleries or friend's homes, I just take off my glasses. In a pinch one day I printed some small prints to fit a frame "just for size". I haven't gotten around to printing silver to fit. At a distance, the feeling is there. But I still get a pit in my stomach when I walk up to that frame and see the striations where there should be smooth grass. I am going to try to get my hands on a well-printed ink print to see what can be done. I'll send a cheapo 30x scope to anyone who'll send me something to look at, even if it's a scrap part of a reject print.

patrickjames

30-Aug-2010, 21:39

My point above is that an amateur has neither the capability nor the expertise to set up an inkjet printer to its optimum level. Buying a printer is the bare tip of the iceberg if you want ultimate quality. I am not knocking anyone if they want to make their own prints and get enjoyment from it, but realize that the prints would look better if done right by someone who knows how to properly translate your digital image back into the analogue world.

paulr

30-Aug-2010, 22:50

My point above is that an amateur has neither the capability nor the expertise to set up an inkjet printer to its optimum level. Buying a printer is the bare tip of the iceberg if you want ultimate quality. I am not knocking anyone if they want to make their own prints and get enjoyment from it, but realize that the prints would look better if done right by someone who knows how to properly translate your digital image back into the analogue world.

Patrick, it sounds like you're saying "only an expert can get expert results from an inkjet printer."

I wouldn't dream of arguing with this. But I'd also suggest that only an expert can get expert results from an enlarger and silver paper and a room full of chemicals.

I fail to see the difference. If we want to get masterly results from our tools, then we have to master our tools. No one promised it would be easy!

JeffKohn

30-Aug-2010, 23:46

My point above is that an amateur has neither the capability nor the expertise to set up an inkjet printer to its optimum level. Buying a printer is the bare tip of the iceberg if you want ultimate quality.
There's a bit of a learning curve, but It's not that difficult. The newer inkjets are self-calibrating and extremely consistent. If you have a good profile for the paper you use, and a calibrated display on which to soft-proof, getting excellent results is very achievable. Matte papers are a little more difficult (especially for color), but the newer fiber-based gloss/semi-gloss papers are so good that it makes things much easier. In fact, I bet getting excellent results from an inkjet is quite a bit easier than getting excellent results in the darkroom.

I am not knocking anyone if they want to make their own prints and get enjoyment from it, but realize that the prints would look better if done right by someone who knows how to properly translate your digital image back into the analogue world.
When you guys talk about having it "done right" by a professional printer, I have to wonder just what exactly you're talking about. A straight inkjet print from somebody like West Coast Imaging or WHCC will run you over $20 a square foot on high-quality papers. And at that price all they're doing is sending the file to the printer without any proofing or adjustments. I can do better at home, soft-proofing and making any necessary adjustments, as well as making hard proofs when needed before creating the final print. To pay a "master printer" to do that kind of work for you could easily run in the hundreds of dollars (if you can find one). And even then I'm not convinced they could do better than me, because adjustments they make to "translate" the image to print may not match my own ideas about what the final print should look like.

As others have already mentioned, there's a lot to be said for having complete control over the entire process, as well as having the satisfaction of knowing that the final print is completely your own. For me, printing is part of the creative process and I enjoy it, I wouldn't leave the final printing to somebody else any more than I would the post-processing or taking the initial exposure.

bob carnie

31-Aug-2010, 06:58

I cannot recall the thread but about a year ago I put my 2 cents in about the ease of using a bulk service provider rather than having someone like me finish the work.
The cost benefits, final vision issues all fall away, its your file, your test and your final print.

Almost all the major labs that I am competing with are offering this bulk service and I can say it is a godsend for the owner printers. No longer am I forced to print every job that comes through the place, no longer do I have to cringe and work on dubious images, now I can let the client deal with their own capture.
Common question was, could you look at my file and tell me whether it will go to 30x40, now I can just have them do a 1 ft mag test for 10 bucks and they can see for themselves.

The benefits are immense to the photographer since they can test , adjust and run just like any professional printer at a price that makes sense,
Following the labs settings for their particular process whether it is bulk, lambda, chromira, lightjet, or inkjet and canvas, simple test strips and *bobs your uncle* you are screen to first test matched.

In our case we do not offer this service for the Lambda Fibre as it is a completely hands on approach , and for this material I inspect incoming files before we accept printing the work, even then there are problems and I cannot dead nut match past prints without a lot of hands on manipulation to the file.
Most of the clients using this service are experienced photographer/printers and archive researchers who are in contact with historical images.
Most of this is gallery work or for show and involves more than one image.

Out of the box , I am impressed with the quality of the new inkjet machines, if I did not own a lab I know I would have a small darkroom to print on enlargers and a small inkjet machine.

paulr

31-Aug-2010, 07:35

I can't imagine using using a bulk printing service if I cared especially about the prints. Last year I worked with a very good printmaker in New York (the first time I've ever done such a thing ... I had to print my first color show, and the project was funded by a grant that would pay for services but not equipment).

I worked the way I print my ink black and white pictures—doing the scans myself, and all the adjustments and soft proofing on my own color-managed system. But then the files went to my printmaker for output.

Maybe a third of the time they came out the way i wanted. The rest of the time, he and I had to work on the files to get the prints to match the soft proof. One of the images took a week of back and forth.

What was special about that image? I don't know. Photography can be weird. I've been similarly tripped up in the darkroom, often by a negative that has no apparent problems.

All in all, soft proofing made the process much more streemlined than darkroom printing, but it was still way too far from "what you see is what you get" to make any bulk service workable.

bob carnie

31-Aug-2010, 07:51

I can't imagine using using a bulk printing service if I cared especially about the prints. Last year I worked with a very good printmaker in New York (the first time I've ever done such a thing ... I had to print my first color show, and the project was funded by a grant that would pay for services but not equipment).

I cannot see why not . If the plots are good with your provider, and you are working with a colour managed workflow.
don't let the name bulk influence you to think it a lesser quality, maybe it should by **you print it service**

Calibrated monitor , proper profile, test print, and final within a limited time period, is exactly how any show is printed. The only difference would be is its you doing the workflow and not a person like me.

If it is taking three times to get close something is wrong with the setup.

One thing to be very clear, timeline is of essence when going to final, we encourage our clients to bring their laptops to the lab after they have seen the prints to make immediate adjustments.

What you may be seeing is the natural ebb and flow of the chemistry, it does change day to day, and calibration must be done each and every day , even when changing rolls. If your provider is punching through lots of chems each day the chances of the plots staying consistant is very good, If they are a small shop like ours you need to be fast as the turnover is not great , and you must print within a calibrations lifespan.

hope this makes sense.. It will to your service provider.

Brian Ellis

31-Aug-2010, 08:00

Much more difficult to learn the skills (scanning and editing in Photoshop or a similar program) necessary to make an excellent ink jet print than an excellent darkroom print IMHO but worth the effort IMHO. I was a very good darkroom printer but the prints I make digitally are to me better. I look at many of my old darkroom prints and see improvements that I could now make in Photoshop that were virtually impossible in a darkroom with the limited tools available there.

Ken Lee

31-Aug-2010, 08:58

I look at many of my old darkroom prints and see improvements that I could now make in Photoshop that were virtually impossible in a darkroom with the limited tools available there.

Precisely !

Kirk Gittings

31-Aug-2010, 09:09

I have beautiful silver prints that I can't quite print digitally to the same equivalent success and superb digital prints from negatives that I could never make work in silver. I like it all and over the last 5 years have always exhibited them side by side.

paulr

31-Aug-2010, 09:12

I cannot see why not . If the plots are good with your provider, and you are working with a colour managed workflow.

I cannot see why not either, but experience shows me that there are unknown unknowns. Prints #1 and #3 may come out exactly as soft proofed, but print #2 will require lots of tweaking.

I can only assume it has to do with innate differences between a printed image and an image on a monitor, some of which do not translate predictably.

One of the images that gave us trouble was this one:

http://www.digitalskink.com/images/paul_r.jpg

I think I know what was going on here: getting the luminance of the foreground correct was a balancing act between it looking dull and muddy and it looking artificially bright for the time of day, the mood of the image, etc.. What looked good on screen just did not translate well to paper, in spite of all the profiling and calibrating and ease of printing many other images.

Luminance and muddiness are a couple of subjective qulities that are difficult to translate from screen to paper.

bob carnie

31-Aug-2010, 09:36

Luminance and muddiness are a couple of subjective qulities that are difficult to translate from screen to paper.

You got that right. Before we even consider a large show we do test small on the intended paper so that the client can see what the files will look like on the intended output.
There is indeed a lunch bag letdown with certain images and these are the ones that really need consideration in PS and retest.
Trying to translate the luminance or feel of a scene is basically the final consideration and the hardest to achieve.

If you try to translate this across a series of different papers your problems magnify.

Sounds like you have a pretty good service provider , I would suggest the speed of printing seeing the proof , adjustment, proof, adjustment final is critical as things do drift and if it is taking a week, some of these delicate images will be hard to control.
Ink jet does not suffer this drift, but RA4 certainly does and any provider saying their process does not shift are bullshitting .

Lenny Eiger

31-Aug-2010, 09:43

When you guys talk about having it "done right" by a professional printer, I have to wonder just what exactly you're talking about. To pay a "master printer" to do that kind of work for you could easily run in the hundreds of dollars (if you can find one). And even then I'm not convinced they could do better than me, because adjustments they make to "translate" the image to print may not match my own ideas about what the final print should look like.

There are only a couple of reasons to send your work to an expensive printer. In the past, many commercial photographers sent their images to be printed by a lab because they didn't want to bother, or the economics of it made it not worth it for them. They got paid for shooting rather than the time in the darkroom.

When you go to a "master printer" (I prefer journeyman) to print fine art, there are other considerations. Presumably, the person will know more than you about printing and the experience will be both helpful and educational. They may see things in your image that you haven't seen. They often have quite sensitive eyes, much more sensitive that the average photographer. Hopefully, they will know something about history and context. They may suggest another approach - and tell you why. They become a partner in your aesthetic process, doing their best to help you reach your aims.

It isn't for every test print... unless you have the resources for that sort of thing. As to the expensive part of things, Hahnemuhle paper is now $100 for a 17 inch roll, ink is very expensive, the machines are outrageously expensive - think drum scanner - and it takes a lot of research to tune one's system to a top level - to be able to handle a lot of different printing styles. It's more of a labor of love than it is a business model...

For some photographers the reason may be about having a machine that's larger, or printing a whole show with consistency on a perfectly tuned printer, etc. No one can print better than the person with the vision of the final print - IF they have the skills, and the vision. And the hardest part of being a good printer is to print in someone else's style. Engaging with a partner in this process can be terrific.

I prefer to get things ready and make the final images with the person sitting next to me. They have been advised of all the possibilities and they make the final decision. (I end up doing this by Fedex much of the time.)

Whether or not you get a print you like out of WCI has to do with how well you understand their printer setup and some good calibration - which isn't perfect. When you go to a top-level printer, the skills required are communication of your vision, some good listening and patience. I really enjoy the partnerships that come out of it...

Lenny
EigerStudios

paulr

31-Aug-2010, 09:45

Ink jet does not suffer this drift, but RA4 certainly does and any provider saying their process does not shift are bullshitting .

Sure. I'm not trying to suggest that my issues were specific to inkjet. I think they're inherent in printmaking. Inkjet has allowed me to streamline the process in many ways, but it hasn't done away with the need for intervention.

Soft proofing tends to get me 95% of the way there. That last 5% either comes quickly or torturously.

Drew Wiley

31-Aug-2010, 10:39

I'd agree with Bob that RA4 can be pretty finicky, especially with minor variation of temp or exhaustion/replenishment. It's tricky to precisely duplicate something on
different days, though most commercial labs of the days of yore didn't work to the
nitpicky standards some of us expect. I tend to agree with Stieglitz that there's only one "best" of any print of a given image. I'm senstive to RA4, so have to process it in
a different space from my general lab digs. One big point for inkjet there. But C-printing directly from negs is not only quite cost effective (especially in big sizes), but
has a distinct look of its own. It won't cause me to stop printing Ciba or dye transfer
(when I get time for color printing at all), but it's enough temptation to have me about
to put up a small bldg just for a 50" RA4 machine.

lilmsmaggie

31-Aug-2010, 11:09

All I know is that, initially, I considered purchasing my own inkjet printer (3880) and giving a go at doing my own prints. Then I paid a visit to Lenny Eiger, talked to him a bit and saw samples of his work and his equipment setup.

On the way home from my visit with Lenny, I had to be honest with myself:

"Did I have the space, the time and money to invest and patience to really be able to print exhibition quality prints?"

IMHO the skill and experience and level of service that someone like Lenny Eiger, or Bob Carnie would provide -- would be too time intensive if I had to setup, calibrate and maintain the equipment myself. Nevermind the dollar investment it would mean just to acquire the gear in the first place.

I'm too green and wet behind the ears. :)

If I had more experience under my belt - I'd give it a shot perhaps, but quite honestly, I'd would much rather spend my time and energy shooting. :D

Brian Ellis

31-Aug-2010, 11:27

People are generally always going to claim their way is the best regardless if it is or not. That is human nature. It is also human nature to try to persuade everyone else to be in accordance with one's beliefs whether or not they are true.

People that make inkjet prints always talk about the science to justify their choice, and people who make silver prints justify theirs by saying they look better. Who is right? They are both right.

I have worked with just about every type of system in the last decade and I still make silver prints. There is nothing wrong with inkjet prints to me, except the images I make can't be reproduced appropriately with an inkjet print. That includes a system set up by Lenny by the way (which is capable of gorgeous prints if it suits you, highly recommend it). The first problem I have with inkjet is it doesn't provide the richness and separation in shadow tones that I can get with a silver print. You can talk until you are blue in the face giving me numbers but it just doesn't cut it for certain images. The second obvious one is that I can't tone an inkjet! I can of course print it in color, but it just doesn't look the same, and I would lose all of the tonal benefits of using a dedicated black an white system like Lenny's.

When it comes to color prints, I have decided it isn't worth the aggravation of keeping an inkjet printer maintained ($$$$) and profiled, although I have made a nice buck on the side the last seven years doing this for other people. It is far less expensive to just get the prints done by someone else. I also prefer to have color images printed on Fuji Pearl paper, which has no equal in the realm of inkjet that I have ever heard of.

One thing I don't understand is why amateurs spend so much money in the digital realm on printers and ink and paper, etc, when they can have much better prints made by someone who really knows what the heck is going on. Spend your money on a great monitor and calibrate/profile it the appropriate way. Leave the output to someone who knows what they are doing. You will be much better off.

I don't claim my way is the best for anyone except me. I don't try to persuade anyone to do what I do. I may explain why I do it the way I do and why I think it's the best way for me but anyone is free to agree or disagree.

I don't talk about science when I talk about my ink jet prints. I talk about how they look. I think it's a major over-generalization to say that "[p]eople that make inkjet prints always talk about the science to justify their choice."

I haven't spent anything to keep my ink jet printer maintained except to buy one set of new cartridges for it in the roughly three or so years I've owned it. I run nozzle checks periodically and that's about the extent of the maintenance that's been required.

I have to disagree with the idea that only a commercial printer (by "commercial printer" I mean anyone who makes prints of other people's photographs for money) knows "what the heck is going on" when it comes to digital printing. I've seen plenty of outstanding ink jet prints from people who didn't use a lab to make the prints.

I can't speak for all amateurs but I own my own printer and buy my own ink and paper because nobody else can make my prints the way I want them made, at least not without my spending an inordinate amount of time with proofs and explanations, trying to get the print exactly as I wanted it. I disagree that someone else can make better prints of my photographs than I can, "better" in this sense meaning a better interpretation of my photograph. That's obviously not a choice everyone makes and that's fine, it's just the choice I've made.

Photography to me is 50% making the photograph and 50% making the print and I don't want to turn the second half over to someone else. Not that a good lab couldn't make a technically excellent print, just that it's highly unlikely that it would be made the same way I'd make it myself. And I want the print to look like I want it to look, not how someone else thinks it should look. And maybe most importantly, I've always enjoyed making my own prints. I enjoyed the darkroom in the many years when I used a darkroom and I enjoy making prints digitally today.

John Sexton used to mail one of his own negatives to each participant in one of his workshops before the workshop began (same negative to everyone) and asked them to make a print from it and bring their print to the workshop. He then displayed all the prints side by side so we could see the vast differences in the prints we each made. The point of the exercise being that when we didn't make the photograph ourselves we each interpreted it differently and made very different prints. I want my prints to represent my own interpretation of the photograph I made. And that's why I own my own printer and buy my own paper though I wouldn't say I spend "vast amounts" of money on it all.

Well, this has gone on longer than I intended so I'll stop. I certainly respect your opinions and if you or anyone else chooses to print in a darkroom or use a commercial ink jet printer that's fine with me. Those just aren't the choices I've made.

jchesky

31-Aug-2010, 11:31

The biggest difference I have found is that a wet-print even with repeatable steps is one-of-a-kind. Digital is endlessly repeatable without change. The next thing is the learning curve at which you can get what you want on paper. The wet-print process starts off with shorter learning curve (you can teach someone how to make a good print in 5 minutes), but as you reach for the master-craftsman level in the darkroom, this learning curve grows and frankly, never ends. On the computer the initial learning curve is longer, but you can reach a rather high level of expertise in months not years. The question that you need to ask is: What brings your work closest to your vision of what your work should be? Your ability to get what you want, to affect change in the original shot, to bring it closer to your vision is what you need to examine. Yesterday I stopped by a local camera store and on the wall at the entrance were several beautiful b&W. Digitally shot and printed. Could I find fault in them? No. However, they were not what I seek for my prints. It's why I still shoot film and print in a darkroom. Good luck. Jim

Drew Wiley

31-Aug-2010, 11:53

I seriously doubt any digital image is endlessly repeatable. Lots of parameters inevitably change: paper, inks, the software itself, etc. But the fact that inkjet does
allow a significant number of duplicate prints to be spit out is just one more factor of
non-appeal for me. Too mechanical, too many. Guess if that's how you make your living it makes sense. I'd rather be printing and framing new images.

Lenny Eiger

31-Aug-2010, 12:02

Digital images are only repeatable if you're not looking too closely. Main factors are temperature and humidity as it affects the absorption rate of the coating...

Lenny

rdenney

31-Aug-2010, 12:22

All of these different strategies are responses to different sets of requirements, and those requirements are responses to different objectives and activities. I may work slowly and inefficiently, and I may get mediocre results, but that process is part of the hobby for me.

I can think of a thousand scenarios were using a skilled commercial printer would have appeal. Those just don't include people who do it for their own enjoyment and satisfaction. Cost arguments are least persuasive--spending the money to develop my own capability (which I think produces excellent results by the definition of most people, if not by the definition of master printers) is an investment in my own enjoyment. And the return I get on that investment is not insignificant.

In music, young musicians often look at the instruments played by masters and think they must have such instruments to achieve excellence, or even their own potential. They get sucked into a trap of buying better and better stuff, only to realize that it just isn't enough. They don't buy for the appreciation of the instrument and with a sense of gratitude for being able to afford it. They don't buy it for the sheer thrill of of performing on a really fine instrument. They buy it because they think in their heart of hearts that doing so will make them better than they really are. It becomes a substitute for the slavishly hard work of becoming a master themselves. They are not making an investment in their own enjoyment, but rather expect a return on investment that what they are buying cannot provide. Disappointment is inevitable.

Those who buy an Epson 750 and an Epson 3800 thinking that they will be able to redefine the state of the art are fooling themselves. But most, having done so, have the means to explore their own potential. When they have exhausted that potential, they will know what to do.

Rick "for whom the state of the art is a fool's errand" Denney

Drew Wiley

31-Aug-2010, 12:52

Lenny - I'd guess, without being an expert on this, that the glycols present in the inks
are a significant factor in absorbtion and dry-down characteristics. The EPA has put a
ten year tentative moratorium on glycols in architectural pigments/paints. If this ever
transpires relative to inkjet, it will be a serious game-changer.

neil poulsen

31-Aug-2010, 13:30

It depends on what you like, and how much you like and want to produce a black and white, silver gelatin print.

As much as I like digital, I also like the unique look of a silver gelatin print. I know a fair amount about black and white photography, enough to make a beautiful print on occasion. At this point in my life, I'm not willing to relinquish that capability.

As to digital, one can get beautiful results from this medium. But, it won't have the same look (in my opinion) as a silver-gelatin, black and white print.

Paul Kierstead

31-Aug-2010, 13:44

It becomes a substitute for the slavishly hard work of becoming a master themselves. They are not making an investment in their own enjoyment, but rather expect a return on investment that what they are buying cannot provide. Disappointment is inevitable.

I shoot my own pictures, development them myself (colour & B&W), scan them myself, adjust and print them myself. I make my own frames (from rough wood, though cut down and dried by someone else) and mat my own prints. I leave very little to blame someone else for. It gives me great satisfaction to look at a framed print on the wall and know it truly is mine, mistakes and all. I do have some breaks; I worked in a custom lab for a time and my father was a woodworker, so I didn't really have to learn everything in the dark as it were. But I am 100% in your camp. Including the 750/3800 :)

On the fine instruments: I bought an artisan made, hand crafted infill handplane from a top maker for a considerable sum of money. Lots of woodworkers ask me if it performs all that much better then a 1/10 the cost (even american made, less for some foreign content) version and are really shocked when I tell them I don't think so. Most probably think I am a fool. But using such an incredibly well made, beautiful tool gives me great pleasure everytime I use it that I would happily get another if I could afford it.

paulr

31-Aug-2010, 13:50

The biggest difference I have found is that a wet-print even with repeatable steps is one-of-a-kind. Digital is endlessly repeatable without change.

This is an idea that's interested me in photography and in other fields where there's been a move toward more automated processes.

In darkroom printing, as in ceramics, it's long been a kind of holy grail to be able to produce identical multiples. This is how you proved your craftsmanship.

Curiously, the same people who are proud of their ability to make a set or edition without variation will turn around and criticize a mechanical process for ... making multiples without variation. Somehow, inconsistencies that were once the hallmarks of poor craftsmanship now get heralded as the benefits of a kind of craftsmanship.

I wonder if this comes from genuine changes of values, or if it's just bad rhetoric that rarely gets noticed.

I can personally say that I put a lot of effort into making identical prints when printing editions in the darkroom. My toning process made it really hard, which is why some of my editions have just four or five prints in them. One of the things i welcome with inkjet is not having to think so much about this kind of thing. Uniformity took a lot of energy that i felt could be better applied elsewhere.

rdenney

31-Aug-2010, 14:30

Most probably think I am a fool....

That's enough statement by itself to reveal motives for doing something ostensibly irrational. Those who do something without caring that others think they are a fool are investing in something internal, it seems to me. Those kids buying the instruments used by high-end pros because they think doing so will make them a high-end pro are explicitly concerned that others will think they are not a fool. Not looking like a fool is often a key part of that buying decision. It isn't what we buy, it's why we buy it.

The best among us can argue all they want about the marginal differences of this or that. But would we rather a new guy work with an inkjet printer and actually do it, or remain committed to a wet darkroom and never do it? Would we rather he be out there making large-format images and printing them on his 3800, or be shamed into letting an expert do it, and never doing it because it just doesn't interest him to work that way? Of course, this argument works just as well for defending those who partake the goofy process of converting part of a perfectly good house to a smelly chemical plant. They are also answering an internal call, and that is all the justification required. But I wonder if there are those who work in chemical darkrooms just because they think of themselves as keepers of a sacred flame.

Rick "a fool who's just happy to be here" Denney

paulr

31-Aug-2010, 17:58

Those who do something without caring that others think they are a fool are investing in something internal, it seems to me.

Interesting point. Also interesting, i suspect that the internal thing can have similarities with the external thing: they are often about identity.

If your identity is wrapped up very tightly with a particular activity, or even a particular process, there's a strong motivation to keep it safe from questioning. It's too personal.

I used to identify myself as a black and white large format photographer. This was great for my focus, but it also meant that it was near impossible to entertain other kinds of projects. It also meant that external threats (like materials being discontinued) and internal ones (like artist's block) felt like death sentences.

Some friends inspired me by example to loosen up, and since then I went from that identity to just being a photographer, to just being an artist (vaguely definied), and will likely some day just be a transient organism who spent some time on earth and made some pictures along the way.

I feel less grounded than I used to, and often have a more annoying time describing what I do—but the freedom this has allowed my imagination has been more than worth it. And little things like materials being discontinued now seem like what they really are: little things. They are no longer instigators of identity crises.

If inkjet printers get discontinued tomorrow, I'm pretty sure I'll figure out some new way to do my thing. Or maybe even some new thing to do.

lilmsmaggie

31-Aug-2010, 19:27

The best among us can argue all they want about the marginal differences of this or that. But would we rather a new guy work with an inkjet printer and actually do it, or remain committed to a wet darkroom and never do it? Would we rather he be out there making large-format images and printing them on his 3800, or be shamed into letting an expert do it, and never doing it because it just doesn't interest him to work that way?

I've just spent the last 10 years of my life and $80K, getting my ex-wife out of my pocket; the past 18 mos., getting a 15% haircut (aka pay cut) from Arnold Schwarzenegger.

As I see it, whichever path I choose whether it be the traditional darkroom or the digital darkroom is gonna be an expensive proposition considering I'm knocking on retirement's door.

Am I glad to have a job -- you bet. Am I a bit frustrated that I find it difficult to pursue my artistic endeavors?

Maybe I should take up a much cheaper hobby :)

Mike Anderson

31-Aug-2010, 20:21

I shoot my own pictures, development them myself (colour & B&W), scan them myself, adjust and print them myself. I make my own frames (from rough wood, though cut down and dried by someone else) and mat my own prints...

You don't cut down and dry your own wood for frames? I guess some people like to take the easy route. :)

...Mike

rdenney

1-Sep-2010, 06:20

I used to identify myself as a black and white large format photographer. This was great for my focus, but it also meant that it was near impossible to entertain other kinds of projects.

Such as urban "gardens", heh.

My own self-identity as a photographer has wandered to and fro, and always extended beyond the limits of what I can deliver within the context of my life.

I did commercial work as a sideline for a while, even to the extent of doing custom color processing for a couple of local pros, but photographing weddings and burning up Unicolor kits was no place for a part-timer. I quit that job; I already had a real job. Then, I started traveling, and I have made thousands of 35mm slides from the Colorado Plateau--a place that always fascinates me. But I never seem to move on the idea of editing them down and doing something with them. There are perhaps a few good photos in that mass of work, but they are hiding still.

I decided to make my Adams odyssey (don't we all have to attempt that at least once?) and focused more on large format and black and white. I built a darkroom, and spent some years trying to get good at it. But it was always in the context of being busy with work and with other pursuits, including music, and I always felt like my color work was more interesting, or at least could be done in more interesting places. I moved to another city, started but never finished a new darkroom because my new job was too demanding, and quit again. I just could not sustain interest at that time. I moved again, met my wife (who also loves photography), and came back into it again, continually looking for a way to do it that worked for me.

Why the story? What brought me back each was the ability to control the process, somewhat within the context of my life. In San Antonio, I could own my own darkroom and control the process, but that was a capability for that time and place only. During my second return, it was digital capability that again provided that ability to control the process. I wrote an article for second-world camera equipment collectors on low-cost digital darkrooms over 10 years ago, and that capability has kept me doing stuff at least at some level ever since.

I honestly don't know how to define myself as a photographer. I think I've done a little bit of good stuff, but I'm not sure anybody else thinks so, and my recent prints decorate the inside of a drawer in a map case. I expect they will end up in the dumpster. I'm not sure I can even tell whether I like what I do, though it is usually what I meant to do (sounds like a Vaughan Williams quote). But I know this: Without inkjets and computers, I would not be doing it at all.

I'm sure all that will cause those dedicated to 12 hours a day of craft to look down their noses at me, but there is nothing I can do, or care to do about that. They at least have nothing to fear from me.

Rick "just another middle-aged fat guy who takes pictures" Denney

Paul Kierstead

1-Sep-2010, 06:55

You don't cut down and dry your own wood for frames? I guess some people like to take the easy route. :)

...Mike

Not only that, I don't even coat my own plates! I totally wimp out and purchase pre-sensitized negative/positive materials. Not that I haven't thought about it :)

Aside ...

But I do enjoy 'owning' the process, and I definitely don't buy the 'difficulty' of maintaining an ink-jet setup, unless you are trying to use custom inks such as Lenny does. As to profiling and all the difficulty in 'colour management', it is hogwash; you most certainly *don't* need your printer or monitor profiled; you can inspect and correct the prints exactly the same way it was done for decades in negative printing. Profiling will (should) just get you closer on the first pass. I have both profiled because when your doing a print at a time, the down time during the printing is a PITA so I like to make less correction cycles. When I printed in a lab it was no big deal since you continue working. It baffles me when people who happily print, look at it and dial in a correction and print again then insist that digital printing requires a fully color managed flow, etc. when they could do the exact same process for digital. Of course, if you outsourcing your printing it gets more complicated.

Drew Wiley

1-Sep-2010, 09:37

I have often milled dried and milled my own mouldings, to get exactly the frames I
wanted. Hard way to make a buck, but it has been satisfying in terms of the end
result. If there were much more volume involved, I'd sub the moulding out to a trusted
hardwood specialty co; but in the past have found that many picture frame moulding suppliers per se don't cure the wood properly (that's why they generally use only the
most cooperative kinds of wood like ramin or poplar). One can take this kind of thing
as far as one wishes, and make whatever parts of the presentation one finds rewarding.

Lenny Eiger

1-Sep-2010, 11:00

I've made my own frames from boards as well. (I draw the line on cutting mats. I simply refuse. I have an associate in town who has one of those computerized cutters and just let them do it.) The frames were a lot of fun. My favorite wood ended up being a spalted maple. I found that I made about 7 frames in about 7 days. I did plenty of other things while the multiple coats of finish were drying. But that's about a day per.... As much as I enjoyed it I could never get my money back at that rate... few people wanted to pay me $500 or more for a hand made 24x30 frame. I don't know what I will do next.....

Lenny

Brian Ellis

1-Sep-2010, 11:21

This is an idea that's interested me in photography and in other fields where there's been a move toward more automated processes.

In darkroom printing, as in ceramics, it's long been a kind of holy grail to be able to produce identical multiples. This is how you proved your craftsmanship.

Curiously, the same people who are proud of their ability to make a set or edition without variation will turn around and criticize a mechanical process for ... making multiples without variation. Somehow, inconsistencies that were once the hallmarks of poor craftsmanship now get heralded as the benefits of a kind of craftsmanship.

I wonder if this comes from genuine changes of values, or if it's just bad rhetoric that rarely gets noticed.

I can personally say that I put a lot of effort into making identical prints when printing editions in the darkroom. My toning process made it really hard, which is why some of my editions have just four or five prints in them. One of the things i welcome with inkjet is not having to think so much about this kind of thing. Uniformity took a lot of energy that i felt could be better applied elsewhere.

Exactly. I always figure that anyone who thinks a darkroom print is unique has never seen or, worse yet, had to print a limited edition portfolio. There's nothing inherently unique about a darkroom print. The only difference in terms of uniqueness between multiple ink jet prints and multiple darkroom prints made in close succession is that one is sheer physical drudgery and the other is no physical effort at all, freeing one up to spend one's time on more creative endeavors than making multiple identical prints in a darkroom.

srbphoto

1-Sep-2010, 20:15

Jim collum

1-Sep-2010, 20:47

Lenny & Drew - you are probably less than an hour from each other. Meet up. Lenny show him what you got and give us a report.

PS if there is any screaming, yelling and hair pulling please remember the video and post on Youtube. Thank you.

another good source of excellent prints is Richard Lohmann ( http://www.richardlohmann.com/ ). He also mixes his own inks (works on them with Tom Mallonee http://www.tommallonee.com/ ). Richard is a long time silver and platinum printer (prints for platinum prints for the Imogen Cunningham Trust). He also lives in the Bay area

srbphoto

1-Sep-2010, 21:06

Richard started in the mid 90's making digital negs for platinum printing and then moved to full digital. He has some nice work.

I saw some of Tom's work about 7-8 years ago and was really blown away.
They were the first digital prints I saw that made me think "maybe..."

chris_4622

2-Sep-2010, 09:10

At one time Richard was using Efke 25 in Dr.5 and scanning. Is this still his method or is he using digital capture?

ret wisner

2-Sep-2010, 09:33

do you want to be a photographer or a digital inkjetter.
simple really

i personally use a darkroom and keep my inkjet for shouting practice

Paul Kierstead

2-Sep-2010, 09:37

do you want to be a photographer or a digital inkjetter.
simple really

Umm ... you do realize that is basically a non-sequitur, right? A photography takes pictures. A printer (man and/or machine) prints pictures. Many a photographer doesn't print, and a good number of printers I've known don't photography beyond their kids birthday, but I don't see how they are necessarily exclusive of each other.

ret wisner

2-Sep-2010, 09:50

hence why i said DIGITAL inkjetter, ie digital camera/scanner file.
aimed at original poster

photographer or digital inkjeter

simple they are quite different you know, hard to compare

Gem Singer

2-Sep-2010, 09:52

Ret, I don't understand your logic.

My present desire is to become a photographer who has mastered the skill required to produce a fine print with an inkjet printer.

I had the same desire when I was attempting to master the skill required to make a fine print with an optical enlarger in a darkroom.

Paul Kierstead

2-Sep-2010, 09:56

hence why i said DIGITAL inkjetter, ie digital camera/scanner file.
aimed at original poster

photographer or digital inkjeter

simple they are quite different you know, hard to compare

Well, they are hard to compare because they are unrelated.

ret wisner

2-Sep-2010, 09:56

i thought i was supposed to be responding to the original poster on this thread.

he is not sure on his direction

one route is a photographic route (darkroom)
another route is a inkjet (non photographic)

so putting it simply inkjetter or photography

theirs your choices

ive never liked the idea of calling myself a inkjetter

Jim collum

2-Sep-2010, 10:12

photography doesn't equal printing

choices are printing in darkroom, or printing via inkjet (lot of other choices as well... too many to list)... but source for both of those in this case (since we're talking in a photography forum ) is photographic (i think this has been said many many times before). he may not be sure of his direction.. but your map doesn't make sense.

never liked just calling myself a silver printer.. i'm a photographer (regardless of output method)

i thought i was supposed to be responding to the original poster on this thread.

he is not sure on his direction

one route is a photographic route (darkroom)
another route is a inkjet (non photographic)

so putting it simply inkjetter or photography

theirs your choices

ive never liked the idea of calling myself a inkjetter

ret wisner

2-Sep-2010, 10:16

Jim collum

2-Sep-2010, 10:23

Paul Kierstead

2-Sep-2010, 10:23

photographer:
–noun
a person who takes photographs, esp. one who practices photography professionally.

----
You'll note that output is not considered.

By your definition, those who print via offset (i.e. magazines, books, etc) are not photographers. Is this your contention?

Darin Boville

2-Sep-2010, 10:58

no photographic output comes out of a inkjet machine, for obvious reasons (no photons used in the production of print)

but if you do use light for production of negs and prints then it is a purely photographic process

so as i said before, photographer or digital inkjetter

these titles mean something

digital output has little to do with photography

Interesting conception. So you need at least two sets of photons to be a photographer--the photons that record the initial image and the photons that are projected onto the paper.

Perhaps we can generalize this to say, the closer the viewer to the photons the better?

If that is so then I proclaim that you are not a photographer at all but a "silver printer"--a real photographer, maximizing those photons, would simply project the recorded (graphed) image--the projection itself would be the final work.

Very cool. Thanks for sharing.

--Darin

ret wisner

2-Sep-2010, 11:00

welcome

jim kitchen

2-Sep-2010, 11:44

Gentlemen,

There are many, many archival conservation papers that are available through good research, and within these papers there is a conservation terminology question regarding whether a new definition should be required for a digital print, a photomechanical print, or even a Xerox copy that could compete with the known definition of a photograph. It seems that the current contemporary definition of a photograph, at least one that is accepted in the conservation field, is to classify an object or a material that was sensitive to light during the photographic process. The photomechanical print, for lack of better words, is a contemporary term too, where it is described as an object which was not sensitive to light during the photographic process.

A film's negative, whether it happens to be made of glass, mylar, or a paper based material, is classified as an archival object too, since it is an object that was sensitive to light, and although many digital image makers today insist that a digital camera was sensitized to light too, they therefore insist that the digitally captured image should be included within the photographic terminology, whereas film image makers periodically and vehemently resist that argument. There in lies the basis of their discussion, or disagreement…

These definition classifications continue to propagate many boisterous and sometimes incoherent discussions among film practitioners and digital image makers, and although conservation practitioners, and their scientific practices look at each individual output as a simple object, they never discuss whether the object was introduced by a photographer and, or another profession. If you are capable of finding a terminology that expresses your meaning, and with great effect among your peers and associates, then you should use the term properly, and you should not use the term to degrade another object's creation method, compared to any other creation method that exists today, and possibly tomorrow. They are different entities, created by different methods as identified within the conservation environment, and they are treated as such, respected as such, and analyzed for the objects that they represent.

A photographer can employ each method to create a photographic object, and will continue to employ these methods going forward to create objects that are considered to be either light sensitive, or mechanically produced, as defined within the conservator's practice.

Just my two pennies…

jim k

ret wisner

2-Sep-2010, 11:48

why over complicate, your either a wannabee photographer or a wannabee inkjetter

Paul Kierstead

2-Sep-2010, 11:53

why over complicate, your either a wannabee photographer or a wannabee inkjetter

Again, is it your contention that those whose images end up in books or magazines, where the image was not formed optically, are not photographers? Are they just wannabee offsetters?

ret wisner

2-Sep-2010, 12:01

book is a book, photographer is a photographer.

only a inkjetter can get this simple concept all mixed up, if i spent many hours and loads of money on being a inkjetter i would be loud and proud

Mike Anderson

2-Sep-2010, 12:07

Paul Kierstead

2-Sep-2010, 13:00

book is a book, photographer is a photographer.

only a inkjetter can get this simple concept all mixed up, if i spent many hours and loads of money on being a inkjetter i would be loud and proud

sooo ... an inkjet print is an inkjet print, a photographer is a photographer, no? But someone who's output medium is a book can't be a photographer, because no photons were sacrificed in the printing of the book. By your own logic, they can't be a photographer.

BetterSense

2-Sep-2010, 13:33

A photography takes pictures. A printer (man and/or machine) prints pictures.

Stop all this "photography versus printing" nonsense. The distinction between photographing and printing is not relevant, because printing may or may not be photography, and photography may or may not involve printing. The only place to draw the line that makes sense is what is the media used. Not all pictures are photographs, and not all prints on paper are photographs, and not all photographs are prints!

In my mind--and it breaks down rather fundamentally in my opinion--there is photography. It's a medium for picture making. Long and glorious tradition. And there are other media as well--things like digital art, painting, drawing, engraving, and digital printing. All these things are media for making pictures but not photographs.

Camera negatives are photographs. Negative ones, but photographs nevertheless. If you shoot film in a camera, you can say you are a photographer. You create photographs.

Silver prints are themselves photographs. What is silver printing except a rephotography process? They are traditionally photographs of camera negatives, but if they aren't, they are still photographs themselves. They could be photograms. They could be photographs of a digital negative. They are, however, photographs, so if you make silver prints you can say you are a photographer.

Shooting film in a camera is photography (a photograph is created). Printing a negative is photography (a photograph is created). If you do either of those you are doing photography.

If you shoot film and then scan and print inkjets, you are both a photographer and a digital artist (you make photographs and then scan them and make digital art).

I can't account for the tendency of purely digital artists to get mad when you insist that they aren't doing photography, or of hybrid photographers when you point out that their inkjet prints are in fact not photographs. Why is that an insult? What's the big deal calling it like it is? When can we stop thinking that it's somehow inferior to make digital art? I can only attribute it to an insecurity/inferiority complex. It's ok guys. Inkjet prints can be art too. The sooner we get over this the better.It doesn't help anyone to have 453 different media all called "photography".

Steve Gledhill

2-Sep-2010, 13:39

... I look at many of my old darkroom prints and see improvements that I could now make in Photoshop that were virtually impossible in a darkroom with the limited tools available there.

Precisely !

And another vote for that ...

And now I shoot 5x4 film for scanning / photoshop / ink printing that I would never ever have contemplated shooting when the darkroom was the only way to make a print. I was a relatively early adopter (about 9 years ago) of scanning / photoshop / ink printing when things were nowhere near as good as they are now. It revitalised my interest and widened my horizons considerably.

I could never make darkroom print to my complete satisfaction; but a good silver print is just as lovely as a good ink print.

Brent Jensen

2-Sep-2010, 13:39

Hi to Everyone- Again

I want to thank everyone who responded to what was a loaded and perhaps a poorly worded question. In 1969 I returned home from a trip into Baniff and Jasper National Parks with my little Brownie black and white snapshots. They were in my pocket when I walked into the Academy of Sciences in San Francisco. Hanging there were prints by Adams, someone I had never heard of before. I looked at my little prints in my hand and compared them to what I was seeing on the walls. I was dumbfounded. “Who is this guy and how in the hell did he do this”, kept going through my head. Many years later I returned to the same exhibit site and looked at a retrospective of Gordon Parks’ work. It included some inkjets that were just stunning. So I have no bone to pick with ether process.
I just reread George Dewolf’s book Creating The Digital Master Print. Curious what anybody who has read it thinks of it. If I read it correctly it it would seem that to excel one would need specific print drivers and inks, (Cone ), profiles, etc. It seems to suggest that If I’m happy with 16x20’s an Epson 750 and an epson 3880 would be in order. Looks to me that tough negatives or bigger prints would require a drum scan. Bigger prints I would sub out.

I’ll rephrase my original question. Using an Epson 3880 printer, using their supplied inks, ( or Cone ), combined with the proper paper and profiles can I produce a print with the look of a well printed fiber based print?. Like Drew Wiley, I haven’t seen it, but admit to not having looked around for several years. Lenny Eiger states it can be done and I have no reason to disbelieve him, I’m just not going that far down the digital road. At least for now. I believe Bob Carnie suggested the possibility of using using both methods, and had some specific examples. Bob, not to worry, I won’t be sending anything off to you. I still have my 4x5 darkroom equipment, it’s just packed away. Jim Kitchen, I’m sorry about the lost of your darkroom.
Even when I wasn’t printing it was good to know it was there. I just never could bring myself to have someone else print my personal work. It’s the subtle differences that count. As an experiment I once made three prints as close to identical as I could. One FB graded, one FB multi graded and one multi graded resin coated All Illford paper, all mounted. Showed it to a bunch of people who knew nothing about photography. Everyone of them picked the FB graded print as their favorite. FB multigrade was usually second, resin last. Nobody could say why, but clearly they could see a difference.

This argument over equipment and technique has gone on forever. A stranger and I were once shooting the same subject in a national park and I thought he was going to have a stroke because we were not metering the scene the same way. Just couldn’t let it go. But it’s these discussions that lead to better work. I’m sure of my darkroom ability. I’m not sure what is possible with a modest inkjet setup. Once a photo is in the computer the control is just phenomenal. But if the output isn’t where a person wants it to be, then what is the point? As for learning curves, well that just helps the little gray cells in your head. And speaking personally, I don’t care which path is taken as long as it gets me to where I want to go. It’s been interesting to say the least, so I thank everyone for their input. A final question. Last time I used my 4x5 for B&W, I used TMAX , what’s anybody using now?

Brent

ret wisner

2-Sep-2010, 13:55

wow i just love the intellectual opinions being let loose , as far as i can tell i havent shot down anybodys statements at all,i expressed my opinion thats all.

i just wish that the same respect is shown in return.

as far as my opinion is concerned the term photograph is reserved for a traditional optical and chemical print.

inkjets are just that inkjets, pls refrain from hijacking another craft/arts descriptive name and be proud of the populist name (inkjet) that has been chosen for your craft/art.

than the arguement will end.....to be continued im sure

Peter Mounier

2-Sep-2010, 14:50

wow i just love the intellectual opinions being let loose , as far as i can tell i havent shot down anybodys statements at all,i expressed my opinion thats all.

i just wish that the same respect is shown in return.

I was kind of surprised by your comment so I re-read the posts to try to find one where somebody was disrespectful to you. I couldn't find any. What disrespect are you talking about?

Peter

Jim collum

2-Sep-2010, 14:56

Hi to Everyone- Again

A final question. Last time I used my 4x5 for B&W, I used TMAX , what’s anybody using now?

Brent

I think you'll get many answers to this.. Me? I use TXP 320, along with FP4+

Kirk Gittings

2-Sep-2010, 15:08

wow i just love the intellectual opinions being let loose , as far as i can tell i havent shot down anybodys statements at all,i expressed my opinion thats all.

i just wish that the same respect is shown in return.

You call it respectful? It looks allot like adolescent flamming to me......

why over complicate, your either a wannabee photographer or a wannabee inkjetter

Jim collum

2-Sep-2010, 15:12

It is interesting to see this view continue. This is a 'battle' that seems to only be argued in very specific, gear related forums, that have a history of film usage. To the rest of the world (museums, galleries, publications, photographers (99.99999%), and the buying public... something similar to what she (http://www.susanburnstine.com/ ) produces (captured on film, printed on inkjet), are photographs. (she's also one of the bigger selling photographers, with prints hanging on walls next to some of the best silver printing photographers, and commanding the same price for her work.

There was a brief 'battle' among the museums and galleries years ago, but that had more to do with archival quality of the actual piece being presented.

It lasted a lot longer than they usually do.. with quite a bit of decent, relevant information being passed onto Brent, before getting mired in non-relevance. I figure another half dozen or so responses on film being used, and this thread gets locked with all the other ratholes :)

wow i just love the intellectual opinions being let loose , as far as i can tell i havent shot down anybodys statements at all,i expressed my opinion thats all.

i just wish that the same respect is shown in return.

as far as my opinion is concerned the term photograph is reserved for a traditional optical and chemical print.

inkjets are just that inkjets, pls refrain from hijacking another craft/arts descriptive name and be proud of the populist name (inkjet) that has been chosen for your craft/art.

than the arguement will end.....to be continued im sure

jim kitchen

2-Sep-2010, 15:27

book is a book, photographer is a photographer.

only a inkjetter can get this simple concept all mixed up, if i spent many hours and loads of money on being a inkjetter i would be loud and proud

Dear Ret,

If you have a moment, I am curious to know why are you so aggressively upset about such a simple term, and why would you make such a comment about anyone that might consider themselves to be "inkjetter?"

Again, just curious... :)

jim k

paulr

2-Sep-2010, 16:39

no photographic output comes out of a inkjet machine, for obvious reasons (no photons used in the production of print)

Ret, you might be surprised if checked out what the curators of all the major photography collections are collecting; what the editors at all the major photo publications are publishing; what the art historians at all the universities and universiy presses are writing about ... I think you'd find that your definition of photography is one that you've made up for rhetorical purposes, and not one that's in current use.

You might consider that your definition, in addition to excluding many of the most important contemporary photographers, also excludes the work of historical photographers who worked with gravure, carbon printing, bromoil, gumoil, woodburytypes ... all of these processes use dyes or pigments as opposed photo-sensitive metal salts. None of the resulting prints are on light-sensitive paper.

At any rate, if you were having this discussion with Plato (or anyone versed in rhetoric or the history of philosophy), you'd find your argument dismissed on grounds of etymological falacy (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/etymolog.html)—the mistaken notion that a word's origin determines its current definition.

If I were unaware of this falacy, I could argue that you're not reading this right now on a computer, because "computer" was coined in the first half of the last century to describe a worker who operated an adding machine all day long.

paulr

2-Sep-2010, 16:47

wow i just love the intellectual opinions being let loose , as far as i can tell i havent shot down anybodys statements at all,i expressed my opinion thats all.

as far as my opinion is concerned the term photograph is reserved for a traditional optical and chemical print.

As the wise man once said, you're entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts. Definitions and usage, while not matters of hard fact (like the density of copper, or the boiling point of water) are not actually matters of individual opinion. They're determined by consensus, and generally with the usage of "experts" (like, in this case, curators and historians) getting privileged over the useage of lay people (like folks with axes to grind on internet forums).

inkjets are just that inkjets, pls refrain from hijacking another craft/arts descriptive name ...

Too late. It's already been done, and not by us, and not in this decade, either.

Mike Anderson

2-Sep-2010, 16:54

...
At any rate, if you were having this discussion with Plato (or anyone versed in rhetoric or the history of philosophy), you'd find your argument dismissed on grounds of etymological falacy (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/etymolog.html)—the mistaken notion that a word's origin determines its current definition.

If I were unaware of this falacy, I could argue that you're not reading this right now on a computer, because "computer" was coined in the first half of the last century to describe a worker who operated an adding machine all day long.

Nice example. I was thinking about a definition of "print":

produce (books, newspapers, magazines, etc.), esp. in large quantities, by a mechanical process involving the transfer of text, images, or designs to paper.

implying light/chemical image transfer is not "printing". But your "computer" example is better.

...Mike

ret wisner

2-Sep-2010, 17:12

the thread we are responding to is about inkjetting vs darkroom and i am adding my opinion.

if you want to do inkjetting then do it, if your prefer photography get in the darkroom.i dont care if inkjetting looks as good/different to photography, thats not the point.

but you must understand that you cant be a inkjetter and a photographer , this is just a misuse of a inappropriate/misleading term for you non photographic prints

they fail to be a photographic prints if they are squirted out of a inkjet machine

please resist the need to disguise your prints by using photographic terms which are not applicable

be proud of your inkjets and just call them inkjets, not pigment prints or any other lame attempt to cover up the fact that they are just computer controlled inkjets

Maris Rusis

2-Sep-2010, 17:15

[QUOTE=paulr;624818]As the wise man once said, you're entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts. Definitions and usage, while not matters of hard fact (like the density of copper, or the boiling point of water) are not actually matters of individual opinion. They're determined by consensus, and generally with the usage of "experts" (like, in this case, curators and historians) getting privileged over the useage of lay people (like folks with axes to grind on internet forums).

This is both a description of what is happening and an illustration of another fallacy: argumentum ad populum, usually referred to as the "democratic fallacy". No concensus of experts, no cabal of historians, no popular usage, can vote the truth.

Inkjets are the mechanical equivalent of traditional painting and remain securely distinguishable from photographs.

Jim collum

2-Sep-2010, 17:19

but that's where you're wrong.. they *are* photographs.. . photographic prints output via an inkjet printer (or photographic print output to dye transfer, or photographic print output to carbon transfer.. etc etc). *your* definition is an archaic one (similar to paul's computer example). bring this up to someone buying a print in a gallery, and they'll look at you and say .. "huh?"

I'm a photographer. i ouput my work on platinum, silver, inkjet. (and i label them appropriately when selling). They are *all* sold as photographs

the thread we are responding to is about inkjetting vs darkroom and i am adding my opinion.

if you want to do inkjetting then do it, if your prefer photography get in the darkroom.i dont care if inkjetting looks as good/different to photography, thats not the point.

but you must understand that you cant be a inkjetter and a photographer , this is just a misuse of a inappropriate/misleading term for you non photographic prints

they fail to be a photographic prints if they are squirted out of a inkjet machine

please resist the need to disguise your prints by using photographic terms which are not applicable

be proud of your inkjets and just call them inkjets, not pigment prints or any other lame attempt to cover up the fact that they are just computer controlled inkjets

ret wisner

2-Sep-2010, 17:25

why cant you just let me have my opinion??

im not qouting people im just expressing my opinion

it may be right it may be wrong, some may agree and others wont.
cant we just leave it there and stop this endless lets prove his opinion to be incorrect, blah blah

i listen to other opinions and dont feel the need to knock people for thinking differently

maybe the author appreciates the different opinions and welcomes alternative views of the world of photography.

live and let live

Steve M Hostetter

2-Sep-2010, 17:26

I have an old epson 2000p that maybe made 20 inkjet prints that looked right.. The heads clogged and made prints that looked like the jokers face.
One day I'm gonna open the backdoor and see how far I can throw this piece of sht

wet prints are kind to me

ret wisner

2-Sep-2010, 17:34

all technology seems to provoke a new kind of rage, inkjetting machines are just another variety of anger provoking techie lets sit in our chairs and not actually do anything vibe thats consuming this world.

i had a printer once , it broke down as they all do so i hacked all the plastic of the casing and now use the plastic as homemade lens boards, + the grey plastic matches my calumet perfectly.

Peter Mounier

2-Sep-2010, 17:48

why cant you just let me have my opinion??

You're welcome to your opinion. But you're insisting that we abandon our opinions and nearly unanimous consensus when you say...

...but you must understand that you cant be a inkjetter and a photographer , this is just a misuse of a inappropriate/misleading term for you non photographic prints

they fail to be a photographic prints if they are squirted out of a inkjet machine

please resist the need to disguise your prints by using photographic terms which are not applicable

Peter

Mike Anderson

2-Sep-2010, 17:49

why cant you just let me have my opinion??
...

It's not about your opinion, it's about your definition. When you try to promote an uncommon definition (in this case the definition of "photography" or "photographic"), some people that use the more common definition will argue against it.

You're entitled to your definitions, but when you preach them in a public place some people will disagree publicly.

No big deal.:) It's just words.

...Mike

Lenny Eiger

2-Sep-2010, 17:50

all technology seems to provoke a new kind of rage

It is not technology, but you who are provoking rage.

We all, including you, are entitled to our opinions. However, when you suggest something is "not photography" you are basically implying that these people are not 'real' photographers. It's offensive. Some insinuate that "you can't make a good print" with an inkjet, or outside of a darkroom, that implies that people, maybe even good printers, aren't what they imagine. It flies in the face of historic imagery, which is where we all come from, our visual ancestry.

Frankly, the way you have stated your opinion is nasty.

People have treated you with respect and patience, and I, for one, don't think you deserve it.

Lenny

ret wisner

2-Sep-2010, 17:51

your still doing it, my opinion stands.

cant you be big enough to to just let it be my opinion??

paulr

2-Sep-2010, 17:56

why cant you just let me have my opinion??

You've been expressing an opinion on something that's not a matter of simple opinion (word definitions, useage). And you're stating opinion as fact ("only a inkjetter can get this simple concept all mixed up ...").
And you're expressing these ideas without backing them up with anything but repetition.

The short of is that contributions like this are worthless and annoying. If you actually had a provocative idea about the taxonomy of phographic processes, we'd all love to hear it. But unsupported (and unsupportable) assertions just waste everyone's time and make the world noiser.

it may be right it may be wrong, some may agree and others wont.

If it can be right or wrong, it's not an opinion. It's got factual content. If yo posit something factual, you should be able to defend it. Otherwise ... yer just makin' noise.

Saying something like "I don't like the smell of inkjet prints" or "I don't like working with digital processes" counts as opinion. It's not very illuminating if you just leave it at that, so people probably won't care ... but there's nothing there to argue with. It's opinion ... like your favorite ice cream flavor, your favorite animal ...

ret wisner

2-Sep-2010, 18:04

paulr

2-Sep-2010, 18:19

its my opinion, whats not to get.

Then it's the opinion of someone who doesn't know what an opinion is, how to articulate one, or how to understand logical arguments.

Not sure why you think the OP or anyone else would care about such a thing.

ret wisner

2-Sep-2010, 18:24

im not argueing , you are....

integrity....lost art

why pickup the garbage if you can just use the clone tool

Darin Boville

2-Sep-2010, 18:32

You know, Ret is obviously having a bit of fun here putting his view out for a reaction but the obvious sensitivity exhibited by many posts here might be worth exploring head on.

Are photographers who print with inkjets a little insecure (still) over the process?

--Darin

ret wisner

2-Sep-2010, 18:38

lets all just put our cameras down and start exploring the real problems presented to us in this reality of ours.

because my opinon is that this world is going to be screwed long before kodak shut there doors

Jim collum

2-Sep-2010, 18:58

its my opinion, whats not to get.

why argue against it, that makes no sense. none at all

like i said i did not quote anybody, i just made my own mind up

its a important idea that a lot of people think that inkjetting is kinda non photographic, and this thread starter needs to know this. it may be that this reality is important to him also.

why do it the easy way when there is more respect to be earnt by doing something right

it's not what you're saying it's how your saying it, and the little sneer you have when you say it (implied, but very very 'there'). "a lot of people" is a misnomer. You might as well be saying the earth is flat.. sure.. a lot of people say the earth is flat.. so you have to know that's true. If you feel the 'earth if flat' then fine.. but when you start telling people that, you'll find others speaking up.. and when you say the earth is flat , and imply that anyone who believes others are 'hacks', then you'll get an even louder reply.

saying , "i prefer to print on silver paper, using an enlarger", but allowing the respect to others who don't follow your way won't get you the rise that it seems you try to get. your remarks are volatile and meant to garner the response they are getting (ala troll)

Paul Kierstead

2-Sep-2010, 19:08

The distinction between photographing and printing is not relevant, because printing may or may not be photography, and photography may or may not involve printing.

Well, if you like, you can redefine photography, but it is not the production of a print. A photographer is one who photographs. It really is simple. It is not the production of a print. The final result that hangs on the wall is a collaboration between a printer and photographer; they maybe the same person or not. In either case, the generally accepted concept of photography is that it is some kind of "mechanical" reproduction of the original scene, possibly manipulated.

Mike Anderson

2-Sep-2010, 19:11

This is both a description of what is happening and an illustration of another fallacy: argumentum ad populum, usually referred to as the "democratic fallacy". No concensus of experts, no cabal of historians, no popular usage, can vote the truth....

I don't think the heated part of this thread is about "truth", but more about language and definitions, and I think human language is defined by popular use. I know some people disagree with that but that's my opinion.

Human language evolves, and internet forum threads evolve.

...Mike

Brian Ellis

2-Sep-2010, 20:02

your still doing it, my opinion stands.

cant you be big enough to to just let it be my opinion??

I certainly can. Some people think aliens abducted Elvis. You think photographs made on an ink jet printer aren't photographs. I let the Elvis people have their opinion, I let you have yours. No problem.

cyrus

2-Sep-2010, 20:04

Remember the customer is interested in your art, not how you made it, materials used, or the equipment used.

I strongly disagree. In fact quite the reverse. The workmanship and skill invovled in making a wet print will set it apart from the billions and billions of prints that soon any kid with a cellphone and a Photoshop app will be able to produce. A magazine publisher may not care but the collector if fine art will always pick a platinum print or even a silver emulsion print over a digital print simple because of how it was made and the materials used, even if the image itself can be identically reproduced digitally.

Jim collum

2-Sep-2010, 20:17

I strongly disagree. In fact quite the reverse. The workmanship and skill invovled in making a wet print will set it apart from the billions and billions of prints that soon any kid with a cellphone and a Photoshop app will be able to produce. A magazine publisher may not care but the collector if fine art will always pick a platinum print or even a silver emulsion print over a digital print simple because of how it was made and the materials used, even if the image itself can be identically reproduced digitally.

in the middle of a chat session with a curator of one of the leading photography galleries (probably one of the earliest ones in the US). She says that the medium is a very minor factor in the buying of a piece (these are pieces that range from a minimum of $1k to over $30K). the look that a particular medium brings to the image has more bearing. There are photographers she represents who only output to inkjet, that has no relevance on the price of the image. There are a few galleries that represent only non-digital work, but in that world, that's a marketing point more than anything else. The days of inkjet being the lesser alternative in the high end fine art market has been over for a bit now. It's all about the image first

Merg Ross

2-Sep-2010, 20:29

Until today, I enjoyed this thread for those who made every effort to answer the OP. Of course, there will always be, and should be, different technique and perhaps a bias toward one or another. I have mine, and stated it very early in the thread; I am a silver gelatin printer.

The important task before us as photographers, is to place our vision on a piece of paper, process being less important than vision, in my opinion. This comes from one who was raised on Edward Weston prints from an early age, and has equal respect for my friends who have chosen a different printing process; however, my respect is for their vision, process aside.

Before I take my last look at this very tired thread, I want to thank all of those who made a sincere effort to answer Brent, without an emotional outpouring or bias. I learned a good deal.

paulr

2-Sep-2010, 20:30

...the collector if fine art will always pick a platinum print or even a silver emulsion print over a digital print simple because of how it was made and the materials used, even if the image itself can be identically reproduced digitally.

How do you know what collectors of fine art are actually buying these days? Where the most money is going? When I see contemporary work at high end galleries and at public collections, I see a mix of every kind of medium. Platinum, silver, c-prints, digital c-prints, inkjet prints, and everything else. The trend I've noticed is a predictable one; most of the ink prints and digital c-prints are from recent years, because it's recent technology. I just don't see evidence of the bias you describe.

Of note: the Sotheby's auction site doesn't even list the type of print. And the last time I checked their auction report, there were digital prints sold, to collectors, at prices over $40,000. So it would seem that collectors with big money have bigger things on their mind than printing technology.

And of course there are niche collectors who collect only platinum (or cyanotype, or hand-tinted bichromate prints, or whatever ...). That's the wonderful thing about art collectors; they are a diverse group with diverse tastes and eccentricities. You might sell a print someday for piles of money to someone who has a pigeon fetish, when he sees a pigeon barely visible in the corner of your photo. Stranger things happen!

Kirk Gittings

2-Sep-2010, 20:35

but the collector if fine art will always pick a platinum print or even a silver emulsion print over a digital print simple because of how it was made and the materials used, even if the image itself can be identically reproduced digitally.

Not. Sure there are collectors who prefer platinum or silver, but to generalize to all "collectors of fine art" is ill informed. I can tell you from personal experience.

rdenney

2-Sep-2010, 21:53

why over complicate, your either a wannabee photographer or a wannabee inkjetter

Or you wannabee a troll who kicks anthills...again and again...for the enjoyment of watching the ants wiggle. Nothing you have said provides any illumination on a topic already blasted into oblivion many times on this forum.

Rick "thinking persuasion requires more depth than a half-sentence mantra repeated over and over, if indeed persuasion is the goal" Denney

Tyler Boley

2-Sep-2010, 21:56

Hi to Everyone- Again
...
I’ll rephrase my original question. Using an Epson 3880 printer, using their supplied inks, ( or Cone ), combined with the proper paper and profiles can I produce a print with the look of a well printed fiber based print?....
Brent

no, inkjet will not make prints "with the look of a well printed fiber based silver print". Nor will the great darkroom worker be able to make a silver print with the look and feel of a masterful inkjet print.
Additionally, casting all inkjet prints in the same light for purposes of comparison is not valid, any more than putting all silver prints made from any materials in the same category is valid. It would not even be wise to use the same image for comparison, as different processes beautifully exploit different tonal content in different ways, or not.
Both processes are capable of beautiful, but also dreadful, results.
Seek out as many examples of masterfully made prints from inkjet and darkroom, and you and the nature of your work will gravitate to one over the other. Then spend irrational amounts of time energy and money attempting to master which one you've chosen, that's the main thing. Neither, by nature, will do anything in particular. You're going to have to make it work for you with major commitment.
I learned silver printing while it was still in it's glory, from some real masters. I also adopted inkjet and the niche methods of exploiting it to it's fullest before anyone I see chiming in or mentioned here so far, to my knowledge.
I won't say I mastered any of it, but the above reflects my decades of observations on this question.
Tyler

paulr

2-Sep-2010, 22:30

Tyler is dead on.

I'll add, though, that there is overlap between what inkjet can do and what silver can do. I have a body of work that I printed both ways. And since I printed it silver first, the look of the silver prints strongly influenced how i felt about the images, and what I was aiming for with the ink prints.

Holding these prints in your hands side by side, the difference is obvious ... for starters, one is matte, the other glossy. But people seeing a mix of prints, behind glass, often guess wrong when I ask them which is silver and which is ink.

This is a minor point ... for the most part, Tyler is right, and if you're trying to exploit the best of what each material can do, your silver prints will have a different sensibility from your ink prints.

JeffKohn

2-Sep-2010, 22:51

I wonder how many in the "they look completely different but are both nice in their own way" camp equate inkjet prints with matte paper?

I would certainly agree that inkjet prints on fine art matte/rag papers look completely different than a silver gelatin print. Even setting aside obvious differences in paper surface and putting the prints behind glass, the difference in DMax should be obvious especially if comparing them side by side (unless the images are high-key or don't really have any shadows).

But prints on the newer f-type gloss inkjet papers look far more like silver prints than they do matte inkjet prints. I would say that behind glass the difference would be very difficult if not possible to see, depending on the image (to me the highlight tones are where you can still see subtle differences).

paulr

2-Sep-2010, 23:09

I wonder how many in the "they look completely different but are both nice in their own way" camp equate inkjet prints with matte paper?

That's definitely a big part of it for me ... my silver prints are gloss and my ink prints (piezo) are matte. So I'm always doing an apples/oranges comparison.

The ink prints are also capable of a perfectly linear curve from their darkest black to lightest highlight; a longer straight line section than any silver paper or even platinum paper. But most prints I've seen or made don't take full advantage of this ability. It gives a unique look that isn't always what you want.

cyrus

3-Sep-2010, 07:33

Not. Sure there are collectors who prefer platinum or silver, but to generalize to all "collectors of fine art" is ill informed. I can tell you from personal experience.

Give it time and I think you'll see more and more of them concentrating on the analogue stuff. Why? Simply because as the digital technology progresses, you will soon reach a stage where any 12-year old armed with a quantum-dot cellphone will be able to match anything that the best digital photogs put out. That's just the technology at work. The divide between the digital amateur and the digital pro will narrow and disappear. This is the trend. The niche of analogue photogs will be exclusive and limited and in-demand....AND THEN I SHALL RULE THE WORLD!

Jim collum

3-Sep-2010, 07:41

Give it time and I think you'll see more and more of them concentrating on the analogue stuff. Why? Simply because as the digital technology progresses, you will soon reach a stage where any 12-year old armed with a quantum-dot cellphone will be able to match anything that the best digital photogs put out. That's just the technology at work. The divide between the digital amateur and the digital pro will narrow and disappear. This is the trend. The niche of analogue photogs will be exclusive and limited and in-demand.

will not happen. when you're selling at that level, it has very little to do with the process and everything to do with the vision, consistency of work, emotional/intellectual impact on the viewer.. things you don't get with a lucky snap once in your life. so what if there are a million boring over saturated HDR images being run thru flickr.

paulr

3-Sep-2010, 07:53

will not happen. when you're selling at that level, it has very little to do with the process and everything to do with the vision, consistency of work, emotional/intellectual impact on the viewer.. things you don't get with a lucky snap once in your life. so what if there are a million boring over saturated HDR images being run thru flickr.

Exactly. You don't see collectors walking up to Gursky's prints with a loupe and swooning over the craftsmanship. That kind of conversation hasn't been central to art since Warhol came along. And for much of the art world, Warhol's messsage was an old one. Avant garde movements going back to Duchamp in 1916 or 1917 had already recognized that craftsmanship is actually the commodity item ... any worker could learn to make well a crafted thing (and increasingly, so could machines). Photography itself actually precipitated this crisis in the mid 19th century: it showed that perfect representation, once the holy grail of painters, was merely a mechanical process. The only unique value we can bring to art is vision.

This isn't an argument against craft; it's an argument against the centrality of it. Craftsmanship at one level or another is necessary to make a vision concrete. Some kinds visions are best served by a higher level of craft than others. But craft will never again, by itself, be the central point.

cyrus

3-Sep-2010, 07:53

How do you know what collectors of fine art are actually buying these days? Where the most money is going? When I see contemporary work at high end galleries and at public collections, I see a mix of every kind of medium. Platinum, silver, c-prints, digital c-prints, inkjet prints, and everything else. The trend I've noticed is a predictable one; most of the ink prints and digital c-prints are from recent years, because it's recent technology. I just don't see evidence of the bias you describe.

Of note: the Sotheby's auction site doesn't even list the type of print. And the last time I checked their auction report, there were digital prints sold, to collectors, at prices over $40,000. So it would seem that collectors with big money have bigger things on their mind than printing technology.

And of course there are niche collectors who collect only platinum (or cyanotype, or hand-tinted bichromate prints, or whatever ...). That's the wonderful thing about art collectors; they are a diverse group with diverse tastes and eccentricities. You might sell a print someday for piles of money to someone who has a pigeon fetish, when he sees a pigeon barely visible in the corner of your photo. Stranger things happen!

Thats true however I was responding to the statement that the collector doesn't care about technique/materials/process and only cares about the end result. I see this attitude a lot especially amongst commercial photogs but I think that misses a lot. The end result in art is not all that counts -- no one would confuse a handwrought finely crafted piece of sculpture with one produced by a computerized lathe, for example.

My point was that in a a hypothetical case of two identical images, one digitally produced and one analogue, even if the images themselves are identical the connessieur of fine art will go for the analogue specifically because of the technique/materials/process. The technique/materials/process will become ever more important as the means of producing images digitally becomes easier. (And while Sotheby's may not mention the process, any real collector of photos will naturally inquire about the specific process. I really doubt you'd ever find a real photo collector who doesn't give a fig about whether the item he just paid for is a dagguerrotype or a peel-apart Polaroid, Sotheby's be damned.)

As to the broader point: while today there may not be much difference btween analogue and digital in the galleries, in the future there will be, since digital will become so ubiquitous that, like I said, any 12-year old can produce gallery quality prints. Those photogs who are going exclusively digital, I think, are therefore metaphorically making themselves into a small fish in an ever-enlargening pond.

There will of course be digital prints in galleries -- along with all the other forms of "alternative processes" -- but digital will not supplant analogue. At worst, analogue will become more of an exclusive, "high end" niche, that's all.

(Incidentally I find it really ironic that Photoshop has a filter to make images look like film!)

cyrus

3-Sep-2010, 07:57

cyrus

3-Sep-2010, 08:05

Exactly. You don't see collectors walking up to Gursky's prints with a loupe and swooning over the craftsmanship.

Yet. Wait till there are a 1000 Gursky's on Flickr. Then what will set them apart?
Actually, arguably there already are 10000 Gursky's on Flickr -- they just don't have marketing, which far apart from analog v digital, is the REAL key in a subjective area as art.

That kind of conversation hasn't been central to art since Warhol came along. And for much of the art world, Warhol's messsage was an old one. Avant garde movements going back to Duchamp in 1916 or 1917 had already recognized that craftsmanship is actually the commodity item .

And yet a Warhol poster print fetches not nearly as much as an "original" Warhol, made by the very hands of the Warholness Himself (or one of his peons.) Irony of Ironies, a perfect replica of a Duchamp made by a machine will also fetch only a fraction of an "original" Duchamp. Conclusion: the "end result" is hardly all that matters in art.

I must add of course that I am not "opposed" to digital -- I plan on buying a digital camera and dabbling in pin-up style photography since my fiance is a pin up model. I would not do color except digitally nowdays.

(All this discussion has reminded me of Jean Baudrillard's Simulation and Simulacra)

Lenny Eiger

3-Sep-2010, 08:12

I strongly disagree. In fact quite the reverse. The workmanship and skill invovled in making a wet print will set it apart from the billions and billions of prints that soon any kid with a cellphone and a Photoshop app will be able to produce.

Cyrus, I don't think you are correct, for two reasons. The first is that progress happens, whether we like it or not. Ask anyone who was in typography in the 80's. Hot type is gone, as we knew it. Its highly unfortunate in my opinion, but its true. The good part, of course, is that publishing is available to mere mortals, instead of being controlled solely by large corporations. But there are only a few practitioners of this art left.

In addition, skills in photographic printing are seriously down. Most people I talk to can't tell the difference between two prints where subtle changes are made. I don't mean to disparage anyone here, there are still excellent printers. I think this comes from a lack of studying the history of our art, and having the opportunity to look at the work of historic master printers. And the focus on Ansel Adams type printing, which may be great, but is only one style.

That said, your thought about the workmanship and skill is also incorrect. Just because I can make a print from my cellphone doesn't make it a great print. Any great print I have made comes from my years in the darkroom, working the process. Now I work the process with a computer, make a print, study it, make changes, etc. There is nothing automatic about it. It takes just as much skill, and good eyes, to make a great print in any form of printing.

OTOH, the glut of photography that occurs out there is very troubling. Everyone in this country, at least, has a camera, or more than one. They are all taking snapshots, which are fine for memories and such, but this will change photography in ways that I don't think I will be happy about. Facebook uses the word photo for all the snapshots of anything. How will we distinguish what we do from the onslaught of all this photo-stuff when the education system is so lacking..

Lenny

cyrus

3-Sep-2010, 08:55

Thank you for your thoughtful response Lenny.

Cyrus, I don't think you are correct, for two reasons. The first is that progress happens, whether we like it or not. Ask anyone who was in typography in the 80's. Hot type is gone, as we knew it. Its highly unfortunate in my opinion, but its true. The good part, of course, is that publishing is available to mere mortals, instead of being controlled solely by large corporations. But there are only a few practitioners of this art left.

Interesting you should say that because as I'm looking into printing wedding invitations, we're considering a place that makes them the "old fashioned" way! But apart from publishing lets take other comparisons: sculpture, or painting, or etching. All of these can be replaced easily by computer/digital -- and yet they're in no danger (actually as an oil painter I do admit that some of the oil based colors are running short but still oil painting is far from a dying art.)

In addition, skills in photographic printing are seriously down. Most people I talk to can't tell the difference between two prints where subtle changes are made. I don't mean to disparage anyone here, there are still excellent printers. I think this comes from a lack of studying the history of our art, and having the opportunity to look at the work of historic master printers. And the focus on Ansel Adams type printing, which may be great, but is only one style.

Well naturally as the number of practioners of the art is reduced then so is the sum skill-set but this isn't inevitable. People can learn. Our society has ways of recording and passing down knowledge, and of rediscovering what was forgotten. We can all look at older prints by poeple other than AA and learn from them.

That said, your thought about the workmanship and skill is also incorrect. Just because I can make a print from my cellphone doesn't make it a great print. Any great print I have made comes from my years in the darkroom, working the process. Now I work the process with a computer, make a print, study it, make changes, etc. There is nothing automatic about it. It takes just as much skill, and good eyes, to make a great print in any form of printing.

I absolutely agree that it takes skill to make a good digital print ... right now a lot, and soon a lot less. You can't escape the technological onslaught which makes it ever easier to make a good print, coupled with the "rush to the bottom" in expectations and standards of what constitutes a good photo (as you've alluded to.)

In short, due to the ubiquity of digital, the sum total of "art" photography will increase, doubtless, while the standards will decrease. A lot of truly gifted artists will be able to produce work using the cheaper/more convenient digital route, which I applaud, but the total amout of crap will also increase. Regardless, the fraction of analogue photography will however not disappear -- it will be a reduced but more defined, more exclusive and sought-after, niche. In the meantime, like I said, digital photogs risk deliberately making themselves small fish in an ever enlargening pond. If in 30 years I had to compete in the market as an artists, I would not want to compete head to head with a billion other people who are using my technology and medium. I'd want to be in a more limited arena.

cyrus

3-Sep-2010, 09:29

Paul Kierstead

3-Sep-2010, 09:37

... since digital will become so ubiquitous that, like I said, any 12-year old can produce gallery quality prints.

A 12-year old has always been able to produce gallery quality prints, it is just a matter of hiring a high quality printer.

Craft can be bought, artistic vision cannot.

Once upon a time (and quite a long time ago), craft was sufficiently rare as to make it alone enough, but now you have to have more. This has been true since well before digital was involved in the process.

Lenny Eiger

3-Sep-2010, 09:40

-- is not fungible.

I had to look that up. Thanks for a new word. :-)

Lenny

cyrus

3-Sep-2010, 10:04

A 12-year old has always been able to produce gallery quality prints, it is just a matter of hiring a high quality printer.

Craft can be bought, artistic vision cannot.

Once upon a time (and quite a long time ago), craft was sufficiently rare as to make it alone enough, but now you have to have more. This has been true since well before digital was involved in the process.

I think we all agree that a GOOD photographer requires vision etc -- regardless of whether they work in digital or analog.

Paul Kierstead

3-Sep-2010, 10:25

Yes, exactly. So even if what you propose -- that digital printing will require no craft in the future -- it will still not allow joe blow onto the wall; he still doesn't have vision. The ability to easily get a great print will not change who gets hung up in galleries.

Drew Wiley

3-Sep-2010, 11:01

Paul - you can only get so far unless craft and vision are essentially married, regardless of the medium. Either one must work very very closely with a master technicain who uncannily understands your own vision, or you must do it yourself, which is a lot more realistic. Absolutely no technology ever devised will be able to automate things on its own. That's why the folks doing the best digital printing already did excellent darkroom printing themselves. And breaking the rules is one
of the first rules one must learn.

Toyon

3-Sep-2010, 11:15

Kirk Gittings

3-Sep-2010, 11:33

digital printing will require no craft in the future

I heard this about "machine" analogue prints in the 80's.

It depends on whether you think that a great print is an accurate rendering of a file and the file an accurate rendering of a scene. I have no doubt that soft proofing, gamut etc. will improve in inkjet, BUT that is a far cry from an expressive print, which requires an understanding of the materials, skill and creative print making, now and in the future.

I have to laugh at the people who say printing digitally is easy. I am a very good silver printer-aside from my own exhibit record I was commissioned twice by the Smithsonian to print images from the Civil Rights Movement. But I spend far more time making a digital print than I ever did making the hardest and best of my silver prints. Easy? What a joke. This will not change as the media matures, because I will just always want more and more out of the prints and work just as hard to reach my vision.

Jim collum

3-Sep-2010, 11:36

+1

(it might be a good idea to save this thread from where it got off track.. when it happens again.. append it to the new thread and lock.. :)

I heard this about "machine" analogue prints in the 80's.

It depends on whether you think that a great print is an accurate rendering of a file and the file an accurate rendering of a scene. I have no doubt that soft proofing, gamut etc. will improve in inkjet, BUT that is a far cry from an expressive print, which requires an understanding of the materials, skill and creative print making, now and in the future.

I have to laugh at the people who say printing digitally is easy. I am a very good silver printer-aside from my own exhibit record I was commissioned twice by the Smithsonian to print images from the Civil Rights Movement. But I spend far more time making a digital print than I ever did making the hardest and best of my silver prints. Easy? What a joke. This will not change as the media matures, because I will just always want more and more out of the prints and work just as hard to reach my vision.

Kirk Gittings

3-Sep-2010, 11:42

Never forget that a darkroom print is an actual photograph - the visual manifestation of a chemical response to light (in this case - the actual light projected through a negative). An inkjet print is an interpretation of light that has been transformed into digital data and then reinterpreted as a series of ink blots. The darkroom print is an actual thing, the inkjet print is a recreation.

You guys are trying to hold on to a 19th century definition of a photograph! Language evolves. The definition of a photograph has evolved and changed. The tent is bigger now. Digital images are photographs. The dust settled on that question years ago

"A photograph (often shortened to photo) is an image created by light falling on a light-sensitive surface, usually photographic film or an electronic imager such as a CCD or a CMOS chip."

I have good friends who will say a digital print is not a photograph. Where are there heads at? Tell that to 99.999% of the people out there who regularly see digital photographs authoritatively referred to as photographs in their local museums, galleries, photolabs, Facebook, Flicker.........everywhere! It is totally accepted except by this minute handful of diehard analogue photographers who want to hold onto a 19th century definition.

Paul Kierstead

3-Sep-2010, 12:18

Absolutely no technology ever devised will be able to automate things on its own.

I agree totally. But even *if* I were to allow that magically digital printing will wipe out the skill requirement, as some say, then I say it makes no difference; great work will still based on great vision.

Many many very great photographers have had others do their printing (who were clearly great craftsman and likely contributed to the artistic vision as well). For that matter, painters have others paint their work, and sculptors sometimes employ others to do their sculpting. Some photographers have others do the photographing (they are closer to director).

Preston

3-Sep-2010, 12:37

Drew wrote: "...you can only get so far unless craft and vision are essentially married, regardless of the medium"

'Married' is a good term. If craft and vision are antagonistic then the result may be less than desirable. If craft and vision are synergistic and compatible then, regardless of medium, the result will likely be seen as artful.

Just my 0.0002.

--P

paulr

3-Sep-2010, 12:49

My point was that in a a hypothetical case of two identical images, one digitally produced and one analogue, even if the images themselves are identical the connessieur of fine art will go for the analogue specifically because of the technique/materials/process.

This may be true, for some collectors, in this hypothetical situation. The real world rarely offers this choice, however. The choice is almost always made by the artists, based on issues like material availability, working methods that they prefer, and, most importantly, on which materials and techniques allow them to get their work done efficiently and effectively.

Someone might think, "process A may have more esoteric appeal, but process B will let me put more energy into the vision and less into the nuts and bolts." So the decision really gets made that way, not by two identical prints from different processes hanging side by side.

As to the broader point: while today there may not be much difference btween analogue and digital in the galleries, in the future there will be, since digital will become so ubiquitous that, like I said, any 12-year old can produce gallery quality prints.

Well, I don't know what a "gallery-quality" print is. A lot of work in galleries isn't concerned with print quality at all. It's concerned with something else ... generally vision-related. No tool can supply that.

But your point that analog (by which I'm assuming you mean silver prints and analog c-prints) will become more special as they become less mainstream is probably dead on. We've seen this before ... platinum used to be mainstream, before silver became ubiquitous and turned the older materials into "alternative processes." When something is pushed to the fringes, it becomes ripe for fetishization. I'm sure that will happen to silver and c-prints. It's started to happen to die sublimation.

Keep in mind that this phenomenon only takes hold in certain niches of the market. There's a single gallery in NYC that deals only with "alternative process" prints. Some galleries don't deal with them at all; they're more interested in emblems of newness.

(Incidentally I find it really ironic that Photoshop has a filter to make images look like film!)

Well, photoshop includes a lot of cheesy tools for art directors / drunk kids to play with. There's also a filter that tries to make a photo look like an impressionist painting. This stuff is all fun to play with, but is generally useleless beyond the realm of facebook.

Toyon

3-Sep-2010, 13:03

You guys are trying to hold on to a 19th century definition of a photograph! Language evolves. The definition of a photograph has evolved and changed. The tent is bigger now. Digital images are photographs. The dust settled on that question years ago

"A photograph (often shortened to photo) is an image created by light falling on a light-sensitive surface, usually photographic film or an electronic imager such as a CCD or a CMOS chip."

I have good friends who will say a digital print is not a photograph. Where are there heads at? Tell that to 99.999% of the people out there who regularly see digital photographs authoritatively referred to as photographs in their local museums, galleries, photolabs, Facebook, Flicker.........everywhere! It is totally accepted except by this minute handful of diehard analogue photographers who want to hold onto a 19th century definition.

Kurt, you missed the point completely. Are you being obtuse or just addled? It is not about the definition of a photograph, but whether the thing is something actual and intrinsic, versus something that an interpreted replica. One can argue that the information in a chip is a "photograph", but the inkjet print is far removed from that.

You may be moderator, but you have no business arrogating who is backwards in their definition and who is forward thinking. You invoke the mob as proof of this, like the worst kind of panderer. I thought there was more substance to you.

Kirk Gittings

3-Sep-2010, 13:20

Thanks for the snide remarks. They don't help your POV.

You said: "a darkroom print is an actual photograph" for that to have any meaning you have to define photograph, which you did "the visual manifestation of a chemical response to light". Plain and simple it is an outdated definition. Not in the future-but yesterday, last year, probably 5-10-15 years ago. I never said anything about being forward thinking. This point was long settled by the vast majority of photographers, manufacturers, curators, libraries, museums, general public etc. etc.

Jim collum

3-Sep-2010, 13:30

Kurt, you missed the point completely. Are you being obtuse or just addled? It is not about the definition of a photograph, but whether the thing is something actual and intrinsic, versus something that an interpreted replica. One can argue that the information in a chip is a "photograph", but the inkjet print is far removed from that.

You may be moderator, but you have no business arrogating who is backwards in their definition and who is forward thinking. You invoke the mob as proof of this, like the worst kind of panderer. I thought there was more substance to you.

It's not mob rule. The definition of what a photograph is considered has changed. *you* might not think so, but the rest of the world does . I'm not sure if one (or a very small percentage ) of the world believes that a computer is a person who adds, and has no relevance to what most use day in and out, makes everyone else addled and obtuse, and those who believe computers are what they are today are ruled by 'mob mentality'

An inkjet print is a tangible object. The fact that it was created with ink (a chemical) vs silver grain (another chemical) or dye transfer (yet another chemical) is irrelevant. they are all concrete objects.

Frankly, you can scream to the world in defiance that it's wrong.. an inkjet print has no value, it's not unique, it's only a copy. the decision as to it's worth has already been decided without you. if you get down to it, there's no way the ink drops can hit the paper the same way, every time. if you look at two inkjet prints, one printed a minute after the other.. they are *not* the same.. they're two separate objects.. and at some level, that difference can be determined. A *good* silver printer strives to do the same thing.. and the good ones can produce two prints that, to the eye, look identical. are these then, in fact, re-creations as well? You draw an arbitray line that's convenient to your way of doing things. The film and paper you use are machine made. Do you use an enlarger? did you make it? Have you mined your own silver, gathered your chemicals and combined them to make a developer & fixer for both your hand coated film made on glass you melted from sand?

In a generation, these conversation will be chuckled at.. just like the the rest, where photographs aren't art, mixed pigments will never produce a print that's equal to one with hand ground pigment, etc, etc.

I don't see where Kirk became insulting at all.. but it's usually obvious when a rational discussion becomes a 'religious' one.. and that's when one of the parties starts resorting to personal attacks and insults, rather than discussing.

paulr

3-Sep-2010, 13:47

Kurt, you missed the point completely. Are you being obtuse or just addled? It is not about the definition of a photograph, but whether the thing is something actual and intrinsic, versus something that an interpreted replica.

Ok, I'll bite. I'll be the obtuse and addled one. I'm very curious about the idea of a thing being "actual and intrinsic" vs. an "interpreted replica." Where did these terms come from? Are you quoting Hegel?

It's interesting to posit that photography, which was the most influential invention for making multiples (replicas?) since the advent of Guttenberg's press, is somehow outside the realm of the replica.

Or outside the realm of the interpreted. What interpretations are intrinsic to digital printing that aren't intrinsic to analog printing? I'm curious to know if you can even name a manipulation made possible by Photoshop that hadn't been done in the darkroom. In the 19th century.

ret wisner

3-Sep-2010, 15:40

what i would like to know is when did photography turn into a art form?

yeah sure there are necessary tweaks to manage overall dynamic range, after all our cameras do not have dynamic apertures, but i do not consider balancing a picture to be art, surely we should all become a little more faithful to our subject and stop desiring to play god over our subject matter

i certainly agree with true artists that photography (real photography that is) has no place amongst oil painters and sculptors

a camera can capture a artist at work but not take the place of a artist

Jim collum

3-Sep-2010, 15:45

paulr

3-Sep-2010, 15:46

Well, Ret, the people who fought and won that battle are quite dead (Alfred Stieglitz, 1946; Beaumont Newhall, 1993; John Szarkowski, 2007), and I think it would be unfair to exhume them just to answer such an unimaginative troll.

ret wisner

3-Sep-2010, 15:53

i prefer the phrase act you age and not your shoe size.

but as im clearly to mature to stoop to insults i will hold back that need to do so.

photography isnt that difficult really, i like the historical honesty of a photograph, something i can believe and and not mistrust . the more its manipulated the quicker i glance and walk by.

a visual document for the weary reader, a atmosphere of misplaced eyes in a confused past.

start messing up this simple formula and photography looses its meaning

jim kitchen

3-Sep-2010, 15:55

Dear ret,

What is your fly line weight?

Just curious... :)

jim k

ret wisner

3-Sep-2010, 15:57

depends if im fishing for trout or pike

Kirk Gittings

3-Sep-2010, 15:58

but as im clearly to mature to stoop to insults i will hold back that need to do so.

Nonsense, you've been throwing insults regularly throughout this thread.

ret wisner

3-Sep-2010, 16:15

a nine weight for pike is essential and a forward weight taper

SAShruby

3-Sep-2010, 16:19

are you sure you're not a 13 year old teenager, logged into his parent's account, trying to raise the hackles of a bunch of photographers? Just when i thought statements couldn't get any more inane.. thank god for the ignore list here

You're in mine as well.

rdenney

3-Sep-2010, 16:32

On the ability of technology to render craft obsolete, of course that is an abstract model. But even though all models are false, some are useful.

I would rather characterize this idea this way: Technology may make it possible for a photographer to render his intentions precisely with nearly no effort. That does not mean that what he intends will get appreciated as art. Most of us, of course, do not have clear intentions, and we hope that the camera and the print itself will lead us to a worthy result. Technology may, as a result of more powerful tools, impose stronger leadership, but that may result in the technology choices gaining more mastery over the artistic choices. When that happens, photographs that work as art will be more rare, not less so. Mediocrity will be more competent, but it will not push the boundaries of art.

Rick "who struggles with the search for art despite lacking the necessary vision" Denney

paulr

3-Sep-2010, 17:26

Yet. Wait till there are a 1000 Gursky's on Flickr. Then what will set them apart?
Actually, arguably there already are 10000 Gursky's on Flickr -- they just don't have marketing...

Show me these Gurskys on Flickr. And keep in mind that someone copying Gursky's style does not make him a Gursky, any more than copying Weston's style makes him a Weston. I can copy Weston. I can copy Strand. I can do it in a darkroom with chemicals I mix from scratch. So can lots of people. There's little value in this beyond it being an exercise.

I don't see your point.

And yet a Warhol poster print fetches not nearly as much as an "original" Warhol, made by the very hands of the Warholness Himself (or one of his peons.) Irony of Ironies, a perfect replica of a Duchamp made by a machine will also fetch only a fraction of an "original" Duchamp. Conclusion: the "end result" is hardly all that matters in art.

It's a false analogy, because a Warhol poster is a whole other generation away from one of his original prints. And it's probably made in an open edition, which means its rarity can be presumed to be zero. This is analogous to a poster being made from a photographic print (either analog or digital) and mass produced. The issue here has nothing to do with the medium of the original print.

You seem to be presuming that a digital print is somehow less "original" than an analog one. Yet both are the same number of generations away from the original image ... be that a negative or a digital capture.

paulr

3-Sep-2010, 17:30

A 12-year old has always been able to produce gallery quality prints, it is just a matter of hiring a high quality printer.

http://www.masters-of-photography.com/images/screen/lartigue/lartigue_hydroglider.jpg

Lartigue, when he was 10.
(he did his more famous work as a teenager)

jim kitchen

3-Sep-2010, 17:31

Gentlemen,

For your information, and whether anyone has a moment to consider this or access to these documents, but you might want to occupy a wee bit of your time to read these ISO Standards and ANSI Standards documents, where they might possibly be found at your local library, and where you might find them to be an interesting set of standards regarding the photographic process with "inkjets..." :)

The associated documents listed below are related to the following key document:

"ISO 18055-1:2004: establishes a classification of photo-grade inkjet papers and films with regard to nomenclature, formats and thickness/grammage. It does not include non-photo-grade media, non-paper/film media, or media intended solely for laser printing. This title may contain less than 24 pages of technical content..."

The associated standards short list, which does not list all of the associated ISO 18055-1:2004 standards, is as follows: ISO 1:2002, ISO 216:1975, ISO 554:1976, ISO 534, ISO 11093-4:1997, ISO 18903:2002, ISO/IEC 24711, ISO 11789, ANSI Z39.48-1992, ISO/IEC JTC 1, ISO 9001:2008. The associated standards wander off to discuss, paper pulping process, the archival qualities of inkjet's photo paper, how much ink can flow, how much ink be laid down on a paper's surface and which solvent or water solution, the paper's photographic surface receptor quality, pigments and dye fade resistance, et al...

That said, the ISO folks and the ANSI folks know that photography and the photographic process are now deeply entrenched in the digital environment, and since they emphatically recognized that fact several years ago, so much so, that these internationally recognized organizations designed and illustrated a group of standards for the photographers and the photographic industry going forward. The standards address each facet within the weakly named inkjet process, such as the inkjet ink industry, the inkjet paper industry, and inkjet equipment industry, and where these standards are also being designed to assist the conservator, with the new digitally produced photographic objects.

Their presence begs the question how we or any individual can ignore the world wide standard organization groups that recognize digital photography as a photographic process? Go figure...

As a side note, if anyone wants to be a part of any ISO or any ANSI reconfirmation process, because they are living standards, I do believe that you could become involved, but you might need more credentials than "I don't like it..." So, if you want your voice to be heard within an organization that sets directives and standards, and you happen to strongly disagree with their direction, you should do so with immediate effect.

Again, my two pennies.

jim k

paulr

3-Sep-2010, 17:38

Incidentally I should point out that while Duchamp et al were claiming that the "craft" of art was merely a commodity, they were reacting to industrialization where labor/craft consisted of unskilled work on mass production lines. That's not the same sort of "commodity" labor involved in creating art, however. The skill involved is not a commodity as was the work of a guy who twists screws all day long on a mass production line. The skill of a fine art painter or sculpture - or darkroom printer -- is not fungible.

I don't think this is central to what Duchamp was showing. It's a bit closer to what Warhol was interested in, but even he was more into the comodification of images themselves ... not just process.

Re: fungibility ...
I believe that it's an artist's vision that's unique. The craft aspect of art has been commodified for milennia. The stone sculptors of ancient Greece, of the gothic cathedrals, and the members of Michelangelo's crew were all workers for hire ... guild members. They're the ones who actually made the stuff. And if one of them called in sick, there were others who could take over. The end result was not fundamentally changed.

In photography, look at guys like Walker Evans, Cartier-Bresson ...
They didn't even care who made their prints. That side of photography, to them, was beside the point.

Drew Wiley

3-Sep-2010, 20:41

Van claims that Ciba is c***p for portraiture, but Cole Weston did stunning portraits
on Ciba, and I had clients who demanded it. Different look and strategy than doing
C-prints, for sure, but c***p? Just depends if you know how to handle it. However,
all photography is illusionism. Once you take the three dimensional world and put it
on a flat piece of paper or a monitor or whatever, it's an abstraction. Some magicians are considered skilled; some are not. I really don't care whether you choose disappering tigers, rabbits, or pigeons for your act. I personally enjoy the tactility of darkroom work; others like a different approach. So what? The fact that inkjet is extremely popular right now, especially in color, means that there will be a helluva lot of crappy inkjet prints being made, just like there were a lot of crappy
C-prints being made a couple decades ago. But out of the general mess will come a few exceptional printmakers. Yet the public eye fatigues very fast, and ironically darkroom prints or printing seems "new" and exciting to some people at the moment. But it's all relative. And the terminology will itself inevitably bounce
around quite a bit in the process.

paulr

3-Sep-2010, 21:08

Yet the public eye fatigues very fast, and ironically darkroom prints or printing seems "new" and exciting to some people at the moment. But it's all relative. And the terminology will itself inevitably bounce
around quite a bit in the process.

We can already imagine what will happen when the Next Big Thing comes along and obsoletes inkjet printing. The faithful will decry the upstart, the inkjet printer will become the object of instant nostalgia and fetishization, and it will be elevated as one of many revered examples of the good ol' days. And of course inkjet will become an alternative process. And we'll all kick ourselves for not hoarding spare Epson parts and ink, when we see their future prices on ebay.

Bill Burk

3-Sep-2010, 21:09

Thanks Jim, I knew there'd be relevant ISO standards. To me that means longevity of a print may be assured by stating that a process complies with the standards.
As looks go, I am sure that a photograph that would reproduce effectively in gravure would look amazing in ink.
Ret, Your provocative comments reminded me of a few thoughts. You reminded me about the roots of the ink medium we are discussing. I had the pleasure to spend two weeks 1987 in Alaska with a member of the team at HP who introduced the world to the first DeskJet printer. Perhaps to reflect the roots of this technology, you might want to call practitioners "deskjetters" it might be more accurate and less derogatory-sounding. You also reminded me something I don't always think of. I am first a printer. I take photographs secondarily to give myself something worth printing. It's been long established that photography can be art. I would say photography and printing can be art, craft or a job. It's the effort to communicate that raises it from one level to another.

KJ Smith

3-Sep-2010, 22:11

Hi to Everyone- Again
A final question. Last time I used my 4x5 for B&W, I used TMAX , what’s anybody using now?

Brent

Brent,

Thats the same as always, everybody has their favorites.

I am still a TMax guy.

Basically I am at the same point you are. Quit shooting for a dozen years, now trying to catch up again.

FWIW, I went the V700/3880 route. Just got the printer set up.
Will I be able to produce work that will satisfy other people? Who knows.

I just want to produce something to satisfy myself.

Kevin

ret wisner

4-Sep-2010, 05:11

it isnt photography

Darryl Baird

4-Sep-2010, 06:18

it isnt photography

tell that to all the photographers and art historians since since Oscar Rejlander (http://www.rleggat.com/photohistory/history/rejlande.htm) and Henry Peach Robinson (http://www.getty.edu/art/gettyguide/artMakerDetails?maker=1972)'s days (1850-1890)

Is Jerry Uelsmann a photographer?

I quit reading this thread back about page five or six (got busy inkjettering my 4x5 and 8x10 film thingies:D ) only to return to the religious flames of Modernism, sheesh, when will it ever end?

cyrus

4-Sep-2010, 06:20

Well in anycase all I will add is: long live copperplate photogravure!

cowanw

4-Sep-2010, 08:41

it isnt photography

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hans Vanguad
i agree, hybrid inkjetters pumping out magazine pages , calling themselves photographers. lol

get a dictionary and drop the photographer term ,a inkjetter not a photographer

is that a real photograph?...

no its a inkjet lol

Ret, You and Hans talk alike.
Regards
Bill

Drew Wiley

4-Sep-2010, 09:11

Van - try to find a wedding photographer who shoots film at all any more. Everyone
wants everything yesterday, and they want to sort out the shots on a screen. The
quality is a secondary issue to a lot of clients. Different generation, and they don't
seem to use albums much any more.

Drew Wiley

4-Sep-2010, 12:07

Van - I'd obviously rather do portraits on color neg and C-prints myself, but under the right circumstances Ciba can be stunning. One of the problems with the older
color neg films like Vericolor is that it wanted to turn all the neutrals into skin tones.
Ciba has its own idiosyncrasies, but with proper masking is capable of a much wider
gamut than neg prints. Things have obviously improved, however. Dye transfer would be the very best, but unless someone is literally royalty, I don't know of anyone ordering up wedding prints in this medium. The peculiar thing is that most
young people I have spoken to already know that digital cameras aren't going to
give the same color quality as a neg, but don't care. Relatively few of these wedding
photographers do much PS post correction. Instead, they promise the shots when
the couple get back from the honeymoon, or sometimes even the same day. The camera is supposed to do it all - then straight to the web, to share with friends and
family. Glad I'm not in that business! To do things "right" on inkjet would probably
be just as much time and work as in a darkroom, so in that respect things are
at a parity. So what young people seem to be paying for are just the shooting and
a disc. I think a lot of them will regret that at some point. It's a fast food culture.

ret wisner

4-Sep-2010, 14:08

leave the art to the rest of us that understand it.

ego is a ugly thing

Do you really think traditional oil paintings are not manipulated

thats the point they are 100% minipulated, hence art

Whatever you say, except for the image of the plane, all were done 100% with camera.

digital or photography?Darkroom or inkjet?

ret wisner

4-Sep-2010, 14:18

44752

44753

44754

44755

no manipulation, neg photographed via digi canon on light box

are they art, no of course not they are real and no manipulation

ret wisner

4-Sep-2010, 14:24

44756

44757

44758

44759

and these art or not?

just a straight digital canon shot of neg on light box

ret wisner

4-Sep-2010, 15:44

so art is only art if the artists thinks its art

art is ego

ret wisner

4-Sep-2010, 15:51

yes, thats what im saying digital is not photography, no electronics in my work flow, there a difference, no batteries either, or preview screen, or inkjet machine or a computer.

Peter De Smidt

4-Sep-2010, 15:52

No. Something is art if someone thinks it's art. The important question, though, is whether something is good art, and that, imo, comes down to taste. It's a different question than what has been important in art history, or with collectors, as these questions have fairly objective answers, whereas what counts as good art does not.

So ret wisner likes "straight" photography. That's fine. That predilection doesn't need justification or defense, but then neither does what others like.

ret wisner

4-Sep-2010, 16:02

but in this discussion we are talking about photography

heres my take photography (pure photography) is not art. its untouched/non minipulated imagery with the best of intentions and is morally policed by the originator

digital inkjetting is art because it has no basis in reality due to manipulation and therefor only exists in the mind of the artist

inkjets are art and photography isnt

paulr

4-Sep-2010, 16:05

Ret, I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you haven't taken an art history class, at least not in the last thirty years, and that you've studied nothing on the topic besides skimming the surface or attempting to validate your prejudices.

The opinions you're expressing echo those of the least educated and most conservative art critics from 100 years ago.

If you're interested in these issues (not just interested in annoying people here) I'm sure we could put together a reading list of some of the significant arti historical statements to this issue.

Your argument is really not with us; it's with all the art historians and major critics and curators of the last several decades. So if you want have a debate, you should at the very least familiarize yourself with the ideas of the opposition. You clearly have no idea the other side has based its argument on.

ret wisner

4-Sep-2010, 16:09

paulr

4-Sep-2010, 16:15

i do not want to learn art history and have not mentioned anything in relation to art history. i work in the field of camera repair .

i want to know why a inkjet can be called a photograph.
i feel that this is not a truthful description

i do not want to learn about art critics, and do not want to be one.

Ret, the points you're arguing fall under the fields of art, art criticism, art history, and the philosophy of art.

But now you claim to have no interest in these issues.

If you have no interest in the isues, then why are you arguing about them (and doing so with people who have studied them)?

Do you really not understand why your approach annoys people?

Kirk Gittings

4-Sep-2010, 16:15

sorry to spoli the fun everyone-Bill, good call, just what I thought too.

"ret wisner" is the repeat offender-alias Pablo Batt-alias Hans Vanguad who has been banned twice before. Same rant, same language, same jihad every time-just the name changes.

jim kitchen

4-Sep-2010, 16:34

Dear Kirk,

His short replies seem to indicate that he is a few minutes short of a perfect negative... :)

jim k

Mike Anderson

4-Sep-2010, 17:01

paulr

4-Sep-2010, 18:24

He must be really bored.

(so must I, for responding)

KJ Smith

4-Sep-2010, 21:13

If you don't feed the Troll's, they go away.

Bill Burk

4-Sep-2010, 21:59

Ret,
I would call the work you've shown art. If your definition of art excludes photographs then I don't agree. If you don't even call it a photograph because the positive was not a light-sensitive material, then I can agree. But what you show is what it took to present in this medium, at least we got to see it. I'd rather see it as a contact print on graded double-weight gloss paper, I bet you would too. I find the watch and arch ceiling a satisfying juxtaposition of man-made curve extremes. Even if you denounce the work and say you were just goofing around, you have made something worth looking at more than once. I would call it art.

paulr

4-Sep-2010, 22:40

I think the question has shifted.
Can trolling be art?
Can going undercover as a mentally disabled person be art?

Preston

5-Sep-2010, 08:53

"yes, thats what im saying digital is not photography, no electronics in my work flow, there a difference, no batteries either, or preview screen, or inkjet machine or a computer

digital inkjetting is art because it has no basis in reality due to manipulation and therefor only exists in the mind of the artist. Inkjets are art and photography isnt"
------------------------Rit Wisner

I'm so confused. I guess I'll have another cup of coffee and then do my non-photography, non-art photography in a non-artistic, artistic way.

"[i]This is getting ridiculous.[i/]" Van, you are absolutely correct!

It is unfortunate that this thread, which has many varied and well thought out points of view has degenerated into...whatever this is.

I am done feeding the troll.

--P

Kirk Gittings

5-Sep-2010, 09:43

All, the troll is gone. Read my post above.

sanking

5-Sep-2010, 11:47

All, the troll is gone. Read my post above.

I am reminded of what is said when the King dies.

The King is dead. Long live the King.

The Troll is dead. Long live the Troll.

I think many are ready to assume the role of king, and troll.

Sandy King

Drew Wiley

8-Sep-2010, 20:47

Sandy - be glad you weren't alive a century ago when the ethics of dodging and
burning was being debated. But sooner or later, there won't just be a digital vs dkrm
classification to these threads, but a hybrid category too. It's an interesting era.

paulr

9-Sep-2010, 07:32

Sandy - be glad you weren't alive a century ago when the ethics of dodging and
burning was being debated.

This doesn't surprise me, since everything under the sun has been debated at one point or another. But I've never heard about this particular one. Have you read examples?

It would be interesting since the 2nd half of the 19th century was filled with every imaginable form of image manipulation ... compositing, retouching negatives and prints, hand coloring, painting over images, etc. etc...

But sooner or later, there won't just be a digital vs dkrm
classification to these threads, but a hybrid category too. It's an interesting era.

I think most of the digitally inclined people here are actually using some kind of hybrid workflow. Mostly shooting and scanning film, but some are doing really interesting stuff, like making digitally enlarged negs and contact printing them traditionally.

Drew Wiley

9-Sep-2010, 09:20

Paul - back when Emerson was the father of "fine art" pictorial photography and making
exquisite platinum prints, he was simultaneously the leading persecutor of "sundowners", meaning anyone using a dodge/burn card. But even he admitted to
sometimes spotting out an obnoxious bit of specular glare in his prints, which made him
an object of attack by even more iconoclastic printers. Since folks in that era were highly literate (no TV or internet), these debates could be very wordy and nasty in tone, a lot worse than anything I've ever read on this forum. I enjoy debate, but for
logistical reasons - i.e., learning the pros and cons of the technology, and what the
current options amount to - but when it comes to esthetics, we each have the right
to define our own parameters. I'm willing to state my own position at times, but have
little interest in forming a "school", no matter how small. Emerson was a whole different
mentality - it was either heaven or hell in relation to his own boundaries of photography as art.

JamesFromSydney

15-Oct-2010, 07:40

Long thread -- my head is spinning after reading it all!

I'll be visiting the east coast of the US just over a week from now, and was wondering if anyone could recommend galleries where I might find high-quality monochrome inkjet prints on display (NYC, DC or Boston).

Lenny Eiger

15-Oct-2010, 08:14

I think Jon Cone cone-editions.com still has a printing facility in NYC. That's where I'd go....

Lenny

Greg Miller

15-Oct-2010, 11:09

Go to the Gallery at Laumont (http://www.laumont.com) in NYC. They are a highly respected printer and do both wet and digital prints.

sergiob

16-Oct-2010, 09:26

The best of both worlds is having both.

Michal Makowski

17-Oct-2010, 04:51

From Mark Dubovoy's Photokina Blog: ...I have seen many LaserJet prints in the past, and they have never held a candle to what I saw today. These things looked better than the best inkjets... from "you know what WWW site" ;-)
Michal

Zaitz

21-Oct-2010, 20:52

Very long thread, sorry if this has been brought up. WHCC prints their large photos on a Durst Theta 76 printer.
"These prints are created with printers that expose light sensitive paper that is then run through a chemical process. These are real photographs, not inkjet prints."

Wouldn't scanning 4x5 negatives and processing them via photoshop and then printing the photos on one of these printers be indistinguishable from traditional darkroom work? Just curious. The printer sounds extremely interesting.

I just purchased a 4x5 camera so I am interested what the 'best' route is. I am confident in my Photoshop work so I it sounds like drum scanning the photos I want printed large would make the most sense for me, especially with a printer like WHCC has.

edit: It appears they have been brought up. With mention of their method being inferior to inkjet printing?

Drew Wiley

26-Oct-2010, 13:56

Zaitz - there are still detectable differences between prints made optically vs digitally, even when exposed and processed on the same paper. Tonality and color correction are handled differently. But within practical size limits, a properly calibrated optical system is unquestionably capable of better resolution, given a large-format original. Then if you move into polyester-based print media, like Cibachrome or Fuji Supergloss, the distinction is even more apparent. Direct enlargement is also much more cost-effective, unless extensive hand-masking is required. So yes and no - if you mean
"traditional darkroom work" as sloppy technique, I guess you'd have to compare it to
sloppy digital technique - apples to apples.

Lenny Eiger

26-Oct-2010, 18:01

wouldn't scanning 4x5 negatives and processing them via photoshop and then printing the photos on one of these printers be indistinguishable from traditional darkroom work? Just curious. The printer sounds extremely interesting.

I am, obviously, a big fan of scanning and printing digitally.

The question is why would one want it to be "indistinguishable from darkroom work?" I think the ultimate would be to bring out the best from each type of media.

I have been experimenting for years with what can happen (tonally) with the 100% rag papers, matte surface. I love it. I wouldn't want to make it look like a darkroom print. Each media offers a very different way of looking at things.

Lenny

EigerStudios

Drew Wiley

26-Oct-2010, 18:29

Lenny - besides the distinct choices involved in how one wants things to look, I think
there are very real logistical choices involved with the degree of magnification.
Starting with a large format original and enlarging to a reasonable degree is a much
simpler task than starting with a small or medium format image and trying to make
a big print. In the darkroom to do this well you need to make a precise contrast-
controlled enlarged interneg or interpositive. I find that fun to do, but probably most
folks would find it easier to scan and make those kind of corrections in PS. Another
thing which annoys me is the flimsy nature of acetate-based medium format film,
which attracts a lot more scratches and dings than sheet film. So here too there's a
strong argument for cleaning up such things in PS, or else retouching the print quite
a bit. If I was shooting a lot of MF color I think I would myself gravitate toward
scanning. But since I shoot MF mainly in black-and-white, yet do the majority of my
work in large-format (both black-and-white and color), darkroom enlargement makes a lot of sense both financially and in terms of convenience (plus I enjoy it).
But how fortunate we are in having all these options nowadays!