Hybrid or fully analog for the beginning color printmaker?

[Daniel Stone]

Hey all,

This has been a nagging question the past 2-3 months, now that I've decided to pursue photography as more than a "hobby", but a real, genuine pursuit. Eventually, I want it to be my primary source of income. This might take years, but I'm willing to kick it into gear.

However, I'm in need of some assistance, since many of you have vastly more experience than me.

I know that creating negatives or transparencies is 1/2 the battle, the other, more imortant(IMO) half is creating a print to share that splendor you captured on film. I know that many of you use hybrid(shooting analog-->scanning,editing and printing digitally) methods to print, and many of you still print via analog means. I have become so enamored by Mr. Christopher Burkett's work(however, just by viewing his work online, have not been able to view in person as of yet), and to be quite honest, I love it. He has truly "mastered" his craft, and at the same time, been awarded well financially it seems to be able to pursue it full-time. He prints with Ilfochrome, which, according to my many hours of pouring over various forums, websites, and in-person with galleries and artists 1-on-1, I believe it might be the best way for me to transfer my growing library of transparencies into the final print.

However, this is not an inexpensive proposition, and potentially, one that could go terrific, or horridly wrong. From my reading, the paper is expensive(as per B+H's website), chemistry is almost impossible to find for smaller quantities(I'd be using a drum processor, not even a Jobo base to get started).

My primary reason for wanting to do this is purely because I want to maintain a fully analog process. I know that terrific results can be had via hybrid means, but for the amount of work I feel I might want to put forward, do you think this would be the best option cost-wise? Drum scanning would be something I'd like to do "in-house" if I were to go this route, but this wouldn't be an inexpensive route either.

So, what would you experienced printers and photographers recommend to a 23yr old who greatly wants to convey the most out of his prints?

FYI, I'd be starting by printing from my 6x6 transparencies first if going by completely analog means, only going to 10x10 prints on 11x14 paper, and if all goes well, moving "up" to an 8x10 enlarger to handle my 4x5 and 8x10 transparencies.

I know that many of you might recommend that I shoot color negatives, but I prefer the "look" of chromes vs negs(unless its for people, where I prefer color neg).

thanks

-Dan

[vinny]

FWIW, the majority of people that purchase prints have no idea (and don't care) how the print was made. That's my experience (most of my work has been purchased by women). I walked into a gallery that sells Chris' work on the California coast two years ago and the saleswoman made a point that all the work they on the walls was made in a darkroom. I was surprised she mentioned it. I still couldn't afford any of it. There are very few people that still print on ilfochrome and if you're gonna go for it you'd better have a hefty bank account to get a portfolio together. The prints are different than anything else but you've got to have an audience that knows the medium to sell them at a price you can profit from.

[Nathan Potter]

Chris Burketts prints are superb in every technical aspect and are about unsurpassed examples of Ilfochrome technology. However he employs a high state of the art processing facility to accomplish this and the cost is in the tens of thousands of dollars. Some, but not all of his images require masking technique (uses tmax 100 masks last time I talked to him) and this is not trivial to work out, especially the registration issue. Even a careful examination of some of his prints will show occasional mis-registration areas in the 8X10 originals. He has also worked up to enough of a volume to feed a large auto processing system. You will need to start out more modestly.
OTOH I find Chris' work somewhat static, beautiful, but for me often unexciting.

But I started using Ciba processing in the early 1970s using a home built processor and Ciba drums and found it to be a relatively forgiving process. I use Tmax masking along with a registration punch system for 4X5 with little difficulty. Same for some 35 mm format chromes but of course that is a lot trickier. This is all highly doable especially if you are a bit mechanically adept and familiar with chemical handling.

Now about a year ago I started scanning and inkjet printing chromes mainly because I had some images that resisted commitment to Ilfochrome and required some PS manipulation to be presentable. But I am far from proficient at the tailend digital processing and am, as yet, somewhat dissatisfied with results - nevertheless quite impressed with what can be accomplished. I'm a workin on it.

I still do Ilfochrome printing up to 16X20 size but have a more sophisticated darkroom setup designed to control dust and contamination. I use a simple D2v enlarger with Ilfochrome CC filters and a quite hard illumination source specially designed to yield very sharp prints at high magnification so in my case dust is a critical issue. To that end I need to prepare the chromes and masks in a laminar flow hood which is in the darkroom. The darkroom is hepa filtered and I wear tyvek labcoat and booties to keep down dust when doing the Ilfochrome work. The result is that I can usually do 4X5 chromes thru the masking and printing sequence without any added dust defects but certainly it's not trivial to accomplish using a hard condenser source.

The processor I use is home built from grey PVC and is essentially a tub containing the water jacket with a modified Beseler drum motor inverted on top of the drum for rotation. I use old Ciba drums immersed about an inch or so in the water jacket to maintain temperature. It's sorta equivalent to a Jobo setup.

I dunno, you will have to assess what kind of photography you want to do and develop a personal style and I think that will drive your equipment and medium choice. If you stumble along like most wannabe photogs you can do some really good work. But if you want to make a good living then a very high level of craftsmanship is usually necessary along with superb marketing skills and no doubt subject material that will appeal to a targeted audience.

Me. I do it for the hell of it.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

[bob carnie]

After professionally printing since 1977 here is my two cents

Learn how to print tri colour carbon with a black for detail for all you colour work or
Tri Colour Gum.
Learn how to print multiple hit platinum with gum or cyanotype over forr your black and white.
as well continue to silver print in a darkroom.
Make your prints as permanent as possible.
I know many successful portrait and fine art photographers hiding from their clients because the work they sold has deteriorated.

Use Irving Penn as an example or even Albert Watson , their work will live on.
Go and do an apprenticeship with Todd Gangler or Keith Taylor.


Forget all the commercial processes as they will fade before you are 60 , if you are successful you will have a lot of explaining to do. None of the commercial processes, including Cibachrome are permanent unless you dark storage your Cibas.
If the manufacturers ever get smart and put some R&D into permanent pigment prints then I would keep my hand in that research.

Embrace the hybrid work flow, get known as a unique printer of your work.

This advice may be painful to hear and I know I will here crap from inkjet printers and RA4 printers , but I have been printing for others since your age
and I am convinced that those young photographers that follow this path will reach financial and critical success with their work. Takes about 20 years , but you are a serious dude right?

My lab, FWIW does or did, RA4 , InkJet, Cibachrome, Silver,Platinum and now we are moving to do Colour and BW Carbon, Gum, Multiple Hit Pt Pd, so I am speaking from a very informed platform, I have made a lot of mistakes and after 34 years of making a living directly from printing photographs , I have seen all the trends and listened to a lot of claims by the manufacturers.

I am sure you have heard about the good old days when Kodak told consumers to use good Kodak colour paper to preserve their most treasured memories.
A class action suit should have been done back in the 80's for that bullshit.

If you come to do a show at our shop , we are very open about the materials we work with and unfortunately we have to tell our clients that colour ink or C print are great for display, but not for collecting.

Daniel : this is my take on the photographic printing industry, it may ruffle a few feathers hear, but IMO this is the reality of where we are with materials.

[Frank Petronio]

I don't know... If you want to be a photographer, I would master mainstream technologies - currently scan and inkjet and straight digital - and get to be a productive, successful photographer first, before investing all the time and resources necessary to master some arcane process.

The world is full of beautifully-made, archival prints of dumb art school pictures that nobody cares about. Have something worth printing ;-)

Now, if you think you want to make a career out of printmaking for others, then you may be onto something... give it a few years, do a little marketing voodoo, and once all the mainstream analog photography suppliers crap out you can be making your magical Stoneagrams for mega-bucks for Moby and all the hipster wannbee art star photographers ;-p

[Greg Lockrey]

I don't know... If you want to be a photographer, I would master mainstream technologies - currently scan and inkjet and straight digital - and get to be a productive, successful photographer first, before investing all the time and resources necessary to master some arcane process.

The world is full of beautifully-made, archival prints of dumb art school pictures that nobody cares about. Have something worth printing ;-)

Now, if you think you want to make a career out of printmaking for others, then you may be onto something... give it a few years, do a little marketing voodoo, and once all the mainstream analog photography suppliers crap out you can be making your magical Stoneagrams for mega-bucks for Moby and all the hipster wannbee art star photographers ;-p

It's all in the marketing.... look at Andy Warhol, the super-market illustrator who made good because of marketing.

[Brian Ellis]

Unless you've already got a gallery-worthy portfolio it seems to me you've got the cart before the horse. First you need to make photographs worth selling. Then you can worry about how you print them.

As for Cibachrome, IMHO Chris' prints look like they do at least as much because of his printing talents as because of the materials he uses. I know a little about him from a talk he gave at a workshop I attended earlier this year and I think he'd make stunning prints with any method he chose to use. Back when he started out Cibachrome was a fairly conventional mainstream material. Today digital materials are the mainstream materials. If I were in your position I'd become the best possible printer I could by printing digitally. If you reach that point and aren't satisfied with the look of what you're producing or if buyers don't want it because it doesn't look any good then go for something else. But starting out with Cibachrome today because you like the look of what someone else gets from it seems unwise to me on both a business and an artistic basis.

[Robert Brummitt]

I would agree with all previuos posts. Work with technology that is current. Learn it, explore with it you'll go further with digital as the technology grows.
Mr. Burkett did this. I would look to Charles Cramer would be someone to study.

[Bill_1856]

Go hybrid for Color.
I've been printing color for nearly 60 years, with experience in virtually every process, from simple "C-prints" through Ilfochrome, and Dye Transfers.
I am now printing 100% of my color with with inkjet printers because it allows better control than anything else that I've ever used (and with the least effort). I notice that Ctein has made somewhat similar claims.
IMO, digital vs. B&W enlarging is still a little "iffy," primarily because of the traditional print materials available. Contact printing on Azo/Lodima and alternate processes are a different matter.

[mdm]

Hybrid. Learn how to print with an inkjet because inkjet negatives are here to stay and you can make conventional b&w and colour inkjet prints too. Making a career is as much about having fun as it is about working. Sometime you have to specialise in 1 or a group of similar processes though, but that dosnt mean you can ignore everything else. The media is the message, if you want to be an 'artist' you have to differentiate your product from the trillions of images everywhere, that means a print as an object. It has always been that way. Great photographers print, in books, magazines or on walls, from Fox Talbot to the present. Sally Mann is collodion, Pen is Platinum, Atget is albumen, Strand is gravure, Adams is b&w silver, Avedon is magazines and books, Salgado books, Gibson books, Shore books, Friedlander books. They all do lots of things but 1 defines their reputation.

[Greg Blank]

...... Strand is gravure, Adams is b&w silver, .... 1 defines their reputation.

I thought Strand was Platinum ;) I remember seeing an exhibit of his at the Smithsonian or at least on that his work was in. Then I read that he made platinum prints first on available premade papers and then on hand made paper. Then like everyone else resorted to silver papers. Maybe the gravure ended up being the final method of choice?

[mdm]

Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.

[Greg Blank]

*Will Take*
I liked Frank's & Brian E's responses.....too much to add a lot else :D


Hey all,
This has been a nagging question the past 2-3 months, now that I've decided to pursue photography as more than a "hobby", but a real, genuine pursuit. Eventually, I want it to be my primary source of income. This *might* take years,
-Dan