PDA

View Full Version : Platinum vs. Inkjet



Nasser
10-Jul-2012, 00:09
I just want to post 2 different processes:
The image below of a subject show with 8x10 Tachihara view camera using 300 Shnider lens, 8x10 HP5+ negative developed in Max-Pyro. First image: Negative scanned and printed with epson stylus pro 3000 Matt-heavy wight, and scanned. Second image: Negative printed with platinum and palladium on Arches platine paper ans scanned on same scanner.

Inkjet image:

76982

The Platinum/Palladium alt process print:

76983

I hop you like the compassion

Nasser

Jim collum
10-Jul-2012, 00:23
i'm not sure what we're supposed to be seeing?

andress007
10-Jul-2012, 00:44
Pt/Pd has 3D look.

Inkjet is "flat", as always.

Gary Tarbert
10-Jul-2012, 02:50
MMM??? I can make make two prints using the same process and get this same contrast diference,The scanning proccess and the surface texture of scanned results are a major factor,I print on a Epson 9900 and my inkjets are not flat as suggested ! . Cheers Gary

Ken Lee
10-Jul-2012, 04:49
As Gary has pointed out, today we can make inkjet images that can't be distinguished from Pt/Pd prints. We can also make inkjet prints with the same color and dynamic range - on smoother matt paper - thus getting higher resolution than can be obtained by contact printing onto the hand-coated fine-art papers we use for Pt/Pd. I have one of those hanging on my wall in front of me, as I write this.


http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/forum/ptpd.jpg

The main difference is archival longevity: a Pt/Pd print can be left in bright sun, and the image will stay intact without substantial fading or discoloration - until the paper disintegrates. The same cannot be said of inkjet prints.

Some inkjet prints can last a long time: the ones which use pigments instead of dyes. That's a long discussion (http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com/).

Nasser
10-Jul-2012, 05:04
When I first developed the negative and scanned it; I did not like the result, it was all look gray and a one level color! I tired with photo shop but did not like it. I did not want to waist my time printing it in Ptpd... but after 2 weeks I did, and was so pleased with the result, a great separation between the details, and a high dynamic great tonality.

Ken Lee
10-Jul-2012, 05:10
http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/forum/chey2.jpg

Here's an image rendered 2 different ways. One appears more 3-dimensional than the other, but they are exactly the same except for color.

You might find this article helpful: http://www.kenleegallery.com/html/tech/bronze.php

Brian Ellis
10-Jul-2012, 05:34
Comparing and judging two different printing processes by posting examples on a computer monitor is pointless. We aren't seeing what either of your images would look like when printed. We're seeing what they look like on a low-resolution, back-lit computer monitor. Not to mention the fact that there are many, many different ways that both of these images could have been printed. We're seeing an approximation of the way you chose, not some sort of universal, immutable way that all pt/pd and ink jet prints look.

Kirk Gittings
10-Jul-2012, 06:14
All you have demonstrated is your lack of skill with inkjet.

photobymike
10-Jul-2012, 10:03
I got to say i am with Kirk and Ken on this discusion... and i have over 40 years experience in the dark both comercial and my own. I will be getting a Epson R3000 this week and the prints this turns out will be amazing. The only reason i use film over digital these days is because of love not performance. When i develop a photo with chemicals it is therapy to me. I am at peace with the world, i know hard to understand. I just love the smell of fixer. Then i scan and print cuz i gotta make the money....

Jim collum
10-Jul-2012, 10:11
I got to say i am with Kirk and Ken on this discusion... and i have over 40 years experience in the dark both comercial and my own. I will be getting a Epson R3000 this week and the prints this turns out will be amazing. The only reason i use film over digital these days is because of love not performance. When i develop a photo with chemicals it is therapy to me. I am at peace with the world, i know hard to understand. I just love the smell of fixer. Then i scan and print cuz i gotta make the money....

What's funny is, the Baryta inkjet paper made by Harmon Ilford (first gen) is the same base that they used for Ilford Multigrade silver fiber paper. When you opened up a box of it, it was pure nostalgia.. smelled just like 'darkroom'. Was a close runner up for the reason I bought that paper (the quality was the first.. outstanding warm tone paper). I stocked up on 4 24" rolls of it before they replaced it with an inferior product

goamules
10-Jul-2012, 10:22
Man, give the guy a break. The way I'm reading it, he's saying he likes PT/PL and it's working better for him. Are the responders trying to force him to change his mind and use inkjet printers instead of contact printing?

I do contact prints and I'm happy my "printer" cost $20 - it's two thick pieces of glass!

photobymike
10-Jul-2012, 10:42
LOL there is something of a point of .. doing it on the cheap....

Ken Lee
10-Jul-2012, 11:34
Man, give the guy a break. The way I'm reading it, he's saying he likes PT/PL and it's working better for him. Are the responders trying to force him to change his mind and use inkjet printers instead of contact printing?

You may be right, but it seemed to me that the OP was making an assertion, not just a statement of preference. Some of us who have worked with both media, addressed the assertion.

I went on to suggest that image color may have something to do with our preference for certain "alternative" processes, and that ultimately the core value proposition of Pt/Pd is archival longevity.

If I had the resources, I would print many of my photos using Pt/Pd - because of longevity, not appearance.

Nasser
11-Jul-2012, 00:21
For more than 10 years I did not know what Pt/pd mean, I was not pleased with any photo prints like I did when I sow Tillman Crane print "Brooms", I was asking my self "why do the subjects in the photo sticking out like this?!" it defers than any photo I have seen, it is the only reason that I got in to pt/pl. And last 3 months, I was shock to see a photo like a painting with long delicate tone, I asked about it, and it was a $2000 carbon print, with a distinguishable relief. I could be wrong! but if you walk down the street and stopped, you might go 2 steps backward to see a beautiful ink-jet print for 10 seconds; but if it was an alt process you would get in the place and ask about it.

zenny
11-Jul-2012, 03:15
For more than 10 years I did not know what Pt/pd mean, I was not pleased with any photo prints like I did when I sow Tillman Crane print "Brooms", I was asking my self "why do the subjects in the photo sticking out like this?!" it defers than any photo I have seen, it is the only reason that I got in to pt/pl. And last 3 months, I was shock to see a photo like a painting with long delicate tone, I asked about it, and it was a $2000 carbon print, with a distinguishable relief. I could be wrong! but if you walk down the street and stopped, you might go 2 steps backward to see a beautiful ink-jet print for 10 seconds; but if it was an alt process you would get in the place and ask about it.

For archival purposes, Pt/Pd and carbon printings are preferred over inkjet. Like some of the posters above stated, the same tonality can be achieved with inkjet with some manipulations in any graphic editing software.

Everyone has their own preferences, depending on the availability of resources (including time), and passion to achieve something. And it is impressive that you have a passion for Pt/Pd printing. Keep it up with your nice work!

/zenny

---

Support http://thehumanape.com

Brian Ellis
11-Jul-2012, 05:19
For more than 10 years I did not know what Pt/pd mean, I was not pleased with any photo prints like I did when I sow Tillman Crane print "Brooms", I was asking my self "why do the subjects in the photo sticking out like this?!" it defers than any photo I have seen, it is the only reason that I got in to pt/pl. And last 3 months, I was shock to see a photo like a painting with long delicate tone, I asked about it, and it was a $2000 carbon print, with a distinguishable relief. I could be wrong! but if you walk down the street and stopped, you might go 2 steps backward to see a beautiful ink-jet print for 10 seconds; but if it was an alt process you would get in the place and ask about it.

Maybe you would. Most people, including me, would have great difficulty knowing which was which without a close examination, assuming the person who made the ink jet print knew what she or he was doing and had a goal of making the ink jet print look as much like the pt/pd print as possible.

Without intending any disrespect, I'm curious about how much experience you have viewing ink jet prints. For example, have you seen exhibits of ink jet prints made by someone such as George Dewolfe (or Tyler Boley, who participates here occasionally), i.e. someone who's really a master of the process? Or did you spend years learning how to make an excellent ink jet print yourself? I ask, not to disparage your opinion but only because unless someone has either spent that kind of time themselves or seen prints made by someone who has, I don't think they really know the potential of the process. There's a big difference between dabbling in it and making a serious effort to see what can be done with it.

Bill_1856
11-Jul-2012, 06:38
The main difference is archival longevity: a Pt/Pd print can be left in bright sun, and the image will stay intact without substantial fading or discoloration - until the paper disintegrates. ].

That may not be true. I know of at least one of Paul Strand's beautiful platinum prints in Central Park where he "retouched out" a figure. Now, 80 years later, the retouching ink is still there, but the print has faded around it. (I'm wondering why he didn't do the retouching on the negative.)

Cletus
11-Jul-2012, 07:08
I think that all quality and "indistinguishability" aside, a well excecuted pt/pd print (or silver gelatin for that matter) is simply more valuable than an inkjet print. All other things being equal. I have lately seen some beautiful B+W inkjets which probably represent the state of the art, literally. I doubt I could spot which was the traditional print if they were right next to each other in good light. I don't think any longer it's a question of "which one is better". That argument is fast going the way of the Film v. Digital argument and there is no real winner IMO, just a matter of choice and medium.

I still believe though, that as digital/injet processes become more mainstream (and also more ubiquitous and common) that traditional analog processes will only increase in their intrinsic value as "objets d'arts" and that fact alone is enough to keep me firmly entrenched in the "hand-crafted" camp. Traditional analog, and alt processes can only become more rare and valuable as time goes on, amid the ever increasing sea of 'popular' digital art.

Ken Lee
11-Jul-2012, 07:27
That may not be true. I know of at least one of Paul Strand's beautiful platinum prints in Central Park where he "retouched out" a figure. Now, 80 years later, the retouching ink is still there, but the print has faded around it. (I'm wondering why he didn't do the retouching on the negative.)

Thank you for that correction - I should have written "Processed correctly, a Pt/Pd print can be left in bright sun, and the image will stay intact without substantial fading or discoloration - until the paper disintegrates." We don't know how carefully he processed his images with regards to their archival longevity.

I have read that Paul Strand regularly applied varnish and other non-archival agents to his prints, much to the dismay of museum conservators. This is speculation on my part, but the varnish may have been applied in an attempt to improve both the tone and the dynamic range of his prints - which if true, may tell us something about the aesthetic limitations of Pt/Pd in his view.

Drew Wiley
11-Jul-2012, 08:27
I'm very skeptical that a well-done platinum and a comparable inkjet are actually indistinguishable. Maybe one method can mimic the other, or be suitable to similar subject matter, or be equally pleasing, but they arrive at that point in such a different manner
that certain subtleties must be impossible to optimize one versus the other. Similarly, I've
made silver prints that resemble carbon, and carbon printers have made prints resembling
silver gelatin, but there are certain visual distinctions which remain proprietary, esp to
someone experienced enough to recognize such nuances.

bob carnie
11-Jul-2012, 08:46
Drew good points,,, except about the Carbon.

I made this point at the start of this thread- when you see a well executed DT you will know it. Yes we can mimic other processes , and fool 95% of the people 100% of the time.
Each process has its unique characteristics and there are those here and elsewhere who are pushing the envelope of each process.
One of the nicest prints I have seen in a long time was one of Jim Kitchens, that was done by Jon Cone on his process. When done properly each process has its beauty/look that is compelling.

Though I can make an inkjet print nearly identical to a silver print, I have no desire to do so, If I want the silver paper then I want to go to the real material.
I do not think it is possible mimic a Sandy King Carbon print. The relief would be impossible to create , as far as I am concerned.

The OP is quite satisfied stating that he can mimic a dye transfer print... We should believe him as this may be true for his eyes, but I also think that there is a group of people who could pick out the inkjet from the DT. Those are the subtle nuances that years of looking at prints will give one the ability to see the differences.



I'm very skeptical that a well-done platinum and a comparable inkjet are actually indistinguishable. Maybe one method can mimic the other, or be suitable to similar subject matter, or be equally pleasing, but they arrive at that point in such a different manner
that certain subtleties must be impossible to optimize one versus the other. Similarly, I've
made silver prints that resemble carbon, and carbon printers have made prints resembling
silver gelatin, but there are certain visual distinctions which remain proprietary, esp to
someone experienced enough to recognize such nuances.

Kirk Gittings
11-Jul-2012, 09:17
Man, give the guy a break. The way I'm reading it, he's saying he likes PT/PL and it's working better for him. Are the responders trying to force him to change his mind and use inkjet printers instead of contact printing?

I do contact prints and I'm happy my "printer" cost $20 - it's two thick pieces of glass!

No, but from the images he posted it was clear to me that there was much more to explore with that image in an inkjet print. Maybe we should just ignore the fact that his comparison lacked a thorough effort with the inkjet print-I don't think so.

tgtaylor
11-Jul-2012, 10:08
Several years back I made a print of the image below on Ilford MGIV glossy RC at a rental darkroom. A few months ago I scanned the print and printed it on Epson Premium Glossy paper which I am quite happy with. It's as snappy in real life as on the monitor. In fact it's been sitting on my viewing station. Just the other day I happened to look at it at an an angle with the desk light and was suprised to notice that the areas surrounding the wall lights on both sides appeared as if a liquid had spotted the print there. Apparently the ink density decreased until the blown-out areas became paper white. It's completely unnoticable unless the print is held at a certain angle under strong light. The same area of the darkroom print is smooth and continuous with no spot or halo surrounding the paper white of the blown-out areas.

But I am not an experienced inkjet printer and the printer itself was an Epson 2200 - not the latest and greatest. There is a difference in the papers also with the Epson paper appearing whiter than the Ilford. However I am very satisified with the inkjet version.

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7145/6629302451_9fe9d8bdd3_z.jpg

Thomas

slackercruster
11-Jul-2012, 10:09
OP...Dunno.

The plat looks kinda flat. Would like too see them printed closer in style esp with contrast. They both need more development with the blacks...at least for my taste.

What i did with my dye transfer test was to try and match the IJ to the DT. I had to cut the contrast from the scan I used to make the print from to match the DT. Scans usually develop contrast, so that was a big issue comparing 2nd gen prints to the original.

slackercruster
11-Jul-2012, 10:11
several years back i made a print of the image below on ilford mgiv glossy rc at a rental darkroom. A few months ago i scanned the print and printed it on epson premium glossy paper which i am quite happy with. It's as snappy in real life as on the monitor. In fact it's been sitting on my viewing station. Just the other day i happened to look at it at an an angle with the desk light and was suprised to notice that the areas surrounding the wall lights on both sides appeared as if a liquid had spotted the print there. Apparently the ink density decreased until the blown-out areas became paper white. It's completely unnoticable unless the print is held at a certain angle under strong light. The same area of the darkroom print is smooth and continuous with no spot or halo surrounding the paper white of the blown-out areas.

But i am not an experienced inkjet printer and the printer itself was an epson 2200 - not the latest and greatest. There is a difference in the papers also with the epson paper appearing whiter than the ilford. However i am very satisified with the inkjet version.

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7145/6629302451_9fe9d8bdd3_b.jpg

thomas


nice!!

Drew Wiley
11-Jul-2012, 10:57
A number of years ago there was a commercial platinum printing service which advertised
how they could make a big platinum print which has all the look of silver, replete with deep
rich DMax, which of course, inherently compressed a lot of that midtone microcontrast which Pt/Pd is famous for revealing. I know these folks, and they really know their stuff
technically. But the point is - why?? If you want the look of silver-gelatin, just do it and
save a ton of bucks. Same with carbon - do it for fun, or do it for what is does uniquely,
like relief. But I've never got this mentality of trying to mimic one medium with another.
Same on the DT subject - it's easy to mimic on inkjet, and you'll probably even do better.
But side by side with the real deal, optimized for that particular media, and you've got a
different story.

Steve Smith
11-Jul-2012, 11:00
I have read that Paul Strand regularly applied varnish and other non-archival agents to his prints, much to the dismay of museum conservators.

Artists working with oil paints do this too. Does this practice also dismay them?


Steve.

Drew Wiley
11-Jul-2012, 11:04
Bob - one of the issues I've always had with high-relief in color carbon is the way some
folks would layer them so that colors that would normally recede get layered on top, and
those that would typically advance end up in the deep part of the relief. The prints could
still be beautiful, but all the hues look inside-out. This problem is not only related to the
manner the tissue is transferred, but to how the pigments layers are sequenced per relative opacity. Kinda funny looking at shadows on top, or bright yellows sinking to the
bottom. But per non-halftone quad carbons not being sharp, I've seen plenty of evidence
to the contrary. Not sharp like a Ciba, but certainly good enough. Keeping paper per se
dimensionally stable during the whole process is a different challenge.

Drew Wiley
11-Jul-2012, 11:13
Steve- you fundamentally misunderstand the difference in the media. Varnishes over oil are
designed to be removed and replaced if necessary without destroying the painting. Try putting the same thing over a watercolor and you've inherently ruined it forever. Typical
photo varnishes were engineered to supply a retouching surface, not for archival properties. They yellow in time and eventually cross-link, get brittle and crack. In Strand's
time this would have probably been something akin to a wood varnish or perhaps nitroc.
lacquer - solvent might work, might not, with bits of lacquer chipping off and taking emulsion with it. I've been involved as a consultant on quite a few analogous restoration
issues architecturally, and someone's mistake decades ago can equate to hell today.

bob carnie
11-Jul-2012, 11:22
Hi Drew

I consider Sandy the best, in fact I try to spend as much time with him as possible thinking some of his magic/mojo will rub off on me.

One thing that separates his Carbons from many others I have seen is the high-relief.

For the work I want to do with colour and bw carbon I will not be going anywhere near the relief that Sandy gets. It is beautiful with his work but for me I want much less.
I plan to be multilayering colors on top of each other and I do hope they blend a bit.
My new setup is to use Strosser punch and mount the paper to aluminum. In fact I got the Strosser punch press off Sandy.
I have done quite of few beta tests on this method and am quite happy about registration and lack of shrinkage of the support.

The current masters of colour carbon , Todd and John are using a mylar substrate to layer on which is dimensionally stable. they are laying down in reverse and then doing a single transfer of the finished image from mylar to heavy rag paper(in Johns case) .
Years ago I took a course on this and we used mylar as well to image on, some of us tried to transfer the prints to rag paper.. The course was taught by a very competent colour carbon worker, but the facility's were pitiful, so we really were banging our heads against the wall trying this process for the first time.
My experience then was so bad that I decided not to follow this path. Scanners, Image setters and no PS kind of made the venture unrealistic.
I think the paper on aluminum is more suited for my needs and I do not want a heavy texture on my prints, in fact the DT's I have seen look more like the direction I would like to follow. As I have said before photo realistic reproduction will not be my aim.. so my results will be pleasing to some and shite to others.




Bob - one of the issues I've always had with high-relief in color carbon is the way some
folks would layer them so that colors that would normally recede get layered on top, and
those that would typically advance end up in the deep part of the relief. The prints could
still be beautiful, but all the hues look inside-out. This problem is not only related to the
manner the tissue is transferred, but to how the pigments layers are sequenced per relative opacity. Kinda funny looking at shadows on top, or bright yellows sinking to the
bottom. But per non-halftone quad carbons not being sharp, I've seen plenty of evidence
to the contrary. Not sharp like a Ciba, but certainly good enough. Keeping paper per se
dimensionally stable during the whole process is a different challenge.

tgtaylor
11-Jul-2012, 12:32
...Just the other day I happened to look at it at an an angle with the desk light and was suprised to notice that the areas surrounding the wall lights on both sides appeared as if a liquid had spotted the print there. Apparently the ink density decreased until the blown-out areas became paper white. It's completely unnoticable unless the print is held at a certain angle under strong light. The same area of the darkroom print is smooth and continuous with no spot or halo surrounding the paper white of the blown-out areas.

But I am not an experienced inkjet printer and the printer itself was an Epson 2200 - not the latest and greatest. There is a difference in the papers also with the Epson paper appearing whiter than the Ilford. However I am very satisified with the inkjet version."

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7145/6629302451_9fe9d8bdd3_z.jpg

While getting in a jog before the temperature goes thru the roof, the reason why popped clearly into my mind: The silver molecules form a continuium in the paper while the ink droplets do not and an abrupt discontinuity is reached. I vaguly recall reading that the modern inkjet printers are printing with two maybe three different drop sizes in an attempt to mimic the silver. But that appears to be very unlikely for the immediate to mid future as the silver molucules are capable of forming an almost infinite continuium. I'll bet that there are silver molucules throughout the blown-out areas in the silver print whereas there are zero droplets in the inkjet version.



Thomas

Drew Wiley
11-Jul-2012, 16:26
Yeah, Bob ... I was in the original Evercolor lab and those guys all came from long prepress
careers and could almost perfectly register even 4 ft wide mylar sheets using the Stoesser
system; but there's a learning curve to it, and the need to have the vacuum draw go very
predictably. But I hated the halftone look of both Evercolor and Polaroid Permanent, and
didn't care much for the opacity of the automotive pigments they chose. My Stoesser gear
is reconditioned stuff after a bunch of horse trading, and I'm geared up to only 20x24 for
dye transfer. It a space-consuming medium. For bigger prints, it's RA4 for me.

Nasser
11-Jul-2012, 22:14
No, but from the images he posted it was clear to me that there was much more to explore with that image in an inkjet print. Maybe we should just ignore the fact that his comparison lacked a thorough effort with the inkjet print-I don't think so.

Kirk is right! To tell the truth, I do not have a good experience with Ink-Jet! I am really anxious to see one of these pro ink-jet but with a subject captured in high exposure scale to see the deference. Thank you Kirk for being clear

Roger Thoms
12-Jul-2012, 05:36
Pt/Pd has 3D look.

Inkjet is "flat", as always.

I think that paper and subject matter makes a big difference. I have prints from my 2200 that people sometimes mistake for paper collage. They definitely have a 3d quality. No fancy equipment either, we are talking Nikon D100, Epson 2200, and a pentium 4 computer. The paper is Hahnemuhle Photo Rag.

Roger

sanking
12-Jul-2012, 11:44
The special look that some associate with a specific photographic media, whether it be inkjet, pt/pd or carbon transfer is often due to visual inexperience with the media. People who have a lot of visual experience in looking at prints made with different media understand that the range of possibilities in terms of "look" is very great indeed. The work of some skilled printers with a specific media may have a special look, but this look is usually the result of a particular vision the artist has with that media, not to the limitations of the media itself.

And with media that have a very long history, say platinum or carbon transfer, looking at prints from different periods often also reveals not only the vision of the artist, but also the aesthetic preferences of the period. But we have to be careful with this observation because in some cases the special look of a period is due to the type of materials or working conditions that existed at the time. A color carbon print on paper, whether made with a half-tone or continuous tone negative, has a very different look than a color carbon print on white polyester. Vintage platinum prints from the turn of the century often have lower Dmax and lower overall contrast than prints made by contemporary artists because low contrast was the prevailing aesthetic of that period.

Learning to make high quality prints with any media requires a lot of experience in the form of trial and error. But it also involves looking at great work in order to understand the potential of the media, and the limits of the media. In other words, a destination is important, but one must also recognize that there are times when "you can not get there from here." Kind of like Clint Eastwoods' "A man gotta know his limitations," but in this case not so much personal limits as much as the limitations of the process.

Sandy