Platinum/Palladium or Pigment

[David Higgs]

After years of sending prints out, and years before that making my own darkroom prints I succumbed and got an Epson. Mainly with the intention of trying out Plat/Pall with digital contact negatives ( I shoot 54 but like 10x8 and 11x16 prints). Also with a new exhibition coming up I rationalised it that if I do the printing, I can cover my costs compared with sending out.

I've been playing around on the new Baryta papers - which after a bit of work are amazingly close to what I made on FB paper back in the day ( I can only tell with a loupe) - and some of the textured matt fine art papers. I have to admit to being rather blown away, within a week and a few boxes of paper I've got to where I 'thought' I wanted to get with Platinum.

Some of you guys must be doing this, comparing Pigment with Platinum. Although it could be seen as some sort of heresy is there anyone willing to stick their neck out and say they've decided on pigment over Platinum, leaving aside the archival issues. I'm struggling to see if once matted and framed anyone could tell the difference?

This is not a trolling question or dig vs 100% analogue argument, I'm interested in real life experiences. Living in a conservation area with no mains drainage doesn't preclude alternative processes but it will be harder for me than most.

[bob carnie]

Good Question

I will stick my neck out here.

I am learning all I can about pt pd, carbon and tri colour pigment prints with a black layer.
I will offer these processes and silver gelatin fibre wet prints as my best work and print for others in these medias, for those willing to pay for this service.
I will explain the potential of these processes in regards to archival stability, from all that I have gleaned over the last years as well from informed sources here and places.
Improperly workflow/processed prints , have their limitations as any modern colour process.

I only am going to offer inkjet and RA 4 prints as contemporary processes , using the manufacturers archival specs of the paper , inks and dyes rather than make any claims of my own.
These prints I will offer as a printing service , but make no potential archival attributes...

Yes , you can tell the difference between processes, maybe some here will claim they can , and to their eyes may be right , but I believe there are those still around who can see the subtle differences.

It seems your question is a bit of (hoping enough people here will state that inkjet is good enough) and I understand this , but in 35 years of real life experience there are differences, good bad and ugly.

Bob

[Scott Davis]

I don't have a problem with making platinum-esque prints in pigment so long as you don't call it a platinum print. For a whole host of reasons, the least of which is an honesty thing - it's not fair to buyers to let them think they're getting an honest-to-god platinum print when in fact they're getting an inkjet. But I'd be interested to see how close you can actually get, and on what paper surface(s). I've heard lots of people talk a great game about making platinum-esque inkjet prints, but I'm still highly skeptical, mostly because the folks making those claims are traditional process bashers.

[Ken Lee]

is there anyone willing to stick their neck out and say they've decided on pigment over Platinum, leaving aside the archival issues.

Yes. You might find this brief article (http://www.kenleegallery.com/html/tech/bronze.php) interesting. There's no need to mimic Pt, Pt/Pd, etc: we can tone each image separately, according to taste.

[David Higgs]

Thanks Bob/Scott.
I have absolutely no intention of trying to pass off anything not platinum as platinum. That would be incredibly dishonest. It was more of a question of the 'law of diminishing returns'. There's a time and financial cost to learning any new process of course.
In my relatively short time at the bottom of the fine art market (which is very different in the UK to the USA) I've learnt an number of things.
Curators are still on the whole interested in film, although this is rapidly diminishing and some won't listen at all if you start talking about process, archival quality, image quality in terms of tone and detail. The galleries are suffering in this recession and are turning to tried and tested photographers and subjects. Nudes and images of the stars of the 60s and 70s sell. Think Terry O'Neil, Brandt, Russell, Duffy.
Nobody wants to buy an 'inkjet'. So we have lots of euphamisms for them - Giclee, archival pigment etc. The Galleries regard silver gelatin with an almost religious obsession despite until recently it's what we were all doing. They charge around 5x as much over pigment. I've seen lots of 'bad' silver gelatin as well as 'bad' inkjet.
By far my most commercial successful ventures have been selling direct to the public myself. Apart from a tiny discerning minority who have started collecting my images, most people don't seem to care about how I got to the image. They just like the image. Whether it was taken on film or digital, an old Linhof or an iphone, it seems that on the whole only photographers care about how hard it was to get to the final image.

So why Platinum? It looks great, and will help me get my foot into the door of some of the marble floored galleries. I'm not sure most buyers (in the UK at least) are really interested though.
Also photography is a passion but not a profession for me. I fund it through sales, but ultimately I do it for myself - and platinum looks fun. I was just shocked by how quickly I could get pretty good prints with an inkjet - I last tried in 2005 and ended up back in the darkroom quite quickly. I still haven't nailed the shadow detail, which might be the final stumbling block. I would think if you like quite dark, contrasty images, where shadow detail is less important - you might be satisfied with 'just' settling with inkjet.

[David Higgs]

Hey Ken, we replied at the same time. I've been a massive fan of your technique for years now and can heartily recommend it. Every image I've exhibited in the last 2 years has been done this way - thanks!
I have been experimenting with the Epson driver (early days for me still) and have been using the toning controls on their B+W controller. When printing a 'colour' monochrome-toned image on some papers when viewed at an angle you get that colour cast in the difficult dark muddy areas. If you use the Epson driver, and tone in their ABW section on a purely monochrone image, it turns off some of the inks ( magenta and green??) and the casts go.
As I said, very early days for me.

[Ken Lee]

I'm glad to see some of your lovely monochrome images, with a variety of toning "to taste".

I should point out that the OP wrote "leaving aside the archival issues."

[Jim Noel]

I don't have a problem with making platinum-esque prints in pigment so long as you don't call it a platinum print. For a whole host of reasons, the least of which is an honesty thing - it's not fair to buyers to let them think they're getting an honest-to-god platinum print when in fact they're getting an inkjet. But I'd be interested to see how close you can actually get, and on what paper surface(s). I've heard lots of people talk a great game about making platinum-esque inkjet prints, but I'm still highly skeptical, mostly because the folks making those claims are traditional process bashers.

I agree with Scott and would like to add that I have seen some "Platinum-esgue" prints by people who are regarded as experts by most digital imagers. One of these looked at my prints and said,"Don't let anyone tell you they can equal your prints digitally. It can not be done."

Jim

[Scott Davis]

Another bit of food for thought about the platinum vs. pigment question: the learning curve and the cost of making the inkjets quickly equals the cost of making a real platinum print. And to me, anyway, getting the platinum printing process dialed in was MUCH faster (and therefore cheaper) than dialing in the inkjet process (something I'm still struggling with for b/w images - color seems relatively straightforward, but b/w is in a different galaxy on a not-so-parallel plane of existence). And if the cost is roughly the same, why not deliver the real thing?

[Peter Gomena]

I'm pretty darned pleased with what I can accomplish with an inkjet printer using Quadtone RIP on an Epson with Epson inks. My prints may resemble platinum in color, but side-by-side with a platinum print, there is an obvious difference. My eventual goal is to make digital negatives for pt/pd prints. Ink sprayed on paper won't get me there. I want the look as well as the process.

Peter Gomena

[Ken Lee]

If you're looking to make gently warm-toned prints with extremely high resolution, rich and continuous tonality, archival permanence at significantly lower cost and higher quality than using Epson inks and/or the 8-bit-only drivers in Photoshop/Lightroom/Aperture, consider Carbon Pigment (http://www.kenleegallery.com/html/carbon/index.php) prints. No darkroom, no UV lighting etc. but lovely prints which fade less than the paper on which they are printed.

[zelph]

If you're looking to make gently warm-toned prints with extremely high resolution, rich and continuous tonality, archival permanence at significantly lower cost and higher quality than using Epson inks and/or the 8-bit-only drivers in Photoshop/Lightroom/Aperture, consider Carbon Pigment (http://www.kenleegallery.com/html/carbon/index.php) prints. No darkroom, no UV lighting etc. but lovely prints which fade less than the paper on which they are printed.

The bastardization of 'carbon pigment' is alive and well here. Instead of stealing the name of traditional and historical methods, get your own. I prefer the name a friend uses: Pixelographs.

[Ken Lee]

The bastardization of 'carbon pigment' is alive and well here. Instead of stealing the name of traditional and historical methods, get your own. I prefer the name a friend uses: Pixelographs.

I respect your appreciation of historical processes and have myself made Carbon Transfer prints, also called Carbon prints. See http://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/Carbon/carbon.html.

Regrettably, there is no official standards body to sanction the names of these processes. If there were one, lawyers and inventors could venture into the slippery realm of Copyright versus Trademark versus Patent (http://www.lawmart.com/forms/difference.htm).

[Michael Kadillak]

How about the aspect of Carbon, Platinum or palladium from an art and craft perspective. The time it takes to master these alt processes is a time honored skill that does not come easy and is difficult to place economic parameters around it. The truly passionate individuals that practice in these legitimate alt process arenas hold a place of high esteem that make it much easier to differentiate their work. Just my $0.02.

[davehyams]

You can make beautiful inkjet prints, and you can make beautiful platinum/cyanotype/carbon ect prints. a platinum print will never be an inkjet print, and visa versa. If you enjoy the inkjet prints you are making and feel comfortable standing behind that product, thats really all that matters. The vast majority of collectors do not care what type of print it is, as long as it looks great and they love the image. Maybe have someone make a platinum print for you to compare, and if you absolutely love it then you can go down that path. I know David Chow of dceditions makes beautiful platinum prints in the UK, and Salto in Belgium do so also. I am sure that you could commission a print, which is a great way to try platinum printing without investing all of the time necessary to build a workflow for yourself.

[Jim Noel]

You can make an enlarged negative with which to make Platinum/palladium prints. You can not make such a print digitally as they require the coating of the sensitizer containing the metal on the paper. You might cahieve a color which is similar to a Pt/Pd print, but it wil not be a Pt/Pd print.

[Jim collum]

The inkjet prints I've seen at Photo LA are usually described as a pigmented ink print. sometimes pigmented inkjet. (as an aside thought, it's rarely the process that gets you into the gallery.. I'd say inkjet prints are probably leading in new work being accepted

[Ken Lee]

I regret resurrecting this thread. My intention was to share information about a process of possible interest to the author of the thread, not to propose one process as superior - or even a substitute - for another.

If I missed the mark, then please overlook my enthusiasm.

[Jim collum]

I regret resurrecting this thread. My intention was to share information about a process of possible interest to the author of the thread, not to propose one process as superior - or even a substitute - for another.

If I missed the mark, then please overlook my enthusiasm.

I don't think it missed the mark.. i've seen inkjet prints that have riveled platinum in their tonality. I had missed this post originally , and your original link on methodology has gone into my bag of tools now.

[Jim collum]

I'd recommend viewing prints by Richard Lohmann http://www.richardlohmann.com or Tom Mallonee http://www.tommallonee.com. They mix their own ink set, and the prints are breathtaking.

[mdm]

I think if I am honest, I am not able to better a really well printed inkjet with a print made any other way, of course I still make prints many other ways because of their unique properties, the pleasure of making them and learning the process, but I live in hope. If I could make only inkjet prints that would be ok, and a very productive way to work. Dont feel guilty about it, make some more prints.

[Pete Suttner]

I've been comparing prints recently and my conclusion is both are best, both are valid, both are the artifact / result of a complex process. I print pt / pd from digital negatives. To get a good digital negative you have to have a good inkjet print. They translate if the compensation curve is correct. Can I tell the difference? You bet! A platinum print has a glow that can't be achieved by a digital print. But a inkjet print is very close and can be very beautiful in its own right. Maybe the thing that attracts me to both is the non reflective surface. Pigment on paper or metal in paper.

A reference is Yumiko Izu who prints 8x10 in platinum and larger pigment. Why not have the best of both worlds?

[AF-ULF]

A few years ago, I attended a Stieglitz exhibit. There were two prints hung side by side. Both prints were made from the same original negative. One was platinum, one was a photogravure. I couldn't tell the difference. Both were beautiful. I later looked up the price difference in the prints. The platinum print was worth 100 times the photogravure. I assume the difference in value was partly because the platinum print was a one off and the photogravure was one of many of the image.