Pretty good article on the seemingly old film vs digital discussion

[SergeiR]

I value process as much or more than product.

Art and Life is often a Dance, even if we are not dancers.

Obviously our Dance varies.

I am Don Quixote.

Yup. Let the thousand schools prosper, let the thousand flowers bloom

[bob carnie]

A silver gelatin image and true pt pd print live within the paper, a inkjet lives on top.

I like all of them but to say one cannot compare to the other is just total bullshit. In all due respect to all concerned- not trying to offend anyone here.

[Michael Graves]

I had read that article early in the year as well. But seeing this post led me back to it again, since I recently acquired a Phase One scanning back that has been a recent use of my time. The IQ80 used in the article is undoubtedly easier to use than my scanning back, but the results from the Phase one range from spectacular to abysmal, all depending on me. Getting the back inserted without knocking focus out has been a primary problem for me. I'm using a Horseman L-45 for the purpose and it is a relatively rigid camera. Due to the 15 to 30 second scan time, I'm thinking it might not be a great option for pet portraits.

[Lenny Eiger]

First of all, Kirk, thanks for the kind words.

Very true... I was hoping he would expound on what alt process he likes.

I like a lot of the alt process options. My primary tool used to be platinum, and it might be again someday. It's a wonderful method for b&w. I did a mixture of 3/4 platinum and 1/4 palladium at the time. I printed for a lot of photographers in NYC under a business I called "Platinum Editions". I originally learned the process from Alan Newman, at Pratt. I left NY in 1984, tired of cities and burnt out on how rough life can be there.

I've studied a lot of the other processes, gum bichromate, the different flavors of cyanotype, albumen, carbon tissue and gravure. I taught a college course in Alt Process and ran the students thru all sorts of options. I wasn't settled enough for a printing press, one can't really carry those things around. These days I like the idea of making inexpensive prints, so I might try my hand at some of the cyanotype options. I just picked up another book on Alt process, by Christoper James. The options have increased over time...

Everybody looks at things in a different way. This is good, much less boring that the alternative. I've studied printing my whole life. For the first part it was in the darkroom. I learned all the tricks, burned and dodged with the best. There are some that are excited by that, and they took burning and dodging to a high art. One can look at a starting image of Ansel's, and what he did to it, which was considerable. I went a different way. I decided to try and make a great print by making a great negative. I combined this with using two different developers in the trays and made something I liked very much - without all the burning and dodging. There isn't only one way to make an image. And it doesn't have to look like an AA print to be a great print, it has to match the image and match one's own style. There's an infinite number of options.

One of the things I liked about alt process was the surface. I like the choice of papers. I turned away from darkroom printing for my own work and went in that direction. Around 2002 I decided to see if a digital print could be made that would satisfy me. It took me a while, but I'm very happy with them. Lately, I've been using Kozo from Japan. It has a very platinum feel to it, and I love that its made from mulberry bushes and not trees, in a multi-thousand year old process.

When I first picked up the Keepers of Light I was drawn to an image by Charles Negre. It was some off-color blue-gray but there was something about it that I thought was terrific. There were a lot of images in there that I had only seen in books and was unaware that the photographer had added a lot of color to it...

This idea that "only darkroom prints are real photography" is ridiculous. I started in my father's darkroom when I was 9. I know what it takes to make a great negative and a great print. I have plenty of respect for this effort. I see no reason to disrespect anyone or their skills. It takes just as much, if not more, to make a great alt process print. And just was much, if not more to make a great inkjet print. The can all be good.

There is no "sitting on the top vs being in the paper". There is no "it isn't a good print if you didn't burn and dodge". There is only what you want to do with your images. There are a thousand ways to make a print. As far as I am concerned, none of them are invalid. It's only the image, what it means to you and how well you convey it to others that matters. (And how much fun you are having.) And there is no reason to disrespect anyone's effort. You may not like their results, but if they worked hard at the printmaking craft it may be its just something different from what you're after, and not "garbage".

Lenny

[bob carnie]

Your words Lenny -( In my opinion, darkroom prints can't come close to the quality of an inkjet print.) -


I totally disagree and still must say - (you then have never seen a really high quality silver print) for you to make this comment...

I am not disrespecting your ability's but am stating an opinion.

[Sal Santamaura]

...How many times are we going to go around and around with this?

There is no limit on that number except when the Large Format Photography Forum ceases to exist. Unless, of course, the Usage Guidelines are expanded to prohibit such discussion.

Not that I'm suggesting such an expansion of prohibited subjects.

[Michael Graves]

Not long ago, I was at an exhibition of Paul Caponigro's work. I was totally amazed with the richness, texture and tonality of his work. All I could think was, If only I could print like that! How many sheets of paper did he go through and how many hours did he spend in the darkroom to get even one of these lovely prints?

Then as I was leaving, I bumped into one of the museum employees who told me they were all inkjets. Guess my eyes are too stupid to see the difference.

[Michael Lloyd]

Not long ago, I was at an exhibition of Paul Caponigro's work. I was totally amazed with the richness, texture and tonality of his work. All I could think was, If only I could print like that! How many sheets of paper did he go through and how many hours did he spend in the darkroom to get even one of these lovely prints?

Then as I was leaving, I bumped into one of the museum employees who told me they were all inkjets. Guess my eyes are too stupid to see the difference.

Maybe they were printed by John Paul Caponigro? I think that he reprinted some of his dad's work to show him what digital printers can do. I vaguely remember them joking back and forth about that during Paul Caponigro's impromptu class visit. Paul Caponigro is still doing analog work. He never embraced digital.

Father and son have distinctively different works btw.

[Michael Lloyd]

There is no limit on that number except when the Large Format Photography Forum ceases to exist. Unless, of course, the Usage Guidelines are expanded to prohibit such discussion.

Not that I'm suggesting such an expansion of prohibited subjects.

I usually answer those kinds of questions with- "Thursday"

[Michael Graves]

I had thought that Paul had never entered the digital world, so that was a surprise to me. This particular exhibit was at the Farnsworth Museum in Rockport, Maine, which has quite a number of his works in their private collections. The person there seemed very knowledgeable and told several anecdotes about different images. I stand corrected in saying all were inkjets, what she really said was "most" were inkjets. It is quite possible they were printed by John Paul. She didn't say one way or the other. But the beauty of the prints was actually the focus of my post and not whether one form was better than the other. I don't care which type of printing I use. I don't come close to ANY of those prints I saw there.