An interesting approach - revolutionary?

[Norm Buchanan]

Has anyone tried this digital enlarger (504DS)?

http://www.de-vere.com/products.htm

So this raises and interesting question. If I work some photoshop magic on a digital image (direct capture or scan) and then can easily reproduce it on traditional photographic paper in a wet darkroom using a digital enlarger, can I still claim that the print is a traditional gelatin silver print and charge what I would if the entire process was done analog? Perhaps this is just what is needed to level the playing field. It will be impossible to know whether a print is "traditional" or digital. Could this be revolutionary? Will all pricing be based on the talent of the photographer rather than on how the printing has been done?

N.

[Ed Richards]

There are labs that use a lightjet to print to silver fiber paper - you could say with all honesty that it is a traditional silver print.

[Brian Ellis]

If it's printed on gelatin silver paper why would there be any question that it's a gelatin silver print? The basis for calling a print a gelatin silver print has never, to my knowledge, been based on the fact that the image was projected through a negative, it's been based on the paper on which the photograph is printed.

I'm not sure what you mean by "and charge what I would if the entire process was done analog." Seems to me you'd charge whatever you wanted to charge regardless of the process used. I also don't know about "will all pricing be based on the talent of the photographer rather than on how the printing has been done?" Pricing never has and IMHO never will be based primarily on the talent of the photographer or on how the printing was done. Ansel Adams' photographs don't sell for hundreds of thousands of dollars because he was the most talented photographer in the world or because he printed in a darkroom.

[Norm Buchanan]

Hi Brian,

My understanding has been that many people feel that a print made digitally is "worth" less than one made in a traditional wet darkroom. I assumed that this was because of the original, one of a kind, nature of a darkroom print. My question was really about whether this would still be the case if a photographer could reliably reproduce prints of a traditional nature. I guess the problem with my assumption is that I was equating the paper with the process. I admit I was not familiar with lightjet printing so it appears that this has been possible for some time.

I personally feel that the pricing of photographs should be based purely on the aesthetics of the image, regardless of how it made - then again I also appreciate the economics of supply and demand and the worth of a scarce piece of art.

Cheers,
N.

[paulr]

Hi Brian,

My understanding has been that many people feel that a print made digitally is "worth" less than one made in a traditional wet darkroom.

Luckily these people aren't the ones paying the big money for photographs. The highest price ever paid at auction was for one enlarged digitally (I believe it was a light-jet type print, not an inkjet, but I could be mistaken).

[Kirk Keyes]

I've seen a digital enlarger that was made by Durst in the US a couple of years ago. It was the same kind of idea here, and used a Sony projection television LDC chip that had a microcontroller that moved the chip around during the exposure to remove the black lines that would have appeared between the pixels if they had not used this technique of "dithering" the chip around.

Prints were shown that were about 16x20 and unless there was a textureless background or area in the image, you could not tell by eye that it was not made with a negative. I'd love one.

[Asher Kelman]

Luckily these people aren't the ones paying the big money for photographs. The highest price ever paid at auction was for one enlarged digitally (I believe it was a light-jet type print, not an inkjet, but I could be mistaken).

Paul,

Do you think you might be able to get a hand on a link for that?

Thanks,

Asher

[Kirk Gittings]

This is about what 8-10 years old at this point if memory serves? The market has, at this point, completely disarticulated itself from from print media, process or the digital vs. traditional debate.

[paulr]

Paul,

Do you think you might be able to get a hand on a link for that?

Thanks,

Asher

http://www.popphoto.com/photographyn...hotograph.html

It narrowly edged out Steichen's "The Pond, Moonlight," which might be the second highest price paid for a photo (though not for a contemporary one).

Of course, the Gursky is a diptych, so it isn't really fair

Interestingly, both of these eye-popping prices were for manipulated photographs ... the Gursky manipulated digitally (whatever it is he does) and the Steichen manipulated with hand coloring (and ... whatever else it is he does).

[Asher Kelman]

This is about what 8-10 years old at this point if memory serves? The market has, at this point, completely disarticulated itself from from print media, process or the digital vs. traditional debate.

For sure Kirk!

However, just for the purpose of going from digital to wet process traditional printing one has to go to light jet or else make an intermediate transparency with the inkjet for a contact print.

This digital enlarger might be of value if it can compete with the quality of a large inkjet transparency. This device advertised has 17 MP in the LCD for the virtual negative. With a printed "negative" one can use larger size files such as 300 pixels/inch in a 16x20 image would be 28.8 MP compared to the 17 MP maximum of the LCD virtual negative. However for up to 11"x14" the LCD would hold it's own.

I'd love to know any real user experience!

Asher