6 years......with inkjet

[bob carnie]

Somewhere I read someone's rational why they preferred silver gelatin to ink prints.

Basically the ink prints , specifically glossy ,image detail would sit on the surface , rather than like silver gelatin sink into the emulsion.

Thus giving the viewer a different look, I prefer silver for this reason and agree with this persons take on the difference. The glossy ink prints that I make all do exhibit this difference . I prefer the look silver print.
Without this slight difference I believe ink gloss prints can be made to look every bit as vibrant as silver prints and vice versa.

One could argue that this sitting on the surface is not the case with matt prints, and I would agree with this as I have seen fantastic prints made at Cone Editions and compared to the silver prints of the same file that I made on my lambda, I would be hard pressed to pick a favourite version.

The only difference would be of course the Dmax that silver gloss paper will always win hands down over a matt ink print, and I do know someone will say that perceived black is what one is looking for, but I actually am talking about a real black that silver printers love.

A bit of an aside, personally I am more confident of silvers longevity than the ink prints, (my opinion only here) with no scientific data to back up my opinion, and this too is a factor for me when picking materials to work with.

[paulr]

Thanks for posting, Kirk. I'm glad to hear you're acquainted with Ed; he taught the first (only) photo class I ever took, back in 1989, at your daughter's college. Your description of him matches my memory. I thought he was a good teacher at the time, but in retrospect he seems like a great teacher. He taught WAY over our heads. Half the time I had no idea we what he was talking about, but he managed to keep me riveted nonetheless. Over the next several years, some of the perplexities he planted in my head went off like time bombs. "THAT'S what Ed meant!"

I'd be surprised if he remembered me at all, but if you run into him again, please let him know I remember him fondly. Among other things, I've never seen anyone set up a 5x7 camera and fire the shutter as quickly as him. Probably from years of photographing in places where the light and the sky change so quickly. I look like a zombie under the dark cloth in comparison.

Some day I'd like to quiz you a little about you Piezography set up. I absolutely love the process, but it's been a while since I've printed and my inks are way past the expiry date and I think my printer is hosed. Next time I to do a bw printing session I'll be starting from scratch. It may be a misconception that this process is fundamentally lower maintenance than the darkroom ...

[Tyler Boley]

When you are working in the realm of beautiful data or beautiful negative, it should not matter how the output occurs, the result should matter most.

Excellent point, and while I'm sure no one can disagree, I have to add that some processes just don't have inherent exquisite properties available for a master worker to bring out, no matter how great the printer, the image, the negative, etc etc.. Just my opinion.

So, a point well worth underlining here, is that some of these ink processes do, in fact, have the ability to rise above the norm into the realm of the exceptional, in the right hands, the right image, etc.. Many still are not aware of this simply because there's little work of this status available to see, and a great deal of mediocre inkjet work everywhere.

I love great silver, platinum, and many other processes, each capable of something amazing. And now, I also love ink, it can and does rise to that level.

Great post Kirk, congratulations on the show. I hope in addition to the response your work deserves, the prints will also help raise awareness that amazing photographic objects can be made with new processes given the kind of commitment the tradition of photography demands.
Tyler

[Once]

<snip>

Great post Kirk, congratulations on the show. I hope in addition to the response your work deserves, the prints will also help raise awareness that amazing photographic objects can be made with new processes given the kind of commitment the tradition of photography demands.
Tyler

Indeed, the world is now a better place to live in. Everyone can sleep better now. The art is safe again even in the constantly changing world.

[Tyler Boley]

If you are trying to make a point, I guess I missed it, and am actually interested...
The potential loss of photographic standards is a huge issue to me and others, perhaps my rhetoric is silly... but there it is. So if you take some issue with the comments it would be interesting to hear, at least within the context of Kirk's interesting initial post.
Tyler

[Wayne Lambert]

Perhaps sombody can help me here. I have spent 2 hours trying to post a fairly long reply. I typed it once as "Post quick reply." I was logged in. When I pressed the button to "Post quick reply" the screen said I was not authorized, not logged in (at the top it showed me as still logged in). It said to refresh and log in. When I did I lost everything, all disappeared. The second time I wrote it on "Go advanced." When I pressed the button the same thing happened. Lost everything, all disappeared. 2 hours work---pretty discouraging---I do type slow. Any suggestions? Is the site broken?
Wayne

[Wayne Lambert]

I guess I could do a paragraph and post, do a paragraph and post...sort of serialize it.
Wayne

[Merg Ross]

Perhaps sombody can help me here. I have spent 2 hours trying to post a fairly long reply. I typed it once as "Post quick reply." I was logged in. When I pressed the button to "Post quick reply" the screen said I was not authorized, not logged in (at the top it showed me as still logged in). It said to refresh and log in. When I did I lost everything, all disappeared. The second time I wrote it on "Go advanced." When I pressed the button the same thing happened. Lost everything, all disappeared. 2 hours work---pretty discouraging---I do type slow. Any suggestions? Is the site broken?
Wayne

Interesting, I lost my reply to Kirk last evening. I only make one attempt at a post that disappears, and I had nice things to say! It was my first experience of this kind in ten years of posting to the forum. Have there been changes recently?

[Wayne Lambert]

I've been twice to the show that includes Kirk's photographs. It's an excellent show in a large space in a very prestigious venue---the Palace of the Governors in Santa Fe. Kirk's prints are just inside the door---the first photographs you see when you walk in. They are large prints and are memorable for all the right reasons. Congratulations, Kirk! My favorite of the five is "Private Altar" which seems to glow with an inner light.

My aesthetic experience with digital prints is similar to Kirk's---I have come to admire them. It took me a while because earlier (as some of you may recall) I had concerns about wholesale retouching of images in Photoshop. Now I see that most LF photographers (all of us, of course!) adhere to some kind of code of ethics and pretty much limit Photoshop manipulations to contrast adjustments, dodging, and burning.

Last year I wanted to print in platinum/palladium some 4x5- and 8x10-inch in-camera negatives that I had originally made for gelatin-silver printing. The contrast of the negatives was just too low for pt/pd. To increase the contrast I intensified some with selenium toner and some with the silver intensifier sold by Photographers' Formulary. Both processes worked well. The silver intensifier is especially good for adding considerable contrast. However, I overdid a couple of negatives in the silver intensifier and got nervous about continuing with some favorite negatives. So I thought I would see what I could do with these weaker negatives and digital printing. I scanned the 8x10 and 4x5 negatives with an Epson V700 scanner and made some prints using Cone Piezography K7 inks (sepia) on various matte papers and some prints using Epson Ultrachrome K3 inks on Epson Hot Press Natural paper. With the Epson inks I used ABW to adjust the ink color to a "palladium brown" which I like. I didn't enlarge the prints; all were printed at a 1:1 ratio. I was amazed at the print quality, both the prints I made with the Cone inks and those made with the Epson inks. All of the digital prints are sharper (bare tree branches against the sky kind of thing) than pt/pd contact prints on smooth Weston paper and the tonal quality is excellent---for example, very smooth skin tones. I attribute (with no furthur experimental evidence) at least part of the excellent print quality to the fact that I scanned large negatives and printed at a 1:1 ratio. Personally, I admire those made with the Epson inks more than those made with the Cone inks probably because of the ink color and the smooth surface and warm color of the Epson Hot Press Natural paper.

Finally, for the past couple of months, in my new gallery, I have had the opportunity to view the Epson ink prints and a group of palladium (Na2 process) prints side by side in good lighting (about 25 of each type). My considered opinion is that the two types are virtually indistinguishable (behind acrylic glazing) at normal and extended viewing distances. Viewed close, the digital prints are sharper. Virtually indistinguishable, with one caveat: As one of my visitors (a non-photographer) remarked after viewing the prints, "The platinum/palladium prints just seem to be...um...um...a little "richer". I agree, it's very subjective, indefinable, but the platinum/palladium prints do seem to be a little...um..."richer." I'll leave it at that.

Wayne

[Wayne Lambert]

Third time is the charmed. Merg, this time I checked "Remember me" next to "User name" and used the "Post quick reply." Also, I tried to do high-speed hunt and peck.
Wayne