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 productOriginally Posted by photobymike
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!
Garrett
flickr galleries
LOL there is something of a point of .. doing it on the cheap....
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.
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
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.
Brian Ellis
Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you do criticize them you'll be
a mile away and you'll have their shoes.
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.)
Wilhelm (Sarasota)
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.
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.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks