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 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