Platinum vs. Inkjet

[Drew Wiley]

I'm very skeptical that a well-done platinum and a comparable inkjet are actually indistinguishable. Maybe one method can mimic the other, or be suitable to similar subject matter, or be equally pleasing, but they arrive at that point in such a different manner
that certain subtleties must be impossible to optimize one versus the other. Similarly, I've
made silver prints that resemble carbon, and carbon printers have made prints resembling
silver gelatin, but there are certain visual distinctions which remain proprietary, esp to
someone experienced enough to recognize such nuances.

[bob carnie]

Drew good points,,, except about the Carbon.

I made this point at the start of this thread- when you see a well executed DT you will know it. Yes we can mimic other processes , and fool 95% of the people 100% of the time.
Each process has its unique characteristics and there are those here and elsewhere who are pushing the envelope of each process.
One of the nicest prints I have seen in a long time was one of Jim Kitchens, that was done by Jon Cone on his process. When done properly each process has its beauty/look that is compelling.

Though I can make an inkjet print nearly identical to a silver print, I have no desire to do so, If I want the silver paper then I want to go to the real material.
I do not think it is possible mimic a Sandy King Carbon print. The relief would be impossible to create , as far as I am concerned.

The OP is quite satisfied stating that he can mimic a dye transfer print... We should believe him as this may be true for his eyes, but I also think that there is a group of people who could pick out the inkjet from the DT. Those are the subtle nuances that years of looking at prints will give one the ability to see the differences.

I'm very skeptical that a well-done platinum and a comparable inkjet are actually indistinguishable. Maybe one method can mimic the other, or be suitable to similar subject matter, or be equally pleasing, but they arrive at that point in such a different manner
that certain subtleties must be impossible to optimize one versus the other. Similarly, I've
made silver prints that resemble carbon, and carbon printers have made prints resembling
silver gelatin, but there are certain visual distinctions which remain proprietary, esp to
someone experienced enough to recognize such nuances.

[Kirk Gittings]

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!

No, but from the images he posted it was clear to me that there was much more to explore with that image in an inkjet print. Maybe we should just ignore the fact that his comparison lacked a thorough effort with the inkjet print-I don't think so.

[tgtaylor]

Several years back I made a print of the image below on Ilford MGIV glossy RC at a rental darkroom. A few months ago I scanned the print and printed it on Epson Premium Glossy paper which I am quite happy with. It's as snappy in real life as on the monitor. In fact it's been sitting on my viewing station. Just the other day I happened to look at it at an an angle with the desk light and was suprised to notice that the areas surrounding the wall lights on both sides appeared as if a liquid had spotted the print there. Apparently the ink density decreased until the blown-out areas became paper white. It's completely unnoticable unless the print is held at a certain angle under strong light. The same area of the darkroom print is smooth and continuous with no spot or halo surrounding the paper white of the blown-out areas.

But I am not an experienced inkjet printer and the printer itself was an Epson 2200 - not the latest and greatest. There is a difference in the papers also with the Epson paper appearing whiter than the Ilford. However I am very satisified with the inkjet version.



Thomas

[slackercruster]

OP...Dunno.

The plat looks kinda flat. Would like too see them printed closer in style esp with contrast. They both need more development with the blacks...at least for my taste.

What i did with my dye transfer test was to try and match the IJ to the DT. I had to cut the contrast from the scan I used to make the print from to match the DT. Scans usually develop contrast, so that was a big issue comparing 2nd gen prints to the original.

[slackercruster]

several years back i made a print of the image below on ilford mgiv glossy rc at a rental darkroom. A few months ago i scanned the print and printed it on epson premium glossy paper which i am quite happy with. It's as snappy in real life as on the monitor. In fact it's been sitting on my viewing station. Just the other day i happened to look at it at an an angle with the desk light and was suprised to notice that the areas surrounding the wall lights on both sides appeared as if a liquid had spotted the print there. Apparently the ink density decreased until the blown-out areas became paper white. It's completely unnoticable unless the print is held at a certain angle under strong light. The same area of the darkroom print is smooth and continuous with no spot or halo surrounding the paper white of the blown-out areas.

But i am not an experienced inkjet printer and the printer itself was an epson 2200 - not the latest and greatest. There is a difference in the papers also with the epson paper appearing whiter than the ilford. However i am very satisified with the inkjet version.



thomas

nice!!

[Drew Wiley]

A number of years ago there was a commercial platinum printing service which advertised
how they could make a big platinum print which has all the look of silver, replete with deep
rich DMax, which of course, inherently compressed a lot of that midtone microcontrast which Pt/Pd is famous for revealing. I know these folks, and they really know their stuff
technically. But the point is - why?? If you want the look of silver-gelatin, just do it and
save a ton of bucks. Same with carbon - do it for fun, or do it for what is does uniquely,
like relief. But I've never got this mentality of trying to mimic one medium with another.
Same on the DT subject - it's easy to mimic on inkjet, and you'll probably even do better.
But side by side with the real deal, optimized for that particular media, and you've got a
different story.

[Steve Smith]

I have read that Paul Strand regularly applied varnish and other non-archival agents to his prints, much to the dismay of museum conservators.

Artists working with oil paints do this too. Does this practice also dismay them?


Steve.

[Drew Wiley]

Bob - one of the issues I've always had with high-relief in color carbon is the way some
folks would layer them so that colors that would normally recede get layered on top, and
those that would typically advance end up in the deep part of the relief. The prints could
still be beautiful, but all the hues look inside-out. This problem is not only related to the
manner the tissue is transferred, but to how the pigments layers are sequenced per relative opacity. Kinda funny looking at shadows on top, or bright yellows sinking to the
bottom. But per non-halftone quad carbons not being sharp, I've seen plenty of evidence
to the contrary. Not sharp like a Ciba, but certainly good enough. Keeping paper per se
dimensionally stable during the whole process is a different challenge.

[Drew Wiley]

Steve- you fundamentally misunderstand the difference in the media. Varnishes over oil are
designed to be removed and replaced if necessary without destroying the painting. Try putting the same thing over a watercolor and you've inherently ruined it forever. Typical
photo varnishes were engineered to supply a retouching surface, not for archival properties. They yellow in time and eventually cross-link, get brittle and crack. In Strand's
time this would have probably been something akin to a wood varnish or perhaps nitroc.
lacquer - solvent might work, might not, with bits of lacquer chipping off and taking emulsion with it. I've been involved as a consultant on quite a few analogous restoration
issues architecturally, and someone's mistake decades ago can equate to hell today.