Digital BW, The Print

I don't feel that the print to print variations in
darkroom prints is much of an issue. The endless
repeatability of photographic prints is one of the
accepted "properties" of photography.

I've only been working seriously with inkjet prints
for a couple of months but the key issue I have with
my own prints is that I find myself limited to matte
papers. And "matte" in inkjet land is different then
the lustre of traditional "matte" photo printing
papers. The inkjet mattes are more of a plain paper
surface. They simply do not look like "real"
photographic papers.

The gain in using glossier, coated papers is that the
blacks (lower zones) have a depth I have yet to see in
matte, archival-er inkjet prints. I haven't seen many
professional inkjet prints, though. This is the
problem I need to solve in my work before I will
exclaim that my inkjet prints are equal to traditional
darkroom prints.

I use MIS VM, epson 870, epson archival matte paper,
Roark curves.

I hope someone will set me straight and tell me that
my curves need tweaking or I'm exhibiting some
oversight/lack of inkjet experience (maybe both,
surely the latter!).

I agree that time will change the value of inkjet
prints. I believe it is simply a perception issue
stemming from associations with the poorer quality
prints created by so many for so many different, many
non-artistic, purposes in offices and homes across the
world.

It took a lot for photography to be somewhat accepted
in the fine art world and the use of inkjet prints may
trigger lingering suspicions in some regarding the
validity of this printing process. It's just another
change and it's hard for some to deal with. Also, when
something is perceived as easier to produce it has
less value. It's perceived that way because of the
industry marketing and the associated consumer digital
tools. In the end, really good inkjet printers
(people) will be respected as much as their
counterparts in the "dark".

Perhaps one way of helping change this perception is
to not draw attention to the printing process in
exhibits. Is there another word for the process that
would help seperate it from being associated with the
printers that everyone has in their offices? How many
darkroom exist in homes and offices? Piezo sounds
pretty mysterious and difficult to learn!? I'm not
kidding.

Better stop, now. just some thoughts. 

--- Todd Flashner <tflash@...> wrote:
>  
> > So why, other than a bit of time, and the fact
> that one is done in the dark
> > with chemcials, the other in daylight with inks is
> a digital print any less
> > valuable than that of a silver print? I may
> understand it 10 years from now
> > when there are fewer and fewer silver prints being
> made thus making them rare,
> > but right now I just don't see it.
> 
> Maybe it's that further prints from the darkroom
> will all have subtle
> variations between them, as it's unlikely that a
> person has the precision
> for repeatability that a machine has, making each
> darkroom print, however so
> slightly, different from the next?
> 

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Try FREE Yahoo! Mail - the world's greatest free email!
http://mail.yahoo.com/