Digital BW, The Print

At 03:20 PM 3/5/2002 -0800, you wrote:
>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?
>> 
>
Todd,

The more you pick at it the worse it'll get. We shouldn't be too clever in
inventing marketing gimmicks, names, etc. Just make the best print you can.
If your pictures are more interesting than a zillion other good
photographers nobody will care how you print them. That an ink jet print
isn't just like a silver print is not a point worth mentioning.  Same as a
gum print isn't a platinum print, isn't a cyanotype.  I have no doubt that
there are printers out there, maybe even on this list, who are making images
that will stand up to time and be considered master works of the medium.  In
a way our success at educating people that photography is not just
mechanical and a worthy craft now haunts us. How ironic. 

AZ

Maker of Lookaround panoramic camera.

www.geocities.com/soho/gallery/8874/
         or
keyword.com lookaround