Digital BW, The Print

on 3/6/02 4:03 PM, Alan Zinn wrote:

> 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
> 
> 
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other
> resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
> them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
> resources on the homepage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> 
>