Digital BW, The Print

I have been reading this forum, and I have been debating whether to join
the epson-inkjet crowd or stay with my darkroom. I have been thinking about
why aren't inkjet prints more accepted by galleries. Here are some thoughts
on
the question, and I'm really looking forward to hear your reactions.

I believe there are multiple reasons why inkjet prints readily accepted by
galleries, one beeing that it is neither proven nor accepted that some
technical wizardry is necessary to produce an great inkjet print.

Some time ago, Michael Kravit wrote:

"I would venture to say that it will still be a while for the
paper coatings and inks to be able to replicate the "glow" and luminescence
of a Michael Kenna or John Sexton print."

and George J Kunze replied:

"I would venture that it will still be a while before 99% of silver printers
can replicate the glow and luminescence of a Kenna or Sexton."

I think these comments are very true, and explain why inkjet prints are not
as acceptable today for galleries (and collectors):

1- the best silver printers (the ones collected and found in galleries) can
  produce prints better than today's inkjet technology (at least for small
prints,
  11x14 and smaller, like Michael Kenna's).

but more important:

2- producing a great silver print, of the caliber that ends up in galleries,
requires
  a mastery that is achieved by a very small percentage of printers. Because
these
  great silver printers are few, great silver prints are rare and not easily
duplicated!

And it is really the print itself which is important! I've read that once
behind glass,
you can't tell an inkjet print from a silver print. So what? You can't tell
either a
lenswork special edition (or even a very well printed duotone) from the
original silver print
behind glass without a loupe, but nobody is surprised that these sell for
much less
than an original print. It is because a great silver print is a rare object,
not easily
duplicated.

Now is this true for an inkjet print? Are there some inkjet prints that
really shine, and
of a quality unreachable for 99% of those who try. Is is really hard to
print hundred's
of them if needed? What if I use your file, your printer, same ink, curves,
paper, RIP, etc...

You guys even say it all the time. You get better prints with your Epsons
than you ever got
in the darkroom, and some of you have probably spent decades becoming silver
(or platinum)
printers and a couple years with your Epsons. Obviously, it is easier to
make great inkjet
prints... which makes a great inkjet print not so exciting anymore.

I think Mark Tucker talked about doing something to his prints to make them
unique.
I do think this is the one way to get inkjets accepted (especially if this
something is
unique, difficult, and requires some mastery). For example Dan Burkholder
makes platinum
prints from digital negatives, and then adds color using an inkjet printer.
If I was a gallery
owner, I think I'd be somewhat impressed because this process is new,
requires an exacting
technique, and won't be easily duplicated by my brother in law with his
1280.

Also you have to worry about the pace of progress in digital technology:

If I buy this great inkjet print, maybe in a couple years the new Epson
70000 with its
4000dpi, 10 ink tanks, 1000 year pigments and enhanced diffusion dither will
allow Dan
to make *much* better prints. Hopefully, my 2002 print will keep its value
because it is
vintage :-)

True, silver papers and processes evolve too, but nowhere as fast as digital
technology.

Anyway, these are some thoughts. I hope I didn't offend anyone. I really
enjoy this
forum and the quality of its participants.

Gregory Popovitch