Digital BW, The Print

>... i have yet to talk to any serious B&W
>photographer that will tell me an inkjet print is better than a rich,
>well-printed fiber-based print. ...

I consider myself a rather experienced and serious B&W printer, and I think
my digital prints are better.

Admittedly, it's the digital process, not the inkjet that accounts for most
of this.  Not only in my old-photo work but even in straight landscapes, the
digital controls make a big difference to me.

I use carbon-pigment inkjet output, in part, because it is the best B&W
digital output I've found.  I messed with imagesetters and other
internegatives that I could make silver prints from, as well as color
digital output, but I found the direct inkjet to be preferable, even though
I do agree that the physical product is not perfect yet.

Related to the physical quality issue, while a properly-processed and toned
silver print is still probably the most lightfast and may have the nicest
appearance, at least if not under glass, there are some issues that make me
wonder if the inkjet print hasn't passed up the silver print in some
respects.  First, the proper processing of silver prints is tricky.  What we
thought was sufficient selenium toning, for example, turns out to be
inadequate.

Second, even if there is a clearly-understood, optimum process for
longevity, how does a buyer know the wet print has been so processed?  It
seems much less likely that processing errors will cause problems with
carbon on cotton prints.

Third, wet prints are on good, acid-free fiber paper, I assume.  However,
due to the processing, I believe it is impossible to buffer the wet-process
paper base.  When air and pollution attack even pure cotton cellulose, the
byproduct is acidic and will cause an eventual accelerating deterioration of
the paper.  With our inkjet prints, buffering is possible and may actually
cause the carbon on buffered cotton print to have a longer archival (dark
storage) life than a silver print.

So, I'm just not sure that I'd say the silver print is necessarily even
physically "better" at this point in time.

Paul
http://www.PaulRoark.com