Digital BW, The Print

I just got my morning coffee and bagel at my neighborhood stop. 
They hung a new show yesterday of prints made by, or using, 
coffee. Kinda silly if you ask me, but it's a free country. (They'll 
probably last longer than my dye prints).

Each piece was by a different person. Some used glass; others 
did not. I found that I enjoyed and connected to the images that 
were framed WITHOUT glass much better. No veil between me 
and the print.

I recently had a "test print" framed for an upcoming show of 
mine. Using someone's suggestion on this list, I had them use 
Acrylic UV, instead of UV Glass. I've had it on the wall for about 
three days now. One thing I notice is that my spirit feels elevated 
about the whole "is inkjet printing serious enough?" question. I 
walk by the framed print and it looks GREAT on the wall; 
ironically Tricia, my rep, commented in the first five seconds of 
seeing it hanging there, "Wow, It looks just like a REAL PRINT!" I 
got a kick out of that. So I'd suggest to anyone doubting 
themselves about their print quality -- go and have it framed and 
then judge it; not that the frame will make it any "better", but it 
might give you an "apples and apples" comparison between a 
silver print and an inkjet print.

Secondly, about the glass thing, when I was bitching and 
moaning a few months ago about inkjet printing, someone wrote 
back and said something to the effect of, "You cannot compare 
inkjet prints to silver prints. You have to allow them to be different 
animals. Each has their own traits - and you have to respect 
both". At the time, I'm sure I muttered something under my 
breath, but now, this statement is growing on me.

There was something about seeing my "test print" framed under 
glass, that made me miss the surface of the watercolor paper. 
Under the glass, I couldn't move my head to the left or right and 
watch how the light changed over the surface of the paper. It was 
kinda like the print was imprisoned behind one of those prison 
telephone booth things, with a sheet of glass in between the two 
participants. (Picture me at this point, with my bare hand up on 
the glass of the print, with a lone, single tear streaming down my 
face...). 

So I think I'm going back to the framer to explore some 
non-glass framing methods. At this point, the whole "coatings" 
thing could come back into play as well. If the print surface was 
there to see and enjoy, why not enrich it with a coating? I have 
always wanted to do a coating, but none of my experiments have 
produced fruit so far. This will give me new energy to keep 
experimenting. Again, the inkjet print begins to take on its own 
unique traits, separate from the rules of the silver print.

-------

I also bit the bullet and ordered the Indelible Inks yesterday. I 
plan to use them with Museo and ESFA. I talked at length 
yesterday with Mike Walsh in Florida; he's had prints nailed to a 
fence in back of his print shop for five months, and they show 
very little fading; only slightly in the yellow. 

I have yelled and screamed for backup evidence for longevity, 
over on the Indelible List. It ain't coming. But from all the notes 
I've received, I still have enough evidence to take the plunge. Pray 
for me.

------

Also made my first prints last night on Photo Rag 308, using MIS 
6-color dyes. This morning, upon my return, they have turned a 
very noticeable BLUE in the shadow areas. Hawk Mountain's 
Merlin did the exact same thing. So this is a cautionary note 
about that combination. It only took 24 hours...

-Mark Tucker
http://marktucker.com

PS. And, no more of that "art talk"! If you're talking about "it", you 
ain't making "it". "Talking about art" is very dangerous territory; 
leave that to the little men in black turtlenecks. I leave town for a 
week, and this whole list goes to hell...

PSS. Clark Thomas mentioned a new type of glass that is very 
"non-reflective". If you're curious, here is the URL:

http://www.denglas.com/prod/framing/conservation.html