Digital BW, The Print

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Mark Tucker" <mtucker508@y...> 
wrote:
 I found that I enjoyed and connected to the images that 
> were framed WITHOUT glass much better. No veil between me 
> and the print.

Mark,

I have seen  several shows of photos without glass. Not a novel idea, but I 
really liked the look, like you did. One was platinum prints at the Cohen 
gallery I believe, the others of silver prints at Paris Photo, here in LA.

I think that now that it is easy to make a batch of digital prints, making a series 
just to frame without glass for a show is a perfectly legitimate use of the 
process. Buyers can make their own framing decisions if they wish to buy a 
copy. I have had a piezo test print up for nearly a year and apart from the 
usual warming, I don't see any harm done from the lack of glass. The only real 
problem is keeping them flat and the (old) question of whether to mount or not. 


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.

I just saw a show at the  San Diego Museum of Photographic Arts by Philipp 
Rittermann where piezo prints were framed and shown next to  large silver 
prints (all under glass). Apart from color differences, I didn't see something 
"unique" or off-putting in the digital prints. Once you are looking at "real work" 
the issues of process become secondary - unless they interfere with the work 
itself, of course.  Philipp used the term "pigment print" to describe them, which 
I thought was an interesting choice, considering our past debates here.


> There was something about seeing my "test print" framed under 
> glass, that made me miss the surface of the watercolor paper. 

I think surface issues are relevant for some images and secondary for others. 
When the image and the paper are trying to be an "object" on its own, surface 
texture matters. When you print on a relatively smooth paper (silver or digital) 
and frame under glass, the emphasis is on the image itself, not the "object". I'd 
say it's a creative choice just like gloss vs matte. 


> 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?

From what I have seen, the answer is not always an unqualified "of course".
The coatings create a "plasticized" look that takes away the "nap" of a really 
nice mould made paper and replaces it with a sheen (or shine) that - once 
again - may or may not be appropriate to the work at hand. For example, I 
prefer "Orwell" uncoated. Of course, if the coated look is desirable, you also 
get that fabulous boost in the dmax that everyone is after (!).


But from all the notes 
> I've received, I still have enough evidence to take the plunge. Pray 
> for me.

We will.... but what about profiles? Will you be brewing your own? I may be 
involved in some of this down the line and want to know who else may be in.


"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...

So imagine what it looks like to me who was gone for over a month! But 
speaking as someone who used to wear the "black turtleneck" (near-phD in 
critical studies film/TV UCLA), I'll say that it is unavoidable to enter 
discussions about matters of art and our relationship to it. However, I have 
become sick and tired of all the spins surrounding the production and 
exchange of works, so I have happily taken off my turtleneck and gotten my 
hands dirty first with developer, now with ink. 


Bottom line: glad you are working on a show. Keep those images coming... 
glassed or glassless.


Antonis