Digital BW, The Print

On 6/4/05 2:46 AM, "Louis de Stoutz" <loudest@...> typed:

> I can understand how you feel. Am myself in the process of testing what
> my future position will be. Since you seem to be a few steps further in
> your research, may I suggest a possible next step, which I will
> eventually try too: how about digital negatives contact printed on good
> old baryte paper? I know that several photographers have done that and
> are quite pleased with the results. For making the negatives, look at
> the classic Dan Burkholder or the newer Mark Nelson workflows.
> 
> Louis
> 
> 
> jonnytenz wrote:
>> I keep experimenting with B/W inkjet printing, and althought
>> they look good upfront, once I pull out one of my good silver-gel
>> print from my archive... the epson MIS on EEM falls flat.
>> 
>> Easy - yes - convenient- yes, but unfortuantly, I dont think
>> I can live with the final product.
>> 
>> any one with a good argument to change my mind?
>> 
>> jten   
>> 
>> 
MY thoughts are these:
When you say the " Epson MIS on EEM falls flat." I believe the keyword may
be "flat".
As we've been talking about paper surface can get in the way a lot and
determine how we experience the image.
And the paper itself has a feel to it as in tactile involving the thickness
of the paper. The typical inkjet is flimsy compared to the typical fiber
darkroom print.
So if you have one of those portfolio books with the plastic pages put the
same image in them. One from the darkroom the other from the inkjet room.
On facing sides. So you can see both in a glass. Ones on the left the others
on the right. 
Both same size of course.

I think an 8.5x11 print has a funny connotation and as Marshall McCluen used
to say the medium is the message.
An 8.5x11 is a letter.
A letter is not a print.
Not than an 8x10 does not have even worse connotations as in:
"Send over two 8x10 Glossys honey and make sure you've got them signed!"
They feel like second rate promo shots in a way.
A "Glossy".
Level the playing field and have them both either 8x10 or 11x14.
And behind plastic or behind glass to take away the surface aspects and
aspects of the "photoness" as in "photo unit" of the physical print if you
catch my drift.
And be the same image from the same neg.
When I look at mine this way often the inkjet wins. Just as often. Depends
on how well I did in the darkroom or in the inkjet room.
An inkjet print will make me want to go back into the darkroom and take
another stab in the darkroom with a neg. When I do it's worth it.

Also keep in mind the time you've spend perfecting your darkroom craft,
years to decades perhaps - to the time you've spent perfecting your inkjet
craft, days to weeks perhaps.
You hate to make a split second decision based on apples and oranges in a
slew of variables which should be apples and apples..
I see people doing this all the time.


Mark Rabiner
Photography
Portland Oregon
http://rabinergroup.com/