Digital BW, The Print

> > IMO inkjet prints readily look better than virtually all Ciba and most
> > Ektacolor (except for digitally enlarged or laser enlarged Ektacolor),
> > using Ciba and Ektacolor frames of reference. It's said that Epson has
> > long had this comparison in mind, only recently thinking about
> > comparisons to silver paper.
> > 
 
> I think this decade the preference for Ciba or whatever the real
name of it
> is now went over to this thing you are talking about recently, Dijon.
> This digitally enlarged or laser enlarged Ektacolor which I believe is
> called something like LightJet. As a brand name.

 Devere and Durst make enlargers for it. Any Ektacolor processer runs
it. I didn't mention Lightjet because I don't think brands are relevant.

 
> It ³won out² over Ciba as the color printing medium of choice.
> These are people who typically sell their 20x24s for 500 bucks and
30x40s
> for a grand.

Yes. Successful photogs.

> But in the past year and a half those people like John Wawrzonek, Bill
> Atkinson, the Silver light gallery group who also has their work in the
> better New York and everywhere else galleries but are mainly landscape
> although solidly fine art and not decorative have gone UltraChrome.
> That¹s us folks, the Epson thing!

Yes. I agree. But I do think the Ektacolor process has a small, very
expensive edge. And is reportedly even more archival, fwiw (zero IMO).
 
> As far as color goes I think UltraChrome is officially ³it².
> I¹ts the cream of the crop, the way to fly in color photography bar
none.

Not quite, but very near. I love it.

 
 With a lot of the
> smart money still growing over to the silver gelatin print.
> I think in a year and a half the better shows in the better
galleries by the
> better photographers will be just as much done UltraChrome as they are
> darkroom.

I think many are actively moving away from inkjet because they see a
marketing advantage...and because some inkjet is actually inferior (I
won't mention brands of alternative "inks" or non-Epson printers).

> But right now I think the technology is already there.

Nope. It's not equal to silver printing, it's better or worse. Not the
same. 

 And we have nothing
> to apologize about.

Of course not. I print inkjet. 

> If a top photographer gave me a choice on ordering one of his/her works
> inkjet or darkroom I¹d have no preference.

I wouldn't if he was famous for his silver prints.

> ³What ever you¹re in the mood for doing today²  I¹d say.
> If it was a sunny day I¹d say ³Platinum². :)
> But I¹d expect to pay a few extra bucks for the rare earth metals...
> And that white Zink sun screen for his/her nose.

I agree with your points more or less, but I know that there's a
*growing* market for silver and platinum prints, especially at the top
end of the market dollar-wise. Some galleries that once showed inkjet
in Santa Fe are now avoiding it for marketing reasons. Inkjet and
silver/platinum look different. Not better or worse, but interestingly
many inkjet print experts are trying to emulate these other media. I
think this has to do with a pervasive sense that inkjet is inferior as
is, right now. It ain't. It's just different, like etchings or silkscreen.

Djon

> 
> 
> Mark Rabiner
> Photography
> Portland Oregon
> http://rabinergroup.com/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]