Digital BW, The Print

I know. We've lived with that for years. And you are jamming it to them precisely because 
of the quality of your work and the durability it will have. You can sleep at night knowing 
when Rauchenberg and Hockneys prints are gone yours will look like new. Our big photo 
gallery here for years told me they wouldn't show digital, especially "ink jet". Then I walked 
in one day and there they were, Bill Wegman's dogs scanned from Polaroids and printed 
with Iris to sell for thousands each in fairly large editions I believe. I guess Elton John 
made em do it. Your right, they showed those because they would sell... and if Wegman 
was doing it.... and Elton John was buying it....

Little did they think that the "original" polaroids done in Cambridge on the 20x24 20 years 
ago were  turning green by then and they had to do something to salvage them. So.. they 
made impermanent Iris editions of impermanent Polaroids.( now that Kodak just bought 
Iris hopefully they'll finish off that distraction). Gallery business is not logical and the more 
one tries to put reason into it the harder it gets. The only thing I've found that works is to 
deal  directly with the artists involved ( presuming they are still alive) and reason with 
them if you can. Usually the artist has more sense and will get his way with the gallery if 
he's informed and determined. But then again I don't usually deal with big names and big 
politics, at least not yet.

What really kills me though in terms of time lag is if you go to Ny to the big museums and 
galleries you will see giant type c prints almost exclusively for large color output. The 
Modern, the Whitney, and the Met don't  think twice about buying 10 - 20 foot long C 
prints but I didn't see one inkjet print in any of those places that I can remember. And 
we're talking about big big money for these things that really won't last.  Now mabie I'm 
biased but it just seems strange to bizarre to me. You watch, in a couple of years you'll 
seee Epson prints everywhere and by then color coupler output will probably be almost 
dead and Iris will be a distant memory.

 My scans are done, time to be productive.....and quit blabbing.

John



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Tyler Boley" <tyler@t...> wrote:
> John, I understand your point completely. I guess I'm a bit pissy on
> this issue from the constant "concern" expressed out there about
> inkjet. These same people will hang a show of Iris prints by
> Rauschenburg, Close, or Hockney with no second thought about
> longevity. Why? Because they will sell, Period.
> So sometimes the punk in me wants to jam the inkjet issue back in
> their faces. There isn't a problem, they are keeping the misconception
> alive with their false "concern".
> OK, got that off my chest, back to work.
> Tyler
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "john dean"
> <deanwork2003@y...> wrote:
> > 
> > > Wouldn't it have been good for all of us if that press release
> > > proclaimed in nice proud verbiage that they are inkjet?
> > > Tyler
> > 
> > 
> > Of course, but if you look at the price tag that these things will
> ultimately have attached to 
> > them you can understand their nervousness. But, essentially I agree
> with you a better term 
> > would be carbon inkjet or carbon digital inkjet print - to
> distinguish from carbro and 
> > impermanent inksets, which there are many. The layman can't possibly
> be expected to sort 
> > out all the permutations. You know that is interesting, the
> association with carbro. In many 
> > ways though what you do Tyler is a historical decendent of carbro.
> Sure they are done with 
> > pigments and studio print rip and not a gelatin transer process, and
> no the longevity 
> > figures aren't exactly the same, but they are related. And we sure
> have alot more control 
> > these days. Now that is what they should have pointed out in that
> press release as good 
> > historians, your right. Point out the similarities AND differences
> of these imaging cousins 
> > two centuries apart.