Digital BW, The Print

John, I have to take issue with this thoughtful post, but it looks
like I'll ramble off shortly...
As a commercial printer, I can not, and insistantly do not, take
responsibility for long term storage of their original files. That
would be foolhardy to say the least.
I'm just the next generation darkroom guy, and they generally had big
font disclaimers about film damage liability. H**l, I could even
somehow misplace or damage your file while it's in house and in
production, if you don't have a master copy at home, and mine was just
a copy, you're nuts.

Bruce Barnbaum recently told me he considered my edited final file my
original, and not my print. I guess I see his point, but the darkroom
paradigm has really not changed in my case. My prints are not just
reproduction of the file. I make choices about paper, choices about
what ink and how it goes down, things few others will consciously see,
that make each print the original. That day. I may actually make new
tonal changes as well, after living with my earlier choices for some time.
Same was true in the darkroom, I'd print a neg differently every time,
and enjoyed that capability.
I assume I'm far from unique in this regard, others are doing the same
thing.
Also, the likelihood that the inks, paper, software, etc. I use today
will be in play in a decade seems unlikely, given the rapid evolution
of these processes. Since I began ink printing, things have changed
dramatically, there are prints on the walls here made with now
obsolete materials. So even if some young printer had my notes and
wanted to reproduce another "original" when I am in my impending
dotage, it probably won't be possible.
The whole print on demand idea is a bit less of a sure thing than most
realize. If you want an entire edition to be identical, you'd better
print the whole thing today.

I'm not implying no one will ever print my files as well, but they
won't be printed by me, exactly the way I would have. As far as I'm
concerned my prints are my originals.

There's a good chance I've elevated all this ink manipulation into
some kind of high craft in my pea brain to justify all the time and
effort... but I don't consider the mono ink process employed here mere
reproduction, but part of the art itself. Even how color ink hits the
paper is carefully considered here, even though all those choices may
ultimately put the same hue down.
Clayton's thoughts about coverage and it's aesthetic effect is highly
relevant, at least to me. Our tastes may differ, but we agree the
issue is important.
If it were mere reproduction, even challenging critical difficult
reproduction, it would certainly lose it's appeal for me.
I realize this topic seems to be boring some people, but not me. In
fact I think it's important stuff. Unfortunately I haven't had time to
get the replies on here I would like, but I'm also probably getting
into less trouble...
As this new paradigm for photo printing evolves, us artists and
craftspersons, who are passionate about this stuff, need to make sure
our voices are heard. Even if we strongly disagree. Big business is
rolling along, and rarely takes note of anything but the squeaky
wheel. It's highly skilled and passionate people that have brought
about multiple K inks in all the new printers we have today.
I see the long held concerns of photography, optical clarity,
continuous tone, longevity, all the early challenges, still very much
in play and even at risk. We have entities involved in the future of
these things concerned only in the evolution of high tech, and how
good they are now doing in their world, not realizing they are
possibly taking major steps backwards in the larger picture of
photography. We might be those people responsible for carrying forward
those concerns, and pressing for advances in craft, not declines.
This list is Digital B&W, the print.

By the way, Walker does more edition work for more successful artists,
in bigger prestigious art markets than I, so his experience should be
considered more relevant. But in the last few years I've seen no
resistance to ink any more, in my little world. As most of you know
there was a Piezotone/PhotoRag Walker Evans exhibit in New York last
year. I even heard there were some quad Adams editions out there
somewhere.
The resistance I've seen is to "Giclee", which I don't call any of
these prints.
Things are coming along.
OK, I'm done for now, whew...
Tyler



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, john kelly
<djon43@...> wrote:
>
> "some people are crazy enought to pay 30 grand for a
> type c Kodak lightjet print as an investment,
> seriously. That's their bad judgement, not mine. But
> what is within my control matters to me."
>  
> 
> If you actually took this issue as seriously as you
> claim, you'd recognize that your "control" of
> "archival" consists primarily of preservation of
> digital files for clients' optional future access, so
> that over the millenia your timeless wonderful images
> can be reprinted again and again by your progeny,
> cursed with the responsibility unto the seventh
> generation.  
> 
> If they care, patrons of today's Picassos know their
> paintings will not last forever without restoration.  
> 
> The same sort of knowledge should, for photographers
> to sleep well, be conveyed to purchasers of inkjet
> prints. To pretend the original print is "archival"
> while not offering future reprints from digital files
> (for a price by whoever is alive to make the prints )
> might be seen as deceitful, a morally careless
> attitude toward the work itself (which is the file) as
> it wings its way into the misty future. There are,
> after all, services that promise eternal storage of
> digital files (so long as the bills are paid :-)
>