Digital BW, The Print

Some additional thoughts...

In the wet darkroom...
On a good day, with a decent negative it would take at least three hours to set up the chemicals, the enlarger,  run test strips/prints, burning, dodging, developing, washing and drying one fiber based print (toning/spotting, cleaning up not included).  The decisions I made in the darkroom about what the final print should look like are completely my own.  I  make notes about how much I burned/dodged and where, the f-stop and time exposure so that if I ever had to make another print (anyone else trying might be an impossibility) it would be as close to the original as possible.  What I am left with is a print on traditional photographic paper.

In the digital darkroom...
On a good day, with a decent negative it would take at least two hours to scan the negative, adjust the levels, burn, dodge, print tests, tweak the curves, and make one Carbon Ink Jet print.  The decisions I made in the digital darkroom about what the final print should look like were completely my own.  The final file I saved with all the corrections exists for either myself or anyone else in the future so that if I ever had to make another print it would be exactly like the original.  What I am left with is a print on beautiful variations of fine art paper.

So why, other than a bit of time, and the fact that one is done in the dark with chemcials, the other in daylight with inks is a digital print any less valuable than that of a silver print? I may understand it 10 years from now when there are fewer and fewer silver prints being made thus making them rare, but right now I just don't see it.

- Jennifer Drucker

http://www.jdrucker.com
jdrucker@...

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: William Nettles 
  To: piezography3000@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Friday, March 01, 2002 11:49 AM
  Subject: [piezoBW] B&W mag is Scared!




  My B&W silver prints are basically sepia toned and my work attempts to pick
  up where Pictorialist photography sank into senitmental schmuck in about
  1930. Since 1932 and f64 we've all been at the feet of Weston and Adams and
  snappy full range B&W prints (actually since 1931 and new richer glossy
  photo papers making the f64 aesthetic possible). If we don't make our
  pictures netural B&W like f64 Adams/Weston did we make them in another way
  in reaction to them. Its just our place in history.
  I've also been closely studying Weston in part because of a terrific exhibit
  at the Los Angeles Public Library (it closes March 17) and have made a few
  neutral B&W prints in response.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

> So why, other than a bit of time, and the fact that one is done in the dark
> with chemcials, the other in daylight with inks is a digital print any less
> valuable than that of a silver print? I may understand it 10 years from now
> when there are fewer and fewer silver prints being made thus making them rare,
> but right now I just don't see it.

Maybe it's that further prints from the darkroom will all have subtle
variations between them, as it's unlikely that a person has the precision
for repeatability that a machine has, making each darkroom print, however so
slightly, different from the next?

I think we need to consider where the nay-sayers are coming from even if we
ultimately reject it.

What if we were discussing a piece of fine furniture, a wood chair? If you
were looking at two seemingly identical chairs, and you knew that for one
the artist/artisan stood over a lathe and personally carved each leg, and
used chisels to hone out the indent in the seat, and put his latex gloves on
to hand rub the oils - would that chair have anymore value for you than the
other, that was from the same artist, but off his automated machine shops
production line? 

That's a question we each need to decide for ourselves. Some buy art for the
final piece, some buy to support a process. Most just don't buy. ;-)

Todd

On Friday 01 March 2002 11:12, you wrote:
> > So why, other than a bit of time, and the fact that one is done in the
> > dark with chemcials, the other in daylight with inks is a digital print
> > any less valuable than that of a silver print? I may understand it 10
> > years from now when there are fewer and fewer silver prints being made
> > thus making them rare, but right now I just don't see it.
>
> Maybe it's that further prints from the darkroom will all have subtle
> variations between them, as it's unlikely that a person has the precision
> for repeatability that a machine has, making each darkroom print, however
> so slightly, different from the next?
>
> I think we need to consider where the nay-sayers are coming from even if we
> ultimately reject it.
>
> What if we were discussing a piece of fine furniture, a wood chair? If you
> were looking at two seemingly identical chairs, and you knew that for one
> the artist/artisan stood over a lathe and personally carved each leg, and
> used chisels to hone out the indent in the seat, and put his latex gloves
> on to hand rub the oils - would that chair have anymore value for you than
> the other, that was from the same artist, but off his automated machine
> shops production line?

i still think the two processes are more similar than is being put forth. 
When i'm in the darkroom.. >
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
> other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
> them short. - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the
> subject header. - Good manners are required at all time. No personal
> attacks or "flames." - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
> resources on the homepage.
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
the first print is always the hardest.. it takes hours, sometime days to get 
it right.. burning, dodging, exposure, trial and error, contrast masking, etc

When i'm at my computer, the first print is always the hardest. it takes 
hours, sometimes days to get it right.. curves, contrast control, "exposure", 
etc.

The following prints are usually much easier.. both darkroom and digital. If 
i change chemicals or paper in the darkroom, i may end up repeating the 
process of the first print.. if i change paper or ink, then i may do the same 
for digital.

Digital printing is *not* assembly line printing.. it's a craft as much as 
the darkroom is.

	Jim

>
> That's a question we each need to decide for ourselves. Some buy art for
> the final piece, some buy to support a process. Most just don't buy. ;-)
>
> Todd

Todd & Jennifer, 

I suspect that if a "traditional" printer making silver prints could ever get the "perfect" print made (using whatever tools...masks, dodging, bleaching...papers...exposure settings...toning solution mixes...etc..)  then they themselves would want to "duplicate" that perfect image.  If Kodak or another company made a gizmo that could be used in the chemical darkroom to duplicate that perfect image...it would be used....(consider the machine print in all its glory).

Think about it another way. 

If there are so many variations involved in the 'hand printed traditional print'  it is perhaps because the printer (the person) is incapable of making more than one "perfect" print.  In other words, all others are "imperfect" and flawed to some degree.  

As for the time involved in the pursuit of the image/print....I believe that I spend enormous amounts of time on my digital prints and digital artwork (literally hours!)...and I throw away many "imperfect" prints (or cover my darkroom walls with very expensive mould-made watercolor 'wall paper')...all in the pursuit of what I consider the "perfect" print. 

I am not in the business of producing hundreds of prints (whether the print is considered fine art or not)...I produce very small quantities of what I consider "perfect" prints.  In some cases it is a true "mono-print" as there are no others made of the image.  

Now...when I attain that perfect print/image....I can offer it to my client.  

Why would I want to sell my clients anything less than the very best I can produce? 

Or...consider an artist like Rodin.  He did the clay study, the clay study was made into a scale model at full size by an assistant...and that was then used to make a mold...that was then used by the foundry to produce a series of statues.....the final product may have never been actually "touched" by Rodin.  Yet, each is considered a masterpiece of art...(ok maybe this analogy is a different medium...)

With a different perspective, 

Steadman

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Todd Flashner 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Friday, March 01, 2002 1:12 PM
  Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Some additional thoughts Carbon v. Silver



  > So why, other than a bit of time, and the fact that one is done in the dark
  > with chemcials, the other in daylight with inks is a digital print any less
  > valuable than that of a silver print? I may understand it 10 years from now
  > when there are fewer and fewer silver prints being made thus making them rare,
  > but right now I just don't see it.

  Maybe it's that further prints from the darkroom will all have subtle
  variations between them, as it's unlikely that a person has the precision
  for repeatability that a machine has, making each darkroom print, however so
  slightly, different from the next?

  I think we need to consider where the nay-sayers are coming from even if we
  ultimately reject it.

  What if we were discussing a piece of fine furniture, a wood chair? If you
  were looking at two seemingly identical chairs, and you knew that for one
  the artist/artisan stood over a lathe and personally carved each leg, and
  used chisels to hone out the indent in the seat, and put his latex gloves on
  to hand rub the oils - would that chair have anymore value for you than the
  other, that was from the same artist, but off his automated machine shops
  production line? 

  That's a question we each need to decide for ourselves. Some buy art for the
  final piece, some buy to support a process. Most just don't buy. ;-)

  Todd


        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor 
              ADVERTISEMENT
             
       
       

  Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:

  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

  Please follow these basic guidelines:
  - Include your full name with your message.
  - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
  - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
  - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
  - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
  - Complete your Yahoo profile.
  - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various resources on the homepage. 




  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Jennifer, here's my take on the carbon print value issue.

A print's value is determined by the market. The market consists of 
all the potential buyers of our prints. Many of these individual 
buyers are, more often than not, habitual. The baggage they carry 
includes perceptions, preconceived notions, and old habits that are 
really difficult to change. There has to be one or more reasons for 
each individual buyer to change his/her habits.

A market like ours does change, not so much because the individual 
buyers change their likes and dislikes, but because the newcomers to 
the market have different likes and dislikes (and probably an 
entirely different perspective) than the old-timers who are leaving 
the market. As long as silver prints are available, the inroads that 
carbon prints make into that traditional silver print market will 
probably be slow. However, the relative values of various types of 
prints is almost guaranteed to change simply because the individuals 
who make up the market change over time. The newcomers may have just 
as much baggage as the old-timers, but it'll be different because the 
newcomers' life experiences and perspective on the market will be 
different. And the values they place on the prints they buy are 
likely to be different as well.

Consider the effort Heinz is making to sell green and purple ketchup. 
They're selling (presumably) to the buyers of red ketchup. It's just 
a matter of substitution. Why should a buyer of ketchup switch from 
the traditional red ketchup? How many traditional red ketchup users 
are likely to switch, even temporarily? Why should they switch, as 
long as the traditional red ketchup is available? Some of us may 
place a higher value on the red ketchup simply because we are 
familiar with it, or for other reasons that have nothing at all to do 
with the quality of the product.

Another way to look at this: Markets have momentum and can be as 
difficult to turn as a supertanker. Changing our print market (and 
the relative values of the products within it) quickly would require 
that we change the minds of the majority of print buyers regarding 
the relative merits of the available products. That's not a small 
task. Each of us has a method of determining value and we each do it 
somewhat differently. Ultimately, it's the aggregation of our 
individual valuations that determines the market valuation.

I think we just have to be patient...

Tom Keesling
Intelligent Design, Inc.


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "jennifer drucker" 
<jdrucker@j...> wrote:
> Some additional thoughts...
> 
> So why, other than a bit of time, and the fact that one is done in 
the dark with chemcials, the other in daylight with inks is a digital 
print any less valuable than that of a silver print? I may understand 
it 10 years from now when there are fewer and fewer silver prints 
being made thus making them rare, but right now I just don't see it.

----- Original Message -----

From: "jennifer drucker" <jdrucker@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, March 01, 2002 10:50 AM
Subject: [Digital BW] Some additional thoughts Carbon v. Silver


(snip)
>
> So why, other than a bit of time, and the fact that one is done in the
dark with chemcials, the other in daylight with inks is a digital print any
less valuable than that of a silver print? I may understand it 10 years from
now when there are fewer and fewer silver prints being made thus making them
rare, but right now I just don't see it.

Jennifer,

Very well put! I agree completely! The entire idea that digital is easier
and significantly less time consuming than traditional wet printing is a
fallacy. My digital printing practices are very similar to my wet ones. Once
I have worked out a print I always make 2 or 3 extra copies knowing that
when I need another print in a year or two the paper and/or inks will have
changed  requiring me to re-tweak the image which usually leads to artistic
changes as well. The image of the digital print maker churning out hundreds
of identical fine art photographs simply isn't true.

Martin Wesley
(snip)

I don't feel that the print to print variations in
darkroom prints is much of an issue. The endless
repeatability of photographic prints is one of the
accepted "properties" of photography.

I've only been working seriously with inkjet prints
for a couple of months but the key issue I have with
my own prints is that I find myself limited to matte
papers. And "matte" in inkjet land is different then
the lustre of traditional "matte" photo printing
papers. The inkjet mattes are more of a plain paper
surface. They simply do not look like "real"
photographic papers.

The gain in using glossier, coated papers is that the
blacks (lower zones) have a depth I have yet to see in
matte, archival-er inkjet prints. I haven't seen many
professional inkjet prints, though. This is the
problem I need to solve in my work before I will
exclaim that my inkjet prints are equal to traditional
darkroom prints.

I use MIS VM, epson 870, epson archival matte paper,
Roark curves.

I hope someone will set me straight and tell me that
my curves need tweaking or I'm exhibiting some
oversight/lack of inkjet experience (maybe both,
surely the latter!).

I agree that time will change the value of inkjet
prints. I believe it is simply a perception issue
stemming from associations with the poorer quality
prints created by so many for so many different, many
non-artistic, purposes in offices and homes across the
world.

It took a lot for photography to be somewhat accepted
in the fine art world and the use of inkjet prints may
trigger lingering suspicions in some regarding the
validity of this printing process. It's just another
change and it's hard for some to deal with. Also, when
something is perceived as easier to produce it has
less value. It's perceived that way because of the
industry marketing and the associated consumer digital
tools. In the end, really good inkjet printers
(people) will be respected as much as their
counterparts in the "dark".

Perhaps one way of helping change this perception is
to not draw attention to the printing process in
exhibits. Is there another word for the process that
would help seperate it from being associated with the
printers that everyone has in their offices? How many
darkroom exist in homes and offices? Piezo sounds
pretty mysterious and difficult to learn!? I'm not
kidding.

Better stop, now. just some thoughts. 

--- Todd Flashner <tflash@...> wrote:
>  
> > So why, other than a bit of time, and the fact
> that one is done in the dark
> > with chemcials, the other in daylight with inks is
> a digital print any less
> > valuable than that of a silver print? I may
> understand it 10 years from now
> > when there are fewer and fewer silver prints being
> made thus making them rare,
> > but right now I just don't see it.
> 
> Maybe it's that further prints from the darkroom
> will all have subtle
> variations between them, as it's unlikely that a
> person has the precision
> for repeatability that a machine has, making each
> darkroom print, however so
> slightly, different from the next?
> 

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Try FREE Yahoo! Mail - the world's greatest free email!
http://mail.yahoo.com/

Scott, you can't get a print from an inkjet that looks EXACTLY like a photo print. For fine art printing, I think the thousands of different
watercolor papers available  leave the darkroom papers in the dust. You have maybe 10 surfaces in the darkroom, and thousands of papers for
inkjet.  I'm getting great prints from your basic setup, except I have the 1280 printer. With Paul's curves and the VM inkset, what more
could you want? Try Bright cube's Eclipse Satine Paper. It is thick, and luxurious. Watercolor textured on one side, and smooth on the
other. You can print either side. Comes in 2 weights, 190 gsm, and 300 gsm. Beautiful paper.

Jerry

>
> The gain in using glossier, coated papers is that the
> blacks (lower zones) have a depth I have yet to see in
> matte, archival-er inkjet prints. I haven't seen many
> professional inkjet prints, though. This is the
> problem I need to solve in my work before I will
> exclaim that my inkjet prints are equal to traditional
> darkroom prints.
>
> I use MIS VM, epson 870, epson archival matte paper,
> Roark curves.
>
> I hope someone will set me straight and tell me that
> my curves need tweaking or I'm exhibiting some
> oversight/lack of inkjet experience (maybe both,
> surely the latter!).
>
> I agree that time will change the value of inkjet
> prints. I believe it is simply a perception issue
> stemming from associations with the poorer quality
> prints created by so many for so many different, many
> non-artistic, purposes in offices and homes across the
> world.
>
> It took a lot for photography to be somewhat accepted
> in the fine art world and the use of inkjet prints may
> trigger lingering suspicions in some regarding the
> validity of this printing process. It's just another
> change and it's hard for some to deal with. Also, when
> something is perceived as easier to produce it has
> less value. It's perceived that way because of the
> industry marketing and the associated consumer digital
> tools. In the end, really good inkjet printers
> (people) will be respected as much as their
> counterparts in the "dark".
>
> Perhaps one way of helping change this perception is
> to not draw attention to the printing process in
> exhibits. Is there another word for the process that
> would help seperate it from being associated with the
> printers that everyone has in their offices? How many
> darkroom exist in homes and offices? Piezo sounds
> pretty mysterious and difficult to learn!? I'm not
> kidding.
>
> Better stop, now. just some thoughts.
>
> --- Todd Flashner <tflash@...> wrote:
> >
> > > So why, other than a bit of time, and the fact
> > that one is done in the dark
> > > with chemcials, the other in daylight with inks is
> > a digital print any less
> > > valuable than that of a silver print? I may
> > understand it 10 years from now
> > > when there are fewer and fewer silver prints being
> > made thus making them rare,
> > > but right now I just don't see it.
> >
> > Maybe it's that further prints from the darkroom
> > will all have subtle
> > variations between them, as it's unlikely that a
> > person has the precision
> > for repeatability that a machine has, making each
> > darkroom print, however so
> > slightly, different from the next?
> >
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Try FREE Yahoo! Mail - the world's greatest free email!
> http://mail.yahoo.com/
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various resources on the homepage.
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

on 3/6/02 4:03 PM, Alan Zinn wrote:

> At 03:20 PM 3/5/2002 -0800, you wrote:
>> I don't feel that the print to print variations in
>> darkroom prints is much of an issue. The endless
>> repeatability of photographic prints is one of the
>> accepted "properties" of photography.
>> 
>> I've only been working seriously with inkjet prints
>> for a couple of months but the key issue I have with
>> my own prints is that I find myself limited to matte
>> papers. And "matte" in inkjet land is different then
>> the lustre of traditional "matte" photo printing
>> papers. The inkjet mattes are more of a plain paper
>> surface. They simply do not look like "real"
>> photographic papers.
>> 
>> The gain in using glossier, coated papers is that the
>> blacks (lower zones) have a depth I have yet to see in
>> matte, archival-er inkjet prints. I haven't seen many
>> professional inkjet prints, though. This is the
>> problem I need to solve in my work before I will
>> exclaim that my inkjet prints are equal to traditional
>> darkroom prints.
>> 
>> I use MIS VM, epson 870, epson archival matte paper,
>> Roark curves.
>> 
>> I hope someone will set me straight and tell me that
>> my curves need tweaking or I'm exhibiting some
>> oversight/lack of inkjet experience (maybe both,
>> surely the latter!).
>> 
>> I agree that time will change the value of inkjet
>> prints. I believe it is simply a perception issue
>> stemming from associations with the poorer quality
>> prints created by so many for so many different, many
>> non-artistic, purposes in offices and homes across the
>> world.
>> 
>> It took a lot for photography to be somewhat accepted
>> in the fine art world and the use of inkjet prints may
>> trigger lingering suspicions in some regarding the
>> validity of this printing process. It's just another
>> change and it's hard for some to deal with. Also, when
>> something is perceived as easier to produce it has
>> less value. It's perceived that way because of the
>> industry marketing and the associated consumer digital
>> tools. In the end, really good inkjet printers
>> (people) will be respected as much as their
>> counterparts in the "dark".
>> 
>> Perhaps one way of helping change this perception is
>> to not draw attention to the printing process in
>> exhibits. Is there another word for the process that
>> would help seperate it from being associated with the
>> printers that everyone has in their offices? How many
>> darkroom exist in homes and offices? Piezo sounds
>> pretty mysterious and difficult to learn!? I'm not
>> kidding.
>> 
>> Better stop, now. just some thoughts.
>> 
>> --- Todd Flashner <tflash@...> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> So why, other than a bit of time, and the fact
>>> that one is done in the dark
>>>> with chemcials, the other in daylight with inks is
>>> a digital print any less
>>>> valuable than that of a silver print? I may
>>> understand it 10 years from now
>>>> when there are fewer and fewer silver prints being
>>> made thus making them rare,
>>>> but right now I just don't see it.
>>> 
>>> Maybe it's that further prints from the darkroom
>>> will all have subtle
>>> variations between them, as it's unlikely that a
>>> person has the precision
>>> for repeatability that a machine has, making each
>>> darkroom print, however so
>>> slightly, different from the next?
>>> 
>> 
> Todd,
> 
> The more you pick at it the worse it'll get. We shouldn't be too clever in
> inventing marketing gimmicks, names, etc. Just make the best print you can.
> If your pictures are more interesting than a zillion other good
> photographers nobody will care how you print them. That an ink jet print
> isn't just like a silver print is not a point worth mentioning.  Same as a
> gum print isn't a platinum print, isn't a cyanotype.  I have no doubt that
> there are printers out there, maybe even on this list, who are making images
> that will stand up to time and be considered master works of the medium.  In
> a way our success at educating people that photography is not just
> mechanical and a worthy craft now haunts us. How ironic.
> 
> AZ
> 
> Maker of Lookaround panoramic camera.
> 
> www.geocities.com/soho/gallery/8874/
> or
> keyword.com lookaround
> 
> 
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other
> resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
> them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
> resources on the homepage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> 
>

on 3/6/02 4:03 PM, Alan Zinn wrote:

> Todd,
> 
> The more you pick at it the worse it'll get. We shouldn't be too clever in
> inventing marketing gimmicks, names, etc. Just make the best print you can.
> If your pictures are more interesting than a zillion other good
> photographers nobody will care how you print them. That an ink jet print
> isn't just like a silver print is not a point worth mentioning.  Same as a
> gum print isn't a platinum print, isn't a cyanotype.  I have no doubt that
> there are printers out there, maybe even on this list, who are making images
> that will stand up to time and be considered master works of the medium.  In
> a way our success at educating people that photography is not just
> mechanical and a worthy craft now haunts us. How ironic.


Alan,

I can't tell if you meant to be replying to me, who posted well upstream, or
the most recent contributor to the thread. I happen to be in agreement with
what you say. I'll just say that when I entered the discussion we were
talking about BW Magazine's issue with inkjet prints, which represents the
collectors view point, and I was trying to put myself in their shoes. Most
others have been looking at it from the standpoint of how much time or
effort they put into a print, but I don't think many collectors even give a
hoot whether Gursky makes his own prints, let alone how many beads of sweat
he raises in the process. In that way you and I are in agreement, it's about
content - well actually it's probably far from about content, it's about
fad, fashion, celebrity, salability, being "hot", and a zillion other things
- but it's not about how hard it is to make a print.

Anyway, I could be wrong, but somebody has to play devils advocate. If I am
wrong someone please tell my why then would BW Mag. drop inkjet prints, and
is it something us inkjetters can address - like Mark Tucker for one, who is
searching for ways to make each of his prints unique - or do we just do what
we do and wait for the market to catch up? I happen to be in the camp of the
latter, but then I'm not exactly making money selling prints, am I?

Todd

At 03:20 PM 3/5/2002 -0800, you wrote:
>I don't feel that the print to print variations in
>darkroom prints is much of an issue. The endless
>repeatability of photographic prints is one of the
>accepted "properties" of photography.
>
>I've only been working seriously with inkjet prints
>for a couple of months but the key issue I have with
>my own prints is that I find myself limited to matte
>papers. And "matte" in inkjet land is different then
>the lustre of traditional "matte" photo printing
>papers. The inkjet mattes are more of a plain paper
>surface. They simply do not look like "real"
>photographic papers.
>
>The gain in using glossier, coated papers is that the
>blacks (lower zones) have a depth I have yet to see in
>matte, archival-er inkjet prints. I haven't seen many
>professional inkjet prints, though. This is the
>problem I need to solve in my work before I will
>exclaim that my inkjet prints are equal to traditional
>darkroom prints.
>
>I use MIS VM, epson 870, epson archival matte paper,
>Roark curves.
>
>I hope someone will set me straight and tell me that
>my curves need tweaking or I'm exhibiting some
>oversight/lack of inkjet experience (maybe both,
>surely the latter!).
>
>I agree that time will change the value of inkjet
>prints. I believe it is simply a perception issue
>stemming from associations with the poorer quality
>prints created by so many for so many different, many
>non-artistic, purposes in offices and homes across the
>world.
>
>It took a lot for photography to be somewhat accepted
>in the fine art world and the use of inkjet prints may
>trigger lingering suspicions in some regarding the
>validity of this printing process. It's just another
>change and it's hard for some to deal with. Also, when
>something is perceived as easier to produce it has
>less value. It's perceived that way because of the
>industry marketing and the associated consumer digital
>tools. In the end, really good inkjet printers
>(people) will be respected as much as their
>counterparts in the "dark".
>
>Perhaps one way of helping change this perception is
>to not draw attention to the printing process in
>exhibits. Is there another word for the process that
>would help seperate it from being associated with the
>printers that everyone has in their offices? How many
>darkroom exist in homes and offices? Piezo sounds
>pretty mysterious and difficult to learn!? I'm not
>kidding.
>
>Better stop, now. just some thoughts. 
>
>--- Todd Flashner <tflash@...> wrote:
>>  
>> > So why, other than a bit of time, and the fact
>> that one is done in the dark
>> > with chemcials, the other in daylight with inks is
>> a digital print any less
>> > valuable than that of a silver print? I may
>> understand it 10 years from now
>> > when there are fewer and fewer silver prints being
>> made thus making them rare,
>> > but right now I just don't see it.
>> 
>> Maybe it's that further prints from the darkroom
>> will all have subtle
>> variations between them, as it's unlikely that a
>> person has the precision
>> for repeatability that a machine has, making each
>> darkroom print, however so
>> slightly, different from the next?
>> 
>
Todd,

The more you pick at it the worse it'll get. We shouldn't be too clever in
inventing marketing gimmicks, names, etc. Just make the best print you can.
If your pictures are more interesting than a zillion other good
photographers nobody will care how you print them. That an ink jet print
isn't just like a silver print is not a point worth mentioning.  Same as a
gum print isn't a platinum print, isn't a cyanotype.  I have no doubt that
there are printers out there, maybe even on this list, who are making images
that will stand up to time and be considered master works of the medium.  In
a way our success at educating people that photography is not just
mechanical and a worthy craft now haunts us. How ironic. 

AZ

Maker of Lookaround panoramic camera.

www.geocities.com/soho/gallery/8874/
         or
keyword.com lookaround

I understand it's a different print medium that has
it's unique qualities and I perhaps I should not
expect the same exact look, but I would really like to
use glossy papers for their unique tonal response in
the lower zones. Perhaps my expectations were not
aligned when I started testing.

Right now I'm thrilled with my results, and when I can
use glossy papers I'll be even more thrilled. I will
surely try the Eclipse Satine, as well.

Technical question: I have an epson 870 and I'm using
the curves for the 1270. That's "kosher", right?

-sp


--- Jerry Olson <jerryolson@...> wrote:
> Scott, you can't get a print from an inkjet that
> looks EXACTLY like a photo print. For fine art
> printing, I think the thousands of different
> watercolor papers available  leave the darkroom
> papers in the dust. You have maybe 10 surfaces in
> the darkroom, and thousands of papers for
> inkjet.  I'm getting great prints from your basic
> setup, except I have the 1280 printer. With Paul's
> curves and the VM inkset, what more
> could you want? Try Bright cube's Eclipse Satine
> Paper. It is thick, and luxurious. Watercolor
> textured on one side, and smooth on the
> other. You can print either side. Comes in 2
> weights, 190 gsm, and 300 gsm. Beautiful paper.
> 
> Jerry
> 
> >
> > The gain in using glossier, coated papers is that
> the
> > blacks (lower zones) have a depth I have yet to
> see in
> > matte, archival-er inkjet prints. I haven't seen
> many
> > professional inkjet prints, though. This is the
> > problem I need to solve in my work before I will
> > exclaim that my inkjet prints are equal to
> traditional
> > darkroom prints.
> >
> > I use MIS VM, epson 870, epson archival matte
> paper,
> > Roark curves.
> >
> > I hope someone will set me straight and tell me
> that
> > my curves need tweaking or I'm exhibiting some
> > oversight/lack of inkjet experience (maybe both,
> > surely the latter!).

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Try FREE Yahoo! Mail - the world's greatest free email!
http://mail.yahoo.com/

I have watching the forum for some time, and often the question, or 
statement, is about trying to make inkjet prints look like silver 
prints. Why worry. All forms of photography are OK, just as they are. 
I have sold over 70,000 fine art prints and posters over a 40 plus 
year span, and have found that the medium did not matter as much as  
subject content. There are buyers and collectors of all things. 

Digital photography, from a camera, or scanner, will find it's place 
in the market, just like Elecrtic Gutiars did. A lot of people 
thought that their old pre electric Martins, and Gibsons would be 
worthless, when the electric Gutiars hit the market. But that did not 
happen. Just a different way of doing things, like digital 
photography is today.

Digital is a wonderful medium, as is silver.

Take pictures, have fun. Sell pictures, have a lot more fun.

Marvin Dockery
Knoxville, TN.

Http://www.modelsrep.homestead.com





--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Jerry Olson 
<jerryolson@r...> wrote:
> Scott, you can't get a print from an inkjet that looks EXACTLY like 
a photo print. For fine art printing, I think the thousands of 
different
> watercolor papers available  leave the darkroom papers in the dust. 
You have maybe 10 surfaces in the darkroom, and thousands of papers 
for
> inkjet.  I'm getting great prints from your basic setup, except I 
have the 1280 printer. With Paul's curves and the VM inkset, what more
> could you want? Try Bright cube's Eclipse Satine Paper. It is 
thick, and luxurious. Watercolor textured on one side, and smooth on 
the
> other. You can print either side. Comes in 2 weights, 190 gsm, and 
300 gsm. Beautiful paper.
> 
> Jerry
> 
> >
> > The gain in using glossier, coated papers is that the
> > blacks (lower zones) have a depth I have yet to see in
> > matte, archival-er inkjet prints. I haven't seen many
> > professional inkjet prints, though. This is the
> > problem I need to solve in my work before I will
> > exclaim that my inkjet prints are equal to traditional
> > darkroom prints.
> >
> > I use MIS VM, epson 870, epson archival matte paper,
> > Roark curves.
> >
> > I hope someone will set me straight and tell me that
> > my curves need tweaking or I'm exhibiting some
> > oversight/lack of inkjet experience (maybe both,
> > surely the latter!).
> >
> > I agree that time will change the value of inkjet
> > prints. I believe it is simply a perception issue
> > stemming from associations with the poorer quality
> > prints created by so many for so many different, many
> > non-artistic, purposes in offices and homes across the
> > world.
> >
> > It took a lot for photography to be somewhat accepted
> > in the fine art world and the use of inkjet prints may
> > trigger lingering suspicions in some regarding the
> > validity of this printing process. It's just another
> > change and it's hard for some to deal with. Also, when
> > something is perceived as easier to produce it has
> > less value. It's perceived that way because of the
> > industry marketing and the associated consumer digital
> > tools. In the end, really good inkjet printers
> > (people) will be respected as much as their
> > counterparts in the "dark".
> >
> > Perhaps one way of helping change this perception is
> > to not draw attention to the printing process in
> > exhibits. Is there another word for the process that
> > would help seperate it from being associated with the
> > printers that everyone has in their offices? How many
> > darkroom exist in homes and offices? Piezo sounds
> > pretty mysterious and difficult to learn!? I'm not
> > kidding.
> >
> > Better stop, now. just some thoughts.
> >
> > --- Todd Flashner <tflash@e...> wrote:
> > >
> > > > So why, other than a bit of time, and the fact
> > > that one is done in the dark
> > > > with chemcials, the other in daylight with inks is
> > > a digital print any less
> > > > valuable than that of a silver print? I may
> > > understand it 10 years from now
> > > > when there are fewer and fewer silver prints being
> > > made thus making them rare,
> > > > but right now I just don't see it.
> > >
> > > Maybe it's that further prints from the darkroom
> > > will all have subtle
> > > variations between them, as it's unlikely that a
> > > person has the precision
> > > for repeatability that a machine has, making each
> > > darkroom print, however so
> > > slightly, different from the next?
> > >
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Try FREE Yahoo! Mail - the world's greatest free email!
> > http://mail.yahoo.com/
> >
> >
> > Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, 
Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page 
is at:
> >
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> >
> > Please follow these basic guidelines:
> > - Include your full name with your message.
> > - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> > - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier 
messages to keep them short.
> > - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject 
header.
> > - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks 
or "flames."
> > - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> > - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the 
various resources on the homepage.
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to 
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., scott petill <scottpetill@y...> w=
rote:

> Technical question: I have an epson 870 and I'm using
> the curves for the 1270. That's "kosher", right?
> 
> -sp

that is not kosher per se, I´m using the 9000-Mac-curves on a 7500 with MIS=
 
VM and the result is better tahn with the 7000 curves (Mac or PC).
You should print step wedges with all curves available and than give the 
smoothest one a real test print.
Maybe one of the another curves is even more kosher for your combo.
B.

At 01:50 PM 3/6/2002 -0500, you wrote:
>on 3/6/02 4:03 PM, Alan Zinn wrote:
>
>> Todd,
>> 
>> The more you pick at it the worse it'll get. We shouldn't be too clever in
>> inventing marketing gimmicks, names, etc. Just make the best print you can.
>> If your pictures are more interesting than a zillion other good
>> photographers nobody will care how you print them. That an ink jet print
>> isn't just like a silver print is not a point worth mentioning.  Same as a
>> gum print isn't a platinum print, isn't a cyanotype.  I have no doubt that
>> there are printers out there, maybe even on this list, who are making images
>> that will stand up to time and be considered master works of the medium.  In
>> a way our success at educating people that photography is not just
>> mechanical and a worthy craft now haunts us. How ironic.
>
>
>Alan,
>
>I can't tell if you meant to be replying to me, who posted well upstream, or
>the most recent contributor to the thread. I happen to be in agreement with
>what you say. I'll just say that when I entered the discussion we were
>talking about BW Magazine's issue with inkjet prints, which represents the
>collectors view point, and I was trying to put myself in their shoes. Most
>others have been looking at it from the standpoint of how much time or
>effort they put into a print, but I don't think many collectors even give a
>hoot whether Gursky makes his own prints, let alone how many beads of sweat
>he raises in the process. In that way you and I are in agreement, it's about
>content - well actually it's probably far from about content, it's about
>fad, fashion, celebrity, salability, being "hot", and a zillion other things
>- but it's not about how hard it is to make a print.
>
>Anyway, I could be wrong, but somebody has to play devils advocate. If I am
>wrong someone please tell my why then would BW Mag. drop inkjet prints, and
>is it something us inkjetters can address - like Mark Tucker for one, who is
>searching for ways to make each of his prints unique - or do we just do what
>we do and wait for the market to catch up? I happen to be in the camp of the
>latter, but then I'm not exactly making money selling prints, am I?
>
>Todd
>
Todd,
Sorry if I confused the thread. People forget that the market has its own
logic about value independent of what we as artists view as worth. I can't
handle the frustration myself and don't make a big deal out of selling work.
I'm delighted if I get a show and cover the cost of materials.  I concluded
long ago that what sells is never what you want to be doing and there are
easier ways of earning a living.

AZ
Maker of Lookaround panoramic camera.

www.geocities.com/soho/gallery/8874/
         or
keyword.com lookaround