Digital BW, The Print

I have been reading this forum, and I have been debating whether to join
the epson-inkjet crowd or stay with my darkroom. I have been thinking about
why aren't inkjet prints more accepted by galleries. Here are some thoughts
on
the question, and I'm really looking forward to hear your reactions.

I believe there are multiple reasons why inkjet prints readily accepted by
galleries, one beeing that it is neither proven nor accepted that some
technical wizardry is necessary to produce an great inkjet print.

Some time ago, Michael Kravit wrote:

"I would venture to say that it will still be a while for the
paper coatings and inks to be able to replicate the "glow" and luminescence
of a Michael Kenna or John Sexton print."

and George J Kunze replied:

"I would venture that it will still be a while before 99% of silver printers
can replicate the glow and luminescence of a Kenna or Sexton."

I think these comments are very true, and explain why inkjet prints are not
as acceptable today for galleries (and collectors):

1- the best silver printers (the ones collected and found in galleries) can
  produce prints better than today's inkjet technology (at least for small
prints,
  11x14 and smaller, like Michael Kenna's).

but more important:

2- producing a great silver print, of the caliber that ends up in galleries,
requires
  a mastery that is achieved by a very small percentage of printers. Because
these
  great silver printers are few, great silver prints are rare and not easily
duplicated!

And it is really the print itself which is important! I've read that once
behind glass,
you can't tell an inkjet print from a silver print. So what? You can't tell
either a
lenswork special edition (or even a very well printed duotone) from the
original silver print
behind glass without a loupe, but nobody is surprised that these sell for
much less
than an original print. It is because a great silver print is a rare object,
not easily
duplicated.

Now is this true for an inkjet print? Are there some inkjet prints that
really shine, and
of a quality unreachable for 99% of those who try. Is is really hard to
print hundred's
of them if needed? What if I use your file, your printer, same ink, curves,
paper, RIP, etc...

You guys even say it all the time. You get better prints with your Epsons
than you ever got
in the darkroom, and some of you have probably spent decades becoming silver
(or platinum)
printers and a couple years with your Epsons. Obviously, it is easier to
make great inkjet
prints... which makes a great inkjet print not so exciting anymore.

I think Mark Tucker talked about doing something to his prints to make them
unique.
I do think this is the one way to get inkjets accepted (especially if this
something is
unique, difficult, and requires some mastery). For example Dan Burkholder
makes platinum
prints from digital negatives, and then adds color using an inkjet printer.
If I was a gallery
owner, I think I'd be somewhat impressed because this process is new,
requires an exacting
technique, and won't be easily duplicated by my brother in law with his
1280.

Also you have to worry about the pace of progress in digital technology:

If I buy this great inkjet print, maybe in a couple years the new Epson
70000 with its
4000dpi, 10 ink tanks, 1000 year pigments and enhanced diffusion dither will
allow Dan
to make *much* better prints. Hopefully, my 2002 print will keep its value
because it is
vintage :-)

True, silver papers and processes evolve too, but nowhere as fast as digital
technology.

Anyway, these are some thoughts. I hope I didn't offend anyone. I really
enjoy this
forum and the quality of its participants.

Gregory Popovitch

Do you really think the process makes that much of a difference? I've
never been asked about my process by a gallery director. I've never
had people ask me about the film or paper I use when I'm making
traditional photos, and so far I haven't had people ask me about my
process when I show them digital stuff either - generally they're a
lot more interested in the images than how they are printed.

Now, granted, I'm no master at getting gallery representation (I show
now and then, but in small non-commercial venues) - so maybe if people
were interested enough in my images to want to represent me they would
then start asking tough questions about my process - for the moment
though it seems to all be about the images rather than how they're
printed or shot.

At 10:41 PM -0400 5/5/02, Gregory Popovitch wrote:
>
>"I would venture that it will still be a while before 99% of silver printers
>can replicate the glow and luminescence of a Kenna or Sexton."
>
>I think these comments are very true, and explain why inkjet prints are not
>as acceptable today for galleries (and collectors):
>
>1- the best silver printers (the ones collected and found in galleries) can
>   produce prints better than today's inkjet technology (at least for small
>prints,
>   11x14 and smaller, like Michael Kenna's).


I will make this brief and too the point...

Gregory, in all due respect, your comparing apples and 
oranges...Silver prints are not platinum and silver prints are not 
van dyke brown prints nor are they cyanotypes....all have their own 
look as do the many variants of inkjet printing...

Second, believe me, your brother in law ( I assume you used him as an 
example because he is not a photographer) cannot produce these prints 
on his 1280. It takes a lot more skill than just hitting the print 
button...you are forgetting the Photoshop steps as well as the skill 
the photographer has in making the original image..

Finally, no one would buy anything in your final straw man scenario 
where buyers wait until eternity because waiting always gets improved 
technology.

Nice try and provocative, but the arguments don't hold up.

all the best,

Bill Agee


the rest of the original post is below....

>
>but more important:
>
>2- producing a great silver print, of the caliber that ends up in galleries,
>requires
>   a mastery that is achieved by a very small percentage of printers. Because
>these
>   great silver printers are few, great silver prints are rare and not easily
>duplicated!
>
>And it is really the print itself which is important! I've read that once
>behind glass,
>you can't tell an inkjet print from a silver print. So what? You can't tell
>either a
>lenswork special edition (or even a very well printed duotone) from the
>original silver print
>behind glass without a loupe, but nobody is surprised that these sell for
>much less
>than an original print. It is because a great silver print is a rare object,
>not easily
>duplicated.
>
>Now is this true for an inkjet print? Are there some inkjet prints that
>really shine, and
>of a quality unreachable for 99% of those who try. Is is really hard to
>print hundred's
>of them if needed? What if I use your file, your printer, same ink, curves,
>paper, RIP, etc...
>
>You guys even say it all the time. You get better prints with your Epsons
>than you ever got
>in the darkroom, and some of you have probably spent decades becoming silver
>(or platinum)
>printers and a couple years with your Epsons. Obviously, it is easier to
>make great inkjet
>prints... which makes a great inkjet print not so exciting anymore.
>
>I think Mark Tucker talked about doing something to his prints to make them
>unique.
>I do think this is the one way to get inkjets accepted (especially if this
>something is
>unique, difficult, and requires some mastery). For example Dan Burkholder
>makes platinum
>prints from digital negatives, and then adds color using an inkjet printer.
>If I was a gallery
>owner, I think I'd be somewhat impressed because this process is new,
>requires an exacting
>technique, and won't be easily duplicated by my brother in law with his
>1280.
>
>Also you have to worry about the pace of progress in digital technology:
>
>If I buy this great inkjet print, maybe in a couple years the new Epson
>70000 with its
>4000dpi, 10 ink tanks, 1000 year pigments and enhanced diffusion dither will
>allow Dan
>to make *much* better prints. Hopefully, my 2002 print will keep its value
>because it is
>vintage :-)
>
>True, silver papers and processes evolve too, but nowhere as fast as digital
>technology.
>
>Anyway, these are some thoughts. I hope I didn't offend anyone. I really
>enjoy this
>forum and the quality of its participants.
>
>Gregory Popovitch
>
>
>
>
>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/

-- 

b i l l  a g e e  s t u d i o
c a p i s t r a n o  b e a c h  c a l i f o r n i a

billagee@...
http://www.redsilver.com

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "charles_bandes" 
<byronbulb@y...> wrote:
> Do you really think the process makes that much of a difference? 
<snip>

If you just want something to decorate your home, probably not. But 
if you spend a significant amount of money to buy a rare object, yes!

Let's imagine that someone comes up with a super-high quality copy 
machine which can make copies indistinguishable from the original 
without a loupe. Would the value of all existing silver prints 
fall instantly? I don't think so, because the process by which the
original print and the copy were produced is different. And only a 
limited number of the original silver print, printed by the 
photographer himself, exist.

The silver print is a rare object. When a silver print is beautiful,
people are ready to pay significant amounts of money for it.

I know it is possible to make beautiful inkjet prints. If it can 
be shown that some of these beautiful inkjet prints are rare, 
somewhat unique and hand-crafted, I think galleries will be more 
accepting of them.

gregory

"greg_pop" <greg@...> writes:

> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "charles_bandes" 
> <byronbulb@y...> wrote:
> > Do you really think the process makes that much of a difference? 
> <snip>
> 
> If you just want something to decorate your home, probably not. But 
> if you spend a significant amount of money to buy a rare object, yes!

Why would anybody want to spend a significant amount of money to buy a
rare object?  The only reason I can understand is they can't get
something the looks just like cheaper.  *Rare* is BAD -- if I own rare
objects I have a responsibility to their care that can sometimes be a
pain to meet.  
-- 
David Dyer-Bennet, dd-b@...  /  Ghugle: the Fannish Ghod of Queries
 John Dyer-Bennet 1915-2002 Memorial Site http://john.dyer-bennet.net
        Book log: http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/Ouroboros/booknotes/
                 Photos: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/

Gregory Popovitch is raising some very interesting and valid points, 
particularly regarding the difficulty of mastering certain elements 
of the darkroom part of the process of creating a silverprint. If a 
process becomes so simple that anyone can do it, then it can hardly 
be sold at a price which is completely disconnected from the cost of 
production. Currently, most people think it is easy to make inkjet 
prints (which is partly true), therefore an inkjet print can't be 
sold for much money and cant offer a collector a potentially huge 
profit.

What we need is a few artist which will produce work of recognized 
beauty and lasting value. It took nearly a century for classic 
photography to earn the respect it currently enjoys.  This is largely 
attributable to the lifelong work of a few great artists and most if 
not all of the commercially successful photographers among those were 
also great darkroom masters. I do not think that digital photography 
will have to wait a century to gain recognition, but it may be longer 
than we would like.

One not so little thorny point that is not helping at the moment is 
the question of longevity of inkjet prints. When a gallery sells a 
silver print, it knows it will last longer than the remaining life of 
the gallery owner and longer than the remaining life of the buyer. So 
there is complete peace of mind on this front. The infamous blunders 
of Epson with regard to longevity of some of their inkjet prints has 
cast a very dark and lasting shadow on this type of prints regardless 
of the fact that it is dye or pigment color or black and white, with 
new improved ink or on a different paper base. More than a few 
gallery owners are scared stiff of injet prints for this simple 
reason and may remain irrationally scared for a long time because, 
quite conveniently,  in certain milieu avoiding inkjet prints has 
become the "artistically correct" attitude.

Jean-Michel Paris

>I have been reading this forum, and I have been debating whether to join
>the epson-inkjet crowd or stay with my darkroom. I have been thinking about
>why aren't inkjet prints more accepted by galleries. Here are some thoughts
>on
>the question, and I'm really looking forward to hear your reactions.
>
>I believe there are multiple reasons why inkjet prints readily accepted by
>galleries, one beeing that it is neither proven nor accepted that some
>technical wizardry is necessary to produce an great inkjet print.
>
>Some time ago, Michael Kravit wrote:
>
>"I would venture to say that it will still be a while for the
>paper coatings and inks to be able to replicate the "glow" and luminescence
>of a Michael Kenna or John Sexton print."
>
>and George J Kunze replied:
>
>"I would venture that it will still be a while before 99% of silver printers
>can replicate the glow and luminescence of a Kenna or Sexton."
>
>I think these comments are very true, and explain why inkjet prints are not
>as acceptable today for galleries (and collectors):
>
>1- the best silver printers (the ones collected and found in galleries) can
>   produce prints better than today's inkjet technology (at least for small
>prints,
>   11x14 and smaller, like Michael Kenna's).
>
>but more important:
>
>2- producing a great silver print, of the caliber that ends up in galleries,
>requires
>   a mastery that is achieved by a very small percentage of printers. Because
>these
>   great silver printers are few, great silver prints are rare and not easily
>duplicated!
>
>And it is really the print itself which is important! I've read that once
>behind glass,
>you can't tell an inkjet print from a silver print. So what? You can't tell
>either a
>lenswork special edition (or even a very well printed duotone) from the
>original silver print
>behind glass without a loupe, but nobody is surprised that these sell for
>much less
>than an original print. It is because a great silver print is a rare object,
>not easily
>duplicated.
>
>Now is this true for an inkjet print? Are there some inkjet prints that
>really shine, and
>of a quality unreachable for 99% of those who try. Is is really hard to
>print hundred's
>of them if needed? What if I use your file, your printer, same ink, curves,
>paper, RIP, etc...
>
>You guys even say it all the time. You get better prints with your Epsons
>than you ever got
>in the darkroom, and some of you have probably spent decades becoming silver
>(or platinum)
>printers and a couple years with your Epsons. Obviously, it is easier to
>make great inkjet
>prints... which makes a great inkjet print not so exciting anymore.
>
>I think Mark Tucker talked about doing something to his prints to make them
>unique.
>I do think this is the one way to get inkjets accepted (especially if this
>something is
>unique, difficult, and requires some mastery). For example Dan Burkholder
>makes platinum
>prints from digital negatives, and then adds color using an inkjet printer.
>If I was a gallery
>owner, I think I'd be somewhat impressed because this process is new,
>requires an exacting
>technique, and won't be easily duplicated by my brother in law with his
>1280.
>
>Also you have to worry about the pace of progress in digital technology:
>
>If I buy this great inkjet print, maybe in a couple years the new Epson
>70000 with its
>4000dpi, 10 ink tanks, 1000 year pigments and enhanced diffusion dither will
>allow Dan
>to make *much* better prints. Hopefully, my 2002 print will keep its value
>because it is
>vintage :-)
>
>True, silver papers and processes evolve too, but nowhere as fast as digital
>technology.
>
>Anyway, these are some thoughts. I hope I didn't offend anyone. I really
>enjoy this
>forum and the quality of its participants.
>
>Gregory Popovitch
>
>
>
>
>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/


-- 
Jean-Michel Paris
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
ETHERGRAPHIK INC.                                          Tél : (514) 744-3312
795, rue Muir, Porte 801                   Sans Frais : 1 (888) 211-8522
Saint-Laurent, Qc  H4L 5H8                             Fax : (514) 744-5075
CANADA 
<jmparis@...>
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
AVIS DE CONFIDENTIALITÉ - Cette communication est exclusivement 
destinée à son destinataire nominatif ; elle peut contenir des 
renseignements à usage restreint, confidentiels ou privilégiés au 
sens de la loi, dont la copie ou la communication à toute autre 
personne est interdite ou illégale. Si vous avez reçu cette 
communication par erreur, nous nous en excusons et vous prions de 
nous en aviser et d'en détruire les exemplaires papier ou 
électroniques en votre possession.  CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This 
communication is intended for the exclusive use of its addressee; it 
may contain privileged, confidential or restricted information under 
the law, whose communication to any other party is forbidden or 
illegal. If you have received this communication in error, please 
accept our apologies, notify us and delete any paper and electronic 
copies thereof.

Hi David,

I respect your opinion, but I don't think it is usually shared 
by collectors (and it is collectors who buy expensive prints).
You may well enjoy the current 34 USPS stamp, but collectors will 
pay lots of money for the rare stamp with sonme unique misprinting.
Or in photography, a rare leica prototype by Oskar Barnack will cost 
you more than the current (and plentiful) M7.

Why do collectors value rarity? Maybe because a rare object is harder 
to get.

gregory

> Why would anybody want to spend a significant amount of money to buy a
> rare object?  The only reason I can understand is they can't get
> something the looks just like cheaper.  *Rare* is BAD -- if I own rare
> objects I have a responsibility to their care that can sometimes be a
> pain to meet.  
> -- 
> David Dyer-Bennet, dd-b@...  /  Ghugle: the Fannish Ghod of Queries
>  John Dyer-Bennet 1915-2002 Memorial Site http://john.dyer-bennet.net
>         Book log: http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/Ouroboros/booknotes/
>                  Photos: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/

An interesting book on this topic is "The Worth of Art: Pricing the 
Priceless" by Judith Benhamou-Huet.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/2843232848

-Jason

marktuckerdotcom wrote:

> You guys are completely missing the point here -- it's about 
> MONEY. 
> 
> Like it or not, to many people who are buying these 
> multi-thousand dollar prints, it's as much about the investment 
> as it is about the beauty of the print.
> 
> Or, it's about the ego. So they can say "Oh, that's a Weston".
> 
> The rules are different at that level. Better to understand it, even if 
> you don't agree with it.

At 12:23 PM 5/6/2002 -0500, you wrote:
>"greg_pop" <greg@...> writes:
>
>> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "charles_bandes" 
>> <byronbulb@y...> wrote:
>> > Do you really think the process makes that much of a difference? 
>> <snip>
>> 
>> If you just want something to decorate your home, probably not. But 
>> if you spend a significant amount of money to buy a rare object, yes!
>
>Why would anybody want to spend a significant amount of money to buy a
>rare object?  The only reason I can understand is they can't get
>something the looks just like cheaper.  *Rare* is BAD -- if I own rare
>objects I have a responsibility to their care that can sometimes be a
>pain to meet.  
>-- 
>David Dyer-Bennet, dd-b@...  /  Ghugle: the Fannish Ghod of Queries
> John Dyer-Bennet 1915-2002 Memorial Site http://john.dyer-bennet.net
>        Book log: http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/Ouroboros/booknotes/
>                 Photos: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/
>

David,

I can agree with you re rare for rareness sake but owning an object that was
used or made by a rare individual is a bit different. And then some objects
have rare qualities of beauty or craft that can no longer be produced or
which only the patina of time can produce.  

Been watching too much Antiques Road show - don't you hate it when some
gnarly little clay mug is appraised at five figures?

AZ
Maker of Lookaround panoramic camera.
http://www.panoramacamera.us
         or
keyword.com lookaround