[Digital BW] Dig prints that look like darkroom prints?
2002-09-12 by Paul Roark
Tom, I have to concur in part but dissent in part from the opinions expressed by some of the esteemed photographers/printers on this list. While an inkjet print is not a silver-print, I hang the two media on the walls next to each other and the inkjet prints do very well indeed. I'm coming from a silver-print background (photo wise, that is). I was doing light selenium toning of Kodak Polymax Fine Art paper. I'd dry-mount my, usually 16x20 landscapes, under glass, and they had the usual appearance one would expect from this medium. I now print with an Epson 3000, using mostly MIS pigments -- either the FS-N or the VM-S (sepia to neutral tones, but I use the neutral tone end of the spectrum when I want the silver-print landscape look). I use Epson Archival/Enhanced matte paper because I want the smooth look of a photo, not a water-color look. When these 16x20 prints are mounted (just tape-hung & matted, no more dry-mounting for me) under glass, it is very difficult to tell which are the silver prints and which are the inkjet prints. Clearly, the display under glass is a part of the formula if looking like a silver print is important. The glass essentially hides the print surface differences. If you display without glass, the flat matte look of EAM is very different from an air-dried, "F" surface silver-print. If gloss or semi-gloss paper is your choice, then the UltraChrome ink may be needed. Some have also done interesting work with coatings that may get one closer to the silver-print look, but that adds a layer of work that is a bit off-putting to me. I am very aware of the short comings of the inkjet technology, and I have kept my darkroom. On the other hand, until I start making sales of at well over $500, there is no way I'm going to the work of making a silver print. Even if I do start selling at high prices, I will not give up my digital processing. My digital prints are visually superior, on average, to my silver-prints. Sure, I can still see an occasional digital artifact, and under a loupe the print is clearly an inkjet (I'm not trying to fool anyone). But the digital process is a clear net benefit for me. As I look toward the future, I see lots of advancements in inkjet technology. I see none for the silver-print, except that which involves making a digital negative to combine the digital processing with the silver-print longevity. So, my digital files will be ready to go as the B&W digital technology advances. And where the best of that technology is today is not too bad. Paul http://www.PaulRoark.com