Digital BW, The Print

>
>
>What about the collectors who have paid $250,000+ for a large digital colour
>print by Andreas Gursky? Et al
>
Tim Atherton

Although they go through a digital stage I'm pretty sure that Gursky's 
prints are C-prints. Not sure if they are digital C-prints are made 
through digitally generated negative. Of course there is also the 
question of how long the C-prints will last.

John M.

-- 
words and images: http://home.earthlink.net/~jmatturr/

> Although they go through a digital stage I'm pretty sure that Gursky's
> prints are C-prints. Not sure if they are digital C-prints are made
> through digitally generated negative.

Peering closely at some (nose to the glass!), I'm pretty sure it was a
digital C-Print - some form of lightjet


> Of course there is also the
> question of how long the C-prints will last.

Which was my point exactly, in response to

> The "collector issue" is paramount if your are selling your prints.
> The fact of the matter is that many people buy prints not only for
> enjoyment but also as an investment or they seek to assemble a
> collection that they can pass on to their families or some
> organization, etc. In this case, 40-50 years may not cut it.


tim


PS - the Gursky's also blew me away

Tim Atherton wrote:
> 
> What about the collectors who have paid $250,000+ for a large digital colour
> print by Andreas Gursky? Et al

Tim, they have WAY too much money to spend.

Who is Andreas Gursky?

Curious :)
>

My point is that for some collectors the prospect of having their 
inkjet (or RC) prints fade noticeably within 40 to 50 _may_ deter 
them from collecting such prints. True, there may be others for whom 
this is not an issue. Further, there is no reason to believe that if 
an inkjet print is properly exhibited and stored that it may not last 
much longer. Nevertheless, I wouldn't be surprised if a fair number 
of collectors (in particular those buy in part to invest) who buy 
silver shy away from inkjets because of supposed "issues" regarding 
their (relative) permanence. Since I myself print inkjets I have no 
interest in promoting silver as the premium way to go; instead, I'd 
be interested in hearing from others what kind of feedback they've 
received from the buying public when they exhibit their prints. I'd 
also be interested in hearing about what's going on in the galleries. 
Also, although it seems clear enough that more galleries are 
exhibiting digital prints of one kind or other, there is still the 
question of whether exhibits/sales would be noticeably greater if 
inkjets were perceived as being as archival as (fiber) silver. 

(Of course, there's also another issue, namely the claim that silver 
prints are "handmade", each being unique (and somehow more special), 
as opposed to machine-made, exactly-alike digital prints. This gets 
into the whole argument about craftsmanship -- not just in the 
template print but for each print -- being added value.) 

Chris Hargens


 --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Tim Atherton" <tim@k...> 
wrote:
> > Although they go through a digital stage I'm pretty sure that 
Gursky's
> > prints are C-prints. Not sure if they are digital C-prints are 
made
> > through digitally generated negative.
> 
> Peering closely at some (nose to the glass!), I'm pretty sure it 
was a
> digital C-Print - some form of lightjet
> 
> 
> > Of course there is also the
> > question of how long the C-prints will last.
> 
> Which was my point exactly, in response to
> 
> > The "collector issue" is paramount if your are selling your 
prints.

> > The fact of the matter is that many people buy prints not only for
> > enjoyment but also as an investment or they seek to assemble a
> > collection that they can pass on to their families or some
> > organization, etc. In this case, 40-50 years may not cut it.
> 
> 
> tim
> 
> 
> PS - the Gursky's also blew me away

Hello Chris,

>(Of course, there's also another issue, namely the claim that
>silver prints are "handmade", each being unique (and somehow more
>special), as opposed to machine-made, exactly-alike digital prints. 
>This gets into the whole argument about craftsmanship -- not just 
>in the template print but for each print -- being added value.) 

This is one of those things that will be debated forever, because all
opinions on this have some validity.  One could argue, for example,
that carbon ink prints aren't "photographs" since they weren't
produced using light, but should fall into the same category as
posters, books, calendars and greeting cards - printed with ink and
mechanical devices.

Steve K. and I have had many discussions on this subject.  I'm of the
opinion that their ultimate acceptance depends on us - how we treat
them ourselves.  If we show carbon ink prints along with silver and
put a higher price on the silver then we are helping to cement the
impression that carbon ink is inferior.    

I think that we are in an important interim period in the technology,
where the technical quality has arrived and more people are coming on
board and showing work, and therefore are attracting more attention. 
But at the same time the current problems with color shifting and
fading means that more work with problems is being seen, which has to
be creating impressions that will be long lasting and difficult to
change.

That's one reason why I have chosen to print black-only (BO) for the
time being - the color shifting and fading is pretty much a non-issue
(assuming good ink and paper).  As I write this I am looking at two
prints of a lovely still life made about 6 months ago from a scanned
Tri-X negative.  One is BO and the other is the full ink set (FI),
both from MIS inks on a 6-ink epson 870.  Both have been hanging
unprotected in about 18 hours per day of flourescent light for 6
months.

In technical quality they are indistinguishable without a loupe (I'm
getting excellent results with a 6-ink printer and I'm wondering if BO
got its bad rap in the days of 4-ink printers with larger
droplets...).  But as for color, the FI print, while originally
gorgeous, has faded somewhat and warm-shifted to an ugly "hershey bar
chocolate" color, while the BO print has retained its more neutral
color.  In fact, the BO print had a piece of cardboard taped over half
of it the entire time.  I removed it a few days ago to see if I could
see a difference and I cannot tell which side was covered.  Steve K.
has also seen this print and cannot tell.

I have no hesitation to send these BO carbon ink prints out into the
world with the same cautions for care that I applied to my silver
prints.  I am confident that carbon ink prints will find acceptance,
but there will always be those who will stick with silver and hold
themselves above the rabble, just as many Platinum printers consider
that a higher art.  I think this is good.    

There is something very romantic about the enlarger, the safelight and
the smell of hypo, and romance is part of what art is all about.  I
have many fond memories of late night hours in the darkroom and I sort
of miss it, but I'm getting older, have difficulty spending hours
standing and am more sensitive to the fumes, so I'm not sorry to leave
that behind (anybody want to buy my Zone VI cold light head and
Stabilizer?).  And it is exciting to be exploring new territory.  It
has a romance all its own.

Best Regards,
Clayton

p.s. - If anyone would like to see one of my BO prints I will be happy
to send a small print if you will send me an SASE.  Please contact me
by private email.

cj@...

Thanks, Clayton, for your extended comments. I just read your earlier 
post (Oct.12) regarding BO printing and noted that you give some good 
reasons for pursuing that path. I'm currently using an 1160 and 
printing with the MIS VM inkset using Paul's curves. For the most 
part I've experienced few problems -- mostly tweaking here and there -
- and the serious problems I have had have been a result of poor negs 
or scans. Even so, I may give BO a try once I get my printer set up 
again. Perhaps it offers a better approach for printing negatives 
with a fair amount of grain.

Chris
--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Clayton Jones" <cj@c...> 
wrote:
> Hello Chris,
> 
> >(Of course, there's also another issue, namely the claim that
> >silver prints are "handmade", each being unique (and somehow more
> >special), as opposed to machine-made, exactly-alike digital 
prints. 
> >This gets into the whole argument about craftsmanship -- not just 
> >in the template print but for each print -- being added value.) 
> 
> This is one of those things that will be debated forever, because 
all
> opinions on this have some validity.  One could argue, for example,
> that carbon ink prints aren't "photographs" since they weren't
> produced using light, but should fall into the same category as
> posters, books, calendars and greeting cards - printed with ink and
> mechanical devices.
> 
> Steve K. and I have had many discussions on this subject.  I'm of 
the
> opinion that their ultimate acceptance depends on us - how we treat
> them ourselves.  If we show carbon ink prints along with silver and
> put a higher price on the silver then we are helping to cement the
> impression that carbon ink is inferior.    
> 
> I think that we are in an important interim period in the 
technology,
> where the technical quality has arrived and more people are coming 
on
> board and showing work, and therefore are attracting more 
attention. 
> But at the same time the current problems with color shifting and
> fading means that more work with problems is being seen, which has 
to
> be creating impressions that will be long lasting and difficult to
> change.
> 
> That's one reason why I have chosen to print black-only (BO) for the
> time being - the color shifting and fading is pretty much a non-
issue
> (assuming good ink and paper).  As I write this I am looking at two
> prints of a lovely still life made about 6 months ago from a scanned
> Tri-X negative.  One is BO and the other is the full ink set (FI),
> both from MIS inks on a 6-ink epson 870.  Both have been hanging
> unprotected in about 18 hours per day of flourescent light for 6
> months.
> 
> In technical quality they are indistinguishable without a loupe (I'm
> getting excellent results with a 6-ink printer and I'm wondering if 
BO
> got its bad rap in the days of 4-ink printers with larger
> droplets...).  But as for color, the FI print, while originally
> gorgeous, has faded somewhat and warm-shifted to an ugly "hershey 
bar
> chocolate" color, while the BO print has retained its more neutral
> color.  In fact, the BO print had a piece of cardboard taped over 
half
> of it the entire time.  I removed it a few days ago to see if I 
could
> see a difference and I cannot tell which side was covered.  Steve K.
> has also seen this print and cannot tell.
> 
> I have no hesitation to send these BO carbon ink prints out into the
> world with the same cautions for care that I applied to my silver
> prints.  I am confident that carbon ink prints will find acceptance,
> but there will always be those who will stick with silver and hold
> themselves above the rabble, just as many Platinum printers consider
> that a higher art.  I think this is good.    
> 
> There is something very romantic about the enlarger, the safelight 
and
> the smell of hypo, and romance is part of what art is all about.  I
> have many fond memories of late night hours in the darkroom and I 
sort
> of miss it, but I'm getting older, have difficulty spending hours
> standing and am more sensitive to the fumes, so I'm not sorry to 
leave
> that behind (anybody want to buy my Zone VI cold light head and
> Stabilizer?).  And it is exciting to be exploring new territory.  It
> has a romance all its own.
> 
> Best Regards,
> Clayton
> 
> p.s. - If anyone would like to see one of my BO prints I will be 
happy
> to send a small print if you will send me an SASE.  Please contact 
me

> by private email.
> 
> cj@c...

Hello Chris,

> I'm currently using an 1160 

Is that a 4 or 6 ink printer?


> printing with the MIS VM inkset using Paul's curves. For the most 
> part I've experienced few problems -- mostly tweaking here and
there 

Are you experiencing the warm chocolate color shifting that I found? 
I've also been using the VM set.



> - and the serious problems I have had have been a result of poor
> negs or scans.  

I'm using an Epson 1640SU flatbed with transparency adapter to scan
35mm, 6x7 and 4x5 negs, and getting pretty good results, but I don't
print anything larger than 8x10 (the 870 takes 8.5x11 max).


>I may give BO a try once I get my printer set up again. 
>Perhaps it offers a better approach for printing negatives 
>with a fair amount of grain.

I've heard people equate BO with grainy pics before, but somehow I
can't connect the two.  With my scanner and Tri-X/HC-110 negs, when I
enlarge enough to see grain I'm also beginning to be aware of pixel
effects, so I can't really make a grainy print in the same sense as
we're used to with enlargers.  The only way I could make a traditional
grainy print would be to scan an already grainy enlarger print. 
Perhaps with a super scanner...

As for BO, these prints don't look grainy in the traditional sense at
all.  If you look closely in the highlights you can see individual
dots, but these dots don't enlarge as the print gets bigger.  They are
always the same size and same distance apart for a given tonal
density, regardless of print size.  In practical terms the opposite
happens - as the print gets bigger the viewing distance increases and
the ability to see the dots decreases. So we have to recalibrate our
instincts about enlarging vs grain/dots.  It's really different and
I'm not sure if BO printing would help or hurt grainy enlargements.

I think you'd be amazed to see the results I'm getting with BO.  I'd
be happy to send you a print if you'd like to have a look.  I'd also
be interested in see what you get with the 1160 if you give it a try.

Regards, - cj

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Clayton Jones" <cj@c...> 
wrote:
> Hello Chris,
> 
> > I'm currently using an 1160 
> 
> Is that a 4 or 6 ink printer?
It's a 4-ink printer.

> Are you experiencing the warm chocolate color shifting that I 
found? 
> I've also been using the VM set.

I can't say I've experienced any shifting, but, then again, most of 
my prints are in boxes or indoors where they get very little 
sunlight. Paul Roark would be the one with specific info about 
warming or fading.

Chris