Digital BW, The Print

Hi Group,
In 1981 I had my first art exhibition of my images.  They were of course 
silver emulsion,
fiber based prints printed to archival (?!) specifications.  Since then 
I had a few shows,
to which I printed myself the wet-darkroom prints.  I loved them - but 
even though I was
and I still am pretty good in chemical printing I never liked being 
locked up for several hours
in the darkroom.  Smell of chemicals made me sick....
So, now we can print (I use 1280 and MIS UT CIS) BW prints which with 
the small limitation
to the matte paper are (let's not be afraid of this)  BETTER or at least 
NOT WORSE than
chemical prints and I constantly hear the people nostalgically 
expressing desire to go
BACKWARDS.
Where is the catch?  With the evolution of digital technology SOON (I am 
sure of it)  we will
print archival BW prints on thick glossy or semi glossy fiber paper. 
 Why getting back to the
wet darkroom.
ANOTHER QUESTION:
How many of you, who print themselves, or give it to the lab are 100% 
certain that your
(or lab's) prints are in fact archival and will last unchanged for 100 
years? I would be very
reluctant to acknowledge that about my own prints EVEN THOUGH I WAS ANAL 
about
all the washing, removing traces of the fixer, washing, using only 
archival (again)  mats and so.

So, what part of the concept am I missing?

Thanks,
Jack

_________________________________________________
Jack M Kucy
JMK Gallery (www.jmk-gallery.com)
917-991-2096     jmk@...
Member of ASMP (www.asmp.org)
_________________________________________________
...a riveder le stelle


donbga wrote:

> Jo,
>
> company.
> >
> > I had a 30 x 40 cm testprint made from a B&W digital file by the
> company offering this service:
> >       http://www.the-imagepress.de/
> >
> > The result is really amazing!
> > No comparison with my Epson 2100 prints!
> > This print is a real B&W silverprint on traditional photographic
> paper.
> > Perfect contrast and sharpness, no dots, no metamerism etc.
> > Unfortunately the service is quite expensive but if you really want
> a classic silverprint from a digital file this is the perfect
> solution.
>
> I've been hoping that a home based exposure unit would be developed
> to meld digital imaging with traditional printing papers to eliminate
> the need for ink jet printing. Maybe someone in the U.S. will offer
> such a service.
>
> Don Bryant
>

Hi Jack,

I have been printing selenium toned silverprints all of my life and I still like them.
But I also use an Epson 2100.
Love it for color. Black & White is not bad either but both of them are different stories compared to a silverprint or Cibachrome.
The Epson prints have there own charm but make me think of gravure prints (which I like too) instead of photographs.

I think both processus have there own charm and apllication.

I have been collecting photographs since the seventies and all my silverprints (some from early 1900) and Cibachromes still look perfect after all those years.
Of course there will be some photographers who do not produce their silverprints in the best possible way but with all these different types of inkjet inks and papers out there I do not trust these systems yet as much as I do silverprints made by a professional photographer.

Possibly the real serious inkjet printers should supply a kind of certificate with the print specifying the edition, the paper and ink used and the expected (or guaranteed?) lifetime.

As said,I love the Epson to produce my holiday albums but the digital silverprint I had made in Germany made me think:
What a nice system...no dots, no bronzing, no metamerism.....and still being able to manipulate the file in Photoshop.

Best regards,

Jo Brunenberg
www.jobrunenberg

 
DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com,Internet writes:

> Hi Group,
>In 1981 I had my first art exhibition of my images.\ufffd They were of course 
>silver emulsion,
>fiber based prints printed to archival (?!) specifications.\ufffd Since then 
>I had a few shows,
>to which I printed myself the wet-darkroom prints.\ufffd I loved them - but 
>even though I was
>and I still am pretty good in chemical printing I never liked being 
>locked up for several hours
>in the darkroom.\ufffd Smell of chemicals made me sick....
>So, now we can print (I use 1280 and MIS UT CIS) BW prints which with 
>the small limitation
>to the matte paper are (let's not be afraid of this)\ufffd BETTER or at least 
>NOT WORSE than
>chemical prints and I constantly hear the people nostalgically 
>expressing desire to go
>BACKWARDS.
>Where is the catch?\ufffd With the evolution of digital technology SOON (I am 
>sure of it)\ufffd we will
>print archival BW prints on thick glossy or semi glossy fiber paper. 
>Why getting back to the
>wet darkroom.
>ANOTHER QUESTION:
>How many of you, who print themselves, or give it to the lab are 100% 
>certain that your
>(or lab's) prints are in fact archival and will last unchanged for 100 
>years? I would be very
>reluctant to acknowledge that about my own prints EVEN THOUGH I WAS ANAL 
>about
>all the washing, removing traces of the fixer, washing, using only 
>archival (again)\ufffd mats and so.
>
>So, what part of the concept am I missing?
>
>Thanks,
>Jack

For me the whole thing is CONTROL. Photoshop is more powerful than I 
ever was in the darkroom. I have one print that I used to print wet. 
It is a beautiful print. BUT, after I had it drum scanned (from 4x5 
BW film) and brought it into Photoshop - WOW! I can selectively 
dodge/burn (using pro techniques on layers with masks - not that 
crappy dodge/burn tools), increase contrast, you name it - all with 
incredible precision. Now, couple that with being able to make a 
silver print from the file - I'd be in heaven. It looks great in 
Piezo, but it is still not silver.

Regarding "archival" issues. You can have the service bureau make a 
plain vanilla print (developed/stopped/fixed) and then go back into 
the "lightroom" when you get the print back, and proceed with your 
regular archival workflow (soak, fix again, tone, rinse).

Rich
www.rcodaphotography.com

Thanks for the thorough answer, Jo.

I am not questioning the silver prints. As I said before I printed them
myself and the prints I have from my first show in 1981 are still in the
same condition. The prints you mentioned - made on the photographic
paper in Germany is something really impressive. We all want this
great look of the air dried glossy Ilford double weight paper. Whatever
I do I compare to my ideal looking silver Ilfords.
But I want to do it myself, and possibly not locking myself in the 
darkroom.
That's why the 300 lb PhotoRug printed with MIS UT is what I like, and
after I coat it with Hydrocote, the air dried Ilford is back.
I sign my prints the same way as wet prints. I count the editions of the
particular size the same way. I do not have any problem with promising
or warranting the life span of the print or guarantee the replacement print
if any yellowing or discoloration occurs (upon return of the original 
print).
It may be carried by my heirs after I am gone.
My point is that for people like me, the technology will (I am sure of it)
bring the liberation from the darkroom WITHOUT any compromise.
I am not looking for any more time spent in the darkness.
---
By the way, some time ago I took one of my 4x5 negatives, had it scanned.
I manipulated it to the point I was satisfied and had Duggal in NYC do the
digital 4x5 for me. It printed very well - no more need for dodging or 
burning.
Just a fast print with all the corrections done in the photoshop.
This maybe another option for people who really like the darkroom.

Thanks again to all,
Jack

_________________________________________________
Jack M Kucy
JMK Gallery (www.jmk-gallery.com)
917-991-2096 jmk@...
Member of ASMP (www.asmp.org)
_________________________________________________
...a riveder le stelle



Jo Brunenberg wrote:

> Hi Jack,
>
> I have been printing selenium toned silverprints all of my life and I 
> still like them.
> But I also use an Epson 2100.
> Love it for color. Black & White is not bad either but both of them 
> are different stories compared to a silverprint or Cibachrome.
> The Epson prints have there own charm but make me think of gravure 
> prints (which I like too) instead of photographs.
>
> I think both processus have there own charm and apllication.
>
> I have been collecting photographs since the seventies and all my 
> silverprints (some from early 1900) and Cibachromes still look perfect 
> after all those years.
> Of course there will be some photographers who do not produce their 
> silverprints in the best possible way but with all these different 
> types of inkjet inks and papers out there I do not trust these systems 
> yet as much as I do silverprints made by a professional photographer.
>
> Possibly the real serious inkjet printers should supply a kind of 
> certificate with the print specifying the edition, the paper and ink 
> used and the expected (or guaranteed?) lifetime.
>
> As said,I love the Epson to produce my holiday albums but the digital 
> silverprint I had made in Germany made me think:
> What a nice system...no dots, no bronzing, no metamerism.....and still 
> being able to manipulate the file in Photoshop.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Jo Brunenberg
> www.jobrunenberg
>
>
> DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com,Internet writes:
> > Hi Group,
> >In 1981 I had my first art exhibition of my images.  They were of course
> >silver emulsion,
> >fiber based prints printed to archival (?!) specifications.  Since then
> >I had a few shows,
> >to which I printed myself the wet-darkroom prints.  I loved them - but
> >even though I was
> >and I still am pretty good in chemical printing I never liked being
> >locked up for several hours
> >in the darkroom.  Smell of chemicals made me sick....
> >So, now we can print (I use 1280 and MIS UT CIS) BW prints which with
> >the small limitation
> >to the matte paper are (let's not be afraid of this)  BETTER or at least
> >NOT WORSE than
> >chemical prints and I constantly hear the people nostalgically
> >expressing desire to go
> >BACKWARDS.
> >Where is the catch?  With the evolution of digital technology SOON (I am
> >sure of it)  we will
> >print archival BW prints on thick glossy or semi glossy fiber paper.
> >Why getting back to the
> >wet darkroom.
> >ANOTHER QUESTION:
> >How many of you, who print themselves, or give it to the lab are 100%
> >certain that your
> >(or lab's) prints are in fact archival and will last unchanged for 100
> >years? I would be very
> >reluctant to acknowledge that about my own prints EVEN THOUGH I WAS ANAL
> >about
> >all the washing, removing traces of the fixer, washing, using only
> >archival (again)  mats and so.
> >
> >So, what part of the concept am I missing?
> >
> >Thanks,
> >Jack
>

Has anyone tried the new Moab papers from Inkjetgoodies?

Their watercolour type ones and their photo style one (among others?)

tim

Jack,

> That's why the 300 lb PhotoRug printed with MIS UT is what I like, 
and
> after I coat it with Hydrocote, the air dried Ilford is back.

How large are your prints and how are you Hydrocote-ing your prints? 
Very curious. 

BTW, I coat with a Meyers rod but only on 8x10 paper.

Thanks,

Don Bryant

Don,
I have a custom made Mayer rod with 20" of the wire area length.  I coat 
with it 13x19 inch
prints with a pretty good results.  I put the print with the long edge 
toward me on the glass
covered with 2 sheets of 16x20 white paper to give something of a 
cushion.  I drag the
rod from the far edge toward the near edge with the steady movement. 
Hydrocote is very
thin, so it doesn't slow you too much.  The length to cover is only 13" 
- not much more than
in case of 8x10.  What I found a MUST is to stick your rod in water 
immediately after coating.
You do not want to have anything dry on it and make the channels uneven.  
It's a messy thing, I agree.  But I like the results ( I use "Clear 
Satin Polyshield" ).
I like the surface of the print after coating.  

_________________________________________________
Jack M Kucy
JMK Gallery (www.jmk-gallery.com)
917-991-2096     jmk@...
Member of ASMP (www.asmp.org)
_________________________________________________
...a riveder le stelle



donbga wrote:

> Jack,
>
> > That's why the 300 lb PhotoRug printed with MIS UT is what I like,
> and
> > after I coat it with Hydrocote, the air dried Ilford is back.
>
> How large are your prints and how are you Hydrocote-ing your prints?
> Very curious.
>
> BTW, I coat with a Meyers rod but only on 8x10 paper.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Don Bryant
>

--