Digital BW, The Print

I just got my morning coffee and bagel at my neighborhood stop. 
They hung a new show yesterday of prints made by, or using, 
coffee. Kinda silly if you ask me, but it's a free country. (They'll 
probably last longer than my dye prints).

Each piece was by a different person. Some used glass; others 
did not. I found that I enjoyed and connected to the images that 
were framed WITHOUT glass much better. No veil between me 
and the print.

I recently had a "test print" framed for an upcoming show of 
mine. Using someone's suggestion on this list, I had them use 
Acrylic UV, instead of UV Glass. I've had it on the wall for about 
three days now. One thing I notice is that my spirit feels elevated 
about the whole "is inkjet printing serious enough?" question. I 
walk by the framed print and it looks GREAT on the wall; 
ironically Tricia, my rep, commented in the first five seconds of 
seeing it hanging there, "Wow, It looks just like a REAL PRINT!" I 
got a kick out of that. So I'd suggest to anyone doubting 
themselves about their print quality -- go and have it framed and 
then judge it; not that the frame will make it any "better", but it 
might give you an "apples and apples" comparison between a 
silver print and an inkjet print.

Secondly, about the glass thing, when I was bitching and 
moaning a few months ago about inkjet printing, someone wrote 
back and said something to the effect of, "You cannot compare 
inkjet prints to silver prints. You have to allow them to be different 
animals. Each has their own traits - and you have to respect 
both". At the time, I'm sure I muttered something under my 
breath, but now, this statement is growing on me.

There was something about seeing my "test print" framed under 
glass, that made me miss the surface of the watercolor paper. 
Under the glass, I couldn't move my head to the left or right and 
watch how the light changed over the surface of the paper. It was 
kinda like the print was imprisoned behind one of those prison 
telephone booth things, with a sheet of glass in between the two 
participants. (Picture me at this point, with my bare hand up on 
the glass of the print, with a lone, single tear streaming down my 
face...). 

So I think I'm going back to the framer to explore some 
non-glass framing methods. At this point, the whole "coatings" 
thing could come back into play as well. If the print surface was 
there to see and enjoy, why not enrich it with a coating? I have 
always wanted to do a coating, but none of my experiments have 
produced fruit so far. This will give me new energy to keep 
experimenting. Again, the inkjet print begins to take on its own 
unique traits, separate from the rules of the silver print.

-------

I also bit the bullet and ordered the Indelible Inks yesterday. I 
plan to use them with Museo and ESFA. I talked at length 
yesterday with Mike Walsh in Florida; he's had prints nailed to a 
fence in back of his print shop for five months, and they show 
very little fading; only slightly in the yellow. 

I have yelled and screamed for backup evidence for longevity, 
over on the Indelible List. It ain't coming. But from all the notes 
I've received, I still have enough evidence to take the plunge. Pray 
for me.

------

Also made my first prints last night on Photo Rag 308, using MIS 
6-color dyes. This morning, upon my return, they have turned a 
very noticeable BLUE in the shadow areas. Hawk Mountain's 
Merlin did the exact same thing. So this is a cautionary note 
about that combination. It only took 24 hours...

-Mark Tucker
http://marktucker.com

PS. And, no more of that "art talk"! If you're talking about "it", you 
ain't making "it". "Talking about art" is very dangerous territory; 
leave that to the little men in black turtlenecks. I leave town for a 
week, and this whole list goes to hell...

PSS. Clark Thomas mentioned a new type of glass that is very 
"non-reflective". If you're curious, here is the URL:

http://www.denglas.com/prod/framing/conservation.html

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Mark Tucker" <mtucker508@y...> 
wrote:
 I found that I enjoyed and connected to the images that 
> were framed WITHOUT glass much better. No veil between me 
> and the print.

Mark,

I have seen  several shows of photos without glass. Not a novel idea, but I 
really liked the look, like you did. One was platinum prints at the Cohen 
gallery I believe, the others of silver prints at Paris Photo, here in LA.

I think that now that it is easy to make a batch of digital prints, making a series 
just to frame without glass for a show is a perfectly legitimate use of the 
process. Buyers can make their own framing decisions if they wish to buy a 
copy. I have had a piezo test print up for nearly a year and apart from the 
usual warming, I don't see any harm done from the lack of glass. The only real 
problem is keeping them flat and the (old) question of whether to mount or not. 


So I'd suggest to anyone doubting 
> themselves about their print quality -- go and have it framed and 
> then judge it; not that the frame will make it any "better", but it 
> might give you an "apples and apples" comparison between a 
> silver print and an inkjet print.

I just saw a show at the  San Diego Museum of Photographic Arts by Philipp 
Rittermann where piezo prints were framed and shown next to  large silver 
prints (all under glass). Apart from color differences, I didn't see something 
"unique" or off-putting in the digital prints. Once you are looking at "real work" 
the issues of process become secondary - unless they interfere with the work 
itself, of course.  Philipp used the term "pigment print" to describe them, which 
I thought was an interesting choice, considering our past debates here.


> There was something about seeing my "test print" framed under 
> glass, that made me miss the surface of the watercolor paper. 

I think surface issues are relevant for some images and secondary for others. 
When the image and the paper are trying to be an "object" on its own, surface 
texture matters. When you print on a relatively smooth paper (silver or digital) 
and frame under glass, the emphasis is on the image itself, not the "object". I'd 
say it's a creative choice just like gloss vs matte. 


> So I think I'm going back to the framer to explore some 
> non-glass framing methods. At this point, the whole "coatings" 
> thing could come back into play as well. If the print surface was 
> there to see and enjoy, why not enrich it with a coating?

From what I have seen, the answer is not always an unqualified "of course".
The coatings create a "plasticized" look that takes away the "nap" of a really 
nice mould made paper and replaces it with a sheen (or shine) that - once 
again - may or may not be appropriate to the work at hand. For example, I 
prefer "Orwell" uncoated. Of course, if the coated look is desirable, you also 
get that fabulous boost in the dmax that everyone is after (!).


But from all the notes 
> I've received, I still have enough evidence to take the plunge. Pray 
> for me.

We will.... but what about profiles? Will you be brewing your own? I may be 
involved in some of this down the line and want to know who else may be in.


"Talking about art" is very dangerous territory; 
> leave that to the little men in black turtlenecks. I leave town for a 
> week, and this whole list goes to hell...

So imagine what it looks like to me who was gone for over a month! But 
speaking as someone who used to wear the "black turtleneck" (near-phD in 
critical studies film/TV UCLA), I'll say that it is unavoidable to enter 
discussions about matters of art and our relationship to it. However, I have 
become sick and tired of all the spins surrounding the production and 
exchange of works, so I have happily taken off my turtleneck and gotten my 
hands dirty first with developer, now with ink. 


Bottom line: glad you are working on a show. Keep those images coming... 
glassed or glassless.


Antonis

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Antonis Ricos" <antonisphoto@y...> wrote:
This regarding Indelibles
> We will.... but what about profiles? Will you be brewing your own? I may be 
> involved in some of this down the line and want to know who else may be in.
> 
I'm in, should have them by the end of the week. Will be making my own profiles and will post comments. My interest at this 
point is a color solution, so Marks experiences may be more of interest to the group. Certainly his posts more 
entertaining...
Tyler

Welcome back Antonis!    :-)

Carolyn

> So imagine what it looks like to me who was gone for over a month!