Digital BW, The Print

In a message dated 2/18/02 12:33:40 AM, mark@... writes:

<< If inkjet is gonna make any inroads, we gotta do something 
different. Whatever we be doin' now ain't getting the job done. 
Those galleries look at inkjet just like we look at the subjects of 
Shelby Lee Adams photographs....

-MTucker (mark@...) >>

Here's my take on this.  Any well known photographer who adopts the process 
will turn it into the 'norm' and nobody will care what it is.  In addition, 
if any photographer creates a hugely succesful poster(ie Kiss at Hotel 
DeVille 8x10 sells for $15,000 or so, unnumbered) or gets nationwide 
attention for the imagery, I believe that the big boys will be clammering for 
the privelige to show the carbon pigment/archival inkjet/pigmented 
inkjet(that's the one I use) prints.  Why don't we make a little challenge 
with the goal of some of our members being in the show next year? I think it 
will happen.  We have one year...Go team Go!

All the best!

-Andy Darlow

Photography, Digital Print Consulting and Custom Editions
Andrew Darlow Images International, www.andydarlow.com
Author: Inkjet Tip of the Month Club (newsletter) 
To subscribe, send e-mail to: Inkjettips-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., shashinka@a... wrote:
I believe that the big boys will be clammering for 
> the privelige to show the carbon pigment/archival 
inkjet/pigmented 
> inkjet(that's the one I use) prints. 


My thinking on this is that we must overcome serveral issues:

a) the perception that the prints are "less than" because they 
came out of a computer printer.

b) the perception that you could just crank out a zillion of them, 
and they'd all match, ie. none would be unique.

c) the perception of lack-of-permanence, fading, shifting,etc.

d) the issue of metamerism, (although they probably don't even 
know what it is exactly; they've just heard the word, and seen 
people crinkle up their noses after they say the word.)

I am going to forge ahead. My first approach is going to be to 
varnish on, or draw on, or handcoat, or something, each print, to 
make each one unique and individual. It might be a very small 
difference between each one, but it will be there and noticeable.

I don't know about the metamerism for bw images. I've not come 
up with a solution for that yet. For me, quadtones are too limiting 
in gamut, and variables MIS have a funky workflow.

I ran into my friend Jack Spencer, who's the hot guy right now, 
and I showed him my Cuba stuff, and we talked about printing. I 
mentioned that I was completely new to all this gallery world, and 
that I was printing on the 24" Epson, and he gave me that look. 
That look of "Oh, that'll never fly with these people." Or, "That's 
certainly going to be an uphill battle". 

I acknowledge all these things to be true. We are just where we 
are in this stage of the game. It will get better. I'm sure as hell not 
going back to a wet darkroom though. People were showing 
CPrints up there, and there was murmuring about them fading 
as well. So it's not just inkjet.

I don't know how much of the market is made up of people who 
are wanting to do fine art with these printers. Probably VERY 
small. But we've got to keep giving feedback to Epson to keep 
pushing.

Just my two cents.

MTucker, http://marktucker.com/

> b) the perception that you could just crank out a
> zillion of them, and they'd all match, ie. none 
> would be unique.

This is mainly the issue I've run into concerning
inkjet work..  I've heard comments like, "well can't
you just push a button and make like, a hundred
prints?"
 Though, I strongly suspect that their animosity lays
in the fact that my prints were not created in a
darkroom and they're just using the "photocopy"
argument as a platform.  If we find a way around this
argument, they would find something else to bitch
about.
 One "solution" to this is creating edition prints. 
The idea behind editions is that they were created at
one time and that they should "match,"  just like any
other form of edition printing.
 How many of you create limited edition prints?

  Daniel 



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Sports - Coverage of the 2002 Olympic Games
http://sports.yahoo.com

On Monday 18 Feb 2002 5:59 pm, Daniel Perez wrote:
>  I've heard comments like, "well can't
> you just push a button and make like, a hundred
> prints?"

The bottom line is that you can do the same with conventional printing, it's 
the integrity of the photographer that makes a limited edition print limited, 
irrespective of the technology.

Let's face it.  The photography establishment is VERY traditional. 
You seldom see photo galleries showing anything but black and white 
or color darkroom made prints.  They also don't show many new 
photographers.  The same names continually appear.  I went to Photo 
LA in Santa Monica in January. Sure the work was beautiful, but I 
have seen the same photographers work for a decade or more. Many of 
these are the same galleries that show in the AIPAD New York show. 
If you are interested in experimental photo work, with a bit more 
risk taking, go to a painting gallery.

Bill Agee
-- 

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
http://www.billageestudio.com

Going round galleries this Xmas I saw quite a few large colour prints that
were Lightjets, which the galleries seemed to have no problem at all with
(ok they aren't b&w inkjet prints from a desktop printer, but they are
digital).

I also looked at several gigantic Gursky prints bought and owned by the Tate
Modern, which are also digital. The buyers seem to have no problem with
paying upwards of $250,000 for them, nor one of the worlds major galleries
showing them. It's the photographer/artists and image that counts, not the
medium.

tim a

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alan Zinn [mailto:AZinn@...]
> Sent: February 19, 2002 10:38 AM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] AIPAD Galleries List
>
>
> At 09:50 AM 2/19/2002 +0000, you wrote:
> >On Monday 18 Feb 2002 5:59 pm, Daniel Perez wrote:
> >>  I've heard comments like, "well can't
> >> you just push a button and make like, a hundred
> >> prints?"
> >
> >The bottom line is that you can do the same with conventional
> printing, it's
> >the integrity of the photographer that makes a limited edition
> print limited,
> >irrespective of the technology.
> >
> guys,
>
> There has got to be a go come-back to that kind of remark: "But
> sir, it only
> takes a push of the button to make the print but it takes a
> lifetime to know
> how to do it."
>
> Or, would you believe?:  But sir, it only takes a push of the
> button to make
> the print but it takes a lifetime to  un-clog the printer."
>
>
> AZ
> Maker of Lookaround panoramic camera.
>
> www.geocities.com/soho/gallery/8874/
>          or
> keyword.com lookaround
>
>
>
> 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/
>
>

At 09:50 AM 2/19/2002 +0000, you wrote:
>On Monday 18 Feb 2002 5:59 pm, Daniel Perez wrote:
>>  I've heard comments like, "well can't
>> you just push a button and make like, a hundred
>> prints?"
>
>The bottom line is that you can do the same with conventional printing, it's 
>the integrity of the photographer that makes a limited edition print limited, 
>irrespective of the technology.
>
guys,

There has got to be a go come-back to that kind of remark: "But sir, it only
takes a push of the button to make the print but it takes a lifetime to know
how to do it."  

Or, would you believe?:  But sir, it only takes a push of the button to make
the print but it takes a lifetime to  un-clog the printer."  


AZ
Maker of Lookaround panoramic camera.

www.geocities.com/soho/gallery/8874/
         or
keyword.com lookaround

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Bill Agee 
<billagee@r...> wrote:
They also don't show many new 
> photographers.  The same names continually appear. 


Bill,

Funny you should say this. I started looking through all those 
gallery links that I'd accumulated last night, and after seeing 
several galleries, I began to think the same thing. I guess that's 
just the way it is when you get into these bigger money/prestige 
galleries. They want to know you've got a name before they take 
you on.

I love to hate American Photo magazine, because all I see are 
the same old celebrity photographers' names. It feels like a 
similar thing.

I guess that's the yardstick that you use to know if you've "made 
it" above the radar in photography -- your name will be in bold 
type somewhere in American Photo.

This is a whole other conversation. Not for now.

-MT