Inkjet vs light projection and wet chemistry?

[earlybird]

Hi,
 I have been wondering how people that get to work with hi quality ink jet printers feel about a comparison between inkjet prints and traditional photo prints?

 Is it thought that the premium ink jet printers provides superior results to wet lab photo paper prints or does the modern inkjet provide a good compromise between offering the benefit of first hand control against the downside of maintaining a personnel wet lab?

 I have been sending out for traditional wet lab services with medium and large format printing and wondering what I am missing.

 Thank you.

[Jager]

I spent a lovely rainy afternoon a few days ago enjoying the Irving Penn retrospective Beyond Beauty at the National Portrait Gallery in Washington, DC.  I like much of Penn's work.  Beyond his mastery of the image itself, one of the things I found so inspiring was his openness to new ways of printing.  Among the prints displayed there were platinum/palladium, silver gelatin, chromogenic, Cibachrome, dye transfer, and... inkjet.

The prints were all masterfully done.  And despite the variety of printing methods, there was a cohesive feel to the overall exhibit.  In no case did the method of printing intrude.

All of which is to say, IMO the way in which one chooses to print is very much secondary to how well one does it.  A good print is a good print.  And, indeed, modern high-grade inkjet printing easily stands with its forbears from a qualitative standpoint.

[Ken Doo]

Very well stated, Jeff.

ken

[earlybird]

It certainly seems like an eloquent statement, and I can readily agree with the sentiment, but it hasn't really addressed the question I am trying to ask.

Do those who own and operate a modern high color count ink jet printer see it as an improvement on projection/development printing or is it something one does to maintain control of the printing process while not having to deal with a wet lab?

I grew up in wet labs, both personal and institutional. I came to consider working in either tedious, but recall that the larger scale operations could more easily justify maintaining consistency in chemistry while it was much less efficient and cost effective in personal darkrooms.

The little bit of inkjet printing I have done also seems tedious and maintaining a personal small format printer has frustrated me to the degree that I have gravitated towards sending prints off to service providers.

I have been familiar and comfortable with zone metering, pushing and pulling film, printing in black and white as well as color, but when I began using Photoshop 4 I quickly found the idea of using software to prepare a digital master as if I were working in a virtual darkroom very appealing.

I am just sort of wondering why many people seem to prefer buying a $5000 printer and dealing with the maintenance issues that such devices seem to incur rather than using a print service. I am wondering, sincerely, if having control over 10 colors or shades of ink is considered, by those who practice the craft of owning and operating an ink jet printer, a superior experience compared to sending off a file for projection exposure and wet lab processing or if they are primarily interested in the benefit of controlling the entire process of producing their prints.

Thank you.

[TylerB]

there seem to be 2 issues here.. in house vs using a service, and inkjet vs wet process...

In terms of maintanence, I had years in wet labs, and inkjet print shops of my own, they both have hellish days. Well done inkjet, in my opinion, has advantages, given proper materials choices, in longevity and gamut. Beautiful continuous tone light sensitive materials can also have their special qualities inkjet doesn't exactly emulate, but this is picky stuff and emulation a questionable quest anyway. Per the previous post, masterfully done anything rises above this kind of nit picking.
But surely using an outside service is easiest.. I just don't have that much faith in what's out there, and prefer having a tight handle on my own process. If taking on the digital home setup isn't appealing (and believe me it can sometimes kill the joy) using an outside service depends a lot of finding the right shop and developing a good relationship, whether ink or wet lab

[Wayne Fox]

there seem to be 2 issues here.. in house vs using a service, and inkjet vs wet process...

Good point.

I own and operate both processes, and offer services to others producing both inkjet (Epson on canvas and fine art papers) and chemical (Chromira, with Kodak and Fuji papers),  I also do my own personal printing, most of it inkjet.


A couple of thoughts.  First, reading forums like this it’s easy to believe that all large format inkjet printers guzzle ink and are constant headaches and problems, but I don’t believe that’s the norm.  Unfortunately the gamut is large, from those experiencing no real issues to those wanting to throw the printer off the balcony.  (i’ve owned a number of printers, and will admit there were 2 (1 canon and 1 epson) I felt this way about)  Judging by the number of printers we’ve sold and the rarity of complaints and problems I think the norm isn’t nearly as bad as one might think.

As far as in house vs using a service, I think those printing their own work with large format printers are interested in control of the process, including things like quality, convenience, reliability and production time.  there are those who think they can save money (which more often than not isn’t the case). Of course saving of money depends a lot on what you are comparing to as well as how much printing you need done.

Regarding inkjet vs chemical prints themselves, technically the quality of inkjet can be better because it provides a substantially larger gamut and advanced dithering and resolution may offer less aliasing and improved clarity. However, these do not often offer an obvious visual quality improvement over C prints produced by a competent  lab.  Side by side they may or may not be different, but often one isn’t “better” (and many prefer the look of the c print over inkjet).

Other factors of inkjet over chemical printing are paper choices (canvas, textured papers, matt fine art papers), and long term dye stability, inkjet offers far better color stability than chemical prints.

C prints biggest advantage is cost, they are much cheaper to produce, so often are much cheaper through a service than inkjet.

Just some random thoughts.

[disneytoy]

"I am just sort of wondering why many people seem to prefer buying a $5000 printer and dealing with the maintenance issues that such devices seem to incur rather than using a print service."

Barring some very high end service providers, there is no way any place you send out your printing can have consistency. Most of the consumer online print services Adoramapix, Bay, etc. auto adjust your files.

I spend a lot of time getting my exposures, colors, luminosity masks, noise reduction, sharpening, cropping exactly the way I want them. Skin tones, neutral B&W. etc.

That takes me many test prints on the Epson with the K3 inks. Once I have that dialed in in Lightroom for my selected paper, I can come back a year from now and get the same print.

The fact I can click a button and have a 40x60" perfect print come out before my eyes is simply amazing.

As a lifelong photographer, developed and printed BW, Color Neg, Cibachome. There has never been a better time to be a photographer. I shoot a 42 megapixel camera with Zeiss glass, Do the most precise adjustments and luminosity maskes in Photoshop, and print EXACTLY as I imagine it.

I would not want to go back to film, though I do miss the smell of fixer and stop bath:-)

[NashvilleMike]

I'm with Jeff in that I've seen some incredible work printed via different processes. The four times I've been truly impressed with a print have been 1) looking at a original Ansel Adams print, 2) seeing a graduate student whose name escapes me (he was stupendously talented) at RIT produce dye transfer 16x20 and 20x24 prints that would knock your socks off, 3) the large format cibachromes from Fatalli's gallery in Springdale, UT, and 4) prints from an Epson 3880 of some Douglas Dubler fashion work, at a convention a few years ago. I might even toss in some of the works Rodrigues Reyes (spelling?) did for a Canson-Infinity display booth several years ago - he had a real nice B&W look.

In each case, there was something truly special about the print, and I use those memories as the reference standard I strive for in my own work (with a 3880).

I printed color back in the darkroom days and don't miss the wet lab. Yes, there are some subjects that might work better on a high gloss modern C print, but at the end of the day, it takes skill and time to make a really good print no matter what method you choose. Inkjet on the surface appears easier, because it's right there and you push a button and poof, here's a print, but mastery of a craft generally has no shortcuts and inkjet printing is no exception. Personally I prefer having the control over every aspect of the process; maybe it's my days in the darkroom or the times fighting with a less-than-competent printer over skin tone, but I enjoy the output end every much as I enjoy the shooting end of things. I can completely understand why some do not and prefer to hand off their work to a competent printer instead though.

-m

[TylerB]

....
Barring some very high end service providers, there is no way any place you send out your printing can have consistency. Most of the consumer online print services Adoramapix, Bay, etc. auto adjust your files....

Well I'd hasten to add there are many shops between these 2 extremes. I printed B&W and color (now only B&W Cone inks) for many artists who are masters at getting the file they want. My job was to respect that, there was certainly no adjusting unless agreed upon or auto settings. Also there is a proof stage for approval. I know what I offer is not exclusive or unusual. Output consistency is also just an assumed part of the job.
As I suggested earlier, part of the job of outsourcing is taking the vendor selection very seriously

[earlybird]

Thanks to everyone for explaining some of the benefits, e.g. gamut and color stability, of ink jet prints.

[Jimbo57]

I think the other issue in the home printer/sending out discussion is one of control.

Printing at home, in the space of an evening, you can print half a dozen copies of the same image until you get it exactly as you want it. Just as we all did in darkrooms in the olden days.

[rdonson]

I think the other issue in the home printer/sending out discussion is one of control.

Printing at home, in the space of an evening, you can print half a dozen copies of the same image until you get it exactly as you want it. Just as we all did in darkrooms in the olden days.

Well said.  There is a difference between good enough and a print that is something to be proud of.  The latter requires more work and perseverance.

[Garnick]

I would not want to go back to film, though I do miss the smell of fixer and stop bath:-)

I would not want to go back to film, though I do miss the smell of fixer and stop bath:-)

Since the original question has been well covered here I will not offer any further opinion concerning this thread, but would like to add a short story concerning a fellow for whom I had recently developed some rolls of B&W film(the only wet darkroom service I still provide, with the Jobo).  I asked why he was still shooting B&W film as well as digital.  His answer, although somewhat contrived in my opinion, led me to believe he might actually have some darkroom experience, so I mentioned a few aspects of the darkroom environment to perhaps illicit some feedback.  He did seem to have some knowledge of the environment , until I mentioned a line that I like to use when conversing with "old timers" like myself.  It goes something like this -- the one thing I miss about the wet B&W darkroom experience is the particular odors of certain chemicals.  "Yes indeed, I love the smell of Hypo in the morning".  And yes, I will admit this is indded a paraphrase of a statement I borrowed from the movie "Apocalypse Now", before someone accuses me of plagiarism, which of course it is.  His response to my reference to "Hypo" led me to believe that he perhaps had very little if any darkroom experience, so I then asked if knew what I meant by the word "Hypo", as it referred to the B&W darkroom.  His next response solidified my suspicions, as he said, "of course, Hypo Clearing Agent".  Since I had heard that response before it was no surprise and indeed somewhat expected.  I then explained to him the vast difference between the two chemicals and later sent him a Google search result of simply typing the word "Hypo".  The first entry on the page was a reference to the term as used in the B&W darkroom, a shortened version pertaining to "Fixer".  He replied to my email, thanking me for setting him straight, although I'm not at all sure he was sincere.  Regardless, just one of those "secret" words that we "old time" darkroom dwellers are quite familiar with, and one that can be quite dangerous when used loosely by  "new time" dwellers.  Hopefully this will revive some more memories of the B&W darkroom days we all loved and at times, loved to hate.

Gary   
 

[aaronchan]

When I was still in school, one of our classmate asked a simular question:
Film or digital?

The professor gave us a very simple answer:
Which one do you prefer?

If you prefer film, why should you shoot digital and simulate the look of film.
If you prefer digital, you wouldn't do the same as well.

So, inkjet or wet lab?
Which one do you prefer?

I do both, depend on my image.
I mostly do my color with inkjet, because I know how to make them look good.
But I prefer wet process for B&W even I can get very good result on inkjet as well, but I just love the process of it, it's in part of my art.

aaron

[hugowolf]

I think the other issue in the home printer/sending out discussion is one of control.

Printing at home, in the space of an evening, you can print half a dozen copies of the same image until you get it exactly as you want it. Just as we all did in darkrooms in the olden days.

If I had to print half a dozen to get it exactly how I wanted it, I think I would give it up. Or at least look into changing my workflow.

Brian A

[Garnick]

If I had to print half a dozen to get it exactly how I wanted it, I think I would give it up. Or at least look into changing my workflow.

Brian A

Hi Brian,

To some extent I tend to agree with your statement as it pertains to inkjet printing.  I believe that in most cases, someone who has enough "good" experience with the inkjet workflow would arrive at the print they want before the sixth try.  However, when referring to the art of B&W darkroom printing, all bets are off.  In my case it was not at all unusual to make at least 4 full mark-up prints before attempting a final print.  By mark-up prints I am of course referring to prints that were dodged, burned and contrast adjusted, and then that information was recorded on the print within the affected areas.  The "final" print was also a mark-up for further reference as well, when additional prints might be required.  Of course even with all of that information on hand, future prints would seldom become exact replicas of the original final print, for various reasons.  In essence, all additional prints became originals, unlike inkjet prints that are indeed exact copies of the original "final" print.  Perhaps a good thing, perhaps not.

Gary

[Jimbo57]

If I had to print half a dozen to get it exactly how I wanted it, I think I would give it up. Or at least look into changing my workflow.

Brian A

Probably because you are very easily pleased. Nothing wrong with that, but some of us demand more from ourselves.

[Garnick]

Probably because you are very easily pleased. Nothing wrong with that, but some of us demand more from ourselves.

Well Jimbo, if you knew me as my customers know me you would probably never have made such an assumption.  But of course you don't know me, so you can only guess, and guesses are often proven to be wrong.  You obviously didn't take the time to read and digest(understand) all of my post and the comparison I made between inkjet and analog(traditional darkroom) printing, B&W or colour .  To say that I am easily pleased is about as far from reality as you could possibly venture.  Perhaps the fact that I have many years of experience printing all varieties of digital files(including fine art and art reproduction) for very demanding customers, might have something to do with the fact that I no longer have the need to make as many prints as was once necessary in order to arrive at the "final" print.  Neither myself not my customers are easily pleased, and I would have it no other way.

Sometimes voicing no opinion is better than voicing an uninformed opinion.

Gary             

[MHMG]

Probably because you are very easily pleased. Nothing wrong with that, but some of us demand more from ourselves.

I ponder this very variable in print quality every day. If I struggle to create my "perfect print" while generating many very fine prints along the way, but still not my perfect print, who will be able to pick my "perfect print" from those other good, very good, or very fine quality prints?  Part of my dilemma is that if I let a finished print sit for a while and then I return to it, I get a different visceral experience of its image quality.  Would the average person be able to differentiate my good versus best prints under single stimulus rather than dual stimulus (i.e. side-by-side prints) viewing conditions?  I'm pretty sure on that score the answer is no. Would a talented perfectionistic photographer be able to do it?  I'm not so sure, but possibly.  Would a serious world class print maker, the kind of professional printmaker the most seasoned professional photographers turn to to make their prints for them, be able to identify my "perfect print", ie.,  my perfect vision for that image?  I'm still not sure. To this end, I do strive to make prints I find personally a cut above my initial efforts for my personal point of view. The accurate soft proof gets me close, but a few more very subtle iterations in printed form can indeed help to refine my vision.  All that said, who else can decide what I decided was best, or if I'm not worthy as a skilled printmaker, how best to interpret said image in printed form in a way that was far better than my print making attempt?

I hold no definitive answers to the questions I have posed. I keep searching. Maybe that inherent desire to keep searching for the ultimate print is what matters.  Just sayin...

cheers,

Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com

[elliot_n]

Hmm, I'm not sure if the role of the 'skilled printmaker' even exists anymore. In the darkroom days, the printer's skill was obvious. These days I send out orders for large prints (inkjets and digital c-types) to a lab that doesn't touch the files - they simply print and guillotine. Before uploading my files, I convert to their custom profiles. I rarely soft proof, as the images I create don't contain super-saturated colours. I make test prints on my Epson 3880. The lab prints match my test prints.

Re, the original question, inkjet vs. digital c-type - I order either, depending on the project. Both are great - the differences are subtle.