Fine art prints - artistic decision vs gear limitations?

[BernardLanguillier]

A few years ago, I wrote that the then totally dominant usage of matte papers for fine art prints was mostly the result of limitations of glossy stocks. I was mostly laughed at.

Following the release of better ink sets and papers, there is now a clear trend towards semi-glossy stocks grouped under the label "Baryta" papers.

Am I the only one to feel that our industry if often driven more by the limitations of technologies rather than by conscious artistic decisions by photographers?

Cheers,
Bernard

[Jonathan Wienke]

Am I the only one to feel that our industry if often driven more by the limitations of technologies rather than by conscious artistic decisions by photographers?

Everything about photography is affected by technological limitations, whether lens quality and maximum aperture, sensor noise levels and maximum ISO, sensor size, pixel pitch, the decision whether to use a tripod or not, etc. The technical side of photography is always the art of choosing the least unacceptable technical compromise--should I raise ISO and shutter speed to decrease motion blur, or will the increased noise be more objectionable to the motion blur? If I open up the aperture, will the decrease on DOF offset the increase in shutter speed and decrease in motion blur? These choices become progressively more difficult in challenging shooting situations.

Printing is no different. The choice of printer, inks, and paper offers a similar set of compromises.

[Xanthor]

I still think no matter how much technology, or lack of technology, the final product still comes down to the talent of the human eye.  You either have that eye - or you don't.   A little luck and good timing helps too.... but worthless without a good eye.

[BernardLanguillier]

Printing is no different. The choice of printer, inks, and paper offers a similar set of compromises.

This is also my view, but I feel that we are not always honest/lucid about this. As if some of these technical constraints were to be ashamed of, we somehow provide other rational for decisions that mostly result from them.

Cheers,
Bernard

[NikoJorj]

Am I the only one to feel that our industry if often driven more by the limitations of technologies rather than by conscious artistic decisions by photographers?

I feel it's exact, but maybe a bit rhetorical, and the answer might also depend whether you see glasses as half full or half empty.

After all, as said Jonathan, our domain is really woven of limitations - and not only technical ones, leading to compromises, but also artistic limitation defining it, the main one being the frame, limiting the image to the part of the world inside it.
Photography is by definition a limited view of the world, so it's no surprise we have to deal with limitations... Well at least that's my 2c's view on the subject after ingestions of oysters and foie gras that could have been more limited.  

[Ernst Dinkla]

What I observe is trends if not hypes and a diversification of the products.
Products mostly appear on the market due to customer requests and their wishes can be based on more than the limitations of the existing media.
The switch to new media isn't happening for the first time. New media, even if the surface represents an older analogue process.
Fiber-Baryta has limitations too, the surface is often delicate, in printing and afterwards. Curl can be an issue.

I see stretched canvas use going backwards, it has been a bit of a hype.
Some interest in smooth canvas mounted on panels growing.
There's a niche group experimenting with uncoated art papers.
Providers of Diasec (or similar processes) growing.
A trend to more complicated products like books, leporrelos and with that a search for dual coated papers or acceptable printing offset papers.
There is still a lot of matte paper printing going on.

Not that I do all that but I get the signals in lists like this one and what customers ask, what printshops owners tell me.

I recall the experience when I was still heavily in silkscreen printing. New Pantone colors added to the existing patches were much more often selected in the first years after their introduction than the older ones in the same category. Pantone didn't invent them, there were no limitations before to print them, not to mention the inability to really match the samples in printing at that time. Their main quality was that they were NEW! and Pantone understood that human desire.

Isn't it a miracle that we can print on so many different substrates, relatively easy and with few limitations?



met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla

Try: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/

[Dick Roadnight]

A few years ago, I wrote that the then totally dominant usage of matte papers for fine art prints was mostly the result of limitations of glossy stocks.

I like a picture to look like the original scene in front of the artist... and with a glossy print you see either the original scene or the technical limitations of the kit (noise, diffraction, pixelation, lack of res etc.)... and this is why canvas has been popular.

I would like people looking at my pictures to see the original scene, and not the texture of canvas!

[Alan Goldhammer]

With a disclaimer that my Epson 2880 limits me to 13" wide papers, I find that the choice of paper and image is still one that is important.  Matte papers continue to offer value in printing and I would not restrict myself to just a semi-glossy paper.  I like Hahnemuhle Bamboo for some images as well as Museo Max.  If anything, we may have too many paper choices at this point in time and one can go crazy trying out new papers.

[Jonathan Wienke]

This is also my view, but I feel that we are not always honest/lucid about this. As if some of these technical constraints were to be ashamed of, we somehow provide other rational for decisions that mostly result from them.

IMO it's not a matter of being "ashamed" or dishonest, but a simple matter of choosing the best option available within one's budget. As technology improves, the "best option" (however you define that) will frequently change. An Epson 7600 used to be one of the best 24" photo printers money could buy, but that is obviously not true today if your budget allows for a new printer. But if you must buy a used printer, a 7600 might be a good choice if you can get a good deal on it.

[Dan Wells]

The Baryta papers offer the nice feel of a "real" paper (similar to what darkroom workers are used to)coupled with the D-Max of a gloss paper. Until recently, we couldn't have both. Darkroom printing went through the same thing in the 1930s, when the first good gloss papers (we'd now call them semi-gloss) came out. The previous fashion had been matte papers, at least partially because the glossy stuff wasn't any good (and a soft aesthetic that matched them well), then Group f.64's aesthetic came along at about the same time as good glossy paper, and the trend in printmaking became very high-resolution images (think Clearing Winter Storm) in incredibly sharp focus on glossy paper. Yes, the aesthetic of a time is, in part defined by the tools available, and these Baryta papers have opened up a new tool to the printmaker - when they're less new, I bet they'll be one tool among many (as so many before have been). The artistic preference for fiber paper will probably remain constant (I haven't seen any RC paper that has made me want to question that), but we'll see photographers match images to everything from the toothiest matte paper to the glossiest baryta, depending upon image and mood.


                                   -Dan

[JeffKohn]

A few years ago, I wrote that the then totally dominant usage of matte papers for fine art prints was mostly the result of limitations of glossy stocks. I was mostly laughed at.

I think for some people whose goal was to mimick traditional wet prints, matte paper was a compromise and these folks flocked to semi-glossy papers as they became more viable. That's understandable, and there's nothing wrong with that.

I think the matte papers also have an appeal of their own. A matte inkjet print looks different from a semi-gloss or wet print, and has its own aesthetic qualities that some find very appealing, and some see this as a way to distinguish their product from traditional prints. That's fine, too.

Unfortunately matte paper has it's own technical limitations, and hasn't really seen the progress that glossy stocks have. Even some people who like the matte surface find themselves moving to glossy papers for some or all of their work in order to get the higher DMax and larger gamut these papers are capable of reproducing. If there were a matte-rag paper that had the DMax and gamut to match the new Baryta papers, that would be my preferred choice. But such a paper doesn't exist, so I find myself using the Baryta papers more and more.

[howseth]

I spent many years making various traditional darkroom prints: B & W - and toned B & W - prints. I also experimented with hand coating emulsions - and other non-traditional printing methods.

I came to digital ink jet printing because I was applying color to my B & W images in Photoshop. I find now that I prefer the high quality rag mat ink jet papers - and particularly the Hahnemuhle Photo Rag Satin - which has a slightly shiny rag surface - to any traditional photographic paper I ever used. I prefer these quality rag papers for digital printing more than the glossy Bartya papers meant to imitate the traditional silver gelatin style.

I do not really care about ultimate D-max, or even an ultimate color range - I just care about what looks the best for the work I do... and what I do now, with my particular digital files, on a Z-3100 - look best on Hahnemuhle Photo Rag Satin. So, that's the bottom line for me. I do not miss the old darkroom, and its papers, at all.

[smthopr]

A few years ago, I wrote that the then totally dominant usage of matte papers for fine art prints was mostly the result of limitations of glossy stocks. I was mostly laughed at.

Following the release of better ink sets and papers, there is now a clear trend towards semi-glossy stocks grouped under the label "Baryta" papers.

Am I the only one to feel that our industry if often driven more by the limitations of technologies rather than by conscious artistic decisions by photographers?

Cheers,
Bernard

Bernard,

I wasn't laughing  

I stuck with dye inks until the Epson 3800 as the dull matte prints drove me crazy for a lot of my photographs.

...Though I have one dye ink on uncoated watercolor paper that I love and it's still not faded after 11 years on my wall  

So Bernard, you are not the only one!