Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Beginner's Questions => Topic started by: Christoph C. Feldhaim on November 06, 2010, 10:29:39 am
-
As the title says:
Concerning IQ only, not speed, not difficulty, not durability ...
How does a well made Carbon Gelatine Print stand against a well made carbon based Inkjet Print with multiple shades of grey and black (e.g. Piezography inks) or a well made traditional Silver Halogenide Print ? ??? ?
No guesswork please !
Only answers of people who actually have seen the difference ...
-
I have not seen the difference nor am I likely too but; I would send the question to Mark Holbert at Nash Editions.♦
Can't think of a better source.
http://www.nasheditions.com/
-
In comparing my old silver-gelatin, selinium-toned prints to my Epson using all the colors (not gray inks), I like the quality of the properly crafted Epson prints better. I think it is because I can control the info going into the print.
Once properly crafted, they are better than I could have created in a darkroom and with much less effort and in nearly any tone since I'm not limited to a few grays and to dedicating a printer to just b&w.
Perhaps it's the original image wasn't quite there or that I only did matt-dried double-weight glossy paper. Maybe it was slight fogging with the safelight. I just don't know since it's been nearly twenty years since I seriously printed b&w in the darkroom.
My guess is that it's because I can craft the image in real time without having to fully process and dry the print to properly evaluate it and the ability to tweak the tone to my pleasing, rather than a hit-and-miss approach I once got with different grades of paper coming out slightly differently when toned.
-
I'm with Larry on this.
I have scanned and reprinted many of my best darkroom prints recently on my Epson 3800 using the ABW mode and I find I can deal with nuances and subtleties much better now than I could after forty years of darkroom work. It took a while to get to that point, but by now there is no way I'm ever going back.
Eric
-
Irrespective of whether people have seen the difference, you're still asking for an opinion. To some, no matter what the advances in digital b&w printmaking, a traditional wet print will still always be better. To others, like those who've replied so far, at the personal level, they get superior results from well made inkjet prints due to, what we might call, less advanced wet printing skill. I too fall into that category.
Having seen both well made wet prints (silver halide) and well made b&w inkjets side by side, personally, I prefer the inkjet. I think advances in ink and paper technology as well as print head design and ink flow have brought us to the point where a well made inkjet is as good or superior to a well made wet print. Having never seen a carbon gelatin print, I can't toss that in for comparison. Like dye transfer and a few other older printing methods that have pretty much faded away, I suspect that the likelihood of seeing a carbon gelatin print today is pretty rare.
-
Thank you very much everyone for answering and donating your thoughts to this thread.
My impression is, that the question of ink jet printing vs. wet prints (silver halide, carbon gelatine, platinum-palladium, etc) seems to be no more a question of image quality, but more a question of durability (though carbon based inkjet prints definitely are extremely durable) and craftsmanship, which some would call snobbery.
Actually I don't think wet prints are snobbery, but I ask myself what one could do, to excercise the process of capturing and printmaking in a way such, that the slower pace and higher density (mental, not log(D)) of the old procedures (film, wet print) could be saved into the modern digital workflow.
I still stick with film for other reasons, which are specific for the medium, but I less and less see the need for wet prints, except it might be a funny exercise.
To me (as a non-pro) a hybrid workflow (film - scanner - inkjet print), as I use it seems optimal, but maybe, once the sensors get really large (6*6 cm ) and affordable I might switch to digital, though I still mistrust digital archives.
-
I would try wet plate collodion on glass/metal.
A friend of mine has been some for a few months on 8x10 and it beats the crap out of inkjet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collodion
A bit less convenient that my Epson though. :-)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
...though I still mistrust digital archives.
Not to derail the discussion, but one usually has only one copy of a slide, while making multiple backups of digital shots and distributing the files in physically diverse locations is a trivial exercise. Even if one makes in-camera copies of shots, there will never be more. And digital files don't fade.
-
Its a matter of skill levels. It takes extreme skill to make a amazing inkjet as well as any analog image. Its just different techniques but similar exercise. For many years I have been inventing processes, some for the Smithsonian proving what couldn't be done or so they said. There are so many factors leading to a perfect print or to make one. I believe they are both great, but do you want to spend many many hours in the dark or have the ability to make many perfect copies that are the same and be able to scale the images to any size anytime you want.
I personally love silver and platinum, but the ability to make inkjets at anytime and size on many medias is better for my pocket book and gallery. But if you really want to make silver prints and get great remakes everytime. Then learn to make negatives to scale so you can make contact prints in the process you want. I have not written up what I invented at the Smithsonian, but will be happy to share this with you if you want to go this direction. I am not a writer, but am willing to share nearly everything I have invented. Tim
I would not send anything to Nash, they made very fadable dye based Iris prints.
-
I would not send anything to Nash, they made very fadable dye based Iris prints.
Wow...that's really out of line.
Yes, Nash Editions pioneered the use of an Iris printer for fine art printing-the story was it took a rock star and a hacksaw to void a warrantee within 15 minutes of the printer being setup.
Yes, those early dye based prints were fugitive (I don't recall they ever touted their Iris prints as "archival"). They have also worked very hard at advancing print longevity both with Iris and later with Epson.
But to denigrate Nash Editions just because they used, which was at the time state of the art, dye based printers is to completely forget/ignore the way this technology was developed and advanced. The Iris is an old, old tech–which Nash Editions gave to the Smithsonian-perhaps you've seen it on display there?
BTW, who do you suppose was a test site for Epson's early pigment printers? Who do you suppose tested the 600, 800 and 900 series printers?
-
I do remember them touting them as archival. I have had accounts where they did that. Because when we released Evercolor they decided to cut the light down by 8 times so they could multiply the testing data to compare to our pigment prints.
When they were working with the Epson's they were dye based at that time. We were using inkjet and converting them to Pigment based printers. Even Epson at that time was dye based. It wasn't until we showed how good a pigment based print could look and we altered not only Epson's but others that they finally started to think that way.
Nothing get me more upset, when credit is given to those who did not deserve it. So maybe Jeff it sounds harsh, but I have spent 19+ years pushing pigment based photographs. I have been throw out of galleries because the pigment prints discredited many other processes that galleries had invested alot of money buying cibachromes and other dye based images. I have dedicated nearly my entire photographic career to this endeavor. Its time for the entire inkjet industry to step forward and make a move to clean up the photographic market. WE have many galleries selling very fadeable prints. When as you will attest to inkjet has far better longevity and ability to make great photographs more accurately. I'm not saying that Nash did not make great looking dye based prints. But selling short longevity prints is like selling antiques filled with termites.
The inkjet industry as whole has not educated and displayed images to promote the photographic market and move them forward in the standards of what a photograph should be.
Tim
-
I joined this website to reply to your uninformed criticism of Nash Editions. I was a customer there in 1993 and they always referred me to Henry Wilhelm when it came to permanence information. I had several frank discussions with both Jack and Mac and neither of them "touted" their prints as archival. What I do know is that they worked with several ink manufacturers to create much more permanent solutions. In 1997 I returned a dozen prints to them that had faded and they happily reprinted them at no cost with the most permanent inks they had available at the time. There are many digital printers out there that have been irresponsible and have made outrageous claims about their process. Nash Editions is not one of them.
Why don't you some basic research before you start denigrating a company that did so much to advance the art of digital printmaking?
Frankly, I wish more emphasis was placed on the quality of images rather than how long they will last.
Regards,
Duncan Allison
-
I do remember them touting them as archival. I have had accounts where they did that. Because when we released Evercolor they decided to cut the light down by 8 times so they could multiply the testing data to compare to our pigment prints.
I dispute that statement...
I just talked to Mac Holbert and he stated that Nash Editions have NEVER touted their prints from Iris printers are EVER being "archival". He also said that the ONLY time longevity was ever talked about, Nash Editions directed people to Henry Wilhelm's site. Nash Editions never ran longevity testing on their own and never promised anything to customers other than a guarantee to reprint, free of charge, any prints that faded. Nash Editions did a lot of testing of a variety of inks for the Iris including extended longevity inks from American Ink Jet Company. They were early adopters of Epson pigment printers particularly the original Epson 10000 large format printers.
So, I don't know where you got your information about Nash Editions, but it flies in the face of my experience and knowledge.
-
Archival terms are thrown out all the time, means a lot of things to a lot of people. We can look back and argue about what he said or not what he said. So whether it was the gallery making up the age testing of the prints being sold by Nash Editions. I can't be sure absolutely because it was a long time. But if Mac says he did not say it then it was the galleries that said it. So I always stand by my word, then I personally apologize to Mac. But I do remember 80 years be thrown out. I will say the Mac is a great printer. But when we were inventing the pigment printing process in inkjet and Evercolor.
WE need to focus the discussion on what we want for the future. WE need (The Pigment Printing Photographers) to focus and clean the profession up. Many galleries are opposed to inkjet prints and the buyers or collectors of photography need to educated of why they should be buying pigment photographs as opposed to dye based prints like (Lightjet, ciba's, Chromira, ect). As these prints fade they will hurt the profession to move forward. T
-
Tim,
I don't disagree that we need to forcefully deal with galleries and dealers who barely understand the technology they are selling to willing dupes...but in order to deal with those galleries, we do indeed need to be mindful of what has come before. Nash Editions/Mac Holbert is really one of the "good guys" not the enemy...
If you want to collect a fine art medium, it's useful if the medium can last at least the lifetime of the buyer...which until recently has been no sure thing.
Dealers and galleries will tell buyers anything to make the sale. That is indeed atrocious and needs to be addressed by the image makers that end up contributing to the system.
The term "archival" is actually quite meaningless...print longevity is more useful.
A quick trip to Henry's site will be enough to grasp that any image on paper has GOT to be considered as a very delicate medium.
And that is one of the problems...a unique painting on canvas or sculpture in stone can last a lot longer than the art dealer selling it.
Stone lithographs seem to have withstood the trials of time. Photographs however have historically been a problem not only because of longevity issues but because "photographs" (either chemical or digital) can be reproduced ad nauseam which impacts on the scarcity and therefore the value of the print.
It's really hard to sell a print based solely on the merits of the image...most dealers and galleries want to deal with prints in terms of scarcity (such as some sort of goofy "limited edition" status)...and as we all know, one of the benefits of a photo (either chemical or digital) is the ability to reproduce images–a lot.
To the OP, you are barking up the wrong tree...in the grand scheme of things, a great print of a bad image is still a bad image. This reminds me of Ansel Adams quote that there's nothing worse that a sharp print of a fuzzy concept–regardless of how that print was made...(the last part is from me). What you want to be concerning yourself with is great imagery...screw the print!
-
Jeff your points are well taken. But my point is that the industry must push what's is best for the profession. If all the prints last a very long time. Then the great images will come to the forefront as the great images. What sad is when we have prints out there being touted as non fading images when they all are produced with dyes. AKA all the photographic galleries in Vegas. I have had many chats since early 1990 with Henry and John Paul, Bill Atkinson, Joseph Holmes, Michael and many others, if we push the industry and educate as much as possible what is photograph that has longevity to it then we all win.
The galleries your right will sell anything, but some have morals. What I'm trying to say, there old processes that have lasted and few new ones. Its up to us as a whole and lead the way.
By the way Ansel's quote, that one of my favorite. I've known Mac since 1991-92. If Mac said it wasn't so then I believe it was the galleries. The quality of the print is what the printer does to it. If the images sucks then it still will always be a bad image. In the print realm I'm only talking about longevity, the rest will fall out over time. Thanks Jeff
-
To the OP, you are barking up the wrong tree...in the grand scheme of things, a great print of a bad image is still a bad image. This reminds me of Ansel Adams quote that there's nothing worse that a sharp print of a fuzzy concept–regardless of how that print was made...(the last part is from me). What you want to be concerning yourself with is great imagery...screw the print!
I'd say yes and no at the same time ....
I strongly believe that longevity is a natural part of any artistic process to some extent, since art is something, where we tell something to others - and that not only in our time. Of course there might be different concepts.
There are child drawings of myself from 40 years ago. The paper is slightly yellowed, but for the drawing attempts of a child thats pretty good longevity. And I'm happy about that.
I agree, that the image is more important than its longevity, but if I am taking myself for serious I think its valid to strive for longevity. In any case we can't defeat death of course.
I want to thank all posters to this thread so far and to me it seems pretty clear, that longevity is an important and also highly emotionally charged topic.
~Chris
-
HP offers a way (http://h30507.www3.hp.com/t5/Professional-Photography/bg-p/147/label-name/platinum%20printing) to combine digital imaging with platinum and palladium contact printing.
BOBW!
-
Although this is an interesting article we did this with using Lightjet negs back in 1997 to create the same process. We designed this process back in the day as a response to the Smithsonian saying it was impossible to do. But with any challenge if there is a will there is a way. Smithsonian said we could not make Evercolor Print either as well as double contact carbon prints and we proved them wrong again. The main key to every thing is to use a standard the 27 step grayscale is the best. Because if you can make the grayscale perfectly everything that is the image comes easily and fall within the boundry of what the grayscale produced.
But love the fact minds come together and make processes better to create a better outcome. Hats off. T
-
HP offers a way (http://h30507.www3.hp.com/t5/Professional-Photography/bg-p/147/label-name/platinum%20printing) to combine digital imaging with platinum and palladium contact printing.
BOBW!
Apparently this was a pet project of one HP software engineer.
Only takes a bit of enthusiasm ...
-
Shouldn't it be possible to this this by oneself with selfmade profiles?
I know the old methods are color sensible somehow which might make it a bit more sophisticated,
but I imagine printing a grayscale this way and getting close after some iterations should not be witchcraft - with
any printer which can print on translucent material.
-
The key is to set up the temps and concentration of chemicals to water. They should not ever change. Then when printing the grayscale you can alter that density till its right on. Once you use this for any process you will have the standard. This can be done for silver gelatin, platinum, carbro, gravures, ect. The grayscale is the key, if you can print that then anything else will have a smaller range. Like I said before the Smithsonian said I was nuts until I proved the concept. Tim
-
Not to derail the discussion, but one usually has only one copy of a slide, while making multiple backups of digital shots and distributing the files in physically diverse locations is a trivial exercise. Even if one makes in-camera copies of shots, there will never be more. And digital files don't fade.
Anyone who hasn't been living in a cave for the last 12 years already knows all that. The problem with digital is one of obsolescence. It doesn't do any good to have a digital archive of photos that will never fade if it's stored on media that can no longer be accessed and in a proprietary file format that no one knows how to read (RAW or PSD, anyone?).
Consider that today's memory cards and hard drives are the floppy discs and punch cards of tomorrow. When was the last time you came across a stack of 30-year-old floppy discs in a closet and felt the urge to send them to a specialist to have them read so you could see what was on them? Nobody does this; they just throw the discs in the garbage and forget about them.
I say it's better to have a degraded analogue image than none at all. There is a reason why the professionals who painstakingly restore old Hollywood movies choose to transfer their results to fresh film stock rather than just dumping them on DVD or Blu-Ray and calling it day.
Anyone who thinks that computer files are in any way archival is either being myopic or is fooling himself into believing that all this digital convenience doesn't come at a price.
A digital photo archive may remain accessible for the life of the photographer if he is diligent about backing up and transferring to the latest computer media every 5-10 years, but I wouldn't hold much hope for the archive remaining accessible past his lifetime.
-
Frankly, I wish more emphasis was placed on the quality of images rather than how long they will last.
That's a surprising sentiment, considering that the essence of photography is capturing a fleeting moment for posterity.
-
Anyone who hasn't been living in a cave for the last 12 years already knows all that. The problem with digital is one of obsolescence. It doesn't do any good to have a digital archive of photos that will never fade if it's stored on media that can no longer be accessed and in a proprietary file format that no one knows how to read (RAW or PSD, anyone?).
Anyone who hasn't been living in a cave for the last 12 years already knows that copying digital files to the latest format (floppy-CD-HDD-SSD-holographic memory-etc) and currently readable file type (bmp-jpg-cr2-dng-a hopefully non-proprietary RAW format) is the way to go for foolproof and indefinite compatibility.
Any particular reason to grave dig a 10-month-old thread as your first post?
-
Anyone who hasn't been living in a cave for the last 12 years already knows all that. The problem with digital is one of obsolescence. It doesn't do any good to have a digital archive of photos that will never fade if it's stored on media that can no longer be accessed and in a proprietary file format that no one knows how to read (RAW or PSD, anyone?). Anyone who thinks that computer files are in any way archival is either being myopic or is fooling himself into believing that all this digital convenience doesn't come at a price.
<big snip>
It's not as if we are going to wake up one morning and every single psd or raw file in the world suddenly can't be read. Nor as if all of a sudden Photoshop won't run. If there is going to be a format or media problem it will start to appear a long way in advance, and we will all have plenty of time to convert our stored images to whatever is taking over.
I guess you worry also about all that data of yours stored in proprietary formats in databases across the world..
-
It's not as if we are going to wake up one morning and every single psd or raw file in the world suddenly can't be read. Nor as if all of a sudden Photoshop won't run. If there is going to be a format or media problem it will start to appear a long way in advance, and we will all have plenty of time to convert our stored images to whatever is taking over.
I guess you worry also about all that data of yours stored in proprietary formats in databases across the world..
Yes and no. A friend of mine who works in autocad told me about one upgrade where yes, you could open old files, but how on some file, the new version made tiny little changes. For example, a thin dotted line might be a very thin but solid line. Maybe doesn't sound like much, but if you use autocad to design aircraft engines or nuclear reactors... :)
The other thing too - and I mean absolutely no disrespect to anyone here - but for "old farts" like myself who have been into computers since the days of 300 baud modems where you plugged the black handset into a foam lined base, I've heard these things said over and over and over, and I now tend to believe them just as much as I believe a promise from a politician (any political party :) ).
Don't get me wrong, I use digital and digital techniques every day of my life, but from an archivist point of view, not just our electronic media, but issues with our hard copy media, many of us wonder just how much of our history will survive say even a hundred years from now.
Back to prints, I love visiting both public and private galleries, photography, sculpture, art of any form. I do find, as an overall trend, but not always, that the phrases used to describe photographic prints is becoming more grandiose and obtuse. Not just digital either - last "traditional" B&W print that came from a wet darkroom I saw in a gallery had some long rambling phrase I forget now about "silver rich" - blah, blah, blah. Nobody is innocent here.
Last thought - whether you can make a platinum print by hand or on a printer is missing the point. One thing about ALL art forms - not just photography - be it wood carving, oil painting, photography, whatever, the process of how you make your print or your art affect the final outcome just as much as the media you use. For example, I remember a wood carver telling me how he used to do soapstone, but he liked wood better because of the smell of the wood he was carving and he thought it affect how he "saw" his final product before he finished. By the same token, I dislike the smell of fixer, but the very smell of that chemistry, and the dark silence of my wet darkroom puts me in a very different mindset than when I am sitting in front of my monitor editing a photograph in photoshop. One is not better or worse than another, but you must pay attention to how your media and surroundings affect your mood and the final image in your mind's eye. IMO, that is the most important difference, and for each person, you will have to try and experiment until you find the medium that "clicks" for you. Even then, you may find that keeping a hand in other mediums helps keep your edge alive.
good luck
joe
-
It's a little bit of a silly question, or worse, a film vs digital debate. What's missing is the criteria - which is "better" based on what? How enjoyable it is to make, the length of the tonal range it can reproduce, the surface, glossy or matte, etc. If you want the look of a darkroom print, then the best platinum print or inkjet print you can make will be a failure. And vice-versa, of course.
There is only one or two criteria that can be suggestive of 'better'. Both in the scanning process and the alternative printing processes, a negative that is much denser at the high end is used. Experts often disagree at how much, but suffice it to say, a negative which is developed longer yields a more separated mid-tone area, and a potentially more atmospheric, or rich, print. Of course, many like to print contrasty and a rich print isn't what they are after... I love all those mid tones, and the feel of a paper that was made by a factory that started making paper 500 years ago or more. I love a matt surface, I don't want to see reflections or imagine my image is in a pile of goo. So some of this stuff was made just for me...
When I made my first platinum print, I never bothered to go back into the darkroom. I like that look very much, rich and velvety. When I got in to digital printing, my first task was to make a print that was at least as good as a platinum print. To my surprise, I was able to do that and more, and with more control. It took a while, a good scanner, some of Jon Cone's inks and a lot of hard work (ok, obsession). However, I have a very long tonal range, rich prints with a lot of delicacy and subtlety - and most importantly, they make me happy... so I guess it works.
I think a lot of people who post these types of questions really want to know if its possible to exceed the quality of a darkroom print. Depending on what you want, it is...
Lenny Eiger
EigerStudios
Museum Quality Drum Scanning and Printing
-
I'm just a beginner in digital photography and I cannot seriously contribute to thread but... I can easily figure out that is pretty impossible to get an definitive answer to this question.
It's like trying to compare skills of an alpine skier to a nordic one.... yes, they both use tools called ski, but have nothing in common.
I met very expert traditional (film) photographers who simply get nervous when in front of a computer; they could never get something good out of an inkjet printer, provided even they succeded in making it works...
So the point is that we are talking about the same subject(photography) but basically different professions with different tools, and very very few people with proficiency in both field.
Anyway I cannot imagine how a wet print can be so better than my B&W prints made by an Epson 7900 on a Canson Baryta, or piezography carbon inks on Hahnemuhle matte papers
-
So the point is that we are talking about the same subject(photography) but basically different professions with different tools, and very very few people with proficiency in both field.
Anyway I cannot imagine how a wet print can be so better than my B&W prints made by an Epson 7900 on a Canson Baryta, or piezography carbon inks on Hahnemuhle matte papers
-snip-
give yourself the chance to get out there and see more. For example, I once attended a workshop for "digital negatives" and contact platinum prints. In short how it works is you shoot 4x5 film, then the negative is drum scanned at high resolution. Then you print a 20x24" print on clear film, but as a negative. It's quite an art to get that "negative" right on the computer before you print, from what I saw.
Then you do a contact print on a large sheet of specially prepared paper, and then develop basically via traditional methods. A complete blend of both old and new, wet and digital darkroom techniques, and also, IMO, one of the best ways to drive a stake through the heart of these endless "which is better - film or digital" threads you see and almost every other photo forum, because you are faced with the reality that the best answer to that question is "both". :)
Bottom line is though, you'll have a very unique looking product that cannot, IMO, be completely duplicated by either traditional or digital techniques alone. Ask yourself, so what's wrong with that? :)
Back to your original question, it is not about what is better, but what you like better. Is the Mona Lisa better than most Ansel Adams prints? How do you judge art, any art to begin with? If you are talking the technical analysis of which is better, that depends on the technician. If you ever get the chance to sit in a wet darkroom and see an old master ( or an old fart like myself :) ) at work, do so. Not to convince you that one technique is better than another, but this one bit of advice - whatever your medium, explore different mediums, as it will help you see things differently and make your work all the much better.
good luck
joe
-
... For many years I have been inventing processes, some for the Smithsonian proving what couldn't be done or so they said. ... I have not written up what I invented at the Smithsonian, but will be happy to share this with you if you want to go this direction. I am not a writer, but am willing to share nearly everything I have invented. Tim
Hi Tim, admittedly this is an old thread that just got resurrected, and you may not be following anymore, but I'll bite. I was the Senior Research Photographic Scientist at the Smithsonian from 1988-1998 and was never asked to weigh in on what could or couldn't be done in terms of modern photographic processes. That said, the SI has 16 different museums, and you could have been talking to one "expert" at anyone of them. I'd be curious to know what division dismissed your work so lightly. I'm well aware of Evercolor and the people involved.
cheers,
Mark
http:/www.aardenburg-imaging.com
-
The term "archival" is actually quite meaningless...print longevity is more useful.
An old thread, but someone brought it back to life, so I read it, and I'll weigh in on the topic.
It's true, "Archival" has no precise definition (means many things to many people), but "print longevity" is an equally bastardized concept today. Even an image printed with cheap litho inks on the the most acid-choked, lignin filled newsprint paper can last centuries if properly cared for. Media durability is the correct concept, not media longevity.
Manufacturers and printmakers both play a strong part in determining print durability, but not print longevity. Manufacturers can produce more durable inks and media. Printmakers can choose printer/ink/media combinations that favor greater print durability (i.e. resistance to light fading, gas fading, thermal fading, and humidity cycling). Thus, print permanence is best expressed in terms of durability ratings, not grossly oversimplified longevity ratings. Manufacturers and printmakers have precious little control over longevity. It is the end-user(s) (ie., print collectors, museum curators, etc) that overwhelmingly determine print longevity... by choosing environmental conditions for storage and display conditions wisely or not. One can take a very fragile print process and get it to last longer than a highly durable print process simply by handling the fragile print with informed care while treating the otherwise more durable print with neglect.
cheers,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com