digital vs analogue printing

[samoore]

It seems that I can still identify the analog prints in the galleries from the digital prints.  I don't doubt that the new inksets can produce larger gamut and higher DMAX but I seem to see a lot of very good looking traditional darkroom prints.  I can only conclude that in general the craft of analog darkroom printing has reached a higher level than the craft of digital printing.  I was in a gallery in Santa Fe two months back and there were several prints for sale where the sharpening halo was thicker than the platinum credit cards of the potential buyers.  Yuk!  When inkjet prints are done poorly it really stands out.  Analog is more forgiving and the small errors don't pop out at you.

Also there's digital printing from digital capture and digital printing from scans.   I think in some cases a larger negative can give you a different look regardless of how its printed.  So a lot of traditional prints one see's has that advantage built in.

If you're a bad printer, you're a bad printer, that doesn't really reflect on the process. A little while ago I saw the last Taryn Simon(not sure if she still shoots film), and Crewdson shows in New York, and those prints would knock you're socks off! 

[donbga]

If you're a bad printer, you're a bad printer, that doesn't really reflect on the process. A little while ago I saw the last Taryn Simon(not sure if she still shoots film), and Crewdson shows in New York, and those prints would knock you're socks off!

I've seen Simon's work and the prints were good but her content is completely droll and boring.

[samoore]

I've seen Simon's work and the prints were good but her content is completely droll and boring.

Content is a whole other can of worms.

[DavidPalermo]

I've read this thread with great interest. I too wanted to find out to my eye what looked better, analog silver gelatin print or inkjet so I sent a photo to Digital Silver Imaging and had them make an 8x10 b/w print on Ilford fiber based photographic paper. I made a bunch of inkjet prints of the same image on various papers. I then scattered all the prints on my living room floor. I could not tell what image was the silver gelatin print. In my view inkjet print is just as good looking as a silver print.

Soon, I'm going to start platinum printing from digital negatives. Aside from the archival qualities of a platinum print I'm wondering if I'll prefer looking at an inkjet print over a platinum print. Since the image is embedded into the paper using platinum or palladium I'm wondering it will have a different (better) look.

Have any of you compared one of your own platinum prints to the same image printed with an inkjet printer?

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

With a proper, colour managed, workflow there would be little difference between different printing techniques as long as the image is within or nearly within the envelope of the media. So, if I print on my Epson 4880 or send of a properly adjusted image to be printed on a Durst Lambda I will get essentially identical results. The printed surface will be different, though.

If you send a digital image for darkroom printing, like Platinum I would guess that it involves a lot of craftmanship and it will be an interpretation of your image by the printing artist.

My understanding is that BW printing is a bit more difficult than colour printing as there is not really a colour managed workflow for monochrome prints.

Best regards
Erik

[Peter McLennan]

A few years ago I paid a lot of money for large Cibachrome prints of some of my images.  Professionally framed behind glass, in a sunny room they all faded badly within a couple of years. I had to throw them out.  The distant blue mountain ranges of Death Valley had become sickly cyan.

In a similar sunny location, I now have several large inkjet prints from my Epson 9800 on canvas.  Uncoated and unprotected, they're completely fade-free after nearly a decade.

The defense rests.

[DavidPalermo]

Peter:  That is pretty good!  Hard to believe even. 

I'm not criticizing the archivability of inkjet.  I think the estimates are probably pretty good (in a hundred or so years we might know for sure!) but I am questioning the look and feel of a platinum print vs an inkjet.  The only way I will find out is if I print them myself which is exactly what I am going to do in the next few months.

I have studied a lot lately about platinum/palladium printing and nearly everyone claims they have a "3D look because the metal gets imbedded into the paper fibers".  This is an interesting statement and I am wondering if it's just hype or reality.  I'll find out in a few months I guess.

; )

[digitaldog]

With a proper, colour managed, workflow there would be little difference between different printing techniques as long as the image is within or nearly within the envelope of the media. So, if I print on my Epson 4880 or send of a properly adjusted image to be printed on a Durst Lambda I will get essentially identical results.

By envelope of the media you mean the color gamut? Because the gamut of the Lambada and the 4880 are different.

[Deardorff]

I get the notice this topic is OLD - but will post anyhow.
Have curated gallery shows with photographers such as Bruce Barnbaum, Michael A. Smith and the like. They work in traditional darkrooms.
Same show with some excellent digital B&W printers as well.
If the photographer/printer knows what they are doing the quality is there.
Modern papers for digital, whether inkjet or silver based/chemically processed offer quality that is excellent.

The only advantage I see with traditional silver based prints from a real darkroom is that each is printed by hand, one at a time and it is difficult to get two that are exactly the same. Contact prints are easier for repeatable results but still each has to be done one at a time. For some collectors this leads to higher valued images.

As for enlarged negatives, we used to do it with film. Why not with digital gear? Whether to Pictorico transparent film negatives or digitally made film negatives or straight copy negatives - excellent results are done by those who work carefully and learn their systems. I've seen digital negative prints to 20x30 that are excellent. Again, those doing the work master the materials and technique.

Fifteen to twenty years ago this was an argument many of us made - digital isn't as good as...

Doesn't apply any longer. What does apply (for me) is the same thing it has always been. Crappy photos are always with us while top quality is done by few. Digital or film - why not work for top quality?

[snappingsam]

I run a small photo lab - and print fro digital files onto both fuji DPII crystal archive wet process paper with a Frontier, and with a HP Z3200 inkjet.  The prints from both, when properly profiled, are almost identical. However the Z3200 suffer less from light fade on display in bright areas. The prints off the Z3200 can be slightly sharper. However the inkjet prints are much more prone to mechanical damage, particularly in the first day or two. The materials on the Frontier are far cheaper- probably a third of the price - and its much more productive - I can print 400 10"x8" per hour on the Frontier - at least 10 times faster. Of course, the downside, the Frontier need quite a bit of work going through - and its way more expensive to buy - and required regular servicing. To get large prints, a Lambda or ZBE is required for DP11 wet process - and the service costs of the Lambda are really high - around $25,000 a year for a maintenance contract!  If you want to print your self, the inkjet are the most affordable.

[BrianBeauban]

My acid test on this subject was something I encountered very recently. A small exhibition of prints where some silver halide fiber prints were displayed side be side with inkjet prints. Each was a different image so I couldn't directly compare one image to the next to pick out the differences. And guess what? I could not tell the difference without touching the paper or inspecting them under magnification. So if you ask me I would say to pick the process you are comfortable with and have at it. Poorly made prints are still very easy to pick out in either method. The very well made prints are pretty much on par.

[NortheastPhotographic]

I prefer analog prints when they're possible.  Each one is somewhat unique, they're as hand made as photographs get...excluding the even more hand made alternative processes.  You can throw a bunch of tech jargon at me all you want, an RA4 print enlarged in the darkroom has a certain quality to it, just like Cibachrome did.  They're beautiful.  The image sort of floats under the surface, and the tonal changes are very smooth. 

Don't get me wrong, pigment prints are also beautiful and the paper choices are far superior.  When I can I make an analog print, up to about 16x20.  After that you really can't argue that the Epson is the better choice.  It's just SO much easier and more consistent.  However, and 8x10 negative enlarged to 16x20 in an enlarger is a beautiful thing. 

Plus, scarcity creates value.  I still think people pay more for artist made darkroom prints.  So it's a way to make something slightly more unique than pigment prints.  I sort of like small editions of compact prints.  With pigment prints the idea of making an edition is kind of pointless. 

I'm a little crazy though, and I love 8x10 instant film because you're really making a true original piece, like a painting.  You can reproduce it, but it's not the original thing. 

These are just my opinions and I understand they're not shared by many people, totally cool with me!

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

After some fifty years doing my own darkroom prints for many exhibits (black and white only), I think my prints were pretty good, and others agreed. When I succumbed to the lure of Digital, learning to print all over again was quite painful. But eventually I got to the point where I could put up one of my best darkroom prints next to  a digital version (from either a scanned negative or a scanned darkroom print,) and I could not tell which was which. So I agree with Brian, who said "pick the process you are comfortable with and have at it."

-Eric

[winetu]

Analogue printing relies on traditional methods such as offset lithography or letterpress, utilizing physical plates and ink rollers to transfer images onto paper, while digital printing involves direct digital-to-print processes, using electronic files to reproduce images onto various substrates.
Analogue printing often requires longer setup times and higher initial costs due to plate creation and setup, whereas digital printing allows for shorter setup times and lower costs since it eliminates the need for plates and extensive setup processes.
Digital printing offers greater flexibility and customization, allowing for variable data printing and on-demand printing, which is ideal for personalized marketing materials and short print runs.
Analogue printing typically achieves higher quality and consistency for large print runs due to the precision of the printing presses and the use of specific inks and substrates, while digital printing may exhibit variations in color and quality, especially on certain substrates.
Analogue printing can accommodate a wider range of substrates, including specialty papers and textured materials, whereas digital printing may be limited to certain types of paper and substrates based on the printer's specifications.
Digital printing enables quicker turnaround times and reduced waste since it does not require drying time or setup for each color, while analogue printing may involve longer lead times and generate more waste during setup and cleanup processes.

[Rob C]

winetu. You’ve lost me there. Are you talking about making single photographic prints, or about something else?

Making photographic prints in the wet darkroom does not automatically preclude extremely close matching, print-to-print. I used to have to produce lots of sets of “identical” prints from one negative every day when I was a trainee in the Rolls-Royce photographic unit in Scotland back in the 60s. We all did it, thirty or so prints at a time in a dish. Okay, perhaps measured by an instrument, one could spot the difference, but doing so solely by eye would be quite a challenge. The technique I learned there was to serve me well in later life when I did the same thing making PR prints for garment manufacturing clients to disperse to the fashion media and fashion buyers. The print size was usually a maximum of 12”x10”; without doubt, larger sizes would have been very difficult to handle that way.

The secret of wet print superiority, for me, rests in making perfectly glazed glossy prints. Other wet darkroom photographic paper surfaces always disappointed me. The closest I ever got to making digital prints please me was when they were finally inserted into Silverprint archival polyester print sleeves, or viewed in a frame, behind glass. I was using an HP B9180 Pro A3+ printer for those, and printing on Hahnemuehle Photo Rag Bright White 310 gsm paper. The shine from the sleeve reminded me of the “look” of real WSG papers. Without the sleeves, the digital prints looked just as depressingly flat as any non-glossy wet darkroom paper did.