Over the last 20 something years I’ve had about 12 different large format printers in use for color alone.
Others for bw. I’ve had to remap output for lots of editions that exist over time. Usually I need to make a few 8x10 prints and can achieve the new file to match old proofs within an hour.
The good thing is our materials ( unlike say gelatin silver in the 70s, are getting better and more capable.)
The newer inks are generally longer lasting ( except Canon ) have larger gamut and better dmax, so it’s not that difficult.
As Mark suggests, a “real” edition, as developed as a concept for printmaking in the 17th century was printed at one time , on one press, with one paper batch and one batch of ink. If an artist produced a second edition, which was rare because the plates were becoming worn down, the prints changed. Today we are extremely lucky to have the precision to reformat the file as easily as we can. We’re kinda spoiled.
But hell, not only are our inks changing constantly ( almost every new printer model has a new “ and improved”
inkset, but quite of the paper coating are changed or the paper is discontinued altogether.
But to be honest, even gelatin silver prints changed over time. I once saw a show that showcased many famous
photographers working method as to how they arrived at final prints. For Ansel Adams they showed about six different versions of the Moonrise print and how Adams changed the way they were printed over time. They were all nice but all quite different. And, he sold them all, but never in the same editioned “portfolio”. As the papers changed over the decades he created new looks for the prints and one of the reasons was he could not achieve the same results with the newer papers, that often had less silver, even if he had wanted to.
For me personally, I tell people that if you want “ an edition” of a body of work you should have a limited edition set of prints or limited edition portfolio created. As Mark just said, doing a reprint of a file is a reprint of a file, not a print that is part of an “edition”. Beyond that, we do the best we can, and usually that’s pretty damn good.
John
Aah, yes, one of the very first promises of the digital print era. "I can print perfect copies of my digitally mastered file forever"
Printers change, inks change, media change, operating systems change, printer drivers change...and even peoples' expectations change. The "print on demand, whenever you want, and expect a perfect copy" expectation soon runs into real world reality. It has never worked that way precisely, but many print shops catering to demanding artists still make this promise. In reality, when you move to a new printer model, you will more than likely have a new set of inks with different color gamut, different dot screening patterns, and even the media may have changed. For example, ask anyone who has tried both old and "new" formulations if Canson Baryta Photographique II matches the original Baryta photographique which is no longer made, etc., etc.
That said, can you get a "reasonable" match between a Z9 and a Z3200 if using the same batch of media? Depends on how closely you are looking. The Z9 ink set gave up the light cyan and magenta and light gray channels but added dual droplet size to compensate. Because the light cyan and light magenta channels were originally added by all the major printer manufacturers nearly a quarter of a century ago on various photo printer models to expand color gamut and smoothness especially in the midtown and highlight tones, I expected this is where I would see the biggest difference between my Z9 and my Z3200 on the same paper. I was wrong! The Z9 actually manages to tease out a little more color gamut in the highlight regions of the prints due to its more sophisticated screening pattern and dual droplet output. However, the Z3200 wins in the shadow areas when trying to print images with deep dark colors. Neutral/near neutral tones are outstanding on both printers throughout the tone scale. So, if you are trying to match output between these two printers, you will always find subtle differences depending on image content.
Best bet in a "try to match old print" situation would be to use a device link profile (or the poor man's version of that which means convert to printer A profile, then make a 2nd conversion to printer B profile). Personally, I would suggest you give some advance warnings to your repeat customers that you will reprint old work mastered for your Z3200s on your Z3200s as long as you can, but phase in new work (i.e, newly mastered files prepared for Z9 output) as your ongoing work with clients progresses. That said, it's probably inevitable that old work will eventually get moved to a newer printer model, and when that happens, you will probably need to make some subtle adjustments to the files and then get your client to sign off on the remastering when attempting to satisfy a very demanding client. Yet most folks will accept the output on either printer just fine, IMHO.
My two cents.
cheers,
Mark M.
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com