Tom Duffy said:
Brooks,
How much would it cost me to obtain both a silver and Epson version of the print (or any other identical pair which you feel illustrates your point)? If around 50-60 dollars, I'll get all the NY/NJ area APUGERs together and we'll compare versions. I'll do a write up of our disccussions/conclusions and add them onto this thread. If you feel the silver print would cost more than that, I'll promise to return it, in good condition.
Take care,
Tom
Tom,
Seems like a fine idea. The image that caused me to take a closer look was one of my wife's photographs,
Suspended which she printed in silver about 10 years ago. Since then we have produced it as a
LensWork Special Editions image from a line screen negative, and as a
LensWork Photogravure. It was against these three that we compared a print from the Epson. I'll ask her for permission to send them. I am sure she will prefer to have them returned when you are finished.
Here is my description of our comparisons from my website:
Each of these are lovely versions of this image and each has its virtues. We showed these four prints to several dozen people both in and out of photography to see which they liked best. There was no contest. In side-by-side comparisons the Epson print was everyones favorite everyone. The Epson print was more three dimensional, more tactile, had visually deeper blacks, and felt more alive and not by just a bit. It was better by leaps and bounds. I cannot tell you, what a shock this was to both of us traditional wet darkroom advocates.
Let me be specific and precise. The four media are definitely not the same each has its own aesthetic feel. The paper bases are different. "Black" in one media is not the same as "black" in another at least as measured with a densitometer. But, direct comparisons are silly as silly as comparing oil paints to watercolors, or microbrews to soft drinks. Silver prints and platinum prints are different and look different. The same can be said of glossy gelatin silver papers compared to the textured, matte paper of inkjet prints. Each medium has its unique virtues. It is futile, for example, to try to make a photogravure look like a silver print just as much as it is futile to make a silver print look like a platinum, etc. It is far better to consider the virtues of each medium in its own right.
But where simple tonal comparisons are unfair, what can be compared is the emotional content and the indefinable feel and quality of an image. We were proud of the gelatin silver and photogravure special editions of Suspended. They are fine prints. But, this image from the Epson 4000 gave me goosebumps a reaction to a mechanical print which I had not expected.
What had I expected? I thought, just maybe, I might see an inkjet version of this image that might not be too bad a humble expectation if ever there was one. I certainly did not expect to see the best version of this image I had ever seen! Needless to say, we were encouraged. Ive continued to experiment with other images to see what can be created with this printer. Ive learned a lot.
I then say that everything depends on the image. I still feel that way. I have tried some of my silver prints on the Epson and they simply stink. Horrible. Some, however, make the transition to matte paper quite well. That does not mean, however, that I will offer them as pigment prints. Each image is unique, each project is unique. This is precisely why I am not selling my darkroom gear and routing for Ilford and the rest of the boys to do well!
It is important to note specifically that I did not say that the Epson print looked like a silver print -- or even that it should! Silver is a wonderful medium that is its own unique aesthetic -- one that cannot be duplicated by any other medium that I am aware of. My observations are clearly that Epson prints are aesthetically far closer to platinum or photogravure than they are to silver. Not even close. (At least using matte papers and warm tone like I am for my Epson prints. As an aside, all the prints I've seen that have come from an inkjet printer that attempt to simulate silver leave a lot to be desired -- a lot. Someone out there might be getting silver-like prints from an inkjet, but not that I've seen.) If I want a silver-look to an image, silver is the medium and the
only medium that I would choose. On the other hand, if I want a "platinum look" I would be sorely tempted to choose Epson. Of course, there is no comparison whatsoever in longevity as the platinum image will last longer than the paper base it is printed on! Same with photogravure. So, each seems to have its own
raison d'etre and in my way of thinking should not be confused.
It is a stretch of an analogy, but I tend to think of these things the same way I do ethnic food. How do you compare Thai cuisine to TexMex? Which is more virtuous -- lasagna or pot roast? Depends on one's mood and one's predisposition. But I would cringe at the cook who would try to make a lasagna that tasted like pot roast or vice versa. Like sushi ice cream or a broccoli soft drink, some transitions just don't work.
Back to your proposal, I'll ask Maureen and see what she says. Stay tuned.
Brooks Jensen
Editor, LensWork Publishing
Written Tuesday August 30, 2005