If the inkjet print is unable to give you the quality "(you) need", then how in the world is the inkjet negative going to give you a negative that "will yield prints just as good as those from film"?
Thomas
I'm going to start learning to make digital negatives. I don't feel that inkjet prints can yet give us the print quality we need, but digital technology can certainly give us the negatives to print that will yield prints just as good as those from film.
And what if you were that prospective buyer? Would you want to know before purchasing the work?
Ken
I doubt he is going back to film. These days, once people slide into the easefulness of digital imaging, they rarely go back. They also tend to produce work that is less studied and more scattered. That is my opinion based on seeing it many times. Some people just don't make the jump very well. I think a lot of people fool themselves. One of my favorite photographers made the switch in the last couple of years and the images look dead compared to decades of his film work. Such is life.
----------------------------------------------------
Well I have to disagree with this statement 100%... for the record this morning I am going into the darkroom to make silver gelatin prints via enlarger, yesterday I was making ink on paper(giclee-inkjet) call them what you want- last week tri colour gum over palladium via digital negatives.
Currently in our exhibit showing at the front of the shop , I am exhibiting silver gelatin, pt pd and ink on paper prints , they all work together very well.
personally I shot thousands of sheets of colour and BW - 8 x10 and 4 x5 , solarized all the film, for the direct prospect of scanning them all high resolution(done) then breaking them apart in separation negatives to produce applied colour over palladium , cyanotype or silver.
So my switch to Digital was done completely relying on mixing digital (wonderness) with analoque (traditional) process.
If one studies Irving Penn's work you will realize immediately that applied colour over palladium and silver process was something he did and did well, Steichan's famous image of lilly pond is applied colour over palladium. I tend to think that both these artists if with us would immediately use any tool at their disposal..
Mr Butcher will find a way to combine silver and digital, its a natural progression, one that many here make light of but IMO should embrace.
It should be noted Shelby Lee Adams has been making digital colour images for the last 6 years- I think he will also find a good balance with this work.
If the inkjet print is unable to give you the quality "(you) need", then how in the world is the inkjet negative going to give you a negative that "will yield prints just as good as those from film"?
Thomas
It should be noted Shelby Lee Adams has been making digital colour images for the last 6 years- I think he will also find a good balance with this work.
If the inkjet print is unable to give you the quality "(you) need", then how in the world is the inkjet negative going to give you a negative that "will yield prints just as good as those from film"?
Thomas
Well Bob, you are a printer, and you haven't converted to digital. You mix the two so you are not in the group of people I am talking about. The reality is once someone gets use to shooting and printing digitally, they rarely go back to film in this day and age. I doubt Clyde will because he is 72 and has that as a reason why he doesn't want to carry his large cameras around. Disagreeing with me 100% based on your own personal hybrid workflow is a bit much. There are countless photographers out there that switched and never went back. You can't deny it.
As a general rule of thumb, when things become easier, when they take less effort, then people can do more of them with less involvement, and pay less attention during the time spent doing them. The more automated a thing becomes, the less we pay attention to that thing, because we don't have to. In the extreme case, completely automated stuff we pay no attention to at all.
And so it is with photography. Digital imaging is less studied and more scattered because it can be. All of the previous film technology-related negative feedback loops have been removed. It doesn't cost anything more to press the button again. Or to just hold it down. And it's no longer more cost effective to think a little deeper before pressing that button. Sadly, that incentive has now been completely reversed.
And all of these things are that way because they can be. The current technology pushes them to be that way.
...I think creative writing has suffered enormously with the demise of manual typewriters. Who knew that the negative feedback loop inherent in those little bottles of white-out was so damned powerful? But it was. Digital speed-writing all reads depressingly similar to me.
Anyone who thinks making an exhibition quality digital print is less work than a darkroom print has never made digital exhibition prints.
......
Anyone who thinks making an exhibition quality digital print is less work than a darkroom print has never made digital exhibition prints.
Bob: How is Shelby printing his digital work?
When I saw him a few years ago he was using the inkjet process to proof his prints.. I am not sure if he has ever shown them as a body of work.
Not sure why the righteous indignation. Nobody is telling Mr. Butcher he can't use any tool he pleases. We all get old. That includes every single one of you reading this. If you think you're exempt, you are not.
So if he has simply reached the point in his journey where the use of a different tool now makes more sense, then why the hysteria here as if he's heroically defeated some vast conspiracy of evil to do so?
Those who enjoyed his analog creations may mourn the passing of that era. Nothing wrong with that. Those exact same mourners will arrive at the exact same place he has in due time. Guaranteed.
And it's not as if Mr. Butcher comes to APUG and calls us all callow, condescending, sanctimonious twerps for still enjoying film. He obviously and thankfully has far more class than that...
Ken
If you put a really fine quality digital inkjet print next to a really fine quality gelatin silver print from film of the same image, I'll always pick the silver print. But if you put a carbon print or a Pt print from an enlarged digital negative next to one from an in camera negative, I can't tell the difference. And after all, what we're after is beautiful prints. The means to obtain them is irrelevant to me. But I'm seeing some incredible hybrid work from photographers who formerly used film exclusively so it can't hurt to attempt learning some of these techniques.
These days, once people slide into the easefulness of digital imaging, they rarely go back. They also tend to produce work that is less studied and more scattered.
My personal hit ratio is much, much higher with film. There's a discipline in knowing that it cost about $0.75 every time you click the shutter!
Nothing personal, I just happened to pick this example to quote, but we have all seen the statements on APUG 100s of times about how much easier digital printing is than the darkroom. I do both, and this is simply not the case if one is attempting to do quality work.
Ken. Is that you???
Ken.
I know it's not you.
Who is this???
Aye 'blanksy'... It's truly me...
I've never had a problem with other people using digital photo technologies for themselves. Only with their perverse insistence on bringing it into the APUG analog arena and implying the rest of us are too stupid to understand.
It's selfish and boorish and rude to do that. Especially to those who have paid their subscriptions in good faith in an attempt to find a small island of analog peace and quiet in a sea of endless screaming digital cacophony.
And to my knowledge Mr. Butcher has never tried to come here and tell us we all need to get off our backward Luddite asses and get on with the inevitability of rampaging modern "progress".
Bless him for that...
Ken
I cannot imagine anyone wanting to disparage an artist of Mr. Butcher's calibre for his choice of tools. Sometimes, the purist attitude creates an obstacle to creativity, not a doorway. How someone arrives at a completed piece is quite irrelevant as long as the piece is successfully crafted into being.
I remain technology agnostic, for the sake of my creativity.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?