Has digital prints made older process prints special?

[tkamiya]

quality of Digital Output

But you used the giant Durst Lambda printer, right? Not a regular or even a commercial grade inkjet type....

 

[Dinesh]

But you used the giant Durst Lambda printer, right? Not a regular or even a commercial grade inkjet type....

Elevator has both Epson and Canon commercial inkjets along with the Lambda.

 

[Aristophanes]

Special perhaps because they are becoming far more rare than their digital counterparts.

Scarcity versus demand.

If there is cultural value in a handicraft compared to a mass production item, then the answer is likely.

That said, there may need to be a qualitative difference, and in photos (or a lot of visual art for that matter) size matters.

A hand printed 4x6 is likely not going to get it done vs. whatever an inkjet can do.

I keep thinking of the value of the Steve Jobs portrait for the book cover of his biography, which was done with a 4x5 I believe. The irony will add value, no doubt.

 

[tomalophicon]

I was speaking with a few photographers who aren't too young to have shot film. All now use digital but have used film in the past.
None of them had any idea what silver halide paper was.
I doubt the general public (even the general hobbiest photographers) gives a shit.

 

[ROL]

In a word, no.

Unless you mean vintage, you're fooling yourself if you think any but a few ancient old farts give a rat's pitoutie (sp?) about image process. Many buyers of fine art photography now invest preferentially in digital image making because of its new cachet.

 

[eddie]

My experience is the public is starting to regard traditional photography as special. Over the last 18-20 years, I've participated in over 200 art festivals. When digital first started being exhibited it was all the rage. People were buying the new technology. In the last 2-3 years, I've seen more interest in traditional prints. I've had many customers who now refuse to buy digital, preferring the one of a kind image only a darkroom can produce. I'm not the only traditional exhibitor to notice this trend, and even some of the digishooters are responding to the trend ( a few are even claiming some of their work is traditional).
People are generally drawn to things they can't do. It's why we can be mesmerized by a 60 yard touchdown pass, a great guitar solo, or an amazing sculpture. Everyone has printed out a D print. (And, I'm not disparaging D prints. It's just very easy for many people to relate to the process, and find it less desirable.)

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Museums and collectors buy inkjet prints. That should tell you something.
Often us photographers don't realize the value of two things: a name, and content. The rest is borderline trivial.

Also consider how little work is actually printed these days, perhaps signifying that ANY printed work is precious.

 

[ROL]

Museums and collectors buy inkjet prints. That should tell you something.
Often us photographers don't realize the value of two things: a name, and content. The rest is borderline trivial.

I couldn't agree more. Three or four years ago I overheard the outgoing curator of photography at the Getty advise budding photographers to "get their hands wet" (i.e., make gelatin silver prints), while the incoming staff was busy acquiring and buying digital works of all kinds.

 

[vpwphoto]

I have been making my living with photographs or "visual media" for two and a half decades.
Digital is great.. frees up time, gives freedom to experiment.
Digital sucks... no opportunity cost (other than time) people think "visual media" is easy now.

I STILL can not make a print better than a silver print to hang on a wall... at least in the B+W arena.

Color wise... Cibachromes and such don't look right anymore when you can get a properly balanced digital color print made.
IMO

 

[removed account4]

maybe yes because if made right, and archival black/white print or toned or pt/pd or salt or ... will last a long time
maybe no because a pigment print made with the right ... will last a long time

maybe no because the general public couldn't really care less .. before they got cellphone snappies they got p/s - mini lab snappies

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

A quality print is a quality print, regardless of how it was made. To me what makes it precious is the effort that went into making it, the content, the framing, the expression and gesture, etc. regardless of printing medium.

I happen to enjoy creating darkroom prints myself, and really dislike making inkjet prints. But I regard them both as very fine ways to express photographic arts.

 

[Klainmeister]

Does 'quality print' also include archivability? (did i just make up that word?)

Also, wouldn't it be interesting to do a bunch of prints that will only last 30 years or something?

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Does 'quality print' also include archivability? (did i just make up that word?)

Also, wouldn't it be interesting to do a bunch of prints that will only last 30 years or something?

Heck if I know what it means, and I'm not sure how long an RA4 or Ilfochrome print will last compared to pure pigment inkjet prints. Who knows?

 

[perkeleellinen]

'Special' doesn't have to mean better or quality. I think it only makes sense subjectively and I don't think I'm alone in saying that for many of us here putting in hours of darkroom work tends to make us value our prints more than say emailing a jpg to an online printing outfit. In this sense it doesn't really matter what other people think, photography is a personal project as well as a commercial endeavour.

 

[Klainmeister]

Heck if I know what it means, and I'm not sure how long an RA4 or Ilfochrome print will last compared to pure pigment inkjet prints. Who knows?

The only reason I bring this up is because museum curators, galleries, or collectors might be more inclined to purchase a selenium toned fiber print than a modern bw inkjet print because we know it will last. All the claims by Epson, Canon, and HP are suspicious to me. They can market it, but chances are everyone will be dead to remember.

 

[Aristophanes]

maybe yes because if made right, and archival black/white print or toned or pt/pd or salt or ... will last a long time
maybe no because a pigment print made with the right ... will last a long time

maybe no because the general public couldn't really care less .. before they got cellphone snappies they got p/s - mini lab snappies

Most people understand a quality print from something much less so.

That is how National Geographic is still around.

Most people just do not have the personal time to invest in producing their own higher quality images.The care about good enough and are far more observant of the image content than the technicalities.

The diverging dynamic between the one-of-a-kind custom, hand made print and the over-production of digital snaps is already creating a marketable nostalgic. The closest analogy I can think of is the slow food movement and a renewed interest ni short production run, hand bound or technically outstanding print books.

 

[keithwms]

I don't know about this whole archival fixation. Some of the best things we can experience are finished in a few minutes

 

[removed account4]

i think for the most part national geo is still around because it is an institution
not because of the "quality" it might embody ...
i don't think many people really care about quality these days ..
things are "good enough" unless you can afford something hand made,
or to spend 200$ on a meal that takes 7 hours to prepare and serve
or anything else of "quality"
we live in an age where everything is a veneer of quality, a shadow ... whether it is the shiny-metalic looking stuff
that is electroplated on the plastic toilet paper holder - to make it look "rich" ( but for 3.99$ )
or a point and shoot snapshot imported into someones smartphone and then "app'd" to look
like a vintage sepia toned, deckle edged print.
maybe there is a segment of society that still cares, just like we are here and still care
but the outside in the real world ... you will find fewer people paying 500 or 2000$ for a hand crafted set of prints
of their child made with a film camera and hand printed on paper &c &C , and more people going to the baby-mart
and sitting for 45seconds, and 3mins later quality dye sub prints appear, all for 8$/sheet ...

8$ doesn't even cover film or paper, never mind the time it takes to alchemize a print ...

 

[blansky]

I don't know about this whole archival fixation. Some of the best things we can experience are finished in a few minutes

And for some a few seconds.

But obviously you've never had an archival orgasm.

It's from sex with a really ugly partner and you keep reliving it until you die. You can't get it out of your head.

What was I thinking...what was I thinking...what was I thinking....

 

[Bob Carnie]

Ok now I am confused

Recently threads have been closed because of digital discussion, this thread seems to still be active, where some are suggesting traditional prints are more precious , special than digital workflow prints?

Is it ok now to discuss the merits of images created with a digital element?? Or is it only to be continued with how precious our enlarger prints are??
Some of the best artists, whose prints I have seen are not being brought forward due to recent moderator comments or decisions.
I am not a Zeolot(sp) for the dark side, I just think a balanced discussion should be allowed.

I find it ironic that I just loaded two images on another thread as an example how I mask my negative carrier, which was done by IPhone, but I cannot talk about lets say Sandy Kings or Kerik or ..........others work because they happen to incorporate inkjet negs... I do not feel comfortable talking about my own darkroom any more because of this apparent lack of balance.

Is it just me??? are others not offended by this? I am getting really tired of some here stating how ffllfk precious their hand made prints are.. I suspect most of them are shite>:munch:

 

[blansky]

In answering the OP question " has digital prints made older process prints special" the answer is of course, sometimes.

Some people appreciate the hand made one off quality of darkroom prints, but obviously most people don't and most don't even know what silver halide, platinum etc even means.

Some "collectors" buy not by love of subject matter or process but instead by author.

Is an Ansel Adams printed by someone else, better than one printed with an inkjet?

Anyways, the bottom line in my opinion is still not the process, but the subject.

 

[keithwms]

But obviously you've never had an archival orgasm.

It's from sex with a really ugly partner and you keep reliving it until you die. You can't get it out of your head.

What was I thinking...what was I thinking...what was I thinking....

LOL

Sex?! Naughty lad, I was referring to the blossoming of a flower, the taste of a tart cherry... okay I meant sex

But seriously: there is financial worth in owning / investing in something will be there for a long time. E.g. the bricks of your house. But suppose you make a really glorious albumen print that will start to yellow in a few years. Would you care? Suppose you could make a leaf print by taking the substances from a leaf in the fall, and watch it turn colour just like normal leaves do... would it be worth less because it changes? Or would it in fact be worth more because it's something that isn't constant and static... instead it shows its age.

I can think of plenty of really beautiful photographic creations that aren't archival to the standards of toned silver or platinum prints.

 

[Aristophanes]

I don't know about this whole archival fixation. Some of the best things we can experience are finished in a few minutes

Genetic archives!

Nice.

 

[Dinesh]

Is it just me???

Yes, it's just you!

 

[ROL]

Ok now I am confused

Just go lie down, dad.

Recently threads have been closed because of digital discussion, this thread seems to still be active, where some are suggesting traditional prints are more precious , special than digital workflow prints?

...but have a stiff one first (whatever that means to you).

Is it ok now to discuss the merits of images created with a digital element?? Or is it only to be continued with how precious our enlarger prints are??
Some of the best artists, whose prints I have seen are not being brought forward due to recent moderator comments or decisions.
I am not a Zeolot(sp) for the dark side, I just think a balanced discussion should be allowed.

That line was blurred a long time ago. I believe, at one time, that was supposed to be the domain of HybridPhoto.com

I find it ironic that I just loaded two images on another thread as an example how I mask my negative carrier, which was done by IPhone, but I cannot talk about lets say Sandy Kings or Kerik or ..........others work because they happen to incorporate inkjet negs... I do not feel comfortable talking about my own darkroom any more because of this apparent lack of balance.

I think of APUG as a place to help people with arcane classical processes. I just can't get worked up over what is and what isn't. It was only now that I realized this was an "Ethics and Philosophy" thread, which I normally steer clear of, unless I can somehow make a joke of it (check and mate).

Is it just me??? are others not offended by this? I am getting really tired of some here stating how ffllfk precious their hand made prints are..

(ffllfk?)

Offended by people I don't know, working part time out of their bathrooms, whose latest gear acquisition is more important than their image making, who may only relate to photography through their experience with digital image making, professing unsubstantiated experience and competence?!?

I suspect most of them are shite

I know mine are. I only keep them on my walls because I have to live with my wife's bad taste in "art".


It's the internet Bob. It's all good (...and all bad). I'm out – I'd rather go make another shitey print.