Has digital prints made older process prints special?

[keithwms]

I'm out – I'd rather go make another shitey print.

If you sell it then do be sure say at least 10 Hail Ansels.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

I take my girlfriend (a non-photographer) to museums showing fine print that are dye-transfer, silver gelatin and other older processes. I'd look with awe and amazement at those prints. My girlfriend enjoys them, but knows little about the process behind the prints. I'd explain to her the best I can how they're made. To me they're special because of the craftsmanship involved in making these prints. She did ask me what are Giclee prints. I told there that they're inkjet prints.

 

[Bob Carnie]

I need to lurk on APUG and not get involved, Dinesh could you please bring over my blood pressure pills.

 

[Dinesh]

I need to lurk on APUG and not get involved, Dinesh could you please bring over my blood pressure pills.

Can do.

I assume you'll be out front yelling at children to "get off my lawn"!

 

[Vilk]

Has digital prints made older process prints special or even precious?

not mine, i'm afraid :confused:

 

[Maris]

Don't know if it's my perception, but Has digital prints made older process prints special or even precious? Just want to know how other APUGers think.

Pictures on paper made out of light sensitive materials are so special that I don't even call them "prints" lest they be confused with "print-outs", etchings, engravings, and the like. I say they are photographs and I say that word assertively and with pride. The long tradition of referring to paper-backed photographs as prints is a bad tradition that should be firmly put aside particularly in these times when real photography is tragically muddled with digital picture-making.

I won't single-handedly change the world but I've influenced a few people to say "photograph" instead of "print" when the medium is important and just "picture" when the medium is irrelevant. Maybe it's a doomed crusade. Maybe it's a good start.

 

[Aristophanes]

Pictures on paper made out of light sensitive materials are so special that I don't even call them "prints" lest they be confused with "print-outs", etchings, engravings, and the like. I say they are photographs and I say that word assertively and with pride. The long tradition of referring to paper-backed photographs as prints is a bad tradition that should be firmly put aside particularly in these times when real photography is tragically muddled with digital picture-making.

I won't single-handedly change the world but I've influenced a few people to say "photograph" instead of "print" when the medium is important and just "picture" when the medium is irrelevant. Maybe it's a doomed crusade. Maybe it's a good start.

So what are slides? Not photographs because they are projected and not usually printed?

Narrowing things down too much (and off the vernacular) is more likely to lose an audience than gain one.

 

[keithwms]

LOL as usual, to some it's not a real photograph unless it is b&w printed archivally on silver.... just go about your business and be happy. And yes I did say "business"...

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

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.

That's just it, though. Curators purchase inkjet prints just as happily as anything else.
As with everything else, there will be purists who think chemically processed prints are the only viable way, but those that are interested in the full spectrum of what photography has to offer will purchase prints of all kinds.
I kind of agree with the latter, or you would completely miss, from an artistic perspective, the many incredibly talented artists that print digitally, and that would be very sad.

 

[rakeshmravi]

For B&W, I wish, I had the space necessary to make the print myself. There is just no way the digital prints can come close to the darkroom prints. Although with Epson 4900, people are getting close, but still lacks the strength you get when you look at the traditional prints.

But for color, I prefer my 4900 prints. I get to control the color exactly I want.

 

[MattKing]

I think the reason this makes sense for APUG is that it is at least supposedly about "analogue" processes and how they persist in an otherwise predominantly digital world.

I think any process has the potential to result in special results, but the question really turns on what we mean by "special".

 

[hoffy]

Like most things, its totally subjective.

Me, personally, I like the process of making a print with an enlarger and chemicals. It is a much more interesting process then sitting in front of a PC, photo shop and an inkjet. Thats what makes it special FOR ME.

From a consumers perspective, its a strong No. As a matter of fact, for those who care and have embraced digital, they probably can take their prints to places they could have never of imagined then in the past.

Yes, a B&W optical wet print CAN have much more tonal range then one produced digitally, but then again, digital photography is more akin to shooting chromes then anything else - is it really the print or the original capture?

What about medium choice? One thing that a lot of people like about inkjets is the wide choice of materials that can be printed on (canvas anyone? As much as I loathe them, they are very popular).

As for Archival - well, an optically printed digital RC photo is no different to an optically printed analogue RC print....and it now appears that Inkjet Photos have been rated into the 100's of years on display and +200 years under archival storage, if the right products are chosen.

I think that if People are printing, regardless of it being via a digital means or analogue, they are ALL making it a bit more special, especially compared to those who are happy to leave their pictures restricted to social media....

 

[coigach]

Not really

This discussion is one sided as the moderator police will be active soon, but digital prints have had a positive effect.
I don't think its fair to slam digital here, just like discussing its potential for traditional printing methods has been banned.
I embrace both methods of making prints and can make both sing.

+1

 

[coigach]

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:

Cheered me up no end!

Seriously though there is a wearying kind of holier-than-thou side to APUG that seems to come out with a 'my way or the highway' mentality ie. anyone using transparency film or, gasp, colour, seems to be viewed as a little less than those who use b+w negs and darkroom print. I use dr5 reversed transparencies and have had to defend the use of and reasons for using reversed trannies over conventional negs + prints many a time.

I've signed up to the APUG mission statement and totally accept this means I can't talk about my polymer photogravure's as they have a digital step. It's the general tone of the conversations where anything even remotely different or hybrid is dealt with as much as anything that I find wearying.

But I do love APUG, have learned lots and discovered the work of very many talented people. Maybe I'm just turning into a grump...

 

[Klainmeister]

I like both, to be honest. Darkroom prints are great--if done well. Inkjet prints for color work is great as well--if done well (the overasaturated, giant prints are the one's that rub me the wrong way), and hybrid work for alt processes are excellent as well. They all have their place.

There does seem to be a divide in the gallery/curator world. Here in SFe I have seen both sides: some people think inkjets are just as legitmate while others question that. Ultimately, it seems to come down to the name, the content, and the presentation, although some collectors here seem to only go for darkroom/alt processes and not to tend towards the inkjets since their archival qualities have yet to be proven.

Oh, and in the Andrew Smith Gallery, there's some Cibahromes next to some inkjets, and while I like the finish of the Cibas, I have to admit the inkjets are balanced better, look sharper, and overall seem more pleasing.

 

[ME Super]

Seriously though there is a wearying kind of holier-than-thou side to APUG that seems to come out with a 'my way or the highway' mentality ie. anyone using transparency film or, gasp, colour, seems to be viewed as a little less than those who use b+w negs and darkroom print. I use dr5 reversed transparencies and have had to defend the use of and reasons for using reversed trannies over conventional negs + prints many a time.

+1

I shoot (horrors!) color transparency film most of the time. Why? Because I like it. Now having said that, B&W does have its merits too and I have a roll of Tri-X in the refrigerator just waiting to be fed to my camera.

That Other "Capture/Presentation" Method has its merits too, as does hybrid. But I still love the analog photography process and presentation on a big screen in a darkened room.

ME Super

 

[JBrunner]

There is no problem with shooting color transparencies, or sharing them on APUG. There is no problem with discussing the non digital portions of a hybrid process. There is no problem with using DPUG to discuss hybrid and digital processes. There is no problem with discussing the effect of modern times on the prevalence or marketability of traditional prints.

It is, however, very uncool to attempt to hijack a thread to complain about how APUG isn't what YOU want it to be. It's also boorish and tiresome.

APUG has a narrow charter, and that's the end of it.

 

[coigach]

It is, however, very uncool to attempt to hijack a thread to complain about how APUG isn't what YOU want it to be. It's also boorish and tiresome.

APUG has a narrow charter, and that's the end of it.

Apologies if that's how my contribution came across, that was not the intention.

 

[blansky]

I like both, to be honest. Darkroom prints are great--if done well. Inkjet prints for color work is great as well--if done well (the overasaturated, giant prints are the one's that rub me the wrong way), and hybrid work for alt processes are excellent as well. They all have their place.

There does seem to be a divide in the gallery/curator world. Here in SFe I have seen both sides: some people think inkjets are just as legitmate while others question that. Ultimately, it seems to come down to the name, the content, and the presentation, although some collectors here seem to only go for darkroom/alt processes and not to tend towards the inkjets since their archival qualities have yet to be proven.

Oh, and in the Andrew Smith Gallery, there's some Cibahromes next to some inkjets, and while I like the finish of the Cibas, I have to admit the inkjets are balanced better, look sharper, and overall seem more pleasing.

Interesting that a gallery would question the use of photographic inkjet as a legitimate or worthy print, when for years they have been pimping "giclee" for so called "art".

That's like saying the sex you get from a hooker is less legitimate than the sex you got when you were in prison.

Neither is love but it got the job done.

 

[blockend]

As someone whose first job was studio assistant and who went on to be a professional B&W printer before adopting more remunerative careers, I don't associate the silver print process with zen like calm.

 

[Helinophoto]

Just wanted to get the thread back on track a little;

Coming from a 100% digital process to a mix of digital and hybrid processing, then starting with 100% analog process this fall, here are my initial findings:

With digital, you can get get exactly what you want.
What I mean by that, is that you can fix ANY error you EVER made, _any error_, be it tonal errors, exposure, contrast, heck, I've even made shoes two number smaller on the model, because they were too big. New background? No problem. Flat hair? no problem, the liquefy-tool and other evil things can make a foul 220 pound whale look buxom and hot. (and 20 years younger). You can make people fly, create fake reflections, even create fake light sources or make the eyes look like they were made of the finest crystal class you ever saw.
Then squeeze out 200 prints in a batch on your computer, done.

BUT

One of the most famous portrait photographers in my country works mainly analog, all his works are expensive, but the silver gelatins have another "0" on the price tag compared to the digital prints.
Silver gelatin is unique, every prints is unique, even from the same negative in the same session, the dodging and burning will be similar, but never 100% equal. There are also a limited number of prints available/made and THAT's what makes them special/more expensive imo.
- At least when the guy producing the print itself has proper darkroom skills, unlike me

The general public is oblivious for the most part though, they look at the content (their child or their dog, whatever), not the medium it is printed on, except if they asked for semi matte and got glossy. They never ponder on tonality and very rarely marvel at grain (if it is not so much that it's getting in the way of their brat's toothless smile that is ).

I think, in time, that silver gelatin -works- will be a sought-after specialty to the general public as well, much like the "western style" photos taken with large format cameras at fairs they have here and there. Those are super expensive, but people love the look and gladly pay out of their a$$es and wait for 1 hour 30 minutes to get them.

I view the analog process and prints very differently from digital and even hybrid processing.

I do hybrid when I have no idea how to make that final look in the dark-room, for convenience and speed or if I fouled up or need to change/fix stuff.
There is no room for much error in the darkroom, stray hairs and ugly background will be in the final print, so it demands a hell of a lot more from me as a photographer imo.
(but then again, I don't really know much more than burning and dodging, contrast filters and the odd double exposure (like cloning) in the dark room at this point )