Is the value of a wet print recognized in the digital world?

Ektagraphic · Jul 11, 2012

Hello-
Are there any primarily/completely digital photographers around that pay much attention to the benefits/qualities of traditional wet prints (RA-4 or Black and White) when it comes to printing their digital images? Do people care about the fact that their inkjet prints are made with ink?

indigo · Oct 24, 2012

I guess not! I have found that ink jet is the worst type of photo print in my opinion compared to wet print, optically exposed or digitally exposed with laser or light pipe, dye sub print etc.. but I think most people like the look of the ink jet print. I think the primary reason is that ink jet offers the highest saturation level.

desertfotog · Nov 6, 2012

I don't know exactly what the digital world is -- a lot of folks have a toe in both hemispheres -- but if you spend any time around photo and art gallery types you will learn that a good old fashioned dip-and-dunk fiber photo print is considered by many as the "right way" of doing things. I am preparing gallery-sized prints on canvas for a gallery showing and they are are ink jet. I could get a lot more money for traditional fiber prints and I may just fire up a b&w darkroom and make them the old fashioned way. I never ship off anything good in the way of negatives so having my prints done elsewhere is out of the question. A wet darkroom would be a great big hassle for me but I am prepared to put one in if I have to.

jimcollum · Nov 9, 2012

I have work represented in the Susan Spiritus Gallery... sell both inkjet and platinum. (i'd consider me the 'k-mart' corner of the gallery... she represents more 'biggies'.. Tice, Loranc , Watanabe,)... while this work commands good prices (no where near the Jeff Wall, Crewdson stratosphere)...most of the contemporary work coming in and selling.. for just as much as the vintage.. is inkjet.

While the 'craft' of the print does play a factor in a sale.... it's definitely not near the top of the list.

jimcollum · Nov 9, 2012

.. and for my work.. although I love the alchemy of the analog process.. that part is separate from the decision of what i'm going to put out as a portfolio image. It's how the craft works towards the final emotional impact of the image.

I do sell the Platinum work for more.. but that's more due to edition size of the series.

desertfotog · Nov 9, 2012

I hope Collum is right about ink jet prints selling well because I've invested a couple of grand in big prints for an upcoming gallery show. I also bought a nice film enlarger and first class lenses for 35mm and 120 -- just in case.

jimcollum · Nov 10, 2012

i think a lot depends on the market. i suspect that the difference between inkjet and silver is more of a deal for art fairs and such... you see the 'this is a real silver print made by hand' marketing going on there.. and that's where it might matter. If someone comes into, say, the Catherine Edelman gallery , then the type of print would be mentioned as a matter of description.. but rarely would have an impact on the sale of the image.

you're not buying an image there because it's a silver print, you're buying it because it's by Michael Kenna

lenny · Aug 2, 2013

I've been a printer for a long time. I've done seemingly millions of darkroom prints, all kinds of alt process and had a business in the late 70's/early 80's in NYC that printed in platinum for other photographers (including Avedon). I've been doing inkjet since about 2002 sometime. The truth is that a print looks great when someone takes the time to make it so - in any technology. You can't tell me that any camera is inherently incapable of making a great image. You can't say that about printers, or printers vs darkroom vs alt process, etc., either. Its not the device, its the person behind it. It's a matter of mastering the control of something to the point it becomes expressive.

I just had a friend over, another photographer, and I showed him one of my latest prints. I showed it to him right next to a platinum print of the same image. There is no discernible difference, if anything the inkjet was better. I keep hearing about people talking about how there is some virtue in darkroom vs something else. There isn't. It's like saying social documentary photography is better than landscape. They are different. I like them both. I happen to like to shoot landscape but it doesn't mean I don't appreciate the other (altho' there are genres I could do without entirely). If you like darkroom prints, by all means make them. If you like inkjet prints, or alt process, by all means make those. And make them better and better until they are exquisite.

Lenny

iansand · Aug 3, 2013

lenny said:
I've been a printer for a long time. I've done seemingly millions of darkroom prints

Lenny

I completely agree

Ian

OzJohn · Aug 4, 2013

Indigo said:
I guess not! I have found that ink jet is the worst type of photo print in my opinion compared to wet print, optically exposed or digitally exposed with laser or light pipe, dye sub print etc.. but I think most people like the look of the ink jet print. I think the primary reason is that ink jet offers the highest saturation level.

As well as saturation, it's also an expanded colour gamut and the great range of papers and other substrates that that makes inkjet attractive. Despite what some traditional colour printers will try to tell you, there is no way that chromogenic paper can rival the gamut of an eight or ten colour inkjet. I see the proof of this regularly because I have much of my professional work printed on RA4 Endura right up to 20x40 but I have certain styles of enlargements, sometimes from the same images, printed inkjet. Flesh tones and neutrals are very good in both processes but the difference in bright reds, greens and yellows as well as subtle blues, pinks and violets is astounding - inkjet can distinguish shades that print as one on Endura. I have very little experience with black & white printed on inkjet but what I have seen looks good but quite different to silver-based paper. OzJohn

BMbikerider · Jul 13, 2019

Because of what I do with my photography at the museum where I work part time where I have to use digital because the management nearly always want the result yesterday! It provides what the management want - no question about that.

However for personal satisfaction I personally feel there is nothing to equal the feeling of seeing the result a good b&w or colour print made with your own skill and judgement, Not what some anonymous software programmer has decided for you which may be OK but they arrive at the touch of a button and not your/my expertise. Anyone can press a button.

Peter Schrager · Jul 13, 2019

Galleries d9nt care...if if sells off the wall it's fine by them.. personally I wouldn't spend big money on an inkjet print. ..but I'm probably not their market anyway...

logan2z · Jul 13, 2019

Peter Schrager said:
Galleries d9nt care...if if sells off the wall it's fine by them.. personally I wouldn't spend big money on an inkjet print. ..but I'm probably not their market anyway...

I was at a gallery the other day that was showing a set of prints by Jim Marshall. Some were inkjet and some silver gelatin. I was talking to the gallery owner and asked if his customers valued a silver gelatin print and he said "most don't know the difference". Pretty incredible considering the price tags on some of the prints.

Ko.Fe. · Jul 13, 2019

I couldn't care less if it is super inkjet print by million wet prints in the past printer. What I see is the only authority. I'm sorry.
Yes, majority doesn't care or able to see the difference. But I do.

Prints from digital cameras have zero value to me. I just can't see anything valuable in them. It could be good image, but it just missing something. Always. It doesn't mean it could be sold for high price to someone. But not to me.
Prints from scans are slightly better. Sometimes they are good, to be honest.
But if I really want to see prints, I look at pre-scan, true analogue color regular lab prints at home and go to museums and galleries for bw darkroom prints. It just feels totally different from inks. Not really better, but unique and different. Every inkjet print is nothing but mass produce, putting "I print millions, I spend time" on them, doesn't show any difference. "Lipstick on the pig", sorry.

I do use inkjet and darkroom as well. Aesthetically I'm with him:

BMbikerider · Jul 15, 2019

I have seen very few prints, with the emphasis on VERY. that I can't see at a glance that are not RA4 and are in fact inkjet effigies! Usually the colours are over saturated, over sharpened, and usually totally and completely devoid of grain (which I happen to like in small amounts), Or have a surface finish that cannot be reproduced on RA4. In short, they they lack that certain 'something'. What am I getting at? Character, - 'body', or is it the knowledge that they are produced mechanically (well electronically) with the least, possibly the smallest input being by the photographer?

Sirius Glass · Jul 15, 2019

Ektagraphic said:
Hello-
Are there any primarily/completely digital photographers around that pay much attention to the benefits/qualities of traditional wet prints (RA-4 or Black and White) when it comes to printing their digital images? Do people care about the fact that their inkjet prints are made with ink?

No, they are for the most part clueless. When asked they do not want to know. Horse to water and all that.

faberryman · Jul 15, 2019

Is the value of a digital print recognized in the wet print world?

Eric Rose · Jul 15, 2019

Prints are not recognized in either world. Names are the only thing recognized and valued.

warden · Jul 15, 2019

faberryman said:
Is the value of a digital print recognized in the wet print world?

Yes, it's just a negative value. Har de har har!

removed account4 · Jul 15, 2019

Sirius Glass said:
No, they are for the most part clueless. When asked they do not want to know. Horse to water and all that.

I don't think many people are clueless.

Eric Rose said:
Prints are not recognized in either world. Names are the only thing recognized and valued.

couldnt' agree more. It's like Jasper Johns and his Ballentine Ale bronze sculpture.

KenS · Jul 15, 2019

I am willing (and able) to scan and slightly 'enlarge' my 4x5 negatives onto Pictorico for making prints onto a 'quality' water-colour paper using the 'archaic' print processes.. A lot more work, a lot slower... but 'usually' well worth the effort... as well as being 'less expensive' per print.

Ken

nmp · Jul 15, 2019

faberryman said:
Is the value of a digital print recognized in the wet print world?

Good question. And judging from some of the responses, I guess not so much. Unfortunately, a lot of people equate photography with the technique, be it analog or digital and not what one sees.

Bob Carnie · Jul 16, 2019

KenS said:
I am willing (and able) to scan and slightly 'enlarge' my 4x5 negatives onto Pictorico for making prints onto a 'quality' water-colour paper using the 'archaic' print processes.. A lot more work, a lot slower... but 'usually' well worth the effort... as well as being 'less expensive' per print.

Ken

I do this as well and yes it is much less than what Ilford has offering for silver paper these days. A box of anything in decent size or quantity is over $400

Eric Rose · Jul 16, 2019

nmp said:
Unfortunately, a lot of people equate photography with the technique, be it analog or digital and not what one sees.

AMEN BROTHER!

warden · Jul 16, 2019

nmp said:
Good question. And judging from some of the responses, I guess not so much. Unfortunately, a lot of people equate photography with the technique, be it analog or digital and not what one sees.

When I see tap dancers on stage performing a vintage piece I don't care that they are wearing new shoes to do it because the shoes were never a significant part of the story in the first place. But when Magnum releases prints from vintage negatives and they're not darkroom prints I'm not a buyer because the darkroom technique matters to me. I don't think this is equating photography with technique; it's simply preferring a hands-on dodge and burn approach that appeals to me and is consistent with the way the originals were made.

That doesn't mean the darkroom print is any better of course, but that it's a significant part of the story that is important to some collectors, including me. That fidelity to the original technique is one reason darkroom prints (especially of older negatives) are worth more to me.

For my personal work I use film and darkroom, but also film + digital printing/photoshop. The bar is lower you see.

Is the value of a wet print recognized in the digital world?

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency