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

[Bob Carnie]

I am making digital silver prints for a Magnum photographer... if the capture is digital ( a large number of Magnum Photographers ) then what is wrong with a digital print... I see no issue in this. The purity of the enlarger to print is overrated.. so many lousy prints have been made this way... the number is in the millions.. digital has not changed this fact.

 

[NortheastPhotographic]

There are a lot of questionable answers here to what I must admit is an oversimplified question...

It all depends on what your art is! If you are a print maker with enormous skill, and you are offering handmade lets say silver gelatin prints to a given audience, and reproductions of those prints made digitally, which do you think is going to be a higher value item? However if you are a more conceptual artist and your work is not really about the craft of print making, it probably doesn't matter so much.

Taste aside, prints made from modern inkjet technology are fabulous. I think the only way you could judge them negatively in a global way is if you bring some preconceived bias. This is not to say that they are 'indistinguishable' from an RA4 print or a B&W darkroom print. I personally don't subscribe to the idea that pigment prints need to look exactly like an RA4 print to be acceptable. The RA4 prints I used to make were typically on glossy paper, where as the pigment prints I make are often on matte or semi-matte surfaces. I see them as being fairly different, and one is not superior to the other outside of paper choice and permanence, if favor of pigment.

Do what you do and do it well. That is where the value comes from.

 

[jim10219]

Is the value of a painting in the canvas or the tubes of paint? Is the value of a sculpture measured in the density of the marble?

What or how something is made doesn't really effect it's value in the art world. That's one of the main things that separates art from craft. Crafts are valued based on how difficult or expensive it was to make them. Art is valued on significance.

Andreas Gursky, whose prints are among the most valuable ever made, are typically made from inkjet printers and heavily digitally manipulated. Galleries, museums, and most art critics seem to have no problem with that. What maters to them is the significance of his work.

Now, all of that being said, if you're just a guy on side of the street selling photos out of the back of your van, you'll likely get a higher price for wet prints than inkjet prints. In that situation, you're selling a product that the average person no longer has access to. Anyone can download a stock photo and print it at home. Most people don't know of a way to get a silver gelatin print, even if they really wanted one. It's also the reason why inkjet prints made on metal, glass, canvas, or very large inkjet prints tend to command a better price than a typical 8x10. They're things that the average person probably doesn't know where to get on their own (though could probably find on the internet with a little investigation).

In the end, value is all about supply and demand. A rare photo from a major artist has a LOT of demand, regardless of how it was made. A small inkjet made by your neighbor, probably doesn't have much demand.

 

[warden]

I am making digital silver prints for a Magnum photographer... if the capture is digital ( a large number of Magnum Photographers ) then what is wrong with a digital print... I see no issue in this. The purity of the enlarger to print is overrated.. so many lousy prints have been made this way... the number is in the millions.. digital has not changed this fact.

There is nothing wrong at all with it. I would assume contemporary Magnum photographers that use digital cameras would print however they like or hire someone like yourself to see their work to completion. It's all good. I was describing my personal habits only, not suggesting anyone follow my lead of course.

 

[Vilk]

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

+1

i was walking past a local photog shop a while back, a dozen really great prints in the window (yup, been a long time, done seemingly, etc.). i couldn't decide whether they were inkjet or wet, so i walked in and asked. 'half and half,' was the answer

 

[Bob Carnie]

There is nothing wrong at all with it. I would assume contemporary Magnum photographers that use digital cameras would print however they like or hire someone like yourself to see their work to completion. It's all good. I was describing my personal habits only, not suggesting anyone follow my lead of course.

We are even seeing this with historical negatives ... scanning and then making digital negs to print rather than putting the original neg into an enlarger... in these cases the client comes to my
shop with the original negs, we scan immediately so that the originals go back to safe keeping..... this may be contrary or blasphemy to some here but there are cases where this is absolutely
the best approach..
75 % of my business in printing this day is from digital files to inkjet and now surprisingly Alternative Wet Prints is half of my printing methods. Very rarely will I print from original.. the last major show of enlarger prints
I did was 40 Vivian Maier negatives ... I can tell you the period of time they were in my shop made me nervous, just housing them.

 

[Bob Carnie]

I just realized I am talking in a 8 year old thread.... Its funny how this is still a relevant topic.

 

[warden]

We are even seeing this with historical negatives ... scanning and then making digital negs to print rather than putting the original neg into an enlarger... in these cases the client comes to my
shop with the original negs, we scan immediately so that the originals go back to safe keeping..... this may be contrary or blasphemy to some here but there are cases where this is absolutely
the best approach..
75 % of my business in printing this day is from digital files to inkjet and now surprisingly Alternative Wet Prints is half of my printing methods. Very rarely will I print from original.. the last major show of enlarger prints
I did was 40 Vivian Maier negatives ... I can tell you the period of time they were in my shop made me nervous, just housing them.

Vivian is another example (for me) of what I would spend money on (just me!). A darkroom print from one of her negatives would suit me just fine, even though I know the modern darkroom printer can't know exactly what she would have approved of for obvious reasons. In this case a darkroom print would just suit me in a way that an inkjet wouldn't.

I can appreciate the nervousness of having all those negatives, but it sounds like they were in the right hands.

 

[MattKing]

We are even seeing this with historical negatives ... scanning and then making digital negs to print rather than putting the original neg into an enlarger... in these cases the client comes to my
shop with the original negs, we scan immediately so that the originals go back to safe keeping..... this may be contrary or blasphemy to some here but there are cases where this is absolutely
the best approach..
75 % of my business in printing this day is from digital files to inkjet and now surprisingly Alternative Wet Prints is half of my printing methods. Very rarely will I print from original.. the last major show of enlarger prints
I did was 40 Vivian Maier negatives ... I can tell you the period of time they were in my shop made me nervous, just housing them.

Part of the problem with this discussion is that if the print you see has been made by Bob, it probably doesn't matter which procedure he used - it will be a really good print.
The things that give a print value is a combination of things - the photographer's vision, the photographer's technique in combination with his/her processes, materials and equipment, the printer's vision, and the printer's technique in combination with his/her processes, materials and equipment.
The things that determine a print's price overlap with the things that give it value, but also include market factors that aren't related to those other factors - like how many Facebook followers the photographer has.

 

[jtk]

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:

Opinions are never of value if the opinionater is not recognized.

 

[prado333]

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

Avedon did platinum prints ?
i have never seen any of this, i thought always gelatin silver prints of his work.

 

[jtk]

I just realized I am talking in a 8 year old thread.... Its funny how this is still a relevant topic.

It's a tired topic, not "relevant".

 

[markbau]

It's a tired topic, not "relevant".

The observation could be made that you are a "tired poster" and not relevant.

 

[jtk]

It's a tired topic, not "relevant".

Important to remember, there is no such thing as "digital world" in photography...that notion is just a leftover from the old days.

 

[jtk]

+1

i was walking past a local photog shop a while back, a dozen really great prints in the window (yup, been a long time, done seemingly, etc.). i couldn't decide whether they were inkjet or wet, so i walked in and asked. 'half and half,' was the answer

A photo shop is about the last place I'd look for evidence of good prints ..

 

[jtk]

We are even seeing this with historical negatives ... scanning and then making digital negs to print rather than putting the original neg into an enlarger... in these cases the client comes to my
shop with the original negs, we scan immediately so that the originals go back to safe keeping..... this may be contrary or blasphemy to some here but there are cases where this is absolutely
the best approach..
75 % of my business in printing this day is from digital files to inkjet and now surprisingly Alternative Wet Prints is half of my printing methods. Very rarely will I print from original.. the last major show of enlarger prints
I did was 40 Vivian Maier negatives ... I can tell you the period of time they were in my shop made me nervous, just housing them.

Interesting! How about posting some sort of essay about that experience ?

 

[Bob Carnie]

Interesting! How about posting some sort of essay about that experience ?

Maybe one day if I can get the right permission to do so.. I cannot talk about client work in some cases, I have an interesting history with Vivian negs before she was even known to the photo community.

 

[removed account4]

A photo shop is about the last place I'd look for evidence of good prints ..

ever been to blue moon camera and machine ? they have a commercial printing business and enlarge/print negatives
and from all reports they do a great job. there was a shop near me that was established in 1927 .. they had a lab and were as good as any stand alone print shop/commercial lab. i guess it depends on where you live ..

Important to remember, there is no such thing as "digital world" in photography...that notion is just a leftover from the old days.

maybe, or maybe its just person opinion? there is a big difference between file from a digital camera printed with a pigment or ink jet &c printer and a "traditional print"
... the hybrid print ( scan / digital negative > traditional process ) that bob was talking about, or a digital file outputted as a digital negative and used in a 150 year old process/technique .. not sure but it is a combination of the digital world and the olde world.
i figure gum prints, cyanotypes, silver prints, pt/pd prints, kaliotypes, ziatypes, salt prints, albumen prints aren't digital images like ink/pigment on paper ... or are they if they use a digital / computer made, xerox shop made negative ?

interesting philosophical question ..

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

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?

IMHO, with so many photographers shooting digital, there will be fewer photographers doing wet prints. However, a fine art or portrait photographer will have an edge by selling analog prints because the hand crafting. Darkroom printing has become fine art printing just like lithography and etchings. I think in the commercial photography world and photojournalism, analog photography adds little.

 

[jtk]

Whatever one "thinks" is less relevant than what one actually sees, in person, in multiple fine photo galleries. It's possible for a salesperson to add purported "value" in a sale.

As well, size is very important to many buyers...reflect on that.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Most owners of "fine art galleries" are just commodities brokers. Sell a well-known signature, that's all. Or show something allegedly new or zany, which has always been the case. Most don't give a damn about the specific medium; nor do their clients. There are obviously a few notable exceptions, who actually have some personal taste and insight. It's a risky business model at best. I just don't give a damn. People who have bought my prints simply wanted my prints, period. But I do think there's a growing yearning for high-quality craft that shows it, once people actually see it in person, versus the web.
But speaking of webs: the most important factor in a gallery is location, location, location, namely, where to put a big spider web to catch suckers with lots of money to waste on something big, and no taste at all.

 

[Bob Carnie]

Most owners of "fine art galleries" are just commodities brokers. Sell a well-known signature, that's all. Or show something allegedly new or zany, which has always been the case. Most don't give a damn about the specific medium; nor do their clients. There are obviously a few notable exceptions, who actually have some personal taste and insight. It's a risky business model at best. I just don't give a damn. People who have bought my prints simply wanted my prints, period. But I do think there's a growing yearning for high-quality craft that shows it, once people actually see it in person, versus the web.
But speaking of webs: the most important factor in a gallery is location, location, location, namely, where to put a big spider web to catch suckers with lots of money to waste on something big, and no taste at all.

Drew - I have not heard so much bullshit in years... obviously you do not know any of the owners of good galleries...I think you need to get out more.

just sayin

 

[DREW WILEY]

Do you even realize how much of an exception you are, Bob? Spend a little time around here, which was once the world epicenter of high quality photography. Yeah, it's still around in a vintage sense if that's what collectors seek out ... but commercial galleries? - you just can't pay the lease with serious work. Do the math. But you're right. I don't visit galleries much anymore. Seems like every time I do it's just a courtesy to someone, and I end up highly disappointed. Sometimes there are well-funded museum exhibitions that are rewarding; but I've already seen lots and lots of that kind of thing, and by this point in my life have a pretty good handle on what commitment and quality mean. I have more than enough of my own work to do.

 

[JBrunner]

Years ago the notion of an ink print being technically inferior was valid, and I had no problem calling it out. Today I am making ink prints on baryta paper out of high end printers, and you cannot tell the difference unless you go after it with a loupe, and even then many couldn't. To think that they are inferior because of how they are made, rather than how well they are made is quite simply prejudice. I've seen and made my fair share of prints in many media. Substandard is substandard. Good work is good work. This is a tired discussion and will continue as long as folks need to validate themselves beyond simply creating what and in the way they like. Do what makes you happy, but don't look for validation because of how you do it. It is truly irrelevant.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Try cranking out an inkjet print which even remotely mimics the kind of extremely subtle toning possible with silver or other optical options. Yes, I've seen some very fine inkjet black and white prints by people who were excellent darkroom printers first, but quite monotone - black is black, or a single similar ink hue. Color not so. With all the tremendous R&D and marketing incentive behind inkjet, with many patents still lying fallow and potentially useful, it's come a long way. But I find it highly disappointing for certain kinds of images - a lack of transparency that true dyes deliver, very uneven blacks, a general compromise in delicate tonality and hue. ... a lack of the look and permanence of true pigment prints, which color inkjets are NOT. Just depends on the specific image. Sometimes I love how old color films turn out on inkjet. But in no manner whatsoever do I see inkjet as a realistic replacement for real darkroom options. If you like doing it, do it well, and enjoy. But personally, I have yet to see an inkjet print that didn't look like an inkjet print. I have seen some exceptional prints using much more sophisticated, highly expensive press technology. Let it be so, and not a mimic technology. A serious printer learns how to work within the given limitations of his specific chosen medium, regardless. Wouldn't you agree? Pick your tools and use them well.