Keith Carter gallery vs National Geographic

[TJones]

Yes, but it is still an inkjet print. They haven't yet started calling it pigjet.



Drew answered it well enough. Inkjet print that uses fine ground solid pigment in suspension. He just hid it in a complaint that it shouldn't be compared with things like carbon printing.

Of course it’s still an inkjet print, using a specific type of ink. It’s not marketing BS.

 

[kfed1984]

I was simply responding to the assertion that “calling it "pigment" is just a way to sophisticate it”. When talking about inkjet prints, that’s incorrect. However, there are other pigment printing processes unrelated to inkjet.

Confusion can also arise if we put dye transfer and color carbon into one group. Color carbon is pigment based while dye transfer is dye. But I would still put these two into one class in terms of image quality, they have a similar type of look.

 

[DREW WILEY]

The point is, with color inkjet prints at least, the inks involved are NOT simply pigment colors, and it is misleading to market them as that, but are complex blends of color dyes, lakes (dyed inert pigment particles), and finely ground pigments which differ from one another in permanence. Due to the extremely fine nozzles involved, you simply can't select any pigments you wish relative to permanence or process color characteristics.

That's why there are so damn many ink colors involved, like up to 12 per set. Inkjet is more analogous to programmable architectural paint colorant systems, which are also complex blends of both pigments when possible, but also organically-dyed lakes when needed, like quinacridone reds and magentas, or nontoxic azo and hansa yellows.

Dye transfer was one of the most malleable fashions of color printing ever invented, along with its movie equivalent of Technicolor,
while Carbro and Carbon pigment printing was one of the least malleable : any changes in outcome required a complete re-do each time. Gum and casein pigment printing allow some modification, but those are not very photographically realistic processes, if that is one's priority. Dye transfer printing was perfected to the point it was dominant for several decades as the premium technique for both commercial and art purposes. But due to the fact all kinds of dye sets could potentially be used to obtain a specific effect, just like in Technicolor, these options varied quite a bit in permanence.

 

[kfed1984]

The point is, with color inkjet prints at least, the inks involved are NOT simply pigment colors, and it is misleading to market them as that,

Thanks again for the clarifications.

I think we should distinguish prints by digital, analog, or hybrid. Hybrid being where a digital image is laser-burned onto a C-type paper/film which is then developed with chemistry. For the latter, I wonder how good the resolution can get. Say if I wanted to print B&W negative film transparencies corresponding to RGB colors, which can then be used as masks for contact prints in various analog processes.

 

[DREW WILEY]

There are all kind of digital originals. For example, the digital camera used for high-quality color reproductions of museum paintings can easily cost a hundred thousand dollars, and double for art forensic purposes. Further down the line, you've got medium format digital back which are good enough for commercial purposes to have almost wholly replaced sheet film. No, I don't think they're even up to say, 6x7 or 6X9 roll film capacity for personal printing purposes. But inkjet isn't all that precise anyway. Laser printing onto RA4 media, however, does come close to real optical results in the right hands. That seems to work best via scanning large format chrome originals, rather than typical small digi camera input. But all kinds of stuff is going on, hybrid.

If you're into RGB tricolor photography with black and white sheet film, there are some very serious players in that too, outputting in dye transfer prints or chromogenic - generally an expensive, highly-equipped game. But I could do it RA4, if I had time, right in one of my several enlargers having a dedicated pin-registered carrier. It's just so slow compared to printing directly from color negs, or from master internegs from chrome originals, that it isn't as tempting an approach as it might seem. Maybe if I was much younger and still single. I certainly know how, and even have the correct equipment. Sufficient time is another matter.

Converting extant sheet film chromes, especially select 8x10 ones, to RGB black and white color separations is something I've done a number of times. That kind of thing was/is routine for dye transfer and true color pigment printing.

 

[tahomaphoto]

Sort of. I’m guessing it’s advertised by some manufacturers as a superior support for canvas prints?

I wasn't aware until now that it was available for ink jet. It's a well-regarded and time-honored substrate for brush paint arts (think Vermeer, Hopper, etc).

 

[DREW WILEY]

Canvas printing, or alternate fabrics, has been available a long time. Even with Type C and R prints, they'd do em with a hot vinyl laminate atop a fabric/print sandwich. Nowadays outfits like Ikea sell mass-produced huge fabric inkjet prints so affordably it's almost ridiculous. Decor for the masses. Provides a look without intervening picture glass or plexiglas, but reasonably cleanable due to the now acrylic top laminate.

But you could probably buy your own giant Ikea factory for less than the cost or a real Vermeer.

 

[kfed1984]

There are all kind of digital originals. For example, the digital camera used for high-quality color reproductions of museum paintings can easily cost a hundred thousand dollars, and double for art forensic purposes....

Regarding the imaging resolution; I was thinking of taking dozens of digital exposures, then combining them into a single image of much higher resolution, then apply AI-assisted sharpening if I need to go further. This will be for still-life, abstract, and architecture type of work. Then laser-exposing onto film negatives, if such a service is available. I am not sure if it is possible to laser-expose onto a color negative film, large sheets, if such a thing is being done. Then contact print onto RA4 paper.

Alternatively I could expose 8x10 color negative on my large format camera, for color RA4 contact print, or filtered B&W RGB separations for color carbon, etc.

I think the look of color carbon or dye transfer is worth the effort, and I have no family and sort-of have the time.

Last year I became a bit obsessed with contact prints. Some early/mid 20th century B&W prints I saw looked amazing. Like Josef Sudek prints I saw at the Art Gallery of Ontario. The gallery can bring out the prints in front of you on special days, from the archive, you cannot touch them of course. I then made some experiments with 8x10 contact prints myself, and like the results. Wonder how an 8x10 color contact print will look. I haven't seen anyone making these. I don't even care if these will be sold. It just makes me feel good.

Also interested to know if it is possible to print out on RA4 color paper with a Kodachrome look using a variety of filter/masking techniques from lets say an Ektar negative. That would be gold. That's why all my obsession with color carbon, dye transfer, etc. They have something similar to Kodachrome in the vibe these prints give off.

Regarding ink-jet. I am thinking of purchasing some Ansel Adams special edition silver gelatin prints, for under $400. These are made by A. Adams' assistant who's still alive and printing enlargements from original negatives. That gallery is also selling enhanced/remastered digital ink-jet prints for under $200, and I am not interested in these at all. Something about that medium making me feel I am being cheated. I can print my own images with Walmart printing service, for like $10. I don't know..... I am certainly not paying $1600 for a 16x20 print in inkjet, I don't care from who. I think the type of medium does compensate for not being a known artist or a good one. Some Kodachrome images look good without any composition, just because of the colors. Feel sorry I have to mention this.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Laser image-setters, which are what are involved in what you're describing, is a costly service, and you have to hunt around for who still does it. Outputting onto ink transparencies is a lot more lossy, but quite common these days for reasons of economy and personal ease.

The high-end AA repro prints one often sees are not inkjets, but generally tri-tone high-end press work. There is a super high end press service in this area with a minimum setup charge of $40,000 per image - so if you can't sell an original painting of yours for over a million dollars, don't expect them to return your phone call. Just sayin' - for the right price, you can get almost anything, qualitatively. But it's pretty darn hard at any cost to equal or excel one's own optical darkroom prints if they're good at it.

Per repro Kodachrome - no you wouldn't want to use Ektar as the interneg. Definitely not. The film of choice would be Portra 160, and properly contrast-masked. There's a pretty stiff learning curve to making good internegs; but if one if willing to undergo that ordeal, the end result can be exceptional.

Getting into dye transfer is a whole different ballgame. I don't know if my own frozen stock of the necessary matrix film is still viable or not. Dyes per se are relatively easy to come up with, and one can mordant their own receiver paper. Learning to make precisely matched separation negatives from chromes takes awhile, and the cumulative amount of sheet film involved in even a single image can be quite costly these days. The only recent materials involved a custom run for a German couple, based on a big university grant, which might never transpire again. A number of other people are contemplating such a thing, but it would take a lot of new people willing to pitch in a cumulatively large sum of money to ever get another custom coating of matrix film, although it's technically quite feasible at least.

 

[kfed1984]

Laser image-setters, which are what are involved in what you're describing, is a costly service, and you have to hunt around for who still does it.

I found some instructions for home-brew dye transfer materials, including process for coating the film. But this may be way too complicated:

Dye Transfer Resources

Which is why I think color carbon is more realistic. I have seen people do this on YouTube. All the raw materials can be prepared in a studio apparently.

Regarding use of Porta sheet film for the Kodachrome look: why Portra and not Ektar, and why do we call it internegative? I am thinking whether it is possible to photograph real life with a color negative film and then printing it out on paper with a Kodachrome color-balance/look. I do not want to duplicate existing Kodachrome slides with internegatives and printing them out on paper.

 

[kfed1984]

The high-end AA repro prints one often sees are not inkjets, but generally tri-tone high-end press work. There is a super high end press service in this area with a minimum setup charge of $40,000 per image - so if you can't sell an original painting of yours for over a million dollars, don't expect them to return your phone call. Just sayin' - for the right price, you can get almost anything, qualitatively. But it's pretty darn hard at any cost to equal or excel one's own optical darkroom prints if they're good at it.

This is the digital Ansel print I was talking about. Is this made by a tri-tone press? These prints come in different sizes.

https://shop.anseladams.com/collections/ansel-adams-exclusives2/products/yvt-mr?variant=31412100202563

This is the silver gelatin I want to get. I think this gallery is legitimate:

Shop Moon and Half Dome Print by Ansel Adams

Ansel Adams made Moon and Half Dome at 4:14pm on December 28, 1960. It was one of his last famous photographs. A definitive view of Half Dome & Yosemite National Park.

shop.anseladams.com

Tri-tone press is an actual physical press? I guess the setup fee of $40k is to make the printing plates? The plates I assume are made by photo etching? If so, this is not what I need at any cost, but is still interesting.

 

[MurrayMinchin]

This is the digital Ansel print I was talking about. Is this made by a tri-tone press?

After a quick search, this is what I found:

"Modern Replicas will stand the test of time. Made with museum-quality materials estimated to last over 180 years, their heavy paper mimics the look and feel of gelatin silver paper, and multiple pigments reflect the tones and highlights of Ansel's original works."

https://shop.anseladams.com/collections/ansel-adams-exclusives2/products/yvt-mr?variant=31412100202563

If you contact them, they might offer a bit more clarity.

 

[kfed1984]

If you contact them, they might offer a bit more clarity.

The website shows two different sizes for these digital prints. I don't think they made custom metal printing plates for these prints on a tri-tone press. Either way I will be probably getting the silver gelatin print of the "Moon and Half Dome", as a personal reference, unmounted.

 

[MurrayMinchin]

The website shows two different sizes for these digital prints. I don't think they made custom metal printing plates for these prints on a tri-tone press. Either way I will be probably getting the silver gelatin print of the "Moon and Half Dome", as a personal reference, unmounted.

Hey, why don't you be a good sport and order one of each for comparative purposes. I think they give out Hero Badges for that sort of thing around here

 

[kfed1984]

Hey, why don't you be a good sport and order one of each for comparative purposes. I think they give out Hero Badges for that sort of thing around here

I would get a few actually, but only 1 will do for now, due to budget constraints.

 

[DREW WILEY]

kfed - millions of copies of that image have been sold, most of them as postcards, but just about every other kind of reproduction is out there, including in numerous books. I have original prints made by AA. Probably the very best tritones have even a little more snap to them, and cost $50,000 less. He took that on a cross country ski trip on the rim of the Valley using a Hassie, long tele, and Pan X. The print holds up to right around 16X20 before looking unsharp.

By tritone press, I mean three stages of a mechanical press, not something inkjet. "Digital" in its case doesn't necessarily mean garden variety inkjet. Hard to say. The AA trust probably offers two or three different options for that extremely well known image. I don't know if it's one of the images which Alan Ross still actually darkroom prints; but those would be a few hundred dollars,
and expertly done per AA's own instructions to him. But yes, you linked the official AA Trust site, the legit one.

Assistant-printed versions of images like that sold for $ 4 apiece in Best Studio (now AA Gallery) in Yosemite in the 1950's, that is, $40 for a portfolio of ten 8x10 mounted and signed prints. (Assistant-printed he typically signed with just his initials rather than full name. Repro versions are now stamped.)

And by a 40K setup charge I mean something totally beyond the league of anything the AA trust or any publisher can afford, even whole new customized printing process to accommodate a particular artist or type of image. I've been peripherally involved in some of that in terms of specialized equipment and advice. Serious industrial scale printing, real interesting, but well outside this conversation. At one time they also made the biggest platinum prints I've ever seen, but stopped doing them due to accruing health consequences.

 

[kfed1984]

kfed - millions of copies of that image have been sold, most of them as postcards,

Indeed, looks like these are still printed by Alan Ross per this page:

https://www.anseladams.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/SEP-TECHNICAL-INFO2.pdf

Still, no matter what variety of inkjet they use, I want to get the silver gelatin. I would not get an inkjet for $50.

If AA prints sold for $4 per 8x10 sheet in the 1950's, that's about $50 in today's money. Gives you an idea how much the newbie ink-jet artists today should charge for an 8x10. Too many people here compare themselves to well-established artists. I think AA got his fame from the economy of scale, and not charging $2000 per print, hoping the higher price will drive up the perceived value, or all the "know your value" BS.

Thanks for the background info again.

 

[DREW WILEY]

AA made most of his money as a commercial photographer until late in life, despite his growing fame. Getting rich selling prints just didn't happen much back then. He wasn't gaming anything in terms of potential increases in the value of his work. Others were, namely those who bought low and held his original prints until they were worth a lot, mainly after his death. He was wise enough to make provision for his heirs. And when they're sold in quantities of millions, even postcards add up to real corporate income.

I grew up near Yosemite, but my parents wouldn't allow me inside Best Studio, since it was mainly a lot of ceramic chipmunks and mountain-pictured mugs precariously set on shelf edges specifically so that little brats running around like me would bump into them, break them, and the parents would have to pay. Ansel was the son in law of the owner, having married Virginia Best, and sold his own images in there too, but not much in actual gallery form, buy more gift-shop-like, just like all the other stuff. My older brother would go in there and look at the prints, and I'd peek in from the outside.

Ironically, I never saw a real AA print in my entire life until I had my own gallery openings in Carmel, and all in color. A number of famous photographers lived there at the time, including AA; but I never met him personally. By then he was getting pretty old and feeble. I did split a major retrospective exhibition with his work timed right after his death, so overall, did eventually get to see many many prints of his in person up close. Quite interesting to me, since the high Sierra he so loved was pretty much my own backyard too.

 

[kfed1984]

AA made most of his money as a commercial photographer until late in life, despite his growing fame.

I think the modern print by A. Ross of the moon and half-dome should be like the original. I just need something as a standard/reference. Probably will get a few others later. I emailed the gallery but they did not answer. I would like the print unmounted, just on paper. They sell it mounted on foamboard.

I was in Yosemite in October, during my California trip. Also Sequoia & Kings Canyon. Did not take any film camera with me, as I flew from Toronto. Also did not know the AA gallery is right there.

 

[MurrayMinchin]

Ansel made two great choices. One was to live in Yosemite (millions of tourists every year) and the other was to set a retirement date after which he wouldn't make any more prints...if I remember correctly, that got him on the cover of Time and over a million dollars in sales for one year.

 

[kfed1984]

AA made most of his money as a commercial photographer until late in life, despite his growing fame.

Regarding color prints again, can you get something close to color carbon using color gum bichromate?

These ones looks like oil paintings, gum bichromate on canvas I think:

Beauty in Print

Visit the post for more.

rfotofolio.org

Do you have any experience with this? Is this any easier than color carbon? Seems like you don't have to transfer the exposed image from the tissue to the paper in this process. The paper acts as the tissue, so it appears, from looking at the YouTube video below.



These are all examples of what I think are proper color print media.


Thank you in advance.

 

[kfed1984]

and also, in all of these layered color methods, do you think the layering adds a depth effect to the image? 3rd dimension due to stacking of colored layers, or are they too thin for this to have any impact? I know one of the reasons why human skin looks a lot different from a prosthetic that is colored with the same spectrum is because real skin reflects light not just from the surface but from subsurface layers, so a bit of a depth effect.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Gum prints never achieve the hue saturation and registration precision of tricolor carbon. Just too many layers are involved. But they seem to be a lot easier to make.

Carbon prints do often have an amazing 3d relief to them. I have a lovely little black and white one made by Vaughn H., who often posts on this forum. But carbon transfer is idiosyncratic in this respect, in that deep shadows are on the top. Likewise, in color pigment layering, our brains expect warms colors like red and yellow to advance, and cool shades like blue to recede. But that is generally not the case with color carbon prints. The thickness of the layers can be adjusted somewhat, but in the color version, there's are a number of technical problems overdoing it, including long-term blistering of layers, or excessive opacity due to the nature of pigments themselves.

Current carbon printers are generally unaware of the super-finely ground color pigments now available industrially, and I'm not referring to inkjet inks. I have quite a background with industrial colorants, and did some experiments coming up with a new process color set with improved transparency, but never found the time for actual printing with that. I'm somewhat paranoid about dichromate sensitizers in general - have know a number of people who got seriously sick over the long run; but "artistes" in general tend to be awfully cavalier about product safety protocol.

For real color carbon technique, you might want to watch a Todd Gangler video. But there are all kinds of variations of all kinds of UV layered techniques, including hybrid.

 

[kfed1984]

Gum prints never achieve the hue saturation and registration precision of tricolor carbon. Just too many layers are involved. But they seem to be a lot easier to make.

Maybe you should create a book or a website with this info?

Just found some of Todd's videos on YouTube, will have a look.

Maybe gum bichromate is easier to start with, I like how it comes out in the links of my previous post.

 

[kfed1984]

If I could make a gum bichromate like this, I would be ecstatic. Then color carbon, etc.
Looks like oil painting by old masters.