Jorge said:
Well, I chose that sentence because it pretty much sums up your thinking. The rest was just fill in. I would buy your argument if those making ink jet prints would say "I think my prints look better on ink jet" and leave it at that, but usually when someone states this, it goes acompanied by the "they look better because I have more control." Meaning that is not the process that attracted them but the fact that they can correct their mistakes or use computer techniques they did not have the patience or skill to leanr and use in the darkroom. So far I have seen the change as a matter of convenience and not of admiration for the process.
So far I have yet to hear anybody see a silver print or a pt/pd print and say: "you know, this is a fine print, but it would look so much better as an ink jet!"
I am sure this will change as ink jets become the prevalent medium, but when compared side by side, I think even those who have never seen a traditional print will be able to tell the difference.
I disagree, the photograph is the sum of the process and vision, this is something you and others doing ink jets always ignore or try to convince us it is not true, if it is not so, why are you arguing now?
As a member who seems to only participate in this forum to defend digital, I am not surprised you dont seem to think a process superior to another, those of us who are stubburnly doing this even on the face of dwindling supplies do it because we can see the difference, if I knew I could make a better ink jet print than I could a pt/pd print, I would be doing it already. In the end it seem that the "process" does not matter, yet, we see ink manufacturers come up with "selenium tone" inks, "digital platinum glicèe", funny, if the process does not matter, why try to emulate it?
If you are happy with your ink jet prints, by all means stick with them, I welcome people who want to do B&W ink jet, but I think you are going to have a hard time comming on this forum and trying to convince us the "process does not matter," if it didnt matter to us and we could not see the difference, then this would be DPUG.....
Well, once again, you read your intentions and prejudices into whatever I write.
I don't make black and white prints anymore. I did that for years, and have no interest in B&W images. I find color far more challenging.
But, I'll put my darkroom skills in either color or black and white up against anyone. I learned darkroom processes from the best in the business who would not accept less than perfect for either a negative, transparency, or print. So, please don't insult me with your "lesser skill" attitude.
Let me make this perfectly clear. I like my color inkjet prints much better than color wet darkroom prints because the process is more akin to fine art INK printing (which I've studied for years) and less like a color photographic print.
Not better, not worse - but what I like for my images. I like fine art ink prints. Monoprints, woodcuts, lithographs, etchings, serigraphs, etc. I like the way ink looks on paper better than either chromogenic or dye destruction prints of the same images - is that clear enough for you?
The control available has nothing to do with correcting mistakes made in process - it's the additional compositional abilities to put images together onto a single sheet that interest me. I like the look of ink on paper. I've printed fine art lithographs professionally and have always wanted a way to transition a photographic image into an ink-based image.
I use fairly high-end equipment to get what I want. My scanner and printer are equipment commonly found in service bureaus and professional print houses. So, I again, can't relate to your comments that are based on hearsay or your experience with amateur equipment.
I'm not defending digital, I just don't accept the mantra that the world only works one way to get an interesting, quality photographic image.
As for convenience - please - again don't insult me. The amount of time I spend to get the final image(s) into a form that meets my intentions is every bit the equal of the amount of time I spend in a darkroom to get images. The ONLY convenience is once the final image meets my intent I can be assured that subsequent images will match.
"I disagree, the photograph is the sum of the process and vision, this is something you and others doing ink jets always ignore or try to convince us it is not true, if it is not so, why are you arguing now?"
I see you don't read very carefully, as you're obviously looking to be contentious beyond discussing photography. So, why don't you tell me the real difference between what you've written above and what I've already written in the previous post when I said:
"In one sense, the viewer does "see the process" in that a successful image is the culmination of the workflow that created the image."
Gosh, sounds pretty close to the same thing to me. That includes everything from the photographer's personal aesthetic (vision - whatever you want to call it), to the entire workflow of equipment, and all of the choices made to get to the final image.
If you're happy in making silver prints, or the thrill of a pyro negative on Azo - I think that's wonderful for you. It's just something I've already done and it doesn't fit my current imaging interests. I may go back to doing things like that in the future IF I have an interest and images that need that type of treatment.
But, right now, it's not the "best" for my images.
But, don't try and play some quality game with me. It won't work, you have no idea what I do, how I do it or why. Don't read your cheap shot digital hypothesis into what I do - I make fine art prints in every sense.
