New ILFORD Silver Gelatin Products ( Laser )

Gibran · Oct 22, 2006

Yes, but I think a father would look differently at a cloned child. That is to say that the first print is the child and then each and every additional print made using the same digital file would be the clones. I consider an ink jet print similarly. The first one which represents my ideal vision is the original. All the others are glorified exact copies of that first one. My wife happens to be a Sculptor and has no doubt had a huge influence regarding my opinions regarding hand crafted, one of a kind work(as has my dealings with various artist in other fields besides Photography). Each Sculpture is unique, Each painting, and so on. That first ideal print is the same to me. Now, we Photographers are somewhat spoiled in that our process allows us to make multiples. But at what point do these multiples cease to become original works of art and just Facsimile or copies, each one exactly the same. My answer is that they become copies when the uniqueness and direct hand craftmanship is no longer involved. I actually had a fellow Artist/Photographer friend of mine say to me that he did not want to sell a certain print I had hanging in my Gallery because the paper/process was no longer available for him to make another print similar to the one that was displayed. He wanted me to make and sell a Giclee of the same print. I said to him, "Look at that Painting or that Sculpture. Do you think the Artist can just make another one when this one sells? No, its one of a Kind" But, I do respect you and what you do and I completely understand the talent which you wield in making your prints.

JBrunner · Oct 22, 2006

Hmmm, I'm thinking more and more this thing should find it's way over to the new website somehow.

Helen B · Oct 22, 2006

To me, Gibran is writing about the creation of photographs as art objects, while to some of us that is not an essential element of photography as an art. I've never heard anyone express the opinion that a movie is any less a work of art because it is highly reproducible - the art is not in the object.

Best,
Helen

Sean · Oct 22, 2006

Helen B said:
the art is not in the object.

If that was true, then I could head over to the weston gallery and buy an Ansel Adams original for $50
-not saying i believe art is only in the object but I do think art in the object = a degree of humanity..

Gibran · Oct 22, 2006

The Art to me is in the Process and that process has a direct connection to the final piece as Art Object. I realize that in contemporary art, both the process and the object are often ignored for some grand idea and the object is somewhat irrelevant. I'm not speaking of Movies. But since you brought it up, A Movie as it exists on a DVD for mass consumption is basically analogous to a A Poster hence I can go down to Walmart and buy that movie for $5.99 or whatever. It becomes a Document of a work of Art which is available to the masses. I'm sure the original film is locked away in some Vault somewhere and is quite pricey. The art is not always in the object and that depends on the medium. Performance Art exists only for the original performance but we often have a video or film as a Document of it. That Document is not the Art. The original performance was. Sculpture, painting and yes, sometimes Photography can be so intwined with the object and the process that the Artist used to create that Object that there is not a line where the idea and the object can be separated. The path chosen is entirely up to the Artist. Is it just an idea, an image which the artist is happy to just publish as a mass produced document or is it both of these contained in a hand crafted one of a kind object.

Helen B said:
To me, Gibran is writing about the creation of photographs as art objects, while to some of us that is not an essential element of photography as an art. I've never heard anyone express the opinion that a movie is any less a work of art because it is highly reproducible - the art is not in the object.

Best,
Helen

Harry Lime · Oct 22, 2006

Helen B said:
To me, Gibran is writing about the creation of photographs as art objects, while to some of us that is not an essential element of photography as an art. I've never heard anyone express the opinion that a movie is any less a work of art because it is highly reproducible - the art is not in the object.

Best,
Helen

Hey Helen -

Release prints for movies are made on automated machines and there is no handwork involved besides loading the machine and putting the finished rolls in a can. There's not a lot of art or artistic talent involved in the process; running the machine is mostly a technical job. The color timing of a film is a different story.

To me what makes a traditional print special is the handmade aspect. You need a lot of artistic skill to be a truly great wet printer. Therefore the final result depends on the skill and talent of the individual craftsman or woman and people with the proper mix of technical and artistic skills to not grow on trees.

There also happen to be far fewer master wet printers in the world, than Photoshop jockeys.

Obviously the content of the image is important, but I doubt that anyone here would put the same value on a poster of Picasso's 'Guernica' and the original. Same image, two entirely different beasts.

Personally I would organize the pricing structure of prints as such:

EXPENSIVE
1) Handmade prints - Because they are handmade by humans and are therefore unique.

2) Laser Fiber print - Because of the high quality of the print/reproduction.

3) Laser RC and inkjet - Do not believe these media are capable of producing a print of the quality that you can produce with fiber paper, for various technical reasons.
LESS EXPENSIVE

Helen B · Oct 22, 2006

Harry Lime said:
Hey Helen -

Release prints for movies are made on automated machines and there is no handwork involved besides loading the machine and putting the finished rolls in a can. There's not a lot of art or artistic talent involved in the process; running the machine is mostly a technical job...

Yes, that was exactly my point. Does anyone think that the experience of seeing a movie is in any way degraded by the fact that the release print is produced automatically? Does anyone think that the release print itself is the art object? I wasn't referring to mass-produced DVD versions of the movie - which will probably not be of the same quality as a theatre print, or be the same experience to watch.

I'm only trying to say that not all of us share Gibran's point of view, not trying to say that Gibran is wrong or arguing with him. If a mechanically produced print looks exactly how the artist wishes the finished work to look, then the artist producing the work may feel that hand-finishing is not required to fully realise his or her vision. That's not the same as saying that a print of a Picasso painting is equivalent to a painting by Picasso.

Best,
Helen

Gibran · Oct 22, 2006

A movie(lets say film as "Movie" sounds so about Money/Hollywood and not Art) is not a good comparison to a Fine hand made print as say a Sculpture or Painting. One exist over time, the others we take in all at once. A movie would better be compared to a Novel in that respect.

I fully agree. Its not about right or wrong at all. And I know plenty a conceptual artist who have declared Photography Dead(Vic Muniz for instance). First Painting and now Photography! But, like I said, each discipline is unique and some are more traditionally married to an Object than others. Digital printing whether it be Ink Jet, Laser or whatever is more akin to the Pop Art ideals of mass production and automation. In its worst form today, this has resulted in a purely Conceptual Art where young artist have absolutely no traditional Fine Art skills whatsoever and know very little about the materials in their art form. Here is a question for photographers who print both digitally and traditionally. Given the exact same image one printed digitally, the other traditionally, when all is said and done, which print is more precious to you? Now, when you go to an exhibit which has both prints on display, do you value one more than the other or not? Do you spend longer viewing one over the other? As a potential buyer, would it bother you to know that the digital machine prints could be exactly reproduced at any time?

Helen B said:
Yes, that was exactly my point. Does anyone think that the experience of seeing a movie is in any way degraded by the fact that the release print is produced automatically? Does anyone think that the release print itself is the art object? I wasn't referring to mass-produced DVD versions of the movie - which will probably not be of the same quality as a theatre print, or be the same experience to watch.

I'm only trying to say that not all of us share Gibran's point of view, not trying to say that Gibran is wrong or arguing with him or her. If a mechanically produced print looks exactly how the artist wishes the finished work to look, then the artist producing the work may feel that hand-finishing is not required to fully realise his or her vision. That's not the same as saying that a print of a Picasso painting is equivalent to a painting by Picasso.

Best,
Helen

Philippe-Georges · Oct 23, 2006

Helen B said:
... the art is not in the object...
Helen

Suppose that art is the subject, but the object is bearing the subject and thus becomes directly involved.
It is hard to separate the subject from the object, but if the object is 'disturbed', is the subject then no more art, the thought still lives.
Can, by this, the thought be a subject, without an object?
And can the thought be a subject on its own, and if not, is the mind then the object related to the individual (= object or subject?) or is it the reverse?
But WHEN is the subject art and what is art if not the subject...

But, of course, I might be wrong...

Philippe

livemoa · Oct 23, 2006

Gibran said:
Digital printing whether it be Ink Jet, Laser or whatever is more akin to the Pop Art ideals of mass production and automation. In its worst form today, this has resulted in a purely Conceptual Art where young artist have absolutely no traditional Fine Art skills whatsoever and know very little about the materials in their art form.

As a potential buyer, would it bother you to know that the digital machine prints could be exactly reproduced at any time?

Interesting points and I don't necessarily disagree. So here is something to add to the discussion. Is knowledge of materials and tradition paramount? The cubists were influenced strongly by African art, but knew little, if anything about the traditions behind them, does that negate their work? Also, “fine art” is a recent (western) convention (The Invention of Art is a good primer on this) and has, in the 20th century been object focused. That is changing to being more and more idea focused in my view. In a few more years who knows what will be happening. My pick is, with global art markets expanding, more "Eastern" concepts (tradition, group work) will come to the fore.

As to reproduction at any time? Hmmmmm, some of the work I own and some of the work I produce is firmly in this field. Other is definitely a one off, each has its own place.

There have been some great threads spring up here lately, or maybe it’s just because I have too much time on my hands currently…

edz · Oct 23, 2006

Simon R Galley said:
When people comment that it encourages people to go digital, I fundamentally disagree, what it does is enable people who have a digital file

I believe that rather than encourage people to go digital (of which they need no encouraging) it will, in praxis, well convince people to re-evaluate their digital workflow and encourage many to go back to include also analog capture in their toolchest. As people once again see just how good silver gelatine based prints on fibre paper look--- after having convinced themselves that their big Epson ink jets rivaled their wet prints-- they will also start to long for the extra "something" from Film.. not just the dynamic range and tonality of black-and-white film but also its character.
Digital fibre paper enables good quality but its hardly an option for anything less than well funded professional work. Its not cheap. The machines are not cheap.

Helen B · Oct 23, 2006

Helen B said:
...I've never heard anyone express the opinion that a movie is any less a work of art because it is highly reproducible - the art is not in the object.

As the last phrase has been quoted out of context twice, I'd better clarify: that sentence refers to movies, or films, or videos, or whatever you wish to call motion pictures.

Gibran may associate 'movie' with Hollywood and money, but not art. I don't share that set of associations. I still prefer to reserve 'film' for movies that involve the use of film. I know that I'm in the minority on that, but it isn't a rule, it's just a personal preference. Hence my reference to a 'movie' rather than a 'film'.

Speaking for myself, here's my answer to Gibran's question about the perceived value of hand-made or mechanically reproduced photographs: Original prints only play a marginal part in my appreciation of whatever art I see in still photography. Books and high-reproduction-quality magazines are most important to me. I don't care one bit how many other copies of the book or magazine exist - in fact the more copies of them there are, the happier I am. I tend to buy original prints for technical reasons (as a benchmark for my own slapdash work) or to support the photographer. Rarity, or exclusivity of ownership, does not have any appreciable appeal for me. I would much prefer that the photographers whose work I like were widely distributed. That's one of the great strengths of photography for me. Just my point of view, and I suspect that I am in a minority here on APUG.

Best,
Helen

Bob Carnie · Oct 23, 2006

As with traditional wet prints , I am commisioned to make limited edition laser prints off the lambda.
Sometimes this is done over a week or two where the photographer asks me to slightly change the next image. I rarley punch out 10 images at once as an edition. Sometimes this means each image is slightly different.
Another side note . I am not using a automated processor at this point to make these prints. Processing is in total darkness and depending upon my dexterity in getting to the chemical tray from the timer and ability to process the paper exactly as my test print ,I find that each print is never exactly the same . In fact we warn our clients of this inablility of exact matching.
This small factor could change in the future but right now it is part of this process. *bob jacked up on coffee produces more contrast than , bob at the end of the day wanting to go home*
I am in this thread only because I am actually using this product , whichmay be valuable to those interested in the product. I have no desire to battle in the digital vs film debate as I am fully entrenched in both areas.
I love a fine print as well as good reproduction in a book. It basically is the image I am interested in at the end of the day.

Gibran · Oct 23, 2006

I agree with you and the answer in my mind is that the choice of materials is entirely up to the individual artist desires and intentions. I do see an eventual movement to return to hand made art that requires a high degree of hand craftmanship as a rebellion to automation/technology and a return to the idea of the Object as Art and container and vehicle for ideas as a direct reaction to the extreme Conceptualism of today. We all have Marcel Duchamp to blame or thank perhaps. Art has often been about revolution and revolt against the prevailing mode. Even the Cubists who were influenced by so called "primitive" art were masters of their materials. Were I take issue with some Conceptual artist is when they choose to use a medium in their work yet consider themselves somehow above learning how to use that medium to its fullest. Without knowledge of the capabilities of their chosen tools and materials, they are but students. If its just about the idea, then write a book. Poorly executed "Conceptual" work carried out by untrained wan-a-be artist such as this then becomes some sort of pitiful, sad, intellectual Masturbation. Too often, Conceptual Art is just a "cop out". Well executed Conceptual Art by artist who have taken the time to learn the tools of their medium(s) I admire. Unfortunately, that Art is becoming few and far between due to a heavy emphasis by Graduate Art programs on Conceptualism and away from teaching Artist how to actually use materials. "Oh, I see your a Painter. Why don't you move to Sculpture or Video and lets see what happens" Thats whats happening today and the result is the above.

livemoa said:
Interesting points and I don't necessarily disagree. So here is something to add to the discussion. Is knowledge of materials and tradition paramount? The cubists were influenced strongly by African art, but knew little, if anything about the traditions behind them, does that negate their work? Also, fine art is a recent (western) convention (The Invention of Art is a good primer on this) and has, in the 20th century been object focused. That is changing to being more and more idea focused in my view. In a few more years who knows what will be happening. My pick is, with global art markets expanding, more "Eastern" concepts (tradition, group work) will come to the fore.

As to reproduction at any time? Hmmmmm, some of the work I own and some of the work I produce is firmly in this field. Other is definitely a one off, each has its own place.

There have been some great threads spring up here lately, or maybe its just because I have too much time on my hands currently

Thomas Bertilsson · Oct 23, 2006

I applaud Ilford for thinking outside the box, and being dynamic, creative, and inventive. They approach the current market situation in a way that is refreshing. What real news in silver gelatin photography has appeared in the last forty years? This is huge!
If we continue to see other inventions like these from this (very much) revitalized company, I think we can count on traditional black & white products to stick around for a long time. I can't say enough to cover what I think of all this. It's an amazing initiative.

There is a strong chance of synergy between digital shooters and the world of film in this adventure. Move those two worlds closer to one another, where truly film and / or digital capture is just a tool. The difference won't be just black or white, it will be a nuance of every grayscale in between as well. That is a situation that is desirable, since it gives a lot of people the freedom to work in an environment that completely suits their work flow.

Thank you Ilford, for being such pioneers, leading the traditional photography market into the future.

- Thom

nworth · Oct 24, 2006

I'm sure this paper is intended to be marketed in long rolls for laser printers. But if the quality is as stunning as Simon says it is, it looks like there could be a significant secondary market for sheets. We really do need a replacement for Panalure. The problem with Panalure was partly its less that stirling quality. We need a good panchromatic paper to handle black and white prints from color negatives and also from the Kodak chromogenic black and white films, which do not print well on ordinary paper. Contrast may, however, still be an issue here. These films require a high contrast paper, and I'm not sure what the Ilford product delivers. (Laser papers are usually single contrast, especially tuned for the laser exposure system.)

Simon R Galley · Oct 24, 2006

Dear All,

This product would not be suitable ( as is ) as a PANALURE replacement, but it may be the starting point, yes we have obviously thought about it and I will keep you informed of any development, but we have lots of things we wish to do and only so much resource...so no promises in any way, shape or form but we are interested....

By the way, I have enjoyed the debate and I do hope you all get to see some of the printed results of this product.

Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited

haris · Oct 25, 2006

Helen B said:
Rarity, or exclusivity of ownership, does not have any appreciable appeal for me. I would much prefer that the photographers whose work I like were widely distributed. That's one of the great strengths of photography for me. Just my point of view, and I suspect that I am in a minority here on APUG.

Best,
Helen

Hear, hear,

Reason for not going to clubs where some gorilla look through hole in the doors thinking am I "good enough" to let me into their precious club, or party or whatever.

But, then if everyone can have what I have, how can I show that I am better than others

What I am allways saying, human nature my friends, human nature...

User Removed · Oct 25, 2006

How much longer until you can print platinum, palladium, silver chloride AZO, cyanotype, and vandyke out of your computer? How about oil, acrylics and watercolor painting?

I think this is a great thing that Ilford is doing, but personally...I just think it embraces Americas laziness in not having to work in a darkroom and make art by hand. I don't see this wanting to make people start printing in a darkroom more, but rather more people sitting at home on their butt in front of a computer monitor creating art.

In the past its been easy to distinguish between a traditional print, and one that has been worked over in Photoshop by what paper medium it's printed on. Now its going to be even harder to figure out what is a real photograph and what’s computerized.

thefizz · Oct 25, 2006

Ryan McIntosh said:
How much longer until you can print platinum, palladium, silver chloride AZO, cyanotype, and vandyke out of your computer? How about oil, acrylics and watercolor painting?

I think this is a great thing that Ilford is doing, but personally...I just think it embraces Americas laziness in not having to work in a darkroom and make art by hand. I don't see this wanting to make people start printing in a darkroom more, but rather more people sitting at home on their butt in front of a computer monitor creating art.

In the past its been easy to distinguish between a traditional print, and one that has been worked over in Photoshop by what paper medium it's printed on. Now its going to be even harder to figure out what is a real photograph and whats computerized.

Well said Ryan, my thoughts exactly.

Peter

Bruce Watson · Oct 25, 2006

Ryan McIntosh said:
I just think it embraces Americas laziness in not having to work in a darkroom and make art by hand.

Said by someone who clearly hasn't paid his dues in the lightroom workflow. It never ceases to amaze me that everyone thinks the other guy has it easy. People really do think that the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence!

I've done both and I can tell you from experience that it takes a lot more work to make a first class print digitally than it does in the darkroom. That said, the result can be better -- if you are good enough at it.

It's really easy to make crap either way, and painfully difficult to make a good print either way. To call people who are printing digitally "lazy" just exposes your cluelessness.

That you don't like that Ilford is serving a market that you don't participate in is meaningless. You don't like the product, don't buy it. No one is forcing you. But if diversifying into this market helps Ilford stay alive and even prosper, I'm all for it. Whether I use the product or not.

Shane Knight · Oct 25, 2006

My general statement:
No matter how good digital gets, it's still digital.

My point from being a photographer selling art for a living:
I have already been labeling my art work as "Traditional Hand Printed Silver Gelatin" and the same for Ilfochrome/Cibachrome. When customers/viewers visits one of my shows, they are well informed through communication, labels, and statements of what they are viewing.

Over the years of selling photographs, I have met many photographers and representatives that are dishonest regarding their means of producing their art work and I believe this new line of paper will give them another avenue. I have also come to realize there will always be dishonest people in any market of selling art, no matter what materials are available.

Customers/buyers/viewers (in my market) are different than they were five years ago and digital capture and digital printing has become a sensitive topic. Unfortunately, most people assume all photographs are digital and are very surprised that traditional photographs are still being produce. Through positive verbal and written communication, the viewer is aware/educated of what they are viewing. People seem to take more time viewing or sencond look at the art work after learning what they are which demonstrates to me that digitally produced art work favors less.

I do hope that the photographers who use this new technology are honest and forth coming to their viewers/buyers. Overtime, buyers/viewers will become educated and aware of Silver Gelatins being produced digitally, and some will will care, and some will not. I do hope that overtime silver gelatins as a whole will not loose face. For example; the word "giclee" has lost value and face with many people because they are aware what they are and how easy they are produced. We are currently seeing new terminology and labeling to steer away from the term "giclee". I hope that does not happen to the word "silver gelatin" which in a whole is attached to "photography".

As a buyer:
I am also a buyer/collector of photography from art shows and galleries. I, like many others only want hand printed photographs in my collection. With knowledge of this new technology, I will be more skeptical to the point that I may not even want to buy another Silver Gelatin unless I am well informed. It will come down to good and positive communication.

Shane Knight
horse photography

isaacc7 · Oct 25, 2006

Gibran said:
Here is a question for photographers who print both digitally and traditionally. Given the exact same image one printed digitally, the other traditionally, when all is said and done, which print is more precious to you? Now, when you go to an exhibit which has both prints on display, do you value one more than the other or not? Do you spend longer viewing one over the other? As a potential buyer, would it bother you to know that the digital machine prints could be exactly reproduced at any time?

For me, it is the act of creating that is what "art" is all about, I really never think about the gallery scene or worry about what people might think of the "value" of my photographs. I usually only make one or two copies of a print anyway, so that part isn't any different than what happens for me in the darkroom. I obviously don't make any money at this, so I expect my opinion to be different than someone who does. To answer the question, if the prints look the same (or at least similar enough such that the overall impact is not lessened), I view the prints as being exactly the same, "preciousness" never enters into it for me regardless of how it was printed. The print either works or it doesn't. The trick of course is that often times they can not look the same, and there isn't always a clear cut "better" version to be had. Both types of processes have advantages and different prints will require different processes to get the most out of them.

In my mind, most (modern) photographic printing is a mechanical process anyway, I really don't see what the big deal is about. Some time is potentially saved if you want to make many multiple copies, but I dare say that that situation does not apply to most photographers. I am also in the "the object is not the art" camp when it comes to photography. Comparisons to sculpture and painting are only relevant if you are willing to ignore the inherent duplicative quality of photographs, films, etc. Being able to make many (more or less) exact copies in a mechanical manner (whether done by a person or a machine)has always been one of the defining elements of (negative based) photography. Digital based output is the culmination of that sort of approach and I applaud Ilford for making a product that will improve, or at least diversify, the options of people that need or want that kind of process.

Isaac

Helen B · Oct 25, 2006

Ryan McIntosh said:
...I just think it embraces Americas laziness in not having to work in a darkroom and make art by hand.

Ryan,

I think that it is rather mean-spirited and mistaken to assume that laziness is the reason. Not everyone shares your values, aims and motivations, just as others don't share mine. Speaking personally, I believe that whatever art there may be in my photography is there at the moment of exposure. I'm showing you what I've seen, and showing it to you in as plain and uninflected way as I can. My hope is then to reproduce the work consistently at an appropriate quality. I know that I refer to my work in a self-deprecating way (snaps made in a slapdash manner) but in secret I strive for impeccable, but invisible, technique. Oops. Now I've blown it.

I find it significantly more difficult to achieve the image quality I want with mechanical reproduction than with limited-run hand printing. I've only been printing digitally for about ten years and there's still a lot to learn, but I've had over thirty years experience in traditional darkrooms and labs (and there's still a lot to learn). It isn't laziness in my case, and I'm sure that it isn't laziness in many other cases. There is no less dedication towards 'getting it exactly right' among many digital printers than there is among traditional printers. It is just a different way of doing it.

Best,
Helen

Gibran · Oct 25, 2006

Great points and my concern as well. As someone who works both traditionally and digitally, there is just as much hard work involved in both from my experience but the nature/process of that work and the reproducibility of each is THE point of this discussion when it comes right down to it. I'm all for the democracy of the photographic image and making that image available to as wide an audience as possible. But there is a distinction between seeing that image as it exists reproduced in a Book or a Poster and the Original, one of a kind hand made Print. These are two different things entirely. Sean's points touch on the possible deception created by a digital silver gelatin print and the impact it could have in the Art Market. I cant't help but think of Thomas Kinkade Canvas Giclees where they are mass produced and then gone back over with a brush stroke here, a brush stroke there and then Varnished to Appear as Authentic original paintings...and sold for thousands.

Shane Knight said:
My general statement:
No matter how good digital gets, it's still digital.

My point from being a photographer selling art for a living:
I have already been labeling my art work as "Traditional Hand Printed Silver Gelatin" and the same for Ilfochrome/Cibachrome. When customers/viewers visits one of my shows, they are well informed through communication, labels, and statements of what they are viewing.

Over the years of selling photographs, I have met many photographers and representatives that are dishonest regarding their means of producing their art work and I believe this new line of paper will give them another avenue. I have also come to realize there will always be dishonest people in any market of selling art, no matter what materials are available.

Customers/buyers/viewers (in my market) are different than they were five years ago and digital capture and digital printing has become a sensitive topic. Unfortunately, most people assume all photographs are digital and are very surprised that traditional photographs are still being produce. Through positive verbal and written communication, the viewer is aware/educated of what they are viewing. People seem to take more time viewing or sencond look at the art work after learning what they are which demonstrates to me that digitally produced art work favors less.

I do hope that the photographers who use this new technology are honest and forth

coming to their viewers/buyers. Overtime, buyers/viewers will become educated and aware of Silver Gelatins being produced digitally, and some will will care, and some will not. I do hope that overtime silver gelatins as a whole will not loose face. For example; the word "giclee" has lost value and face with many people because they are aware what they are and how easy they are produced. We are currently seeing new terminology and labeling to steer away from the term "giclee". I hope that does not happen to the word "silver gelatin" which in a whole is attached to "photography".

As a buyer:
I am also a buyer/collector of photography from art shows and galleries. I, like many others only want hand printed photographs in my collection. With knowledge of this new technology, I will be more skeptical to the point that I may not even want to buy another Silver Gelatin unless I am well informed. It will come down to good and positive communication.

Shane Knight
horse photography

New ILFORD Silver Gelatin Products ( Laser )

Gibran

JBrunner

Moderator

Helen B

Sean

Admin

Gibran

Harry Lime

Helen B

Gibran

Philippe-Georges

livemoa

edz

Helen B

Bob Carnie

Gibran

Thomas Bertilsson

nworth

Simon R Galley

haris

User Removed

thefizz

Bruce Watson

Shane Knight

isaacc7

Helen B

Gibran

New ILFORD Silver Gelatin Products ( Laser )

Moderator

Admin

haris

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency