New ILFORD Silver Gelatin Products ( Laser )

clay said:

I still maintain that if it is printed on silver gelatin paper it can legitimately be called a silver gelatin print. If you are unable to tell the difference between a print with a digital provenance and one with a film provenance, then insisting that people attest to the 'purity' of an image's heritage is about as futile as trying to piss up a rope.

Click to expand...

Why not just call one a "Digital Silver Gelatin Print" and handmade prints from an analog enlarger, good old fashinoned "Silver Gelatin Prints"?

Sounds pretty simple to me.

Can we all go home now for some milk and cookies?

kjsphoto said:

Narrow-minded? What are you talking about? Again it appears you cannot read or refused to read so let me post it for you one more time!



READ WHAT I WROTE!

If you use a computer it is called Digital Art.

Computer = Digital Art not Traditional Art.

So no, ART IS NOT ART! They are completely different. One is digital done with a computer and a program and the other is Traditional done WITHOUT the AID of a computer! One is traditional ART the other Digital AKA reproduction art.

...

Click to expand...

You have far too narrow a view of art. The computer is just another tool the artist can use, and he may use it in conjunction with any of the others. Art is continually evolving with technology. New techniques are always being used. They supplement and are really indistinguishable from the older methods when it comes to producing the results. Synthetic pigments were a technological innovation in the mid-nineteenth century. They supplemented traditional natural pigments, and artists quickly learned to use them both together as well as separately. Acrylic casting of large forms was developed by sculptors in the mid twentieth century and then became a useful industrial process. This was new technology, but sculpture and casting are very old. The new technology supplemented the old art, but the artistic tradition continued even with it. Art has to do with the practice of aesthetics, not with the technology used. The technology is a matter of technique. It is often an enabling agent, but it does not change the essential spirit of art.

Something no one seems to have considered (within the context of this thread), is that there is this thing called "commercial photography", which on more than rare occasion calls for large quantities of prints -- of the same image.

For that sort of application, which is non-trivial in the marketplace -- this material may be a godsend. It will allow the production of large numbers of prints, of equally high quality, without requiring equally large quantities of labor or cost. This is good for the art in general. Those who engage in small scale photography (folks like artists and hobbyists) are subject to the foibles of the marketplace. The materials they use will only be affordable to them if there is sufficient demand for the materials (and their "rootstock" components). Something like this has great potential for all of us.

And lest someone chide me by pointing out that a negative can be mass-printed using analog means, I'll point out that this is not the case for a negative that requires lots of "handwork" along the lines of dodging, burning, mixed-filtration contrast control, and so forth. For negatives of this sort (in lieu of a material of this type), the alternatives are slim, if the desired end result is an actual silver print.

Let's not eat our own.

r-s said:

Something no one seems to have considered (within the context of this thread), is that there is this thing called "commercial photography", which on more than rare occasion calls for large quantities of prints -- of the same image.

For that sort of application, which is non-trivial in the marketplace -- this material may be a godsend. It will allow the production of large numbers of prints, of equally high quality, without requiring equally large quantities of labor or cost. This is good for the art in general. Those who engage in small scale photography (folks like artists and hobbyists) are subject to the foibles of the marketplace. The materials they use will only be affordable to them if there is sufficient demand for the materials (and their "rootstock" components). Something like this has great potential for all of us.

And lest someone chide me by pointing out that a negative can be mass-printed using analog means, I'll point out that this is not the case for a negative that requires lots of "handwork" along the lines of dodging, burning, mixed-filtration contrast control, and so forth. For negatives of this sort (in lieu of a material of this type), the alternatives are slim, if the desired end result is an actual silver print.

Let's not eat our own.

Click to expand...

hi r-s --
back in the 80s, i worked for a busy portrait studio. they shot formal portraits on commission and for PR agencies+ businesses.
i processed and printed all the film, and learned negative retouching ( leads ) &C. i used to have no problem printing 50 or 100 images from the same negative. it didn't take too much time or effort, even a few years ago i printed out 120 mailers to be sent out to potential clients ... again, it didn't take much effort at all. rc paper is great for that sort of thing, and knowing how to process 12 sheets of paper all at the same time helps too.

since the advent of rc paper i don' think many pro-labs, or portrait studios make b+w fiber based prints for commercial purposes. (i was never told to print 100+copies of an image on fiber paper) and i have a feeling that this high-end ilford fiber based laser-paper won't be used by commercial labs for printing 120 copies of the mayor's head, or a trinket for a catalog, it'll be for high end art-prints, not "run of the mill" stuff.

the commercial work i have done they don't even want hard-prints, just digital files ...

I've done stuff in that numeric range too (up to about 125 color prints of a single negative, for a "group portrait" from a wedding I shot). All done by me, by hand, using analog equipment (which was all that was available to mere mortals in the mid-1970s).

But, what I was thinking of when I posted earlier was stuff in much larger quantities. Such applications do exist, and, when image quality is paramount, this material will be there to meet the need. (Too, there's the chance that they may come out with an RC version of the emulsion if demand should exist for it.)

I don't doubt that you might be correct in your guess as to the largest market for this stuff. I just don't know, and I don't think anyone does. All we can do at this stage is guess. Once it's been on the market for a while, we'll have a better idea.

Meanwhile, I find it somewhat ironic (not aimed at you) that there are so many "purists" who would gladly shoot themselves in the foot, willing to punish (were that possible) a company that is engaged in expanding the market demand for silver emulsions.

I don't see how this product would convert a single digital shooter. yes, they can now have images on silver gelatin. Great. But why would they want to load film?
No, there is a fundamental difference between making a silver gelatin negative and letting a bunch of algorithms make a digital image.
That difference is defined by craft. Digital photography minimizes it. It is the loss of craft that makes the digital process so limiting. So barren of soul. A negative is a work of Art. It is a culmination of thought, experience, craft, and vision. A negative can be a very beautiful object. And it is the aim of photographic artists to apply their vision through the use of craft to create a fine negative.
A digital negative is a different thing altogether. It is a point of departure. For this reason, the process of creation requires very limited craft. The negative is foundational only in that it is something to be manipulated by algorithms. (I.E PS)
This is the difference between the two and it is a difference in mindset. I think digital imaging is more in line with the instant gratification mindset that plagues our "Modern" culture. This mindset has to change before an individual would be willing to adopt the analogue process. How does this new paper encourage that. It doesn't. It does, however provide a means for a growing population of individuals who are if not completely, then pretty much ignorant of silver gelatin media. I see this as a "better paper' for digital shooters. Its great that its silver gelatin technology. There might even be some "See I told you so" boasting that all of us analoguers can feel smug about. Of course, its good for Ilford as well. But I don't see users of this paper discarding their digital camera equipment.

don sigl said:

No, there is a fundamental difference between making a silver gelatin negative and letting a bunch of algorithms make a digital image.
That difference is defined by craft. Digital photography minimizes it. It is the loss of craft that makes the digital process so limiting. So barren of soul. A negative is a work of Art. It is a culmination of thought, experience, craft, and vision. A negative can be a very beautiful object. And it is the aim of photographic artists to apply their vision through the use of craft to create a fine negative.

Click to expand...

"The medium is the message," IMO moreso with black and white darkroom work than any other medium. When you turn off the lights and turn on the safelight, you enter a different world. The aromas of the chemicals, the projected negatives on the easel... it puts the worker into a completely different frame of mind than can ever be duplicated by a computer display and "input devices".

Those who have never experienced it (growing in number daily) can never understand it unless they experience it. (Yet, they seem driven by some compulsion to insist that their way is "better", even though they have no knowledge of that which they dismiss.)

As to this material, I am still of the opinion that there exists a valid market for the mass production of images which have already been created, as well as the creation of images in sizes that are simply not practical (note that I said "not practical", NOT "not possible") using an optical enlarger.

And, I am still of the opinion that anything that increases demand for silver materials will be good in general for silver photography. The more demand there is for the raw materials, the more the industry as a whole will be able to survive.

clay said:

I still maintain that if it is printed on silver gelatin paper it can legitimately be called a silver gelatin print. If you are unable to tell the difference between a print with a digital provenance and one with a film provenance, then insisting that people attest to the 'purity' of an image's heritage is about as futile as trying to piss up a rope.

Click to expand...

So a $25.00 Rolax is a Rolex if it looks the same as a Rolex? A Toyota MR2 with a Ferrari Testarossa body kit is a Ferrari Testarossa because it looks exactly like one? A digital piano that uses sounds from a real Steinway is a real Steinway because it sounds just like a real Steinway. a Digital watercolor machine printed on watercolor paper with watercolor paint is a watercolor painting because no one can tell otherwise? I can't get my head around the criteria for authenticity is merely appearing to be what's authentic. I don't get this.. Aside from one or two people in this huge thread I don't think anyone is arguing the merits of this technology and art. I'm a big fan of digital art myself (especially 3D gaming, special effects, etc). Some of the things people are doing in the digital realm are amazing (play World of Warcraft for a while). One major argument in this thread is what or how to define a digital end product. Some feel it is a digital end product and should be defined as such and some feel because it looks like a traditional end product that therefore makes it a traditional end product. I can't see this ever going anywhere or being resolved..

Mods, and that includes Shaun, can this thread be closed now, moved, deleted or whatever.

It should not be here.

J.D.Callow are you asleep

clay said:

I still maintain that if it is printed on silver gelatin paper it can legitimately be called a silver gelatin print. If you are unable to tell the difference between a print with a digital provenance and one with a film provenance, then insisting that people attest to the 'purity' of an image's heritage is about as futile as trying to piss up a rope.

Click to expand...

Provenence is pointless, if you can't tell... nice.
Integrity is pointless, if you can't get caught.....nice.

What an incredible position.
I have to say, I am at a total loss.

My point is that no one cares about your suffering in making a print. The time and trouble adds nothing to the viewing experience of a print if it can't be seen in the result. Pain and suffering is your own business, not the viewer's. This is a photographic print we are talking about.

In regard to integrity, I think calling an image made on silver gelatin photographic paper a silver gelatin print seems to be well, truthful. Now if call a digitally printed silver gelatin print a 'Silver gelatin print made by enlarging a film negative', then yes, there is a truthfulness issue. Otherwise, no, I don't see your point.

In regard to a $25 Rolex. If it looks exactly like the $5000 one and I can't tell the difference, then yes, I want to buy one.

Bye all.

JBrunner said:

Provenence is pointless, if you can't tell... nice.
Integrity is pointless, if you can't get caught.....nice.

What an incredible position.
I have to say, I am at a total loss.

Click to expand...

Sean said:

...One major argument in this thread is what or how to define a digital end product. Some feel it is a digital end product and should be defined as such and some feel because it looks like a traditional end product that therefore makes it a traditional end product...

Click to expand...

I put a slightly different slant on the second opinion - that 'silver gelatin' is a simply a description of the material, and there is nothing implied about the process because the process is unimportant (to those who hold this opinion). The two sides then become: those who wish both the process and the material to be described; and those who only require the material to be described.

As it is so important to some people, I'm happy to add 'digital' to the description of my work - though I suspect that the sort of person who felt that the process was important wouldn't buy my work in any form. (Prove me wrong. Buy a totally non-digital print off me.). Rather like (or not at all like) the way in which the people who buy Cindy Sherman's original work don't give a hoot whether it is digital or non-digital.

Best,
Helen

PS I'll say it again, in agreement with Ian. Why is this thread here? It has nothing to do with the technique of traditional printing.

clay said:

My point is that no one cares about your suffering in making a print. The time and trouble adds nothing to the viewing experience of a print if it can't be seen in the result. Pain and suffering is your own business, not the viewer's. This is a photographic print we are talking about.

In regard to integrity, I think calling an image made on silver gelatin photographic paper a silver gelatin print seems to be well, truthful. Now if call a digitally printed silver gelatin print a 'Silver gelatin print made by enlarging a film negative', then yes, there is a truthfulness issue. Otherwise, no, I don't see your point.

In regard to a $25 Rolex. If it looks exactly like the $5000 one and I can't tell the difference, then yes, I want to buy one.

Bye all.

Click to expand...

First of all, I don't suffer pain when I make prints, I enjoy print making very much. The inference is absurd.

Furthermore, provenance has nothing to do with the viewing experience, or any other tactile, or emotional experience. The reasoning is disconnected from the subject at hand, and is an evasion.

Your position is one of self serving convenience, and you admittedly have no trouble with counterfeit objects, as revealed by your statement regarding the Rolex.

Thank you for being such a clear example of what I have been seeking to illustrate.

Sean said:

I can't see this ever going anywhere or being resolved..

Click to expand...

I agree. I also agree with Ian and Helen. The product is excellent I've seen it first hand. It is not identical to traditional paper/output the difference is due to the laser and the process. Amazing!

I'm going to close this thread and hope it reappears in the hybrid forum. If it could be transferred we would have done it after the original post.

My apologies to all.