Peter Lik

[Bob Carnie]

Drew - Do your fuji flex have any more archival attributes than inkjet?? If so could you elaborate.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I doubt it, Bob. Inkjet could hypothetically have greater longevity with an ideal ink set, if one is ever invented. The difference is that RA4 materials have a long track record with incremental advances which can be studied with significant hindsight. Inks are all over the map, with certain colors better than others, etc, and relatively little track record at all. They aren't true pigment prints. Interesting you asked, because I'm watching how some big Fuji prints do over time in a relatively abusive commercial environment with skylights, high UV lighting, etc. Maybe they'll outlive me, maybe they won't. I do know the answer with Ciba. I think Gursky was the one who had to eat a whole lot of big Fuji laser prints and replace them with inkjets; but those probably weren't CAII, and it's too soon to tell if the specific inkjets will hold up better. The main difference with me from a marketing model like Lik's is that I don't intend to offer prints that huge, which are almost by definition going to be subject to high UV. And my clients do tend to be more careful, and are warned in advance of lighting issues. But this is all hypothetical at this point. I simply have no more large color prints available for sale. Might start again next year. This is a remodel year, including part of the lab. But generally, I don't like enlarging negs over 4X. I like meticulous detail that draws people up close. Hence media like Ciba and Fujiflex appeal to me for certain images (not all, by any means). Inkjet is a different kind of animal, with a whole different look, as you
probably know even better than me. I did have a good conversation not long ago with the person who souped the dyes for the famous huge Kodak Colorama dye transfer prints, which survived two decades of UV torture. Interestingly, they were custom blended dyes, not Kodak's.
So in this respect, inkjet is analogous to dye transfer printing - there are just so very many potential variable that making long term predictions based on extrapolating form generic accelerated aging tests might be highly misleading. It certainly proved to be thus even with
a basic tripak dye system like Ciba. Any kind of large print can end up as decor under less than ideal display conditions. It's just that certain business models like Lik's are specifically geared to this kind of audience. Nobody is going to archive that kind of thing. When the
sofa gets changed, so does the print. And just because someone paid 50K for a designer sofa does not necessarily make that an object of
"fine art" either. So as this whole subject inevitably starts wearing out eveyone's patience... I have zero interest in waving a picket sign, so
to speak, in front of tourist galleries. I don't even typically visit those kinds of towns. I just want a big visible smoke bomb or stink bomb
or whatever out there that differentiates what I intend to spend my own effort on with any genre like that whatsoever. I can respect your
own admiration for some of the technical aspects of mounting and framing these big things.

 

[Bob Carnie]

I feel inkjet in some of its form has equaled or exceeded RA4.. It certainly has trumped RA4 in its substrates available , ie thick art papers, it also has trumped RA4 with the new Inkset's I am using as far as colour gamut.

RA4 handles the AdobeRGB colour gamut quite nicely,, my new printer has some colours available that I cannot achieve with my RA4, this is a relatively new aspect of printing , due to the newer
12 inkset machines I use... It will only get more industry standard and I am afraid RA4 will see its end days within 5 years.

I feel both medias have a very limited archival lifespan, and therefore I have spent the last 5 years investigating separation negatives, ink and silver and multiple printing techniques.
I have finally achieved the perfect balance for my aesthetic and that is tri colour gum over pt pd... I feel it is much like dye transfer prints , maybe not as pure glowing as a good dye tranfer but beautiful in its own right.

To this end I have abandoned glossy paper in silver and inkjet for my OWN work and have moved strictly to matte papers. This move allows me to move between medias quite nicely
and feel all my prints follow a similar quality.

I have not applied this to my clients as many adore the glossy rendition that Ilford Warmtone can produce.

 

[DREW WILEY]

The problem with true pigments prints is long-term substrate and layer bonding, esp with the quad color carbro process. Gum is built up layer
by layer, so a bit different logistically. I've envisioned using a completely different league of pigments for these kinds of things, but might not
ever have time to go beyond basic theory. It would be sad to lose a high-gloss medium capable of great detail and depth. In terms of hue control, I've managed to learn to expose and mask color neg films with a great deal of accuracy. But inkjet is more a modern replacement for dye transfer, commercially, while Fujiflex replaces Ciba visually. I don't think RA4 is at risk commercially anytime soon. But some kind of change is inevitable. The problem with inkjet is that it has already begun to a "good enough" plateau, just like RA4 did for several decades, with only modest R&D improvements. I'm not worried. There is always black and white to fall back on, and I've also got enough
real dye transfer supplies on hand to at least make a fool out of myself. I do covet a new matcutter (an Esterly).

 

[Bob Carnie]

Funny you should mention the substrate bonding issues as this is the reason I have gone the gum method over carbon. separation of layers is an issue that those at GEH have brought to attention.
I do not think this separation is an issue with tri colour gum overs.

The problem with true pigments prints is long-term substrate and layer bonding, esp with the quad color carbro process. Gum is built up layer
by layer, so a bit different logistically. I've envisioned using a completely different league of pigments for these kinds of things, but might not
ever have time to go beyond basic theory. It would be sad to lose a high-gloss medium capable of great detail and depth. In terms of hue control, I've managed to learn to expose and mask color neg films with a great deal of accuracy. But inkjet is more a modern replacement for dye transfer, commercially, while Fujiflex replaces Ciba visually. I don't think RA4 is at risk commercially anytime soon. But some kind of change is inevitable. The problem with inkjet is that it has already begun to a "good enough" plateau, just like RA4 did for several decades, with only modest R&D improvements. I'm not worried. There is always black and white to fall back on, and I've also got enough
real dye transfer supplies on hand to at least make a fool out of myself. I do covet a new matcutter (an Esterly).

 

[DREW WILEY]

I use only small amounts of gum arabic for relatively exotic retouching problems. Do you have a good source for quantity with quality? That would be my potential concern. Or maybe there are substitute vehicles to traditional gum? The other is that I would want to totally rethink registration. Most traditional gum printers were pretty loose in this respect. But you have a strong background in that category of task. I do have a clue to obtaining superior pigment transparency with greater permanence, but haven't tried this in a gum solution yet, though there should be no hypothetical problem, since it's water soluble.

 

[Bob Carnie]

Registration requires at least IMHO having the paper being used mounted to aluminum, the aluminum is then punched and the complete package is then registered.

I use a positive with registration marks and then match the four films to it.
Back in the 80's I was responsible for multiple hit transparancey production and we lived and died by the strosser punch system... now with wet chemicals into the mix one must register to aluminum so the paper will not shrink.

Many would argue many other methods of registration but I prefer this method..

I doubt Peter Lik will go down this route, as one of the worlds most expensive prints is moonrise over pond by Edward Steichan, it is a applied colour over pt pd.. I think its gum over but not sure.

I hope I haven't moved this thread too far from its original intent.

I use only small amounts of gum arabic for relatively exotic retouching problems. Do you have a good source for quantity with quality? That would be my potential concern. Or maybe there are substitute vehicles to traditional gum? The other is that I would want to totally rethink registration. Most traditional gum printers were pretty loose in this respect. But you have a strong background in that category of task. I do have a clue to obtaining superior pigment transparency with greater permanence, but haven't tried this in a gum solution yet, though there should be no hypothetical problem, since it's water soluble.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Yeah, it's drifted, and people are probably sick of my opinions by now. Lik is someone who really needs to be regarded as a digital technician rather than analog, because the images are generally massively PS altered and effectively fictitious; and I think a number of people who have challenged my comments have never even seen in person just how poorly rendered, technique-wise, his images tend to be in print form. Not exactly what most of us would term, "fine" prints. ... But per gum prints, I might be able to grab some separation negs out of my files and test my own set of process pigments in an 8x10 contact print application. That would at least establish viability of the ingredients. Fine tuning anything like that takes a lot more effort, obviously. But not this year. I've over my head already.

 

[cliveh]

Lik is someone who really needs to be regarded as a digital technician rather than analog, because the images are generally massively PS altered and effectively fictitious.

As are all photographic chemical prints that are dodged and burned.

 

[Bob Carnie]

I have to agree with this post 100%

Here we go again. When are you going to get through your head - all photographs and prints are fictitious because the film itself does not record "accurately". Every transition from subject through camera optical system to film to negative to paper has its own distortion. So it is ridiculous to say dodging and burning inherently lead to more fiction than a straight print. What if dodging and burning help correct for the distortion of tones created by the original negative? A straight print might be more fictitious than a print which has been manipulated.

The notion the film records faithfully and must be printed straight is preposterous. It implies the negative is "correct" to begin with, which is not the case. And different films might record the scene slightly differently. Which one is unmanipulated? Which one is right? And even if one assumes the negative isn't fictitious, a straight print on one paper might look different than a straight print on another paper. Which one is correct?

I have no beef with the philosophy all prints should be straight. Print any way you see fit. But know it is simply a personal preference for a particular working method. Don't fool yourself into thinking it leads to a print which is more faithful to the original subject.

 

[Alan Klein]

Why is Gurky's work Rhine II worth millions? I think it's pretty boring. Why not Lik? Why not me or you? Aren't the high prices from a lot of hype and phony promotion? Just which God determines the monetary value of art?

Also, the argument that some make that their pictures should not be hung to decorate, is silly. You can't drive art to work or fly it to your vacation destination. You can't feed your family with it. Come on. It's there to provide aesthetic pleasure, decorate your home and/or impress others with how rich and "cultured" you are.

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

It's like make-up. A little used sparingly and professionally can enhance a subtle beauty. Too much is ridiculous and a train wreck and certainly can quickly look unnatural or abnormal. And in both cases starting with the best subject matter at first needs less "enhancement".

 

[MattKing]

Any discussion about the prices paid for anything by Peter Lik or Andreas Gursky isn't a discussion about photography.

It is a discussion about the peculiarities of the market for things that can be put up on display, and perceptions about what might have monetary value.

Their work may intersect with issues concerning photography, and their influence on their market may also indirectly influence photographic markets, but IMHO they are participating in different markets.

 

[pdeeh]

Well, quite.

 

[blansky]

Lik is someone who really needs to be regarded as a digital technician rather than analog, because the images are generally massively PS altered and effectively fictitious.

As are all photographic chemical prints that are dodged and burned.

Hate to be piling on here but whoever made the determination that photography was about truth, reality or accurate representation of a scene.

Most of us aren't forensic photographers. We use photography to stop time and record something the way we want it to be.

Then we process it to further that goal.

Your reality and my reality and millions of other people's realities all differ.

What I want photography to do is present my ideal reality and I want yours to represent your perception of your ideal.

If everyone does what I do, or what you do, fuck it, it's not worth doing.

 

[cliveh]

Yeah, it's drifted, and people are probably sick of my opinions by now. Lik is someone who really needs to be regarded as a digital technician rather than analog, because the images are generally massively PS altered and effectively fictitious; and I think a number of people who have challenged my comments have never even seen in person just how poorly rendered, technique-wise, his images tend to be in print form. Not exactly what most of us would term, "fine" prints. ... But per gum prints, I might be able to grab some separation negs out of my files and test my own set of process pigments in an 8x10 contact print application. That would at least establish viability of the ingredients. Fine tuning anything like that takes a lot more effort, obviously. But not this year. I've over my head already.

Note, I was quoting Drew, but did not copy his post correctly. I think my analogy with darkroom manipulation and Photoshop manipulation is valid.

 

[ozphoto]

I've been to Lik's gallery in Cairns and had a walkthrough. Personally, his images didn't "grab" me in the slightest; found them to be rather ho-hum - "nice" (I guess) but nothing that I'd part my hard earned $$$ with.

I guess like any art/photography/sculpture etc, it's all in the eye of the beholder. Do I think the image being discussed is worth that kind of money? No, I'd prefer something else on the wall to that, even if I had a truckload of cash, I'd be investing in something I like, not something that the artist (or anyone else for that matter) is hyping up.

I'm not a Picasso fan, but I remember seeing some lovely sketches he did that were totally different to his artworks. They were rather tiny, but I felt well priced - kicking myself that I didn't take the opportunity to buy one of them.

For me his paintings are "bleh", but those sketches were magical - Lik's work, current & past don't affect me in this way at all. IMHO they're overhyped, overworked pictures - but to each their own. If someone wants to part with a few million for a photograph who are we to judge?

I think perhaps the "proof is in the pudding" - the works that are being sent for valuation aren't living up to their initial hype and perceived "value", and that in itself tells me to be wary of purchasing anything his gallery is offering. Just because the gallery tells me it's going to be worth $$$ in the future doesn't mean it will be - Caveat Emptor.

 

[DREW WILEY]

If others can stand eating the kind of visual dog food that Lik produces, that's their right; and they're obviously entitled to their own opinion too. I've said enough on this subject. You get the point. I'm out.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

How about labs like Shutterfly?

I am afraid RA4 will see its end days within 5 years.

I haven't printed RA4 in years and printed back in the days of EP2. But how about economics of color prints? Aren't inkjet prints on a huge scale of a labs like Shutterfly still much more expensive than RA4?

How about the cost RA4 equipment vs inkjet. With both, it's most efficient when they're used a lot. How about maintenance of equipment? I'm really curious. Usually, cheaper wins.

I hate to admit this, but I do think jet prints are on par with RA4 But if this is any consolation, the years of printing RA has made me a better color printer.

 

[Dinesh]

You can't drive art to work or fly it to your vacation destination. You can't feed your family with it. .

To be fair, art has many different interpretations!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porsche_959

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concorde

http://www.chocolateatlas.com/Chocolate_Recipes/S062_The_Montage.htm

 

[DREW WILEY]

Maybe the RA4 discussion should go elsewhere. Like I said, I'm done with Lik. But in terms of volume printmaking, RA4 is distinctly more economical than inkjet in terms of serious materials. Whether it is more economical in terms of equipment and maintenance all depends.
I don't think any inkjet machine can be classified as truly industrial. They're highly dependent on rapidly changing software, and as a class have a poor track record for durability, much like big office printers. And one pays through the nose for the inks and papers - which is exactly what the manufacturers of these devices want! The machines themselves are basically disposable after a few years, but relatively affordable compared to true industrial RA4 processors. But major labs also use dedicated RA4 machines to process all their laser-generated prints, like Lightjet, Chromira, and Lambda. So they have a distinct major investment in the these devices and the related scanners. Unlike
Bob, I suspect RA4 might have slowly diminishing demand, but it still quite healthy. For one thing, not everyone cares for the look of inkjet.
For another, why would any pro lab put all their eggs in one basket by committing to inkjet machinery and techniques that any mid-sized business or advanced amateur can afford and learn to do? That would seem to be business suicide (and has been in distinct cases I'm aware of). Photofinishing is a partially independent subject. Some outfits still offer RA4 machine prints, some don't. Lots of ordinary people
don't particularly care for digitally-generated snapshot prints, but that whole category of business is being undermined by the public now
mainly sharing images directly over the web, with digital storage. And like I already intimated, and I think Bob will agree on, is that once
you start looking for a true gloss print media capable of holding great detail, inkjet isn't even in the ballpark compared to media like Ciba
and now Fuji Supergloss. But that is the scary fact - a single product out there, at this point in time.

 

[Bob Carnie]

I do both processes, RA4 and Inkjet. in fact since 1976 I have never not done colour printing using RA4. I have invested in enlarger, maskmaking for ciba, Lambda and now Canon 12 ink sets(last 6 years)

Like transparency process (which is all but dead) RA4 is being less and less in demand.
I use to think that going the whole inkjet route would be suicide like Drew suggests- but it turns out in 2015 not every corner operator can make good profiles, understand colour theory and apply it. I grew up with colour and its theory and now like RA4 my inkjets are very commercially viable. Also those in the know have come to the conclusion that if you do not use this equipment, the print heads dry out and become extremely costly to replace.

RA 4 does have a certain look, It is a comfortable print to look at and its one we all grew up working with, but most labs will tell you that any good process is kept in line with volume- and if that flow of film or paper dwindles then the whole process
is suspect.. There is a very good reason why the best E6 labs dropped the service- the volume was not there to keep the plots clean and on line.

I am afraid that RA4 is falling into this trap, and the more high quality ink devices that are bought this will contribute to less RA4 prints. I see this in my own business and town market. I am doing 5-1 inkjet over RA4.. What is interesting is I am doing more silver gelatin than ever, and even more surprising is the demand for alternative printmaking .
As Drew points out there are no Inkjet media that compares in gloss to FujiFlex, but pretty damm close with some of the papers I am using.

I do believe inkjet blows away RA4 with their matt, and watercolour papers, basically a whole new world of prints out there to make and enjoy.

 

[DREW WILEY]

The problem some of the big local labs had was that they were neither fish nor fowl. A lot of their volume came from things like trade show
and storefront prints, which now any mid-sized corp can do in house inkjet, because the quality didn't need to be that high to begin with; yet these same outfits could rarely meet the expectations of local "fine art" printmakers, who have almost universally gravitated toward making their own prints, and in a few cases have supplanted their original labs. Of course, there will always be a niche market for high end lab services catering to museums, serial editions, fine-art photographers who don't do their own printing, etc. RA4 still seems to have more appeal for portraiture, fashion, volume retail displays (it's more affordable). And some of this seems to have a geographic emphasis. For
example, just about all traditional services are still readily available here in the SF Bay area, including large format E6. But with any of this
there is a threshold of volume required to sustain manufacturer interest. Fuji is shutting down their Netherlands plant for chromogenic paper, but still has facilities in Japan and here in the US. And actual RA4 chemistry can be provided by any number of outfits. So I have no
reason to really worry at this point in time at all. But it would be personally disappointing to see something like Supergloss pulled from the
Fuji lineup. But it is one product that seems to have strong overall demand for now. Change has always been part of the game. Always will
be. We adapt.

 

[hoffy]

Maybe the RA4 discussion should go elsewhere.........

The problem is if we start talking too much about Inkjet, we will be told politely to sod off to a digital forum.....

Where I live, there is one pro lab and a few smaller labs that still do RA4 based prints (digitally exposed, mind you). They are still by far the cheaper option, but are very limited in both surface finish, material and size. The beauty of inkjet is that it can be printed on just about anything with relative ease. The machines that they use also mean vastly larger prints are a possibility.

But, talking to the owner of the Pro Lab, he is rather miffed to how the equipment suppliers do business with Inkjet equipment. He pays a yearly maintenance fee keep his Kodak Pegasus based gear going and he is happy to do so.

With his Epson Inkjet printer, they would rather him buy a new printer every few years.

Maybe this is why Kodak went to the brink…….

 

[DREW WILEY]

It was exactly Kodak's failure to honor their own maint contracts that brought down a friend of mine who had the biggest full-service lab in
northern Calif. And those contracts were obscenely expensive. Their reply was, that once they themselves dumped a particular line of equipment, or were themselves defacto dumped via the equip getting upstaged (inevitable as digi tech rapidly evolved), the lab was on their own, regardless of the terms of the contract. Risky game.