Traditional chemical or inkjet prints?

Richard Man said:

I have been digitally printing for ~15-18 years. I am now printing B&W using Piezography. I have seen museum prints from Avedon, Adams, Fan Ho, and have small number of prints from Ross, Sexton, Ryuji, including small platinum prints etc. etc.

I can say that from a technical printing perspective, piezography is as good, or better than any darkroom prints.

Click to expand...

I have no doubts about image quality of modern digital printing. Also the power of digital editing and manipulation opens up possibilities to produce amazing prints. Also if your originals are shot on digital cameras, the smart decision is to print directly on paper.

However I think we need to remember all digital prints are based on digital representation of the original; scanner makes its own interpretations of the negative - adds digital grain etc. So technically we are talking about quite a different products wet print vs digital process because there are so many modifiers to the original negative. Because of this I think it is unfair to compare digital representation to wet print directly.

On the other hand if you just need a top notch print on display, then drum-scan the negative, manipulate it on computer as good as you can and print on the best digital printer available. That will probably outrun wet print for sure in terms of outlook.

If you want a unique hand made product that has no computers involved and which will last "forever" then darkroom wet print is your weapon. If you want to be as close as to the original negative as you can, there is no other option. I think these kind of objects are still valued higher than any digital prints.

It's an endless debate and much is in the eye of the beholder. However, I think one of the most important points has been missed.
There are numerous references as to how well prints have stood the test of time - locked up in folders away from daylight.
Excuse me, but why are you taking photographs if they only ever live in the dark? Perhaps I've been doing it all wrong over the past 75 years or so - I didn't realise the prints I made weren't supposed to be stuck on walls or in frames on mantels etc. I could have saved loads of time in taking less trouble over fixing and ensuring the right pH etc of the chemistry, and only given them a quick swish in fresh water. The result is, unfortunately, they're horribly fresh and unfaded even after all these years. So are those made by my great grandfather (a notable professional) made more than 130 years ago.
If I am printing for a client, then longevity is essential. These days I employ a 'hybrid' photographic work flow - both film and digital, with film processed conventionally and then scanned either with a flatbed or for 35mm with a Nikon 35-120 scanner using top of the line software. I am also resuming wet processing for black and white, printing a negative on a inkjet and then 1:1 in the darkroom with the enlarger as light source. Still experimenting, but it's clear the subtle gradations I'd get from film aren't to be had - yer can't get out wot ain't in!
So far, I do not have ANY colour inkjet prints I made 40 years ago and hung on the wall that haven't degraded - and they were made on a top-range Epson machine with multiple pigment inks. They do not compare to the incredible Cibachrome prints I made direct from slides - a quite expensive process but when you saw a 20x16 on a show stand, unbeatable. Even my 'jobbing' C42 pics are still vibrant with deep colours.
At the end of the day, I will only complete a job where the client accepts that a digital or 'giclee' print may have a display life IN SUBDUED DAYLIGHT of 10 years or so. Otherwise I shoot film and job the processing out to a pro lab.

Jeremy Greenaway said:

So far, I do not have ANY colour inkjet prints I made 40 years ago and hung on the wall that haven't degraded - and they were made on a top-range Epson machine with multiple pigment inks.

Click to expand...

There were inkjet printers with pigment inks 40 years ago? Would like to know more about them.

:Niranjan.

Go to a museum, and all their photos that are not on display are stored away from light.

nmp said:

There were inkjet printers with pigment inks 40 years ago? Would like to know more about them.

:Niranjan.

Click to expand...

The first of these was a four-colour jet printer called IRIS, which was introduced by Iris Graphics in 1985, and used pigment media. Others followed soon after, and this costly machine led to a canny American photgrapher coining a fancy French name 'giclee' for the output - giclee meaning roughly 'to squirt'.

Jeremy Greenaway said:

The first of these was a four-colour jet printer called IRIS, which was introduced by Iris Graphics in 1985, and used pigment media. Others followed soon after, and this costly machine led to a canny American photgrapher coining a fancy French name 'giclee' for the output - giclee meaning roughly 'to squirt'

Click to expand...

You said Epson printers 40 years ago that I was alluding to in my question.

Jeremy Greenaway said:

they were made on a top-range Epson machine with multiple pigment inks.

Click to expand...

In any case the first IRIS printers used to quote this MOMA art historian "basically water and food coloring." Later they did have better dye inks but don't know when they moved over to pigment based inks, if ever. If you have any references in that regard, please share.

:Niranjan.

nmp said:

You said Epson printers 40 years ago that I was alluding to in my question.



In any case the first IRIS printers used to quote this MOMA art historian "basically water and food coloring." Later they did have better dye inks but don't know when they moved over to pigment based inks, if ever. If you have any references in that regard, please share.

:Niranjan.

Click to expand...

At the time I used IRIS prints, they were as proofs from (very exotic and expensive) digital retouching before having an 8x10 chrome made. Longevity was not a factor.

nmp said:

You said Epson printers 40 years ago that I was alluding to in my question.



In any case the first IRIS printers used to quote this MOMA art historian "basically water and food coloring." Later they did have better dye inks but don't know when they moved over to pigment based inks, if ever. If you have any references in that regard, please share.

:Niranjan.

Click to expand...

Slip of the pen when I reference Epson. However, the IRIS machine did use pigment and not dye - check out their own site, and your own New Orleans arts museum as some sources. I was working as a magazine production company executive and we moved over to IRIS output as a cheaper proofing alternative to Cromalins. The cost of these was horrific when it came to producing a 140-page plus A4 full colour magazine. The first half-usable Epson-Seiko squirter came out in about 1987 or 1989, but it wasn't until 1994 that the first full-colour ij came out - the Stylus Color with a 720dpi matrix. Sorry for my misinformation, the years telescope at 82! Just for the record, I and my colleagues also produced a tabloid local weekly paper in the UK in the mid-eighties using nothing more than Amstrad 1640 terminals and a semi-graphical interface whose name I can't recall. Quite simply, they were used to output galleys of typeset that were then cut and pasted on 'the stone' - the make-up table. The page was then photographed 1 to 1 and the resulting page produced as a plate for a very advanced offset litho press capable of spewing out our little rag of up to 48 or even 60 pages in less than two hours for 10,000 copies Not bad methinks. But no doubt I'll be shot down and challenged on all of that by more superior Transatlantic cousins than us strawheads in the UK.

Jeremy Greenaway said:

Slip of the pen when I reference Epson. However, the IRIS machine did use pigment and not dye - check out their own site, and your own New Orleans arts museum as some sources. I was working as a magazine production company executive and we moved over to IRIS output as a cheaper proofing alternative to Cromalins. The cost of these was horrific when it came to producing a 140-page plus A4 full colour magazine. The first half-usable Epson-Seiko squirter came out in about 1987 or 1989, but it wasn't until 1994 that the first full-colour ij came out - the Stylus Color with a 720dpi matrix. Sorry for my misinformation, the years telescope at 82! Just for the record, I and my colleagues also produced a tabloid local weekly paper in the UK in the mid-eighties using nothing more than Amstrad 1640 terminals and a semi-graphical interface whose name I can't recall. Quite simply, they were used to output galleys of typeset that were then cut and pasted on 'the stone' - the make-up table. The page was then photographed 1 to 1 and the resulting page produced as a plate for a very advanced offset litho press capable of spewing out our little rag of up to 48 or even 60 pages in less than two hours for 10,000 copies Not bad methinks. But no doubt I'll be shot down and challenged on all of that by more superior Transatlantic cousins than us strawheads in the UK.

Click to expand...

You were probably using Agfa software and output systems. They were pretty big in the newspaper business in the 80s and 90s. I always loved going down to the production department in the evening and watching the hustle and bustle of the next day's newspaper being pasted up on those long, tilted tables.

Pieter12 said:

You were probably using Agfa software and output systems. They were pretty big in the newspaper business in the 80s and 90s. I always loved going down to the production department in the evening and watching the hustle and bustle of the next day's newspaper being pasted up on those long, tilted tables.

Click to expand...

I guess we're getting a bit off topic here and need to 'ware the mod's wrath! However, you could say we're still in realm of 'wet' and 'dry' printing. I started off having to learn about hot metal as well as the basics of the photo department, and eventually became the boss editorial man on the 'stone' of what then was Britain's biggest selling newspaper. Nothing, but N - O - T - H - I - N - G can ever compare to the smell, the sound and the feel of hot metal, or the guys who were kings of the newsroom. I could make an emergency correction while the presses were still running by having an offending line 'bashed' on the plates with only a couple of minutes with the machines at a standstill. Or do a whole replate for a 'slip' edition in only about 10 minutes. Come digital, it could take an hour. Ah, progress. And, yes, I well remember the Mighty Orange even before digital - Agfa produced the process film as well as being a favourite among some of the darkroom printers. It was my beloved media for years, with the luscious Agfa Portriga with its creamy surface and deep, dense blacks while for press work the more contrasty gloss surface Brovira was favoured. It took a fabulous glaze on the rotary hot glazing machine - provided you'd prepared the drum properly and got it really spotless!

Jeremy Greenaway said:

I guess we're getting a bit off topic here and need to 'ware the mod's wrath! However, you could say we're still in realm of 'wet' and 'dry' printing. I started off having to learn about hot metal as well as the basics of the photo department, and eventually became the boss editorial man on the 'stone' of what then was Britain's biggest selling newspaper. Nothing, but N - O - T - H - I - N - G can ever compare to the smell, the sound and the feel of hot metal, or the guys who were kings of the newsroom. I could make an emergency correction while the presses were still running by having an offending line 'bashed' on the plates with only a couple of minutes with the machines at a standstill. Or do a whole replate for a 'slip' edition in only about 10 minutes. Come digital, it could take an hour. Ah, progress. And, yes, I well remember the Mighty Orange even before digital - Agfa produced the process film as well as being a favourite among some of the darkroom printers. It was my beloved media for years, with the luscious Agfa Portriga with its creamy surface and deep, dense blacks while for press work the more contrasty gloss surface Brovira was favoured. It took a fabulous glaze on the rotary hot glazing machine - provided you'd prepared the drum properly and got it really spotless!

Click to expand...

Not absolutely sure, but I think that "metal" was lead. Good riddance!

I prefer optically prints on RA-4 but if the lab scans then print digitally I prefer the inkjet over the digitally printed on RA-4 paper.

Pieter12 said:

Not absolutely sure, but I think that "metal" was lead. Good riddance!

Click to expand...

Almost correct - it was a lead alloy.

I'm looking at a couple of inkjet prints, about 5" x 7" framed under glass, that I made around 23 years ago. Density and colours are as good as new I think. Definitely better than mini-lab prints I have from the same era. Mini-lab operators were always a mixed bunch with regards to their QC procedures.

With the use of a good scanner and a lot of cleanup in Photoshop I have gotten back loads of images shot on C-41 where the original prints have deteriorated badly. At least I can now print them on an inkjet printer, (multiple times in the future if needed).