What is a C print?

[sanking]

Sandy,

I will surmise from your last post that what you are saying is that doing your own prints is a good thing, not a technical, creative or commercial barrier, but photographers of stature don't often do it (and that says what?).

Seems pretty simple to me. The message appears to be that most color photographers, of stature or otherwise, don't find that the gain is worth the pain, i.e. that the advantage in interpretative control possible in printing one's own color prints either, 1) does not outweigh the inconvenience and time lost in doing so, or 2) does not produce a print that is perceived as either artistically or technically superior.

Sandy

 

[Ed Sukach]

Seems pretty simple to me. The message appears to be that most color photographers, of stature or otherwise, don't find that the gain is worth the pain, i.e. that the advantage in interpretative control possible in printing one's own color prints either, 1) does not outweight the inconvenience and time lost in doing so, or 2) does not produce a print that is perceived as either artistically or technically superior.

True ... but what is the point? I'm sure that most "Black-and White photographers, of stature or otherwise" feel the same.

I am not interested - and do not feel "out of it" - in the fact that I am not included in the category of "Most".

I print color for the same reason I print black and white ... for the flexibility, and opportunity for expression.

BTW - I disagree - at the risk of sounding conceited, In my opinion, my work is technically superior to what I see from commercial labs.

 

[jd callow]

Seems pretty simple to me. The message appears to be that most color photographers, of stature or otherwise, don't find that the gain is worth the pain, i.e. that the advantage in interpretative control possible in printing one's own color prints either, 1) does not outweigh the inconvenience and time lost in doing so, or 2) does not produce a print that is perceived as either artistically or technically superior.

Sandy

I suspect you are correct that making your own c-prints is an inconvenience, can be costly and the market doesn't know the difference.


It is a bit of a departure from your earlier comment, which I took exception to..

The time needed to master the skill requirements simply leave little or no time for the creative process of image making.

I wondered how a person that can promote labour intensive activities such as creating digital neg's, alt printing and other process that have at heart the goal of a superior image could say that the effort required for colour printing interfered with the "the creative process of image making" and was not commercially viable.

 

[Stan. L-B]

A slight change of tack but staying on course:

An artist or craftsman, including photographers, that do not, perform each and every stage of an artistic production by his own hand is not fully in control, and therefore cannot be considered to have reached fulfilment or be truly competent. Commercial viability should never enter into the equation.

Must now keep my head down below the parapet!

 

[jd callow]

that would be my point from a craft or artistic point of view.

 

[sanking]

I wondered how a person that can promote labour intensive activities such as creating digital neg's, alt printing and other process that have at heart the goal of a superior image could say that the effort required for colour printing interfered with the "the creative process of image making" and was not commercially viable.

Quite simply because I believe that the creation of hand-made prints with alternative processes such as carbon and Pt./Pd and carbon is more creative and interesting than pulling a sheet of paper out of a box from the factor, and that the uniqueness and permanence of the final product is worth the extra time one must spend to perfect their technique. From an artistic perspective I feel the same about color carbon prints, three-color gum prints, and other types of hand-made color prints.

I don't feel the same about a C-print, whether it is made with wet processing by the artist or in a lab from a digital file. One can get a lot more control with inkjet prints, which are both more permanent, and to my eye at least, much more aesthetically pleasing than C-prints.


Sandy

 

[Ed Sukach]

I don't feel the same about a C-print, whether it is made with wet processing by the artist or in a lab from a digital file. One can get a lot more control with inkjet prints, which are both more permanent, and to my eye at least, much more aesthetically pleasing than C-prints.

Inarguable. You are more than entitled to your "feeling" - I'd call that sacred ground. I don't feel that way, myself.

A "C-Print" (RA-4) is possibly less malleable, more difficult to work ... but then again, oils are more easily worked than watercolors.

I suppose one can make black-and-white scans and say that they are more easily printed and manipulated on "Ink-Jets" -- and more permanent ... (questionable in my mind - I always hear claims that the ink will last two hundred years... but nothing about the paper) but they are simply NOT the same. I won't attempt even come close to arguing about aesthetics... that ground is even MORE sacred.

 

[jd callow]

Sandy,
You should do more c-prints. Some of my best work can only be done traditionally and the nuances of factory supplied out of the box materials can make monumental differences. The two images below are, in there highlight areas, too dense for anything shy of a drum scan each require 3 separate burns with separate filter packs and take on entirely different looks depending on whether they are printed on matte/glossy/flex or portrait or contrasty emulsions.

The printing process takes about 2 min under the enlarger and 4 min dry to dry. Each time I do them I improve upon my prior efforts.

I could have the negs drum scanned and locally correct density and colour, spot them, and print them to an inkjet. After 60 prints (2 hours worth of digital) I would net out with a savings in time, but the 60th print would be the same as the first. Whether an inkjet could provide the punch and verve that I get from a traditional c-print is another story.


Dead Link Removed

Dead Link Removed

Of course they look far better in person than they do as scans.

 

[sanking]

I suppose one can make black-and-white scans and say that they are more easily printed and manipulated on "Ink-Jets" -- and more permanent ... (questionable in my mind - I always hear claims that the ink will last two hundred years... but nothing about the paper) but they are simply NOT the same. I won't attempt even come close to arguing about aesthetics... that ground is even MORE sacred.

Granted, the claims made for the permanence of inkjet pigmented prints is based on accelerated aging testing, the validity of which can certainly be questioned. What can not be questioned, however, is that C-prints will fade. I made a lot of C-prints some two decades ago and every one of them, even the ones kept in dark storage, show some signs of fading. The ones that were displayed for a few years in subdued room lighthave faded terribly. The R prints that I made back then have also faded terribly. The only color prints that I made during that period that have not faded are Cibachromes.

So in the face of the absolute certainity of the lack of permanence of C-prints I am willing to take a chance that color prints made with pigmented ink sets will be more permanent.

And in any event, I much prefer the soft matte look of inkjet prints on water color papers than the surface of any C-print I have seen.

Sandy

 

[Ed Sukach]

What can not be questioned, however, is that C-prints will fade. I made a lot of C-prints some two decades ago and every one of them, even the ones kept in dark storage, show some signs of fading. ..
So in the face of the absolute certainity of the lack of permanence of C-prints I am willing to take a chance that color prints made with pigmented ink sets will be more permanent.

Well, to make this a fair comparison, have the prints made with pigmented inks twenty years ago faded more or less than the chemical color prints?
Or will "C" -- I dislike that terminology ... RA-4 prints done today, with modern chemistry fade equally as quickly?

I have EP-2 prints done in 1991 (?) that appear not to have faded, and LOTS of RA-4 (!994-5?) that are still bright ... although I really can't compare them to the way they were originally. I should have made density measurements (CMYK) back then, but I did not.

 

[sanking]

Well, to make this a fair comparison, have the prints made with pigmented inks twenty years ago faded more or less than the chemical color prints?

Well, since you ask the answer is that the color carbon prints I made with pigmented inks twenty or so years ago have not faded at all, in comparision to the C and R prints that have faded terribly. The carbon prints, even though that have been hanging in fairly bright areas of my house for fifteen years or more, show absolutely no sign of fading.


Sandy

 

[Ed Sukach]

Well, since you ask the answer is that the color carbon prints I made with pigmented inks twenty or so years ago have not faded at all, in comparision to the C and R prints that have faded terribly. The carbon prints, even though that have been hanging in fairly bright areas of my house for fifteen years or more, show absolutely no sign of fading.

I wasn't asking about "Color Carbon" ... I was thinking of "Ink Jet" . I'm fairly sure that Ink Jet technology was in its infancy back then... and probably not very permanent.

My point - I should have been more blunt - was that materials have changed a great deal in the last twenty or so years. While I do not have quantative information, I think that the longevity of modern materails is far greater than it was twenty years ago.

 

[jd callow]

Kodak makes the claim that the endura papers are the equal to pigmented inks regarding longevity. Fuji CA is about half that.

 

[sanking]

I wasn't asking about "Color Carbon" ... I was thinking of "Ink Jet" . I'm fairly sure that Ink Jet technology was in its infancy back then... and probably not very permanent.

My point - I should have been more blunt - was that materials have changed a great deal in the last twenty or so years. While I do not have quantative information, I think that the longevity of modern materails is far greater than it was twenty years ago.

Well, if that is what you meant a better comparison might be that of the longevity of the first C-prints made in the 30s or 40s with some of the first prints made with pigmented ink sets in the early 2000s, say those from the Epson 2000P.

From my perspective there is no question but that the making of color prints with pigmented dye sets and inkjet printers, a technology barely in its infancy, is already equal to or superior to all versions of C-printing in terms of longevity of the print. Most independent testing clearly shows this to be the case.

Sandy

 

[tim atherton]

I will surmise from your last post that what you are saying is that doing your own prints is a good thing, not a technical, creative or commercial barrier, but photographers of stature don't often do it (and that says what?).

that they were/are more concerned with taking a photogorpah than messign around in the darkroom when they could pay a skilled technician/craftsman to do just that (as do a number of well regarded B&W photographers)

 

[tim atherton]

A slight change of tack but staying on course:

An artist or craftsman, including photographers, that do not, perform each and every stage of an artistic production by his own hand is not fully in control, and therefore cannot be considered to have reached fulfilment or be truly competent. Commercial viability should never enter into the equation.

Must now keep my head down below the parapet!

You mean like sculptors who employ craftsmen at foundrys to cast their work? Or artists who emply master pritners to produce lithographs of their work?

"Commercial viability" the commercial viablilty is the artists time - do they spend say 50% of their time fiddling around in the darkroom, or do they employ a master pritner who will produce work at least equal to theirs and possibly better and use that extra 50% to be actually taking photographs

 

[tim atherton]

Kodak makes the claim that the endura papers are the equal to pigmented inks regarding longevity. Fuji CA is about half that.

However, Kodak "longevity" years are rather like dog years - rather shorter than everyone elses - they apply different sets of standards to get their results if I remember correctly - you can cut the Kodak figures in about half to come up with how their longevity compoares to either Wilhelm's or Fuji's (much more widely accepted) testing methods

 

[Ed Sukach]

"Commercial viability" the commercial viablilty is the artists time - do they spend say 50% of their time fiddling around in the darkroom, or do they employ a master pritner who will produce work at least equal to theirs and possibly better and use that extra 50% to be actually taking photographs

And that is different from Black and White printing ... how?

If I ever find a ""Master printer" who has the same sense of aesthetics as I do, or whom I can communicate with as effectively as I can with myself ... I'll be severely tempted. I'm NOT holding my breath until I do.

Interesting that you should divorce "darkroom work" from "taking photographs."
In My Humble Opinion, it is all part of the same process.

 

[Sean]

You mean like sculptors who employ craftsmen at foundrys to cast their work? Or artists who emply master pritners to produce lithographs of their work?

"Commercial viability" the commercial viablilty is the artists time - do they spend say 50% of their time fiddling around in the darkroom, or do they employ a master pritner who will produce work at least equal to theirs and possibly better and use that extra 50% to be actually taking photographs

A lot of what you describe is a physical or financial impossibility the artist faces to produce the finished work. It just doesn't seem like a huge ordeal in my eyes for the photographer to print their own color vs. having a sculpture poured or carved out of a mountain, etc. We're talking a darkroom, enlarger, paper, chems. All of which is probably cheaper and LESS time consuming than organising and overseeing someone else do the work. Are some of these artists making excuses for convenience that are a bit more than they want us to realize? I have 4 of Callow's color prints and they are stunning, and he has honed his printing skills -so I believe it is far from an inconvenience or time waster for him to print his own work. I would much rather own work from a photographer who has printed the work themselves. The work being done by the artist from A-Z is a statement in itself.. just my 2c worth of barstool babble..

 

[lee]

I have always made my own B/w's and let the color work go outside. One working professional explained it to me this way: At that time his day rate was $300 per day. It took 3 days in the darkroom for every day shooting. That is potentially a $900 hickey to do your own darkroom work. Made sense to me at that time. I don't and have never done enough color work to justify the expense of a color darkroom so for me shoot the color film and let someone else do the work.

lee\c

 

[jd callow]

that they were/are more concerned with taking a photogorpah than messign around in the darkroom when they could pay a skilled technician/craftsman to do just that (as do a number of well regarded B&W photographers)

There is no argument about the quantity of photographers who have their work done by others. I would suggest that most do it because it is easier, but I'll accept anyone's opinion on the whys. With the caveat that it is an opinion.

I can tell you from my own experience that I do as good or better job with my prints of my photographs than do the pro labs.

My opinion on why I do it better is that I have a better understanding of how to print my work and what I want from the neg.

I can also tell you I do it cheaper and that I do not find the time investment keeps me from shooting.

My comments were in relation to what path to produce the best print. Some tend to dismiss the process of producing a c-print as being inconsequential to artist's goal. I disagree.

The sculptors not making his own castings really does not relate. The sculptors I have known made the models that formed the casting and spent hours/days/weeks cleaning up the casted object.

Castings do not offer much interpretation when compared to a negative.

Of course these are people I have known and to my knowledge only one ever became 'significant.'

However, Kodak "longevity" years are rather like dog years - rather shorter than everyone elses - they apply different sets of standards to get their results if I remember correctly - you can cut the Kodak figures in about half to come up with how their longevity compoares to either Wilhelm's or Fuji's (much more widely accepted) testing methods

I do both analog and digital and my axe to grind is that my eyes are telling me one thing and others are saying something else.

All longevity claims tend to be like car milage claims. I have been printing backlit inkjets for about 4 years using uv pigmented inks that are rated as some of the best on the planet. I am not impressed with the numbers thrown out by the manufacturers and an honest person would not choose the inkjet over the RA4 backlit if they saw them side by side (freshly installed or over time). I choose backlit because it is the benchmark for how lightfast a material is. (It is also a good measure of the dynamic range.)

 

[tim atherton]

[/QUOTE]Of course they look far better in person than they do as scans.[/QUOTE]

Hopefully. Perhaps more time making pictures and less time in the darkroom?

 

[jd callow]

Hopefully. Perhaps more time making pictures and less time in the darkroom?

My work is probably an aquired taste. The contrast and colour is pretty much what the work looks like -- not a 160nc thing.

Meanwhile I shoot (waste?) many hundreds of rolls and sheets a year -- making any more is probably not going to help me much

I'm glad you signed up just to dish my work though.

 

[tim atherton]

Nachtwey, Salgado, Cartier Bresson etc - all wonderful photographers of different sorts - but they don't/didn't print their own work.

A photographer is a photographer and a printer is a printer. Sometimes there is a crossover and a person is both. Sometimes they are one or the other. The simple answer that there is absolutely no reason - moral, ethical or artistic why a person has to be or do both.

There are many many excellent photogorpahers who know that either they aren't that good in the darkroom (even though their photography may be of the highest order) in both B&W and colour work and know it makes either financial (and time) or creative sense to turn to a master printer to do that work. Conversely there are probably a greater number of excellent darkroom technicians and even master pritners who think they are also good photographers. Wish it were that they had the same sense to know their limitations...

 

[jd callow]

Tim,
I am sure you are correct and there may be photographers who are allergic to the chems or don't have the space or are affraid of the dark. I don't place moral, ethical, political or dietary reasons for photographers to do their own printing. Nor, frankly do I care if a photographer does his own printing or not.

My points are that the printing process is a part of the larger creative process; the artist knows, or should know best what the final print should look like; that if you can justify the time to do a FB print (up to an hour dry to dry) then I have a hard time understanding how you can argue against doing your own colour work based upon time (maybe 10mins dry to dry); and finally it is either ignorance or arrogance that would dismiss the printing as not being worthy of the artist's time.

I should point out that I am not talking about proof prints or probably even package prints for a wedding or portrait (although I do my own portrait work) and I realize not everyone is going to be adapt at it.