Master Printers

Yesterday I tried to comment and I was defeated by the RFF Error notification. Lost over half of what I wrote so I shut down. This morning I tried to "Like" Vince's post and got the dreaded "Working" flag followed by an error and failure to "Like". These errors are getting worse for me. I'm kinda PO'd and fed up right not so I'll keep it short.

I'm not a fan of color photography except for the work of a very few. It has nothing to do with durability. I mean--ballet, concerts, all performance art? Just because it's ephemeral doesn't make it less worthy of the definition of "art". I like B&W much more than color but, hey, I still like some color. No big deal.

And, to agree with Vince, the silly labelling of items, people and pursuits ends up putting everything in a number of very tiny stereotypical boxes that cannot be sustained. It pushes us apart and creates lines that cannot be crossed without opposition. We're all photographers here, most of us pretty darn good at it no matter how we practice it.
 
Erik van Straten said:
Durability is in my opinion fundamental for every art.
Click to expand...

What about theatre or dance - still art, only ephemeral. Hell, one can even claim with a straight face that the temporary nature of such things is part of the beauty of the art itself - or even that the small changes between performances are the real beauty.

Personally, I value a traditional/silver print more than an inkjet one, but not because it's somehow harder, inherently higher quality, or more "pure", but out of suspicion for the longevity of an inkjet print. I know people are claiming 100+ years for archival quality inkjet prints now, and that technology continues to improve, but I also remember when people claimed you could smear jam on a CD and it'd still play fine. Nothing is bulletproof, and while I don't harbour delusions of my personal prints being stored and valued for 500+ years, I've seen too many inkjet-printed-materials - not just photos - bleach to nothingness in sunlight within a five year timespan to be certain that they'll even last to the end of my life.
 
Coldkennels said:
What about theatre or dance - still art, only ephemeral. Hell, one can even claim with a straight face that the temporary nature of such things is part of the beauty of the art itself - or even that the small changes between performances are the real beauty.

Personally, I value a traditional/silver print more than an inkjet one, but not because it's somehow harder, inherently higher quality, or more "pure", but out of suspicion for the longevity of an inkjet print. I know people are claiming 100+ years for archival quality inkjet prints now, and that technology continues to improve, but I also remember when people claimed you could smear jam on a CD and it'd still play fine. Nothing is bulletproof, and while I don't harbour delusions of my personal prints being stored and valued for 500+ years, I've seen too many inkjet-printed-materials - not just photos - bleach to nothingness in sunlight within a five year timespan to be certain that they'll even last to the end of my life.
Click to expand...

I made the point of the longevity of a gelatin silverprint earlier. Personally I don't like the look of digital prints, but I have nothing against digital photography in itself, for use on the internet for example.

However, when the goal of the photographer is a silver gelatin print, only photography on film is to be used. In the documentary film about the English printer Bell the interviewer mentioned the possibility of making silver gelatin prints from digital files, but this is not (yet) possible it seems. It would be wonderful if this was possible.

Erik.
 
Erik van Straten said:
I made the point of the longevity of a gelatin silverprint earlier. Personally I don't like the look of digital prints, but I have nothing against digital photography in itself, for use on the internet for example.

However, when the goal of the photographer is a silver gelatin print, only photography on film is to be used. In the documentary film about the English printer Bell the interviewer mentioned the possibility of making silver gelatin prints from digital files, but this is not (yet) possible it seems. It would be wonderful if this was possible.
Click to expand...
You can make a silver gelatin print from a digital file using a digital negative and contact printing it.
 
No, there should be a direct method, an adapter for a normal enlarger to accept digital files so that the enlarger can project them - in negative - on photographic paper.

Erik.
 
Erik van Straten said:
No, there should be a direct method, an adapter for a normal enlarger to accept digital files so that the enlarger can project them - in negative - on photographic paper.

Erik.
Click to expand...

Well Erik, What there is & what we wish there would be, are oceans apart. I have a print, made in my darkroom, of an image i would not otherwise have.....
 
Erik van Straten said:
No, there should be a direct method, an adapter for a normal enlarger to accept digital files so that the enlarger can project them - in negative - on photographic paper.
Click to expand...

There are already digital enlargers: https://de-vere.com/products-504ds-digital-enlarger/ and they work extremely well. I really like silver prints too, particularly the surface texture of air dried glossy paper, but there is no way I’m pretending that oxidation prone silver on unstable cellulose paper is going to last longer than carbon on cotton rag.

Marty
 
You know, this thread got me into viewing some wonderful platinum/palladium printemakers’ websites and I saw several references to archival quality getting into the 1,000-1,500 year range. That is very interesting. I did not know that. And the images and tonality were just wonderful to behold.

And this photographer/printmaker makes digital negatives:
https://www.michaelstricklandimages....inting-service

And, I learned something new:
A Printer’s Tradition - The B.A.T.

Traditionally when printing editions for other artists, printmakers create what is called a “B.A.T.” or Bon á tirer, which means “good to pull.” This is the interpretation from the printmaker, of which the artist signs his or her approval and from which all further interpretations are made from. In essence, it is the working reference copy for the printmaker.

If the print meets your expectation, it’s requested that you sign “B.A.T. your signature” as you would sign one of your editioned prints, reaffix the included, prepaid return shipping label, and return back to my studio. This copy will be stored in my studio as a working copy with the negative and printing notes for future editions. This B.A.T. will not be resold, gifted, or moved out of house for any reason without explicit written permission from the artist, current copyright owner, or estate.
Click to expand...
 
I remember as I was transitioning to digital, I was a bit terrified of changing processes. I was the Luddite who refused to learn anything different. I knew digital was the way things were going and the way things were going to be in the future but it scared me. I really had to force myself to ever get into it.

An older friend of mine had been a photographer during the film days and had used a point-and-shoot digital camera before I ever got involved with digital but he avoided learning anything about using digital otherwise. After seeing my digital photos for a couple of years he decided he liked how they looked and wanted to go that route. He ordered one of the middle line Pentax DSLRs and a couple of zoom lenses. I had not seen him for a couple of months after he told me about his new camera. When I saw him again I asked him how his photography was going and he shrugged and said he hadn't really done anything. Seemed kinda tight lipped so I didn't pursue it.

A few weeks later I saw his wife and she confided in me that he was absolutely scared to death of that camera. He didn't know how to read the menus or what the terminology meant and he didn't want to learn it. So he put the camera gear away and never touched it again.

I was pretty much scared s___less by digital photography. I thought I would be betraying the years I had spent learning film and darkroom techniques. I wanted to remain "pure". I berated digital photography and hung out on forums whose members did the same. I eventually overcame my fears and learned to love the digital process, the quality of the images and the control I had over how they look. No, they don't look like film images but charcoal and oil paint don't look alike either but both can be lovely. I like how digital photographs look. I like the clean, creamy tonality and the detail. Doesn't mean I don't like film images. I do. In fact, all of my photography heros worked with film and some still do.

Maybe I'm just babbling, preaching to the choir. Dammit, it's all good. I've done this stuff for a half century now and I love the whole range of photographic pursuits. (I'm hoping this effin' software doesn't flush my words down the toilet before they post but I'm seeing suspicious signs so I'll stop now.)
 
Freakscene said:
there is no way I'm pretending that oxidation prone silver on unstable cellulose paper is going to last longer than carbon on cotton rag.

Marty
Click to expand...

I make darkroom prints since 1967. From my work only RC paper has ever oxidized. "Carbon on cotton rag" sounds like East-Indian ink on handmade paper. Doesn't that suffer from handling, such as leafing through a box with prints?

Erik.
 
Erik van Straten said:
I make darkroom prints since 1967. From my work only RC paper has ever oxidized.
Click to expand...

I have an affiliate position at our state museum. The collection includes a lot of prints from Antarctica made by Frank Hurley https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Hurley in the early 20th century and other historical photos. Eventually, silver oxidises. Eventually, all the silver in all the silver prints ever made will oxidise. They are being archived digitally in addition to physical conservation works.

Erik van Straten said:
"Carbon on cotton rag" sounds like East-Indian ink on handmade paper. Doesn't that suffer from handling, such as leafing through a box with prints?
Click to expand...

Good monochrome inkjet inks are carbon and quality inkjet papers are made from rag, or, if you want to get exotic, you can get papers made from papyrus or kozo. They can wear from handling, but so do glossy fibre base prints. Carbon is stable for thousands of years. It is probably a trade-off, a millennially chemically stable object that is susceptible to physical wear, vs a centuries chemically stable object that is more resistant to wear. But these are not reasons to think a process is 'better' unless we are conservators, not photographers. Unless you work is in a curated collection it will probably be lost anyway. The best way to make your photos last is to get famous. Or to work for a museum.

Erik van Straten said:
They exist from 2004. I've never heard of them!
Click to expand...

I've used them extensively. Pre-processing the files can be a little tricky, and the highlight rendition of some digital files can be lacking in comparison to negatives - there is always more data in a negative beyond the lightest visible shade of greay, but digital files 'drop off' and require care handling. This is made up for by much better and more manipulable shadow contrast. It is very nice to not be limited by the chemical constraints of exposure and development. Negatives are always easier to print well if they are bigger, too.

From a personal perspective, I spend most of my days looking at a computer screen and will be putting a darkroom in the new house that we are building simply so I can make some nice prints in a nice, dark, red light room. But I am extremely glad that I don't do it for a living, or have to do it for a living anymore.

Marty
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top