Bill Pierce
Well-known
In the previous post I said that with the pandemic lockdown I was doing a lot of printing. Truth is I have always done a lot of printing, maybe not this much, but a lot. In this digital age I know for many of my friends, whose photography ranges from family snapshots to excellent art and professional work, pictures are something that exist on a screen, the screen of a phone, the screen of a computer, even the screen of a giant tv receiver. That’s wonderful. I can see family photos from far away family members. I can see news photos from around the world that were taken of events that just occurred. I can see the art collections of top museums without leaving my office.
What I worry about is the fact that digital images do not store well. There are the obvious problems. Storage media and formats change. Storage devices fail. Storage devices aren’t easily recognizable as collections of prints and are more likely to be trashed or even stolen than a box of prints. But most important, the signals on hard discs and SSD’s dissipate with time.
Certainly, for many images that is not a disadvantage. It may even be a blessing. When somebody emails me a picture of their lunch, I’m not worried that future generations may not be able to view it. But, for those pictures which preserve a more important history or embody a certain beauty, a long life would be a nice thing. A great deal can be done by storing on multiple drives and periodically refreshing the data by transferring the images to another drive. Even as gear changes and information increases, there is still disagreement about the time span we should be worried bout. But, at the best, we are talking about decades and at the worst, less than a decade. Who knows?
But what we do know is the projected permanence of prints. Some of the old color processes were pretty awful. Properly processed silver prints were top of the line. But today we look at inkjet prints. Henry Wilhelm’s site, http://www.wilhelm-research.com, is the best source I know for longevity figures. Just check out one printer - displayed prints under glass - 200 years and in dark storage - 300 years. Those are color prints. - black-and-white framed under glass - 400 years. That’s a somewhat over simplified version of Wilhelm’s tests, but you get the idea.
And, just in case you think I’m a grouch, here’s a piece from 5 years ago by somebody who really knows his stuff.
https://petapixel.com/2015/02/17/pr...-the-digital-dark-age-internet-pioneer-warns/
While this is a bit of a rant, I would love to know what you think because while the reasons we photograph and what we photograph differs from person to person, I think we all do it to preserve something.
What I worry about is the fact that digital images do not store well. There are the obvious problems. Storage media and formats change. Storage devices fail. Storage devices aren’t easily recognizable as collections of prints and are more likely to be trashed or even stolen than a box of prints. But most important, the signals on hard discs and SSD’s dissipate with time.
Certainly, for many images that is not a disadvantage. It may even be a blessing. When somebody emails me a picture of their lunch, I’m not worried that future generations may not be able to view it. But, for those pictures which preserve a more important history or embody a certain beauty, a long life would be a nice thing. A great deal can be done by storing on multiple drives and periodically refreshing the data by transferring the images to another drive. Even as gear changes and information increases, there is still disagreement about the time span we should be worried bout. But, at the best, we are talking about decades and at the worst, less than a decade. Who knows?
But what we do know is the projected permanence of prints. Some of the old color processes were pretty awful. Properly processed silver prints were top of the line. But today we look at inkjet prints. Henry Wilhelm’s site, http://www.wilhelm-research.com, is the best source I know for longevity figures. Just check out one printer - displayed prints under glass - 200 years and in dark storage - 300 years. Those are color prints. - black-and-white framed under glass - 400 years. That’s a somewhat over simplified version of Wilhelm’s tests, but you get the idea.
And, just in case you think I’m a grouch, here’s a piece from 5 years ago by somebody who really knows his stuff.
https://petapixel.com/2015/02/17/pr...-the-digital-dark-age-internet-pioneer-warns/
While this is a bit of a rant, I would love to know what you think because while the reasons we photograph and what we photograph differs from person to person, I think we all do it to preserve something.
Timmyjoe
Veteran
Just curious Bill, when you say you're doing a lot of printing, in a darkroom, or from the computer? Just curious.
Best,
-Tim
Best,
-Tim
nikon_sam
Shooter of Film...
Here is a photo of my brother Steve...he would have been maybe 5 years old here (the kid wearing glasses) I have no clue who took this picture but I happened to find the negative while going through my mom and his stuff...
It was most likely shot with a TLR as its 120 film and square...
I printed it a few years ago in my darkroom.
I had never seen this image before finding the old negs...along with other negs of my family before I came along...
He would have been 63 years old on Monday, May 18th...he passed almost 7 years ago...
I too have done more film photography this last month or so...I even did some final adjustments on a Beseler 45MRCX enlarger and started using it for the first time...
I love that I have the know how and equipment to print from negs...if this were a digital image there would be no way I could ever see it after being stored over almost 6 decades...
It was most likely shot with a TLR as its 120 film and square...
I printed it a few years ago in my darkroom.
I had never seen this image before finding the old negs...along with other negs of my family before I came along...
He would have been 63 years old on Monday, May 18th...he passed almost 7 years ago...
I too have done more film photography this last month or so...I even did some final adjustments on a Beseler 45MRCX enlarger and started using it for the first time...
I love that I have the know how and equipment to print from negs...if this were a digital image there would be no way I could ever see it after being stored over almost 6 decades...
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
JPEG1 hasn't changed in decades. And files like this are backward compatible.
So, one less thing to fear.
Google stores much more important documents with redundancy and disaster recovery. Another thing to consider, instead of just pilling up on old hard drives.
I like DR prints, just don't like darkroom process. Boring and repetitive, nothing interesting tasks. Outcome vs wasted time is mind boggling. Especially if multiple copies are needed. Also decent size of DR print is now too expensive. Paper is golden and water aren't cheap. FB is just grossly overpriced. I could only barely afford RC paper. Which isn't going last Wilhelm’s times.
Once I'm out of old (decades old) FB paper, I would like to show middle finger for Ilford and do my own emulsion, paper. Something which will looks as gross as those glass plates.
I'm finding inkjet printing to be much more sufficient, less expensive and often not much different from DR prints. And I'm not a color printer in DR, either.
And with inkjet I print on matte paper which is not plastic coated.
I like to print. Even without lockdown I was printing several times per week.
I did three days in the row in DR on first weeks of lock down. Now I prefer inkjet and use time for walking with dog and workout. Like to watch some English movie with wife and do some parental duty and housekeeping. With three kids, cat and dog, plus rat and bird it is constant shoveling.
So, one less thing to fear.
Google stores much more important documents with redundancy and disaster recovery. Another thing to consider, instead of just pilling up on old hard drives.
I like DR prints, just don't like darkroom process. Boring and repetitive, nothing interesting tasks. Outcome vs wasted time is mind boggling. Especially if multiple copies are needed. Also decent size of DR print is now too expensive. Paper is golden and water aren't cheap. FB is just grossly overpriced. I could only barely afford RC paper. Which isn't going last Wilhelm’s times.
Once I'm out of old (decades old) FB paper, I would like to show middle finger for Ilford and do my own emulsion, paper. Something which will looks as gross as those glass plates.
I'm finding inkjet printing to be much more sufficient, less expensive and often not much different from DR prints. And I'm not a color printer in DR, either.
And with inkjet I print on matte paper which is not plastic coated.
I like to print. Even without lockdown I was printing several times per week.
I did three days in the row in DR on first weeks of lock down. Now I prefer inkjet and use time for walking with dog and workout. Like to watch some English movie with wife and do some parental duty and housekeeping. With three kids, cat and dog, plus rat and bird it is constant shoveling.
Bill Pierce
Well-known
The printing these days is almost always on the computer. Everything I shoot these days except large format sheet film is digital, and over the years I have made decent Imacon scans of much of my film. I can’t bring myself to close my darkroom - Durst enlarger, Jobo processors - but I rarely use it. I’ve said before that the two photographers who helped me when I was starting out and had a huge influence on my printing, David Vestal and Gene Smith, would be the masters of Photoshop today. Indeed, David was shooting digital and printing inkjet at the end of his life, and, as you might suspect, his stuff was beautiful. For sure, I want my inkjet black-and-white to look like a good silver print. At my best I approach that but can rarely resist sneaking a little extra shadow detail into the inkjet.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
The primary value of prints as archival materials over digital media is that they take little maintenance as long as where they are stored is maintained well. Digital media requires more maintenance, that's all. Format standards are well established nowadays, the situation there is not like it was 25 or even 15 years ago.
Wilhelm Institute's archival quality testing data suggests that inkjet prints made with pigment inks onto archival quality paper will out-last silver-gelatin prints of commensurate quality production. That makes them have the same value as darkroom prints.
That said, by and large, I think the best way to give permanence to your work as a photographer is to publish it. More photographs have survived through having been published than any other way.
So I print my finished work too, as well as maintain my digital image archives on a constant basis. I post finished work as publications to the Library of Congress occasionally, because that way they'll be maintained even after I'm gone.
I don't really worry about it as a legacy thing, I have no illusions that someone will find me important, but someone, someday, might find my—our—photos of value when trying to research and understand the times we have lived in.
G
Wilhelm Institute's archival quality testing data suggests that inkjet prints made with pigment inks onto archival quality paper will out-last silver-gelatin prints of commensurate quality production. That makes them have the same value as darkroom prints.
That said, by and large, I think the best way to give permanence to your work as a photographer is to publish it. More photographs have survived through having been published than any other way.
So I print my finished work too, as well as maintain my digital image archives on a constant basis. I post finished work as publications to the Library of Congress occasionally, because that way they'll be maintained even after I'm gone.
I don't really worry about it as a legacy thing, I have no illusions that someone will find me important, but someone, someday, might find my—our—photos of value when trying to research and understand the times we have lived in.
G
charjohncarter
Veteran
I've been slowly scanning a huge pile of negatives during this shutdown. And I'm reminded of the value of storing data. I started with a Sony Mavica whenever it came out (3.5 floppy discs). I wish I still had some of those images.
Yet, my totally photographically challenged father's negatives are still here, his brother that died last fall (he was a very smart man, and not a very good ballplayer):
Seattle 1939 by John Carter, on Flickr
Yet, my totally photographically challenged father's negatives are still here, his brother that died last fall (he was a very smart man, and not a very good ballplayer):
Seattle 1939 by John Carter, on Flickr
Dogman
Veteran
I print a lot. Unfortunately I don't file real often. I've got about a 6 inch stack of inkjet prints sitting on the desk beside me that need to be labeled and boxed. But I just keep adding to the stack.
I use archival paper, pigment inks and keep the photos in museum boxes (when I finally file them). They'll last a while. Pity the poor *******s who have to go through these photos when I'm no longer around. Probably just fodder for the landfill.
When I had a darkroom and shot Tri-X and HP5, I would process my film and pick negatives for printing but it might be a week..a month...or more before I could get around to it. Today I can shoot, download, edit and delete, process the Raw images and make prints within a few hours. I print a lot more today than ever. And I personally like the looks of my digital prints better than silver prints. The reason is probably because I was always rushed when printing in the darkroom with all the setting up and then the cleaning up. Now I can take my time and make pictures look the way I want them to look.
I use archival paper, pigment inks and keep the photos in museum boxes (when I finally file them). They'll last a while. Pity the poor *******s who have to go through these photos when I'm no longer around. Probably just fodder for the landfill.
When I had a darkroom and shot Tri-X and HP5, I would process my film and pick negatives for printing but it might be a week..a month...or more before I could get around to it. Today I can shoot, download, edit and delete, process the Raw images and make prints within a few hours. I print a lot more today than ever. And I personally like the looks of my digital prints better than silver prints. The reason is probably because I was always rushed when printing in the darkroom with all the setting up and then the cleaning up. Now I can take my time and make pictures look the way I want them to look.
Photog9000
Well-known
This is a name I have not seen in some time. I used to wait at the mailbox for a magazine (I think it was Shutterbug) just to read his next column. Thanks for bringing his name back into my memory.
Photog9000
Well-known
I am with you here, Dogman. I like what I can to digitally but mainly because I was never a really good printer. Sold all my wet darkroom stuff ages ago but still admire people that still do wet printing and are good at it (like Bill). I'll just have to stick with my Epson R2400 with a CIS with Jone Cone's Piezography pigment inks.
Erik van Straten
Veteran
I still make wet prints on silver/gelatine paper. My favorite brand of paper is (was) AdoxMCC110. This is not available at the moment, wich is very annoying.
Now I use Ilford MGFB. The workflow and the results on Ilford MGFB and AdoxMCC110 are almost identical, but Ilford is more difficult to dry as it tends to stick to the canvas of the Buscher drying machine. The Ilford paper is also more expensive.
I've found a solution for the drying problem: before the print goes into the drying machine I wipe one small drop of dish soap over the print, wich helps a lot.
The reason I make wet prints is that I can make split grade prints then. I don't know if it is possible to make split grade prints in a digital way. I am however very happy with the results on sliver/gelatine paper. I think they have a longer shelf life than digital prints.
The scanned prints are much more beautiful than scanned negatives.
Erik.
Now I use Ilford MGFB. The workflow and the results on Ilford MGFB and AdoxMCC110 are almost identical, but Ilford is more difficult to dry as it tends to stick to the canvas of the Buscher drying machine. The Ilford paper is also more expensive.
I've found a solution for the drying problem: before the print goes into the drying machine I wipe one small drop of dish soap over the print, wich helps a lot.
The reason I make wet prints is that I can make split grade prints then. I don't know if it is possible to make split grade prints in a digital way. I am however very happy with the results on sliver/gelatine paper. I think they have a longer shelf life than digital prints.
The scanned prints are much more beautiful than scanned negatives.
Erik.
CharlesDAMorgan
Veteran
I've mostly done scans Erik, and have hardly started printing but to date I much prefer the results of a scanned print to a scanned negative - if the original exposure is correct enough. There's a lot more flexibility in post processing a scan, but it becomes a crutch.
You are, and remain, an inspiration from shot to screen!
You are, and remain, an inspiration from shot to screen!
charjohncarter
Veteran
Just to parrot the sentiments of Charles; Erik, you are knowledgeable and inspirational. I have a IIIf (since 1964), but have never really thought able its history or mechanics. Your trips into the past are always fun.
DennisM
Established
David Vestal Print
David Vestal Print
Years ago (ten or more? certainly before internet was widespread) I was smitten by a David Vestal image which appeared on the back cover of a photography magazine (Camera 35?). I wrote to the editor (back when magazines had mastheads and mailing addresses) and inquired about the availability of a print of the image (5th Avenue next to Madison Square Park looking uptown on a rainy, overcast Fall day - late 60's or later judging by the cars visible in the image). I received a reply from the editor who suggested I contact David Vestal himself re:availability of prints and provided his address. Long story short, I did just that and now have a beautifully printed full-frame image of the picture on 11x14 fiber-based silver paper. Truly a beautiful image and a tribute to David Vestal's craftsmanship.
David Vestal Print
Years ago (ten or more? certainly before internet was widespread) I was smitten by a David Vestal image which appeared on the back cover of a photography magazine (Camera 35?). I wrote to the editor (back when magazines had mastheads and mailing addresses) and inquired about the availability of a print of the image (5th Avenue next to Madison Square Park looking uptown on a rainy, overcast Fall day - late 60's or later judging by the cars visible in the image). I received a reply from the editor who suggested I contact David Vestal himself re:availability of prints and provided his address. Long story short, I did just that and now have a beautifully printed full-frame image of the picture on 11x14 fiber-based silver paper. Truly a beautiful image and a tribute to David Vestal's craftsmanship.
Erik van Straten
Veteran
Thank you CharlesDAMorgan and charjohncarter!
I must add that I've enjoyed very much the contribution of Bill Pierce to the Leica Manual, edition 1973. Always on my desk.
Erik.
I must add that I've enjoyed very much the contribution of Bill Pierce to the Leica Manual, edition 1973. Always on my desk.
Erik.
robert blu
quiet photographer
I always sugggest peopel print, maybe only one photo out of ten ao twenty but print it. Or let it be printed.
I like to print (inkjet) my photos. Small as copies to edit and sequencing, or for hand made small booklets, or larger to hang somewhere.
I am still of the school that a photo is finished when printed (or incorporated in an audiovisual work).
Of course photos on a screen are very good when you want to show or watch at works of photographers, friends, family around the world. We have many interesting tools today!
I like to print (inkjet) my photos. Small as copies to edit and sequencing, or for hand made small booklets, or larger to hang somewhere.
I am still of the school that a photo is finished when printed (or incorporated in an audiovisual work).
Of course photos on a screen are very good when you want to show or watch at works of photographers, friends, family around the world. We have many interesting tools today!
Hari
Well-known
I've found both of David Vestal's books, The Craft of Photography and
The Art of Printing being tossed out on the curb side on the street.
The Art of Printing being tossed out on the curb side on the street.
D
Deleted member 65559
Guest
Robert Blu, lovely idea. I've got some Azo 2.5" x 3.5".... & i may try your book idea with some contact prints from 6x6cm negatives. It that a Moleskin book/folder you are using for your small print projects? Thank you in advance
Darthfeeble
But you can call me Steve
I print because I like seeing a print up on the wall. Dogman makes a good point about the worth of worrying about the longevity. His comment about winding up on the compost heap. We might have a higher opinion of our work than the folks who inherit it will.
D
Deleted member 65559
Guest
Bill, I've followed and appreciated your work for decades. I print. Like robert blu, I don't consider an image done until it's printed....& mounted (not just sitting w curling edges in a box). It's something i picked up along the way from colleagues and mentors. I have a darkroom. Apart from (some cool) iphone images, i don't photograph or scan digitally. To me it's a little like music. I prefer acoustic. I'd rather hear Bill Evans on a Steinway than anyone else on a Roland keyboard. No judgement... it's just my personal preference. The past 6 weeks, i've been looking through old negatives and printing new images....& working through different papers (as i run out). Also printing different sizes until i'm satisfied with the result. Seeing natural light on a mounted print sort of closes the circle for me.... just like the light caught my eye on the subject to begin with.