B&W Prints in the Digital Age

[sam_m]

Bill, do you have any thoughts on what the affect of ease of print reproduction will have on the value of fine art images? If any of the great print makers of the last century had produced their prints digitially, and could therefore have reprints made at the click of a button, even post-humously by an estate, what affect do you think that could/will have?

 

[Tuolumne]

It is in the nature of a photograph to be infinitely reproduceable. The manner would appear to be irrelevant to ultimate value.

/T

 

[mrtoml]

Another issue to bear in mind with digital printing is that it allows more control over the final image than you can achieve in a wet darkroom. If you have a coarse negative that will not print well using an enlarger, it can often be salvaged using digital editing. I recall the work of a great analogue darkroom specialist, Barry Thornton, who got hooked on digital printing for this very reason. If you can pick up his book 'Elements of Transition' where he describes the processes he used and his transition from wet to inkjet printing it is well worth the read. Of course he still used the darkroom and still used film for image capture.

I think the longevity issue is still a concern, but not that much of a concern. If you read Paul Roark and his 'carbon on cotton' principle and who has done extensive fade tests from the very beginning of monochrome inket printing it does not look that bad. I.e. if you really want to be safe - platinum/palladium safe - then pure carbon pigments on acid free cotton rag should give you some comfort. Also Wilhelm, for all his faults, is at least showing that things are getting better all the time with respect to digital print longevity.

 

[sam_m]

The manner would appear to be irrelevant to ultimate value.

/T

What brought me to ask the question was remembering reading somewhere that an Ansel Adams print that was actually printed by Ansel, fetches a far higher price than those printed by ... (sorry, I can't recall the name(s) of the other people who printed his work during his life time).

Once a print is perfected on the computer, then that's it, jobs done (ok, I know futher edits are always possible, as they are in the wet darkroom). What would happen if a "finished" digital file was stolen from an artists computer and printed and sold. What would there be to make the stolen print worth any less?

I should clarify that I wasn't specifically asking about image security in the digital age, but about the ease of perfect, flawless reproduction, but I got sidetracked.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

What brought me to ask the question was remembering reading somewhere that an Ansel Adams print that was actually printed by Ansel, fetches a far higher price than those printed by ... (sorry, I can't recall the name(s) of the other people who printed his work during his life time).

Once a print is perfected on the computer, then that's it, jobs done (ok, I know futher edits are always possible, as they are in the wet darkroom). What would happen if a "finished" digital file was stolen from an artists computer and printed and sold. What would there be to make the stolen print worth any less?

I should clarify that I wasn't specifically asking about image security in the digital age, but about the ease of perfect, flawless reproduction, but I got sidetracked.

Prints done on different papers and printers will always look a little different, so yes I think 'vintage' prints will still be worth more than posthumous prints, even with digital. Histoorians now often judge a print's age from the materials used, since long-lived printers like Adams changed papers a number of times as the years went by and older materials were replaced by manufactuers with newer ones.

 

[Bill Pierce]

I think this is a good thread. As to people stealing files or estates cranking out a zillion prints...

Anybody who has printed a file for a friend has seen that there are enough variables in different computer programs (or the settings in the same program on different computers), monitors and printers, that just printing a digital file doesn't necessarily duplicate the print the friend saw on his monitor or in his box of prints. The first thing that many good labs do when making exhibition prints from a customer's finished file is to hand the customer a small proof print and ask what changes need to be made.

So the con artist that steals a file should certainly look at the original artist's work before he prints the file.

The real danger of inkjet printing seems to be that after the photographer has done all his digital contrast and brightness adjustments, digital burning, dodging, bleaching, e.t.c., he can then push a button and turn out 200 prints. So can his estate. The current answer to that seems to be limited editions and that depends on your trusting the photographer and the gallery.

 

[ed1k]

Con artist planning to make a number of copies is actually in a better position. High volume enables different, read more advanced, technology and print cost for one piece may be significantly less; or the same cost but better quality than authentic work. I am not talking about tonal nuances, but about paper size, paper weight, archival quality etc.

Don't show this discussion to sharks of ink business. They may invent levy for ink and inkpapers, just like they did for CD/DVD blank media.

 

[Tuolumne]

I have it! How about digital signatures for fine art photos?? 🙂

/T

 

[Harry Lime]

Jon Cone is about to release a 7 ink version of his carbon ink system that prints on glossy paper. He will offer warm, cool and selenium versions. Combined with the new papers that emulate traditional fiber papers, this could be a big leap ahead.

Another possiblity is the new Ilford GALERIE FB DIGITAL
http://tinyurl.com/h4tgh

This is a traditional silver based fiber paper that can be fed into a Fuji Lightjet.
Could this be the best of both worlds?

Currently I am heading down the hybrid road. My work flow is as follows

1) film capture
2) high quality scan (Imacon,Nikon 9000ED, drumscan)
3) Digital manipulation (dodge, burn etc) in Photoshop or NUKE.
4) Digital file is sent to a Kodak Rhino LVT to generate a new negative on TMAX100 (up to 8x10 in size).
5) Traditional wet print on silver fiber paper from new negative.

HL

 

[amateriat]

Harry: Whew...! Quite a system there. (Perhaps we should have a thread comparing hybrid workflows...see below.)

The new Cone system sounds intriguing, but I'm on a sort of simplicity kick at the moment, prefering a good turn-key system to messing about with multiple third-party solutions. As Clayton Jones frequently says, I just want to make good prints.

To that end, here's my workflow:

1) Film capture (at least 90% of the time)
2) High quality scan (Minolta 5400)
3) Digital editing (Photoshop CS-Mac)
4) Output on HP PS 8750

Of course, the beauty of creating a good digital file is that you're not locked into any one option, as your interesting example clearly shows. I can (and occasionally will) FTP image files to a lab to print, or to a fellow photographer with a bigger printer if I have a need for larger prints. But I rarely need larger than 13 x 19", and I love the output from my HP, including black-and-white, so I'm pretty set as-is.


- Barrett