Change & Choice

[RichC]

First, to me the end point of an "important" photograph is the print. All photographs that have meaning for me - whether personal or fine art - get printed.

I only take colour photos, and print in colour - using both film and digital cameras.

However, all my exhibition and editioned prints are Lightjet/Lambda C-type prints - that is, traditional silver-based colour prints. This is a combined digital-analogue process, where digital images either as scans from film or direct from a digital camera are projected by laser onto traditional photographic paper (rather than using negative film in an enlarger), then developed in the usual way using chemicals. This type of print is often called simply a "digital C type print". Surprisingly, digital C type prints from a lab cost less than the equivalent inkjet print!

I prefer the look of C type prints to inkjet prints because they look more "natural" to me. The pigment is embedded in the print itself rather than sitting on the surface as for inkjet prints. This gives a certain translucency where detail seems to fade into infinity, rather than the rather harsh break up into "noise" that you get with inkjet prints. I make inkjets prints in my studio as proofs; unfortunately, digital C type prints need a lab and expensive equipment.

From a couple of feet or more, you can't tell the difference between good inkjet and C type prints of the same photo, but the closer you get, the greater the difference, and it's very noticeable at a foot or so. In short, C types appear slightly softer than inkjets but have more delicacy and subtlety, whereas inkjet prints tend to appear sharper and more graphic (in the sense of an illustration).

I'm not saying that C type prints are better than inkjet prints - just different.

Both types of print can be archival with a lifespan of about a century. In the UK, collectors and galleries dealing with contemporary art photography don't have a preference for silver prints in my experience - being more concerned with a high standard of production and presentation, and that archival materials are used.

I'm surprised we've had quite a few posts in this thread but I'm the first to mention digital C type printing.

Does anyone else prefer or have an opinion on digital C type prints?

 

[PKR]

First, to me the end point of an "important" photograph is the print. All photographs that have meaning for me - whether personal or fine art - get printed.

I only take colour photos, and print in colour - using both film and digital cameras.

However, all my exhibition and editioned prints are Lightjet/Lambda C-type prints - that is, traditional silver-based colour prints. This is a combined digital-analogue process, where digital images either as scans from film or direct from a digital camera are projected by laser onto traditional photographic paper (rather than using negative film in an enlarger), then developed in the usual way using chemicals. This type of print is often called simply a "digital C type print". Surprisingly, digital C type prints from a lab cost less than the equivalent inkjet print!

I prefer the look of C type prints to inkjet prints because they look more "natural" to me. The pigment is embedded in the print itself rather than sitting on the surface as for inkjet prints. This gives a certain translucency where detail seems to fade into infinity, rather than the rather harsh break up into "noise" that you get with inkjet prints. I make inkjets prints in my studio as proofs; unfortunately, digital C type prints need a lab and expensive equipment.

From a couple of feet or more, you can't tell the difference between good inkjet and C type prints of the same photo, but the closer you get, the greater the difference, and it's very noticeable at a foot or so. In short, C types appear slightly softer than inkjets but have more delicacy and subtlety, whereas inkjet prints tend to appear sharper and more graphic (in the sense of an illustration).

I'm not saying that C type prints are better than inkjet prints - just different.

Both types of print can be archival with a lifespan of about a century. In the UK, collectors and galleries dealing with contemporary art photography don't have a preference for silver prints in my experience - being more concerned with a high standard of production and presentation, and that archival materials are used.

I'm surprised we've had quite a few posts in this thread but I'm the first to mention digital C type printing.

Does anyone else prefer or have an opinion on digital C type prints?

Post #7 "All digital color is printed silver (Fujimoto) or pigment"

The Fujimoto printer is a digital-analog conversion Chromogenic printer.

http://www.letsgodigital.org/en/13195/digital_lab_system/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromogenic



C

 

[RichC]

Post #7 "All digital color is printed silver (Fujimoto) or pigment"

The Fujimoto printer is a digital-analog conversion Chromogenic printer.
http://www.letsgodigital.org/en/13195/digital_lab_system/

Missed that line in your post!

I've not heard of Fujimoto printers before - searching UK websites = zero results, so I don't think we have them in Britain, where digital C type processes tend to use Durst or Océ laser printers, or LED printers like the ZBE Chromira (LED printing is inferior to laser printers, with lower resolution).

 

[PKR]

Missed that line in your post!

I've not heard of Fujimoto printers before - searching UK websites = zero results, so I don't think we have them in Britain, where digital C type processes tend to use Durst or Océ laser printers, or LED printers like the ZBE Chromira (LED printing is inferior to laser printers, with lower resolution).

The lab that owns the Fujimoto always stocks 20" wide rolls and often 30" wide. So, I can print 20x30" and often 24x36 if I like. Do the printers you mention use wide paper? If so, I may want to hunt one out, here in the states. Also, the printer (operator) does quite well with my work, so that's a plus. I've never had any issue with sharpness. My smaller and often 24x36" prints are made pigment. They look great but are much, much more expensive.

 

[RichC]

The lab that owns the Fujimoto always stocks 20" wide rolls and often 30" wide. So, I can print 20x30" and often 24x36 if I like. Do the printers you mention use wide paper? If so, I may want to hunt one out, here in the states. Also, the printer (operator) does quite well with my work, so that's a plus. I've never had any issue with sharpness. My smaller and often 24x36" prints are made pigment. They look great but are much, much more expensive.

Yes, up to 50". Metro in London is used by many photographers (I use Spectrum instead as they're 10 minutes down the road!). Neither is cheap, but, as you know, with printing you get the quality you pay for! For C type sizes see https://metroimaging.co.uk. I'm pretty sure the US has Lambda and Lightjet machines...

 

[charjohncarter]

Black and White: I develop at home, scan at home, and send to Mpix, Costco, or Fromex in Long beach (Mpix and Fromex print wet from digital files on TRUE black and white paper, Costco is wet print on Fuji Crystal Achieve color paper which is inferior for B&W paper, also from a digital file).

Color: I send to Blue Moon in Portland, Oregon for development only, I scan at home and send the files to Costco for wet prints on Fuji Crystal Achieve paper.

 

[Bill Pierce]

Want to slow down your digital shooting and shoot a little more as if you were shooting film? Use a hand held incident exposure meter to determine exposure. Sensors are much like transparency film. Overexposure reduces highlights to detail-less digital cellophane. Incident meters, unlike through the lens reflected meters averaging light values, tend to protect highlight values. This is what made them so popular with slide film shooters. You may have to set a different film speed on the meters than the one that gives best results with the camera meter. But using a handheld incident and setting the camera’s exposure manually is not only going to slow you down and give you consistent exposure in a series of shots, it’s a quick way to determine the maximum exposure (greatest range of tones in digital photography) without blowing the highlights.

Can you do the same thing by checking the histogram and using manual exposure on your digital camera? Yes, if it has a good histogram display in the shooting mode. It’s even more exacting than waving an incident meter around. But, it’s not as fast and not as much fun.

 

[ptpdprinter]

Certainly using a handheld meter is one way to slow yourself down, but I am a big fan of just exercising self control and acting deliberately. What is it about using digital that makes photographers act early and often, ending up with a pile of not so well thought out images, leading them to conclude that they need a better camera? Something about digital seems, as a general rule, to steer photographers away from a mindful approach.

 

[PKR]

Want to slow down your digital shooting and shoot a little more as if you were shooting film? Use a hand held incident exposure meter to determine exposure. Sensors are much like transparency film. Overexposure reduces highlights to detail-less digital cellophane. Incident meters, unlike through the lens reflected meters averaging light values, tend to protect highlight values. This is what made them so popular with slide film shooters. You may have to set a different film speed on the meters than the one that gives best results with the camera meter. But using a handheld incident and setting the camera’s exposure manually is not only going to slow you down and give you consistent exposure in a series of shots, it’s a quick way to determine the maximum exposure (greatest range of tones in digital photography) without blowing the highlights.

Can you do the same thing by checking the histogram and using manual exposure on your digital camera? Yes, if it has a good histogram display in the shooting mode. It’s even more exacting than waving an incident meter around. But, it’s not as fast and not as much fun.

In years past, I went through a lot of Kodachrome. I often used a Minolta spot meter to look at the brightest stuff in my frame and went on from there. The histogram will deliver similar results but not as specific. I rely on histograms in the studio where I can control the light. For anything critical, manual metering is very helpful.

 

[charjohncarter]

Want to slow down your digital shooting and shoot a little more as if you were shooting film? Use a hand held incident exposure meter to determine exposure. Sensors are much like transparency film. Overexposure reduces highlights to detail-less digital cellophane. Incident meters, unlike through the lens reflected meters averaging light values, tend to protect highlight values. This is what made them so popular with slide film shooters. You may have to set a different film speed on the meters than the one that gives best results with the camera meter. But using a handheld incident and setting the camera’s exposure manually is not only going to slow you down and give you consistent exposure in a series of shots, it’s a quick way to determine the maximum exposure (greatest range of tones in digital photography) without blowing the highlights.

Can you do the same thing by checking the histogram and using manual exposure on your digital camera? Yes, if it has a good histogram display in the shooting mode. It’s even more exacting than waving an incident meter around. But, it’s not as fast and not as much fun.

When I do digital it is always for my volunteer job for theatre productions, even though you would think lighting would be controllable; at the two theatres I work for it is not. I try to have nothing pushing to the right of the histogram. In fact, I underexpose my RAW files on purpose. I find it easier to lighten the exposure in post than to darken.

 

[sjones]

When I switched to film in 2008, I picked up a Nikon V ED, and I’ve been scanning B&W negatives since. However, I recently picked up an enlarger and accessories, as I intend to start doing wet prints for the first time.

I’ve relied on my own inkjet printer or Adorama to create prints, and objectively, they look good or even great in some cases. But after years of trying, I cannot psychologically get over the sense that the photos are, as RichC noted, ‘sitting on the surface.” I say psychologically because I don’t know if I would feel the same if given a blind A&B test with someone else’s print.

I did have Digital Silver Imaging create a print from one of my scanned negatives, and I was very pleased with it---it's hanging up in my folks' home. Yet, I just want to have more control of the process, and I’m looking forward to to creating my own silver halide prints.

Lots of catching up, though…

 

[RichC]

I’ve relied on my own inkjet printer or Adorama to create prints, and objectively, they look good or even great in some cases. But after years of trying, I cannot psychologically get over the sense that the photos are, as RichC noted, ‘sitting on the surface.” I say psychologically because I don’t know if I would feel the same if given a blind A&B test with someone else’s print.

I did some high-quality test prints of the same photos as inkjets and C types, being as careful as I could to make them identical in appearance (size, colour, paper). I then asked random people - photographers and non-photographers - which they preferred, without telling them the difference. About 80% (including me!) picked the C type prints.

Most people when asked to explain their preference, couldn't say precisely - they just used words like "better" and "more 'feeling' ".

I know that's not exactly scientifically rigorous, but still...

 

[PKR]

I did some high-quality test prints of the same photos as inkjets and C types, being as careful as I could to make them identical in appearance (size, colour, paper). I then asked random people - photographers and non-photographers - which they preferred, without telling them the difference. About 80% (including me!) picked the C type prints.

Most people when asked to explain their preference, couldn't say precisely - they just used words like "better" and "more 'feeling' ".

I know that's not exactly scientifically rigorous, but still...

My pigment prints are on cotton rag paper. I would say the paper has a medium tooth. That paper can consume a lot of ink. Those prints, to my taste, are richer in color and in blacks - in the b+w prints, than any silver prints I made myself (this includes selenium toned prints) on the Agfa papers of the past, or anything I can get currently. This is all personal taste. My printer, a very old friend who knows my taste, is a master printer. He did all of my dye transfer prints before he went to digital printing. I was a good b+w darkroom printer and an okay color printer by commercial standards (I spent a couple of years working in a color lab long ago). My printer (pigment) can print circles around me.

I deliver a negative (b+w), one of my test scans and one or more test prints with notes or graphics on a sheet of tracing paper - taped over a test print. In the case of color, he gets a chrome, a Creo scan or if digital, a camera RAW and a LR/PS starting point. He may send me one or more test prints or PS files before we go to a final print. The normal print size is 20x24 with big borders for color and 11x17 or maybe 16x20 for b+w.

And again, just my taste.

 

[ptpdprinter]

I did some high-quality test prints of the same photos as inkjets and C types, being as careful as I could to make them identical in appearance (size, colour, paper). I then asked random people - photographers and non-photographers - which they preferred, without telling them the difference. About 80% (including me!) picked the C type prints.

Most people when asked to explain their preference, couldn't say precisely - they just used words like "better" and "more 'feeling' ".

I know that's not exactly scientifically rigorous, but still...

A chromogenic print has a certain look. You may or may not prefer it to an inkjet print. It is just one alternative. Pick the one you feel best reflects your vision for the image. If I went with blind tests, I'd drink Pepsi instead of Coke. I don't.

 

[charjohncarter]

I like I said in another thread: this is a great time to be photographer. We have it all; Film and Digital and all the side attractions that go with both. The only downside is some lost film and some lost printing papers.

 

[RichC]

A chromogenic print has a certain look. You may or may not prefer it to an inkjet print. It is just one alternative. Pick the one you feel best reflects your vision for the image. If I went with blind tests, I'd drink Pepsi instead of Coke. I don't.

I agree entirely. I should have said that: a rather important oversight, as I wasn't implying C type prints are superior to inkjet prints. As you say, they are simply different, not better.

That said, I found it interesting that of about 30 or so people, most preferred the C type prints. That may simply have been down to the choice of images (my photographs are always colour, with subdued palettes) or other factors, or even chance - 30 is not a large sample.

 

[farlymac]

I must admit that I've been slacking for quite a while when it comes to printing my photos.

I never could trust the lab I was using to be consistent in their output, and as my computer/printer system has gained in age, it's quality of output has gone down too.

I do hope to find a place that can print my files at a decent price, as there are a lot of images I would like to display.

As for darkroom work, well, that is somewhat impossible to do in the apartment I'm in now, but maybe sometime in the future I'll get back into it. I have been collecting tanks, reels, an enlarger, easels, and other sundry items necessary to set-up a darkroom once I have the proper space. Would like to have all the stuff I gave away a few years back (actually, I was supposed to be paid for it all, but the recipient skipped town on me). That 4x5 enlarger sure would have come in handy some day.

PF

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Scan of the negative:

Scan of the darkroom print:

🙂

 

[charjohncarter]

To my eye the scan looks just a little bit sharper, but you sure match the scan with the print well.

 

[presspass]

Most of my work photos are digital. All of my personal work is black and white film, developed and printed at home. I enjoy the process and like the way a silver print looks. That doesn't necessarily make it better, but it suits me and I'm the one who gets to decide. I've been wet printing since the early 1970s and have had the same darkroom since 1989.