Inkjet vs. Wet Print

[Todd.Hanz]

What are the qualities that make a BW wet print more appealing when compared to the top of the line (Epson R2400, etc.) inkjet prints.

I raise this question based to another thread here: http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?p=327896#post327896.

I know many galleries that have Glicee prints hanging on the walls, noone seems to mind, aren't Glicee's inkjet prints?

Besides a few 4x5 contact prints done with a shop light and two pcs. of glass, I have never stepped into the "wet" darkroom, I have either had prints made or I print them on an Epson 2200.

I have seen some great photographs in galleries and museums but I have trouble seeing the differences, am I missing something?

I would love to here from those of you who have done both and settled on one process or the other and why.


thanks,
Todd

 

[Nikon Bob]

I will be watching this thread as I too have trouble seeing a great deal of difference. I second the what am I missing question.

Bob Hammond

 

[nightfly]

Wet darkroom prints on a nice fiber based paper have a depth and luminescence I have't seen in ink jet prints. There is just something about them that feels rich. The black are really deep, the whites have a glow to them and the tones have very subtle gradiations. They glow. I don't think I'd say the same thing about RC darkroom prints or about every darkroom print. But I found when I got decent at making them and found a paper I really liked (Forte Polygrade V), I got some great results and looking at them next to my inkjets, they are pretty clearly richer.

That said I do most of my printing on an Epson 1280 using MIS archival Eboni ink and the "black only" technique. It is a different look but one which satisfies me particularly if I'm shooting with a quality camera and lens. I print on Epson Enhanced Matte but could probably get a little more richness out of a third party paper. The blacks are deep, the gradiations are fairly subtle and the whites are as white as the paper. However they don't have that extra something.

For me the fact that a lot of the darkrooms I used to rent space in closed and that I have a everything in my home office to print makes me do it more and get over the fact that it's not the best way. Plus I always have the negatives so if there were things I wanted to print someday, I always could.

Also, I know some people love the darkroom, I always did it as a necessary evil to get my prints done. I'm not a technician so spending 4 to 6 hours at a shot wasn't too exciting to me. It's fun but I can't say I miss it too much.

I guess for me it's not letting the perfect get in the way of the good. Ink jets aren't perfect but they're pretty good.

People who tell you their inkjets are better than their wet prints I always suspect weren't great printers or used RC materials rather than fiber papers. I think if you look at the two next to one another fiber has a clear advantage but if you're not looking at them next to one another you could well be satisfied with ink jets. My darkroom prints sit in a box in the closet while my current work is tacked up on my working bulleting boards so I don't notice much.

 

[dcsang]

inkjet vs wet; mac vs pc; RAW vs jpeg; fried vs broiled; digital vs film; hamburgers vs hot dogs; cats vs dogs; man vs nature; ... the debate lingers on 😀

I think the Glicee process (and ya.. they are just "inkjet" prints - done on big a$$ epson inkjets - and perhaps some of the new canon large format printers too - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giclee ) is just as good but once you start looking at paper texture such as the "canvas" or "rag" type, I think that's where the difference lies. I've never seen any fibre paper that comes close to having that texture - not to say that it doesn't exist because maybe it does but I just haven't seen it.

Still, there's something to be said for nice old school non-inkjet prints too 🙂 I don't know what that is.. but surely there's something 😀

Dave

 

[pshinkaw]

I have recently done a few 8X10 inkjet prints using an Epson 960 and Epson photo quality paper. It may be my technique, but I can't seem to get the full tonal range of grays that I am accustomed to from silver prints.

Also, isn't permanence an issue?

-Paul

 

[boilerdoc2]

The 960 won't get it. You need the pigment based printers. 800, 1800, 2400, etc. Then you'll never print in the DR again!
Steve

 

[nightfly]

Best way to see it for yourself. Go to a museum that has some photographs from the begining of photography through the 70's.

To my eye, the older you get, the better the prints look. Really old prints made from glass negatives look spectacular. Prints from large format film, a little less so. Ansel Adams-y 4 x 5 (or whatever he used) you loose a little more but still great. Classic prints from Robert Frank, Bresson, mid century 35mm, a little lesser. I feel like the inkjet is the next step in the deteriorization of the print. Not tragic but at each stage of the game you loose a little quality gain some convenience.

However print quality isn't everything. To me classic street photographers capture something that transcends the often mediocre print quality (slow pushed films) and is superior in my mind to the really carefully crafted prints of an Ansel Adams or the like. So quality isn't everything.

 

[kbg32]

I do both, but lately since I've gotten married and moved, I don't have a darkroom setup anymore. I exclusively do inkjet printing. While inkjets have the depth and saturation, the one thing they lack is the luminosity of a traditional fiber based print due to the fact that an inkjet print does not contain silver. Lately I have been working almost entirely in color and inkjets when they are done properly can equal and surpass a traditional C print. I have been exhibiting Glicee and inkjets for the last 10 years, and I have had no complaints from galleries or anyone who has purchased one.

Inkjets are not better, or worse, then wet processing. They are just different. One can adjust their aesthetic and style to printing digitally. And like being in a wet darkroom, there is a wealth of printers and paper possibilites these days to print on. As with anything, there is a learning curve. Hopefully, the longer you do something and hone your craft, digital printing on an inkjet can offer a wonderful alternative. I feel if you weren't a great darkroom technician in the first place, you won't be a great digital printer. Shooting digitally, or scanning your negative, doesn't make things easier. It is just a different set of rules to go by. One still needs to know how to get the best out of their image, just as you need to know how to get the best out of your negative, whether it was processed in film developer or Photoshop.

 

[nightfly]

kbg32- can you offer some tips on getting good quality color prints out of an inkjet. I usually work in black and white but just tried to produce some color prints last night from my Epson 1280 on Ilford Gallerie Classic Perl paper and I'm loosing a lot of detail in the darker regions. They look really muddy. Any advice? I've got my black and white dialed in but I'm a total newbie with color. The paper looks great, it's just my shadows that are pretty bad.

 

[Sparrow]

One thing worth considering is the vast range of papers available, many hundreds if not thousands, that can be used in an inkjet, the traditional print is a pretty mature technology that’s unlikely to experience major advances whereas I can think of lots of combinations of subject and paper that could be worth trying in a printer.

 

[tetrisattack]

Nowadays what turns me off about inkjet and especially digital photography is not the capability of the equipment, which is sufficient for many purposes, but the tiresome, soulless consumer mentality that seems to be inseparable from new technology.

I realize that without a massive body of slavering, gadget-hungry consumers, many new interesting technologies would never see the light of day.

I have been trying to find new ways of adding unique human value and craftsmanship into my work. For me, that's what I perceive to be missing from my inkjet prints -- my ingenuity, craft, skill, and fingerprint.

There are many, many, many artists who don't share that sentiment.

 

[tomw]

Why all the agonizing? People should use whatever works best for them. So far, with my limited digital experience, the darkroom is still speedier and yields better results. I want to try digital, though, just to see what all the fuss is about, so I got the R2400 and am experimenting. Looks pretty darn good, but the prep work is pretty laborious/tedious. The darkroom is more fun.

As for what looks best--that's so subjective it won't have an answer except for the individual artist.

 

[erudolph]

kbg32- can you offer some tips on getting good quality color prints out of an inkjet. I usually work in black and white but just tried to produce some color prints last night from my Epson 1280 on Ilford Gallerie Classic Perl paper and I'm loosing a lot of detail in the darker regions. They look really muddy. Any advice? I've got my black and white dialed in but I'm a total newbie with color. The paper looks great, it's just my shadows that are pretty bad.

nightfly.... maybe get a custom icc profile made.

ed

 

[dadsm3]

My wets have a richer, classical look that I can't seem to duplicate with ink......also burning in the DR has a much more natural look than using the PS burning tool, which just seems to be painting with a dull grey ( my PS skills aren't that great), it just looks phoney to me.
Inkjet printing is tedious and expensive.....no where near as much fun as the DR. I take full credit for my wets, whereas with ink I somehow feel the machine did it, not me. Generally I do my 4x6's with ink, and then decide which ones make it into the DR for 8x10 printing.
And if you factor in locking myself in the laundry room (read:no kids), and no one counting my beers it's not even close!😉

 

[jonasv]

also burning in the DR has a much more natural look than using the PS burning tool, which just seems to be painting with a dull grey ( my PS skills aren't that great), it just looks phoney to me.

This is pretty offtopic, but you're definitely not the only who dislikes the effects the burning tool gives in most situations. What I do nowadays is mask a part of the photograph, apply gaussian blur to the selection (the selection itself, not the image within the selection!), and then use the curves and/or levels tool to adjust brightness and contrast in particular areas of the image. I too am more used to darkroom printing, but in PS this gives me results which are pretty close - a lot better than the burning & dodging tools most of the time!

 

[Solinar]

I print my color negs with a dye sub printer - The work flow is definitely different than traditional wet printing. It is very dependent on of hardware and software whose lifespan is limited.

I also maintain a roll away darkroom for B/W. Here the technology is very basic and longer lasting. Whether or not my B/W prints are better or equal to the latest ink jet technology is irrelevant. The hardware end of things is paid for and done with. My only concern is the shrinking supply of wet printing consumables. Right now, I'm very dependent on Ilford.

 

[Solinar]

I forgot to say, if the composition, moment of capture and subject interest me, I could care less if I'm viewing a digital or wet darkroom print. Though, I must say that I'm still rather impressed by the tonal qualities of a traditional wet darkroom print of large format negs.

 

[Socke]

I have been trying to find new ways of adding unique human value and craftsmanship into my work. For me, that's what I perceive to be missing from my inkjet prints -- my ingenuity, craft, skill, and fingerprint.

Try painting! Realy!

What you say is exactly what a friend of mine said about her photography. She is quite talented, obviously - she majored in arts with an A+, but considered her photos as a form of notebook for scenes and situations she might want to paint somewhen in the future.

 

[dcsang]

Nowadays what turns me off about inkjet and especially digital photography is not the capability of the equipment, which is sufficient for many purposes, but the tiresome, soulless consumer mentality that seems to be inseparable from new technology.

I realize that without a massive body of slavering, gadget-hungry consumers, many new interesting technologies would never see the light of day.

Good point.

Sadly I tend to clump myself into that soulless mass at times..
Time to Feng Shui my lifestyle perhaps.

Dave

 

[Ariya]

I take full credit for my wets, whereas with ink I somehow feel the machine did it, not me.

I feel the same way. Right or wrong - I think that making prints via digital technology is largely a product of the equipment and less the photographer. Certainly a lot of folks disagree with me and that's fine, too. There are a number of "great" photographers who didn't do their own printing (Avedon for one), but they are still considered great.

The most spouted arguement for traditional printing is proven archival stability. The art world wouldn't suffer if all of my prints were wiped out tomorrow, so this is not a strong one for me. When it comes down to it, I prefer the way a traditional print feels in my hands. Regardless of the image, I just prefer it. I think that for most of us, the process of creating the image is just as important as the final print. The bottom line is there is no difference if you don't see one. Do what makes you happy.

Peter