Print !!!

[Bill Pierce]

Printing is important. Admittedly, your thousands, hundreds of thousands of Facebook friends can’t all come to your home to see your work, but there is something special about a print. For sure there is a consistency to a print rather than the variety of interpretations that a variety of computer screens and their adjustments will give your images, but usually the most touted advantage is the “archival” nature of a print. Of course, “archival” has no specific meaning. It just means it will last a long time. And, unless you’ve instructed your heirs to regularly transfer your digital images to fresh storage media, it also means a lot longer than that image on your hard disc.

More and more, a “print” means an inkjet print. Even film shooters are giving up the wet darkroom’s enlarger for a scanner and an inkjet printer. So, while it’s not a platinum print, how long does a well made pigment inkjet last? When it comes to specific papers and inks along with proper storage, my answer is always to check it out at

wilhelm-research.com

And I can never resist pointing out that black-and-white lasts longer than color. I wish it weren’t so, but it is.

I guess the question I’m asking is “Are you printing?” I guess I’m also saying “Please print.”

 

[xayraa33]

I still wet darkroom print, I find it relaxing to get lost in darkroom work .

 

[Erik van Straten]

Yes, I print. I make gelatine silver split grade prints (on Ilford Multi Grade Fiber Base). Split grade printing on gelatin silver paper gives a different tonal structure than any digital form of printing. In addition, I suppose that well-made prints on silver gelatin paper can last longer than any form of digital printing. They can be viewed without electronic aids. Time has proven that silver/gelatin prints can last for a long time. I don't think the dyes used for ink-jet prints are lightfast.

gelatine silver print (summicron 50mm rigid) leica m3

Erik.

 

[fireblade]

Where i get my prints done, it's pigment based inkjets, and i have it printed on museum quality fine art baryta paper. Put behind UV glass and placed out of direct sunlight you will get guaranteed 99+ years. Apparently 400 years it will last, but i will have to let you know later on that one.

 

[Erik van Straten]

Where i get my prints done, it's pigment based inkjets, and i have it printed on museum quality fine art baryta paper. Put behind UV glass and placed out of direct sunlight you will get guaranteed 99+ years. Apparently 400 years it will last, but i will have to let you know later on that one.

How much does such a print cost you? If your pigments are light-fast, they will stand direct sunlight.

The UV-glass will use a lot of space. Say, you have 500 prints behind UV-glass. Where do you store them?

Erik.

 

[Deleted member 65559]

Bill, Like Erik & Xayr, i print....in a darkroom, with a Beseler45MXT/ZoneVI VC head & a Durst 138. I would not go to the digital printing side......quite simply neither the process nor output is the same....and in that sense one cannot be replaced by the other.

 

[JeffS7444]

I don't print big, and I don't print a lot, but I have both computer screen and Canon Pixma Pro-10 calibrated against an Xrite i1Studio device, and there's a certain challenge and joy in converting the glowing image I see on the LCD into a purely reflective medium, where the "correct" interpretation is at least partially dependent on the lighting conditions that the print is likely to be displayed under. Someday when I win big at the lottery, while others rush off and buy impractical automobiles and overly-big houses, I'll be buying a proper color-accurate viewing station.

 

[nikon_sam]

I too, am a Darkroom -get your fingers wet- kinda guy...
Started with film in the mid 70's...B&W at first, then E-6 color slides, then later with our kids did a lot of C-41 film/prints.
I place a greater value on my film images even though I've shot some great digital images. I guess that's due to the whole process plus cost of materials and time put in to produce prints.

 

[jsrockit]

Yes, I print. I make gelatine silver split grade prints (on Ilford Multi Grade Fiber Base). Split grade printing on gelatin silver paper gives a different tonal structure than any digital form of printing. In addition, I suppose that well-made prints on silver gelatin paper can last longer than any form of digital printing. They can be viewed without electronic aids. Time has proven that silver/gelatin prints can last for a long time. I don't think the dyes used for ink-jet prints are lightfast.

gelatine silver print (summicron 50mm rigid) leica m3

Erik.

Beautiful image Erik! As for printing, I only print individual prints when I have a purpose… like a gallery show or to sell to a private buyer. Outside of that, I prefer making books and that’s how I prefer to show my work. I always make books. I’m all digital though…

 

[Dogman]

Unfortunately my Epson printer is dead and I'm waiting for funds to buy a new one. But, yes, I did print and I will print again ASAP. Black and white mainly, a bit of color, pigment inks, matte surface "fine art" papers, stored in museum boxes. Never very big, usually 6x9 inches on 8.5x11.

Normally I'm a subject driven guy, not printing driven. But there's something transcendent in a beautiful B&W print that caresses the eyes.

 

[Erik van Straten]

Thank you, John!


Erik.

 

[Corran]

Even film shooters are giving up the wet darkroom’s enlarger for a scanner and an inkjet printer.

Says who??

There's been more interest in film photography in the past few years, and a burgeoning interest in darkroom printing as well growing from that. Lots of young folks come in my booth when I do art festivals and want to ask lots of questions, and often show me the film camera they are toting.

I even have a secret invention I built last year to make traditional silver prints direct from digital sources...but I can't talk about that right now.

 

[Dogman]

Erik, beautiful photo.

And you are right about the dyes in inkjet prints not being very permanent. But pigment inks are different. Pigment prints on art papers are considered archival and may outlast silver prints. I doubt any of us will be around to test the theory. Both types of prints will outlast us all.

 

[Erik van Straten]

Thank you, Dogman.

You are right that none of us can test the theory.

What also is important for me is the pleasure of working in the darkroom.

Erik.

 

[Larry Cloetta]

I even have a secret invention I built last year to make traditional silver prints direct from digital sources...but I can't talk about that right now.

You just talked about it More info would be interesting, there’s plenty you might reveal that wouldn’t interfere with a patent search. Inquiring minds want to know about practical hybrid methods.

In the meantime, archival issues seem to have been solved years ago, but issues with tonality are still a bone of contention.

 

[Larry Cloetta]

I tend to prefer traditional prints based on the way they “look”. To me. Platinum palladium prints most of all. Which is unrealistic, for me, as an avenue.
But, the biggest elephant in my particular room isn’t how archival a given technology is, or how expensive it is to produce, or whether nozzles clog. It’s wall space. It’s the affordability and practicality of mounting and framing and displaying everything that is deserving. Photobooks are a legitimate way around that, but are only half way between an exhibition and keeping small prints in a shoebox. Maybe not even half way. Photos, if they are any good, should be properly printed, at an attention grabbing size which is commensurate their quality, and hung on the wall, nicely presented. It should make people stop and look, ideally. All 1,000 of them, in your home. And a wall cluttered with too many visually arresting objects is self defeating. It’s just noise.
One or two nice frames with prints rotated through? Maybe, but different photos want different sizes and orientations and crop dimensions.
Destined to be unsatisfied, is what I am, regardless, as every alternative seems a compromise. And if it’s “art” it can’t be compromised, can it? Or, maybe as is surely my case, it’s not Art anyway. I haven’t printed anything in years, waiting until such time as I can do them all at once, the “best way”, but have no idea what that would be.

 

[zuiko85]

Haven’t had my very modest enlarger out for quite a while but don’t have inkjet either. Never printed big, 5x7 and 8x10. If I can part with several hundred $ I’d like to get a few 8x10 film holders and make a sliding box camera to shoot paper negs, then contact print them. If willing to load one sheet in the darkroom of course then don’t need film holders. But one shot is very limiting away from home.

 

[mrtoml]

I still have a darkroom, but I mainly use it for lith printing. Yesterday I made several 12x16 inch prints from my micro 4/3rd camera using my Canon Pro 1000. I think they look pretty good. I rarely print bigger than 16x20.

I like darkroom work, but the convenience and speed of digital is sometimes rather undeniable.

994D1454-EEC8-441E-9A70-04924F289013_1_105_c

 

[Erik van Straten]

I tend to prefer traditional prints based on the way they “look”. To me. Platinum palladium prints most of all. Which is unrealistic, for me, as an avenue.
But, the biggest elephant in my particular room isn’t how archival a given technology is, or how expensive it is to produce, or whether nozzles clog. It’s wall space. It’s the affordability and practicality of mounting and framing and displaying everything that is deserving. Photobooks are a legitimate way around that, but are only half way between an exhibition and keeping small prints in a shoebox. Maybe not even half way. Photos, if they are any good, should be properly printed, at an attention grabbing size which is commensurate their quality, and hung on the wall, nicely presented. It should make people stop and look, ideally. All 1,000 of them, in your home. And a wall cluttered with too many visually arresting objects is self defeating. It’s just noise.
One or two nice frames with prints rotated through? Maybe, but different photos want different sizes and orientations and crop dimensions.
Destined to be unsatisfied, is what I am, regardless, as every alternative seems a compromise. And if it’s “art” it can’t be compromised, can it? Or, maybe as is surely my case, it’s not Art anyway. I haven’t printed anything in years, waiting until such time as I can do them all at once, the “best way”, but have no idea what that would be.

Yes, but what can I do? I've made since 1971 37.000 pictures. 500 of them are printed. My house is too small to hang them all on a wall.

I have a different way of showing. The 500 prints all have the same format, 18 x 24 cm, and are kept in boxes, about 70 in a box. When someone wants to see some of my pictures, I give her or him a box to have a look at the pictures. Viewing the prints out of the box is like flipping through a book. Very nice.

Erik.

 

[Deleted member 65559]

Erik, I admire your artistic vision. It's was a great foresight to have decided to limit the way you print your photos. I've used formats from 35mm to 5"x7" and still print sizes from 8"x10" to 20"x24." I think your method lends itself well, not only to viewing photos but also to storage and archiving.