Bill Pierce
Well-known
I don't know if we have ever had a specific thread that espoused inkjet printing as the devil's work, but in any number of threads it comes up as sidebar with the warning that inkjet will destroy, humiliate and, finally, eliminate digital photographers - especially those that work in black-and-white. It is loudly proclaimed that no inkjet print can equal the beauty of a silver print.
With it becoming more and more difficult to obtain not only a broad range of silver papers but everything from top quality enlargers to photochemistry and even film itself, it's good to know this isn't true. That's not to knock silver. Look at the latest work of Lee Friedlander in his book America By Car - Hasselblad Superwide, Ilford HP5, Microdol X and absolutely superb silver printing. For him to move to digital wouldn't make sense. Where is the digital equivalent of the Superwide, the latitude and range of black-and-white film and, more important for a photographer of long term projects, the time to master a craft to replace an equally suitable craft of which you are already a master?
That is not to say, however, that silver is better than digital. For many purposes, digital is superior. But one thing must be made absolutely clear. Those entering digital through a hybrid system, shooting film, scanning and printing inkjet, will have to use large format film or limit themselves to small prints unless they buy an expensive scanner like the Hasselblad (Imacon) scanners. That's not a death blow. Edward Weston used a big camera and limited himself to small prints. But it does mean folks with decades of archived 35mm negatives are not going to find a good dry darkroom cheap.
The early problems of digital, such as what looked like chromatic aberration at the edge of the frame, low pixel count and low bit count, are, in many cases for all practical purposes, solved. And we're still early in the development of digital. Medium format cameras are giving us image quality previously associated with large format film. 35MM is looking like medium format and miniature formats are looking like 35MM. Inkjet prints are longer lasting than the best of the chemical color prints and much longer lasting than most of the chemical color prints. Henry Wilhelm says the b&w inkjets will probably last 3 or 4 times as long as the color.
One of the biggest problems I see in digital is that simply stripping a digital image of its color does not produce a b&w image with the same tone structure as a silver print from a silver negative. Those who master b&w inkjet printing either from scanned negatives or converted camera files are going to have to manipulate the curves in programs like Lightroom and Photoshop. I suggest an add-on program like Silver Efex Pro from Nik software. In converting color images to b&w, it does nothing that you can't do with Lightroom or Photoshop itself, but it does give you an idea of what curve manipulation can do to mimic a silver image.
Digital has given us amazing quality at high ISO's. Programs like Lightroom and Photoshop have given us abilities to control our prints that have made many of the best wet darkroom printers the biggest fans of these programs and the dry darkroom.
Most important, film and the wet darkroom has been around a long time and progress is slowing, not only because of the time frame, but because manufacturers' researchers have less incentive to improve something whose market share is diminishing. On the other hand, digital is still early in its run. Our photographic tools will benefit and improve from that just as our wallets suffer.
This is definitely a rant. I just wanted to point out that digital is not the spawn of evil beings. Like all old dudes, I love film and the wet darkroom. But, in many ways, not all ways, digital offers advantages that in numerous fields guarantees that it will replace film.
Any thoughts?
With it becoming more and more difficult to obtain not only a broad range of silver papers but everything from top quality enlargers to photochemistry and even film itself, it's good to know this isn't true. That's not to knock silver. Look at the latest work of Lee Friedlander in his book America By Car - Hasselblad Superwide, Ilford HP5, Microdol X and absolutely superb silver printing. For him to move to digital wouldn't make sense. Where is the digital equivalent of the Superwide, the latitude and range of black-and-white film and, more important for a photographer of long term projects, the time to master a craft to replace an equally suitable craft of which you are already a master?
That is not to say, however, that silver is better than digital. For many purposes, digital is superior. But one thing must be made absolutely clear. Those entering digital through a hybrid system, shooting film, scanning and printing inkjet, will have to use large format film or limit themselves to small prints unless they buy an expensive scanner like the Hasselblad (Imacon) scanners. That's not a death blow. Edward Weston used a big camera and limited himself to small prints. But it does mean folks with decades of archived 35mm negatives are not going to find a good dry darkroom cheap.
The early problems of digital, such as what looked like chromatic aberration at the edge of the frame, low pixel count and low bit count, are, in many cases for all practical purposes, solved. And we're still early in the development of digital. Medium format cameras are giving us image quality previously associated with large format film. 35MM is looking like medium format and miniature formats are looking like 35MM. Inkjet prints are longer lasting than the best of the chemical color prints and much longer lasting than most of the chemical color prints. Henry Wilhelm says the b&w inkjets will probably last 3 or 4 times as long as the color.
One of the biggest problems I see in digital is that simply stripping a digital image of its color does not produce a b&w image with the same tone structure as a silver print from a silver negative. Those who master b&w inkjet printing either from scanned negatives or converted camera files are going to have to manipulate the curves in programs like Lightroom and Photoshop. I suggest an add-on program like Silver Efex Pro from Nik software. In converting color images to b&w, it does nothing that you can't do with Lightroom or Photoshop itself, but it does give you an idea of what curve manipulation can do to mimic a silver image.
Digital has given us amazing quality at high ISO's. Programs like Lightroom and Photoshop have given us abilities to control our prints that have made many of the best wet darkroom printers the biggest fans of these programs and the dry darkroom.
Most important, film and the wet darkroom has been around a long time and progress is slowing, not only because of the time frame, but because manufacturers' researchers have less incentive to improve something whose market share is diminishing. On the other hand, digital is still early in its run. Our photographic tools will benefit and improve from that just as our wallets suffer.
This is definitely a rant. I just wanted to point out that digital is not the spawn of evil beings. Like all old dudes, I love film and the wet darkroom. But, in many ways, not all ways, digital offers advantages that in numerous fields guarantees that it will replace film.
Any thoughts?
