Has digital prints made older process prints special?

[MattKing]

I think the reason this makes sense for APUG is that it is at least supposedly about "analogue" processes and how they persist in an otherwise predominantly digital world.

I think any process has the potential to result in special results, but the question really turns on what we mean by "special".

[hoffy]

Like most things, its totally subjective.

Me, personally, I like the process of making a print with an enlarger and chemicals. It is a much more interesting process then sitting in front of a PC, photo shop and an inkjet. Thats what makes it special FOR ME.

From a consumers perspective, its a strong No. As a matter of fact, for those who care and have embraced digital, they probably can take their prints to places they could have never of imagined then in the past.

Yes, a B&W optical wet print CAN have much more tonal range then one produced digitally, but then again, digital photography is more akin to shooting chromes then anything else - is it really the print or the original capture?

What about medium choice? One thing that a lot of people like about inkjets is the wide choice of materials that can be printed on (canvas anyone? As much as I loathe them, they are very popular).

As for Archival - well, an optically printed digital RC photo is no different to an optically printed analogue RC print....and it now appears that Inkjet Photos have been rated into the 100's of years on display and +200 years under archival storage, if the right products are chosen.

I think that if People are printing, regardless of it being via a digital means or analogue, they are ALL making it a bit more special, especially compared to those who are happy to leave their pictures restricted to social media....

[coigach]

Not really

This discussion is one sided as the moderator police will be active soon, but digital prints have had a positive effect.
I don't think its fair to slam digital here, just like discussing its potential for traditional printing methods has been banned.
I embrace both methods of making prints and can make both sing.

+1

[coigach]

Is it just me??? are others not offended by this? I am getting really tired of some here stating how ffllfk precious their hand made prints are.. I suspect most of them are shite>

Cheered me up no end!

Seriously though there is a wearying kind of holier-than-thou side to APUG that seems to come out with a 'my way or the highway' mentality ie. anyone using transparency film or, gasp, colour, seems to be viewed as a little less than those who use b+w negs and darkroom print. I use dr5 reversed transparencies and have had to defend the use of and reasons for using reversed trannies over conventional negs + prints many a time.

I've signed up to the APUG mission statement and totally accept this means I can't talk about my polymer photogravure's as they have a digital step. It's the general tone of the conversations where anything even remotely different or hybrid is dealt with as much as anything that I find wearying.

But I do love APUG, have learned lots and discovered the work of very many talented people. Maybe I'm just turning into a grump...

[Klainmeister]

I like both, to be honest. Darkroom prints are great--if done well. Inkjet prints for color work is great as well--if done well (the overasaturated, giant prints are the one's that rub me the wrong way), and hybrid work for alt processes are excellent as well. They all have their place.

There does seem to be a divide in the gallery/curator world. Here in SFe I have seen both sides: some people think inkjets are just as legitmate while others question that. Ultimately, it seems to come down to the name, the content, and the presentation, although some collectors here seem to only go for darkroom/alt processes and not to tend towards the inkjets since their archival qualities have yet to be proven.

Oh, and in the Andrew Smith Gallery, there's some Cibahromes next to some inkjets, and while I like the finish of the Cibas, I have to admit the inkjets are balanced better, look sharper, and overall seem more pleasing.

[ME Super]

Seriously though there is a wearying kind of holier-than-thou side to APUG that seems to come out with a 'my way or the highway' mentality ie. anyone using transparency film or, gasp, colour, seems to be viewed as a little less than those who use b+w negs and darkroom print. I use dr5 reversed transparencies and have had to defend the use of and reasons for using reversed trannies over conventional negs + prints many a time.

+1

I shoot (horrors!) color transparency film most of the time. Why? Because I like it. Now having said that, B&W does have its merits too and I have a roll of Tri-X in the refrigerator just waiting to be fed to my camera.

That Other "Capture/Presentation" Method has its merits too, as does hybrid. But I still love the analog photography process and presentation on a big screen in a darkened room.

ME Super

[JBrunner]

There is no problem with shooting color transparencies, or sharing them on APUG. There is no problem with discussing the non digital portions of a hybrid process. There is no problem with using DPUG to discuss hybrid and digital processes. There is no problem with discussing the effect of modern times on the prevalence or marketability of traditional prints.

It is, however, very uncool to attempt to hijack a thread to complain about how APUG isn't what YOU want it to be. It's also boorish and tiresome.

APUG has a narrow charter, and that's the end of it.

[coigach]

It is, however, very uncool to attempt to hijack a thread to complain about how APUG isn't what YOU want it to be. It's also boorish and tiresome.

APUG has a narrow charter, and that's the end of it.

Apologies if that's how my contribution came across, that was not the intention.

[blansky]

I like both, to be honest. Darkroom prints are great--if done well. Inkjet prints for color work is great as well--if done well (the overasaturated, giant prints are the one's that rub me the wrong way), and hybrid work for alt processes are excellent as well. They all have their place.

There does seem to be a divide in the gallery/curator world. Here in SFe I have seen both sides: some people think inkjets are just as legitmate while others question that. Ultimately, it seems to come down to the name, the content, and the presentation, although some collectors here seem to only go for darkroom/alt processes and not to tend towards the inkjets since their archival qualities have yet to be proven.

Oh, and in the Andrew Smith Gallery, there's some Cibahromes next to some inkjets, and while I like the finish of the Cibas, I have to admit the inkjets are balanced better, look sharper, and overall seem more pleasing.

Interesting that a gallery would question the use of photographic inkjet as a legitimate or worthy print, when for years they have been pimping "giclee" for so called "art".

That's like saying the sex you get from a hooker is less legitimate than the sex you got when you were in prison.

Neither is love but it got the job done.

[blockend]

As someone whose first job was studio assistant and who went on to be a professional B&W printer before adopting more remunerative careers, I don't associate the silver print process with zen like calm.