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".
“Photography is a complex and fluid medium, and its many factors are not applied in simple sequence. Rather, the process may be likened to the art of the juggler in keeping many balls in the air at one time!”
Ansel Adams, from the introduction to The Negative - The New Ansel Adams Photography Series / Book 2
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....
Originally Posted by Bob Carnie
Last edited by coigach; 02-03-2012 at 09:05 AM. Click to view previous post history.
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.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Originally Posted by coigach
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.
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.
That's just, like, my opinion, man...
Apologies if that's how my contribution came across, that was not the intention.
Originally Posted by JBrunner
Originally Posted by Klainmeister
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.
I couldn't think of anything witty to say so I left this blank.
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.