The Print, the desired end state?

[anabasis]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

While a print is great to look at, I have only so much wall space and as time passes, the print loses its magnificance due to me always seeing it.

 

No, my prefered method of looking at photos is projection. I think that chromes on light boxes sparkle like jewels, but I just love projecting them to see their true brilliance. Also, since it doesn't stay on the screen too long, I never lose appreciation for the image.

 

Images on computer screens are nice as well, but don't envoke the same feeling in me as chromes.

 

JCA

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[pico]

[...]

Images on computer screens are nice as well, but don't envoke the same feeling in me as chromes.

 

If you have not had the opportunity yet, then I think you would really appreciate medium and large format chromes. They are splendid in every way. One of my surprise favorites is a post WWII Super Ikonta 6x9. (a German rangefinder - to stay on topic) or a Super Technika 4x5 with a 135mm Planar (also a German rangefinder).

[Michael Hiles]

For me, it is the print on the wall.

 

For most of photography's existence, most images were on paper, residing in bottom drawers. Nothing has much changed, but the bottom drawer is now a CD-ROM or a hard drive. What a waste.

 

I think the combination of the art of a keen eye, and the craft of a master printer, combined produces something that is special that nothing on a monitor can match.

[euston]

I am beginning to appreciate much more the final print and am discovering that the real satisfaction and fulfillment I feel in photography and is when a particular image is framed and hung and can be shared.

 

This is a big change for me, as earlier I was happy to view images on my monitor (film or digital), but lately this has no real joy factor.

 

So would be interested if others do/feel the same or is the monitor the final end state for you?

 

Relatively few of my digital photographs make it to print. I have a large computer screen and it shows them off to my entire satisfaction and at a larger size than I can print myself. Most of my images are born and live their lives as pixels.

 

Although my own preference is to take the digital path from start to finish, I can appreciate what film photographers get out of following their method through to the true photographic print. There’s nothing to beat an expertly crafted photographic print, in my opinion. I’m not so keen on the hybrid approach, however. Starting with film and ending with a digital scan and an inkjet print may be pragmatic but it smacks to me of second best.

[topoxforddoc]

If you have not had the opportunity yet, then I think you would really appreciate medium and large format chromes. They are splendid in every way. One of my surprise favorites is a post WWII Super Ikonta 6x9. (a German rangefinder - to stay on topic) or a Super Technika 4x5 with a 135mm Planar (also a German rangefinder).

 

And then see those on a large hand printed Ilfo/Cibachrome - Yum Yum!

 

Best wishes,

[erl]

euston, there was a time when I would agree with your view on hybrid images, but of late, I have proven, to my own satisfaction, that it can be a superior process. I have 50+ years of darkroom experience, processing both B&W and colour and consider myself pretty good at it. However, after much effort and agony I must confess, I have now got my hardcopy output to a level using hybrid that I never achieved with purely analog. A sad truth to admit, but I must be honest with myself if no one else.

[Doug A]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

euston, there was a time when I would agree with your view on hybrid images, but of late, I have proven, to my own satisfaction, that it can be a superior process. I have 50+ years of darkroom experience, processing both B&W and colour and consider myself pretty good at it. However, after much effort and agony I must confess, I have now got my hardcopy output to a level using hybrid that I never achieved with purely analog. A sad truth to admit, but I must be honest with myself if no one else.

I am at the other end of the spectrum as regards experience and skill. I worked in the darkroom for about four years with a good teacher and seldom made prints I felt really good about. Forty years later I am back to making B&W prints and after just a few months my hybrid prints are better than any of the silver prints I made in my younger days.

 

--Doug

[Michael Hiles]

And then see those on a large hand printed Ilfo/Cibachrome - Yum Yum!

 

I agree. I would add, in 35mm, a top quality kodachrome slide expertly printed onto Cibachrome brings down the house. I suspect that one issue is that top quality Cibachromes are not often seen in the flesh. I think many people do not know from personal experience just how good they are.

[erl]

Are real Cibachromes still produced?

[giordano]

I agree. I would add, in 35mm, a top quality kodachrome slide expertly printed onto Cibachrome brings down the house. I suspect that one issue is that top quality Cibachromes are not often seen in the flesh. I think many people do not know from personal experience just how good they are.

 

Agreed - but at a serious cost in terms of shadow detail when printing from a tranny with a long tonal range.

 

On balance I prefer inkjet prints simply because one has more control over the contrast or dynamic range or whatever - but they never quite seem to equal the sheer oomph of a good Cibachrome.

[Michael Hiles]

Are real Cibachromes still produced?

 

Absolutely. The material is available (B&H in NYC sells it and I can get it in Montreal) and some commercial labs offer the service. One is Elavator in Toronto, where they print using a Durst Lambda system onto Cibachrome (now called Ilfochrome).

 

And the process is reasonably simple. Like all colour processes, the basic requirement is to get the exposure right, then get the colour filtering right. Processing is simple and can be done in trays (far from ideal) or manual drums (works very well). I used Cibachrome many years ago and have some eye popping prints (take it from me:D), and don't now just because I do so little colour. But were I to return to printing colour, this is where I would go. But to be clear, I am a big fan of darkroom printing.

 

As John says, it can be contrasty, but there is a lower contrast product option that is better suited to long scale 'chromes than the original Cibachrome.

 

One clear difficulty is that is not widely available since it is used selectively, and it is expensive. But it reminds me of Eliot Porter who stuck with Dye Transfer printing long after it was thought to be an outdated process. He was, I think, perhaps the best colour printer ever - partly because he used the best (but an unpopular) process that was expensive and a lot of work. Same discussion can be made about platinum prints (I sure don't do them).

[thompsonkirk]

IMO Ciba/Ilfochrome is a 'dead' system for good reasons, especially its gaudiness, high contrast, & failure to retain shadow detail. It belonged to the era when National Geographic set the standard for what people thought color photography should look like.

 

Unfortunately it allowed the printer – not to mention the photographer! – minimal latitude in interpreting/crafting the print. For many of us, inkjet printing is a more subtle medium, & much more under our own control.

 

Printing media & styles are complex systems. When slide film was a preferred medium, the 'Chrome printing process displayed its strengths (& weaknesses). And the Kodachrome interpretation of color was in vogue, like the cuisine or clothing of its time.

 

That was an era of strong martinis & straight Scotches, with less regard for fine wines. Our contemporary digital sensors & inkjet printing are capable of subtler colors, more shadow detail, & even more highlight detail if properly PPed. No more Pete Turner or Eliot Porter 'in your face' color; rather, a system that allows a careful craftsperson to distribute tones as carefully as in Zone system BW.

 

The master Cibachromer in our area shut down that service a couple of years ago. He'd made the transition to become a master giclee/inkjet printer for photographers & other artists. He's impressed by the tonal range & flexibility in his own work as well as in his prints for others.

 

IMO inkjet is a wonderful, flexible color & BW medium. It's under the photographer's control much more extensively than the dye transfer, Cibrachrome, or Type C color processes. if one is patient enough to learn Photoshop as carefully as folks once learned their Zone System calibrations from Ansel Adams & his followers, then in inkjet printing – as in the BW darkroom – the negative/file is the score, & the print is the interpretive performance.

 

My little testimonial: I love prints & printing, both BW & color, & am not at all nostalgic about the lost color processes of dye transfer & Cibachrome. I'm happy to change with the times. And I'm pleased that fine BW inkjet prints now rival gelatin-silver, too.

 

Kirk

 

PS, Maybe I should tone this down with qualifications:

 

I'd love to own an Eggleston dye-transfer print, representing the 'invention' of small-format fine-art color photography.

 

And because this is the Leica forum, I didn't mention the beauty of large-format Type C color photography, starting with photographers like Shore & Sternfeld. IMO large-format Vericolor Type L film, superceded by Portra, & Type C printing are another combination/system capable of subtle beauty.

[delander †]

An important aspect is that the latest printers have transformed the quality that can be produced - especially on good paper.

 

Often I will print two or three versions of the same image and then display the one that pleases me the most.

 

Lighting is very important when viewing prints, leaving aside colour temperature of the lighting the brightness plays an important role. A print which looks dull and lacklustre will often sparkle under bright light.

 

Jeff

[andym911]

Interesting responses overall....for me, the print either from a direct neg or a scan or even a digital image is what I want and why I take photographs.

This is a recent recognition on my side.

 

Today I scanned and printed a K64 image at 40x30 cm and mounted and framed it.

The image was one that I posted here a year or two ago,my first glimpse of Mount Everest during my one and only trip to the Himalayas.

 

It now hangs in our kitchen, it is beautiful, my family,friends and I admire it.

Showing images on the TV, Screen, Ipad or whatever is something that I will never do because it is worthless to me and those who view.

 

best

andy

[Guest WPalank]

I read all these comments about Cibachrome, B&W negative, digital this or that.....blah, blah, blah, blah...

 

Wouldn't it be nice if Leica sponsored a contest that we as Leica photographers took from "Capture to Print" (to coin a well oiled phrase) and submitted let's say 8.5 x 11's that were juried and then the best submitters were then asked to submit larger prints to be showcased in a Leica Gallery somewhere.

 

Then hopefully we could put a little of this to rest except for those who would continue to wax nostalgic rather than judge quality.

[Michael Hiles]

IMO Ciba/Ilfochrome is a 'dead' system for good reasons, especially its gaudiness, high contrast, & failure to retain shadow detail...

 

Good points, well stated.

 

Clearly there are many more artistic option these days, and because I continue to like the Cibachromes I see, does not imply that I deride other approaches.

 

But to return to the original point of the thread, prints on the wall continue, for me, to be the point. Too bad I have limits to my available wall space.

[sblutter]

Yes the personal print is very important - but perhaps more so is being public, sharing your work / vision and being responded to.

 

Exhibitions and books...

[Guest WPalank]

Nice Video series created by Epson for their new "Signature Worthy" series of paper. I especially like the one with David Lynch.

Focal Points: Epson Professional Imaging

 

I have no experience with the paper, but share the subjects' enthusiasm for the final print.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[LuxBob]

One of my interests at PhotoKina was to look at the printing and talk with some of the people involved. I did some talking but more looking. There was a fantastic array of papers available and I was pleased to talk with a photographer who had been brought in by one of the paper suppliers of a paper that I use. I was telling him of my pleasure using their Baryta paper and so he showed me a new paper called Iridium which gets that silvery effect even more. It was just good to chat with somebody who understood what I was trying to do and wanted to help. His wife was also there and we had a chat together about portraits. He preferred a fairly stark ultra white paper whereas his wife had produced some beautiful portraits on a soft creamy rag. I think it might have been possible to have this conversation on every stand. Epson and HP had a full range and I spent some time looking at the 3880 which is a superb machine. But then they had the bigger machines and you can see that some prints really start to live when produced as say a 1metre by 1.5 metre print (about (5 ft by 3 ft) and bigger. It seemed clear to me that work at this size is much more impressive. It means that even if I get a 3880 I will still have to have some work processed outside. There were also people printing on aluminium besides all types of finished mounted prints. Nothing on screen came close to anything that had been printed though and it reaffirmed to me that this was still the medium.