Why do I shoot Film?

[Guest malland]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

...But for certain images/projects, if I want an actual continuous tone analog print, I'll print from a digital file with an Océ or Durst Lambda. Then you get the best of both worlds: a digital malleable file that you can prepare to your heart's content but printed onto a chemical processed analog sheet of paper (Fuji, Kodak, Ilford) as a continuous tone prin...

For certain large prints I like face-mounting inkjet prints made, in my case using the ImgePrint RIP, on 1/4 inch acrylic. These prints exhibit a depth that is breathtaking. When a pint is face-mounted on acrylic I don't know whether it matters to the look whether it's ink-jet or a Lightjet. I suppose that once you go through the expense of face-mounting you might as well have the print made on a Lightjet, but I haven't tried it.

 

—Mitch/Potomac, MD

Paris au rythme de Basquiat and Other Poems [download link for book project]

[CalArts 99]

For certain large prints I like face-mounting inkjet prints made, in my case using the ImgePrint RIP, on 1/4 inch acrylic. These prints exhibit a depth that is breathtaking. When a pint is face-mounted on acrylic I don't know whether it matters to the look whether it's ink-jet or a Lightjet. I suppose that once you go through the expense of face-mounting you might as well have the print made on a Lightjet, but I haven't tried it.

 

—Mitch/Potomac, MD

Paris au rythme de Basquiat and Other Poems [download link for book project]

 

Yes, I agree that Diasec/Optimount/Dibond, etc., method prints do look great. It does depend on the paper as to which process to use and will give that depth. I know that some prefer only Lightjet with a Diasec type system plexi/acrylic front mount; others prefer liquid silicone materials that work nicely with rag matte papers, etc.. I don't know of any US places that use the Diasec system (is Diasec even still around? The places I know are just using they own homebrew of silicone adhesive methods, etc.) There had been issues of yellowing over time; I don't think it's considered archival, but maybe that's all changed now. One has to experiment a bit (find a place that has experience with lots of papers and methods.) And you're right, it can be expensive.

 

Done well and with the right materials and paper combos, you do get that 'wet look' and bronzing is eliminated because of the change in reflectivity from the mounted surface. The Clearshield Type C material I mentioned gives it somewhat of that same sort of depth and the reflectivity change that adhering to acrylic does. But it's something that anybody can do (I use a sponge roller; you can use a liquid laminating machine, too.) It's not expensive and easy (although be very careful of dust.) So far, it's been proven to never yellow or degrade and remains flexible (and the prints remain flexible, too.) Of course I wouldn't call it archival nor can a face mounted print be considered archival. But these processes are great for exhibition. There are a lot of options these days and both Philippe Laumont in NYC and Finishing Concepts in LA are good.

[Guest malland]

...Done well and with the right materials and paper combos, you do get that 'wet look' and bronzing is eliminated because of the change in reflectivity from the mounted surface. The Clearshield Type C material I mentioned gives it somewhat of that same sort of depth and the reflectivity change that adhering to acrylic does. But it's something that anybody can do (I use a sponge roller; you can use a liquid laminating machine, too.) It's not expensive and easy (although be very careful of dust.) So far, it's been proven to never yellow or degrade and remains flexible (and the prints remain flexible, too.) Of course I wouldn't call it archival nor can a face mounted print be considered archival. But these processes are great for exhibition...

The "wet look" is spot on: like a wet print in the lab.

 

I have no experience with Diasec, which I've been told is only for silver halide paper. What I've had is Optimount on inkjet prints. My feeling is that one WOULD be hard-pressed to see the difference. I really don't know how archival this is, but I assume someone must have run some tests. I have a few B&W prints of 40x60 inch (100x150cm) size that have been hanging in rooms with daylight for some five years and have not seen any change.

 

What you say about Clearshield Type C sounds great, and I'll have to investigate whether anyone does it in Bangkok when I get back there in about a month.

 

—Mitch/Potomac, MD

Bangkok Hysteria (download link for book project)

[Jeff S]

 

As we know, an issue with ink prints is metamerism; the shifts that occur under different lighting with pigmented inks encapsulated in resin. The droplets dry on the surface of the paper and since the ink is a solid and with varying sizes it will reflect light differently across the paper. With dye inks there really wasn't that issue especially since the ink mixes together as it dries. And then there's bronzing as different densities reflect light unevenly on the paper's surface. This happens primarily with baryta papers although it also occurs on matte papers depending on the ink reception coating of the paper. B+W is problematic with metamerism when using conventional inksets. I haven't yet found a commercial RIP that can print B+W like a pure black carbon inkset can, including Color Byte's consumer ImagePrint RIP (which claims to have zero metamerism.) And to be sure, there is metamerism with conventional analog prints but it's not nearly as pronounced as with ink prints.

 

(snip).....

 

btw, I find that coating matte prints with ClearShield Type C satin (Detail View) makes a big difference in reflectivity and issues of metamerism with pigmented inks. On matte paper it ends up giving the paper the same reflectivity as early Agfa Brovira.

 

 

Inkjet b/w prints using Piezography (Jon Cone system) can now be done on gloss or semi-gloss papers using 7 shades of black and a second pass using a gloss optimizer. The look is much closer to a silver print, particularly when using a fine paper such as Canson Infinity Baryta Photographique.

 

Cone also offers carbon ink sets for Epson.

 

Jeff

[pico]

Calling photographers cogs in the digital machine isn't very nice. Isn't this exactly what the OP was talking about but in reverse, i.e., an attack on digital?

 

It is not an attack. It is a challenge.

[pico]

Is this because the digital printers have gotten so good? Because I can't see a difference using mine.

 

Sorry for your loss.

.

[CalArts 99]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Inkjet b/w prints using Piezography (Jon Cone system) can now be done on gloss or semi-gloss papers using 7 shades of black and a second pass using a gloss optimizer. The look is much closer to a silver print, particularly when using a fine paper such as Canson Infinity Baryta Photographique.

 

Cone also offers carbon ink sets for Epson.

 

Jeff

 

Yes, those carbon inksets are excellent in Epsons with the Quad Tone RIP (expect for the occasional clogging) and that's why I said: "I haven't yet found a commercial RIP that can print B+W like a pure black carbon inkset can" in my earlier post.

 

For true B+W ink prints the system is far superior, imho. But one really needs to dedicate two printers: one for color inksets and the other for the carbon inksets.

 

btw, I recommend also trying some Canson Platine.

[Jeff S]

Yes, those carbon inksets are excellent in Epsons with the Quad Tone RIP (expect for the occasional clogging) and that's why I said: "I haven't yet found a commercial RIP that can print B+W like a pure black carbon inkset can" in my earlier post.

 

For true B+W ink prints the system is far superior, imho. But one really needs to dedicate two printers: one for color inksets and the other for the carbon inksets.

 

btw, I recommend trying some Canson Plantine.

 

I use the Platine as well...love it.

 

And yes, I read your comment on carbon inks, which is why I mentioned the Cone system, but only after I mentioned the gloss optimizer, since you mentioned only a coating for matte papers.

 

Jeff

[CalArts 99]

The ClearShield I use on color pigment ink prints (they end up looking like they were printed on a Brovira surface, despite being in color.) B+W Cone prints with optimizer on gloss don't need it of course. But ClearShield also looks good with matte piezography prints, too.

 

Not to sound selfish or morbid, but I've often wondered what might happen if he left the planet. Getting tied up in piezography means one is dependent on Cone. MIS has carbon inksets (at least they used to) but what are other alternatives?

[Jeff S]

Up until now, I've used a 3800 with Epson inks. But after working with a friend who uses the Cone system, I'm moving into Piezography. I plan to do this by dedicating the 3800 to his b/w and buying a 4900 for more general use with Epson inks. That way I still have a pretty nice set-up even if Cone stops supporting their products (sounds less morbid that way). I was planning to get the 4900 anyway.

 

Keep in mind, though, that one can run both Epson inks and Cone color inks (some of one, some of the other) in the same printer without problem, or migrate back to all Epson inks regardless of the inkset used. So the commitment isn't permanent.

 

And a nice benefit while it lasts is the significant cost savings on their inks (and environmental benefits with refillable cartridges), for both b/w and color, compared to comparable Epson inks.

 

Jeff

[AlanG]

Sorry for your loss.

.

 

Sorry for you being stuck in the past.

 

Years ago when I was learning dye transfer printing, my instructor, Robert Bagby lamented that carbro printing was no longer available. He thought that dye transfers sucked in comparison.

 

When I convert a digital file to tif using DXO, besides having lots of color controls, I can recover shadow detail, add "fill light," I can alter that fill light in terms of contrast - globally and locally, I can also control the radius of the shadows, gamma, the overall contrast, the microcontrast, black and white points, grain, sharpness, and on and on. And this is before working on local areas via masking or dodging and burning in and the other stuff one can do with Photoshop, etc.

 

If you have a color transparency and want to make an Ilfochrome print, how much control do you have over the way the image will look? Do you have any idea how tedious it is just to make a simple contrast mask that preserves the black density? Try doing that on a 35mm slide. (What about issues with dust spots and loss of detail too.) I felt I was a master of dodging and burning in on Ciba and Type R and generally felt I was pushing my limits and often not achieving what I wanted. And if you print from an original negative or interneg, you have similar limits of control. I did not have a fraction of the range or the precision of control I have today. Later when I started scanning my transparencies and negs I got a lot more control over how I could make them look.

 

So that is why my inkjet prints look much better than my analog prints... even from images that are not "perfect" or were shot under conditions that required compromises. (Film or digital originals.) I don't care if my pints are made up of very tiny blended ink dots or even smaller silver grain dots or splotches from dye couplers. That is philosophy not photography. I am not talking about something as wonky as the surface characteristics of the print or if some master b/w printer somewhere might be able to make a smoother tonal transition somehow or get a different "look" whatever that may be. I am not trying to compete with Ansel Adams and I can get lots of different "looks" anytime I want.

 

It has been about 50 years since I made my first b/w print and I think my printing skills are still improving. But it has little to do with the process and mostly has to do with how I convert and adjust an image before sending it to the printer.

[Jeff S]

It has been about 50 years since I made my first b/w print and I think my printing skills are still improving. But it has little to do with the process and mostly has to do with how I convert and adjust an image before sending it to the printer.

 

I haven't been printing for quite that long, but still a long time, and while I agree with many of your points, I find that changes in papers, inks and ink/printer applications (e.g., using a gloss optimizer), can have significant benefits in the look and feel of a print. These aspects occur after the edits you describe, that I agree are also critical.

 

Just as in my darkroom days, the tone and texture of various papers was of great interest, as was all the work leading to that point. I also don't care to emulate Adams, but I find that each picture requires individual attention and tweaking throughout the print chain, up to and including the parts following the editing process. And this even includes matting, framing and lighting/display decisions, which can help or ruin a print feel. Some prints just glow, and that doesn't happen, for me, solely based on all the (critical) stuff that occurs before hitting the print button. YMMV.

 

Jeff

[mono]

Why do I shoot film?

 

Because I love to!

[smb]

I have not found a digital camera that I like and the new M is unavailable.

[AlanG]

.., I find that changes in papers, inks and ink/printer applications (e.g., using a gloss optimizer), can have significant benefits in the look and feel of a print.

 

Yes but what I was getting at is those aspects of the process have been mature enough for a while that I don't worry about them needing improvement anymore. As I said, I can already get enough "looks" from the existing process I use to satisfy me. I think there were a couple of contrast choices in C print papers, none in Ciba or type R. How many contrast grades of your favorite b/w papers were there compared with digital contrast control? I have a lot more choices in papers than I had when using traditional methods - especially for color printing. Back in the 60s and 70s there was a huge selection of b/w papers. Not now.

 

BTW, I'm not trying to convert anyone... just responding to Pico on what I feel works well for me. If you have the means to set up and run a traditional darkroom, that is fine with me.

[smb]

There is no disagreement with the maturity of the process. It does not require me to have my photography tied to a computer, which is extremely important. I do not alter my photographs with anything more than cropping or contrast. My first digital camera did not provide me with the results that were equal to a film camera. The Leica M8 and subsequent M9 did not, in my opinion, produce images greater than a film M6. I do look forward to the new M as an interest in technology.

[Jeff S]

Back in the 60s and 70s there was a huge selection of b/w papers. Not now.

 

Maybe you haven't looked in a while; there are some wonderful, relatively recent, additions. This a great time for b/w papers...once again. Many can also be used for color work, and that even adds to the possibilities.

 

Jeff

[Jeff S]

If you have the means to set up and run a traditional darkroom, that is fine with me.

 

Been there, done that, 4 times over 35 years. My comments here are strictly regarding digital prints; the darkroom reference was only to suggest that not much has changed regarding my philosophy on the overall workflow from camera to framed and displayed print, including the importance (and choices) of papers. YMMV.

 

Jeff

[AlanG]

Maybe you haven't looked in a while; there are some wonderful, relatively recent, additions. This a great time for b/w papers...once again. Many can also be used for color work, and that even adds to the possibilities.

 

Jeff

 

I can't say I have a clue what is available in b/w papers today. But back in the early 70s the RIT bookstore had several aisles of b/w paper from Dupont, Kodak, Agfa. Ilford, and others in all kinds of surfaces, sizes, contrasts and surface tone characteristics. People came from all over to shop there.

 

Kodak does not make any b/w photo paper today. Back in the 50s Kodak alone made these papers in a variety of surfaces and contrasts and of course they made others as time went by:

 

Azo, AD-Type, Illustrator's Azo, Aristo, Atena, Velox, Resisto, Studio Proof, Portrait Proof, Opal, Ektalure, Opalure print Film, Illustrator's Special, Medalist, Mural, Kodabromide, Velox, Velox Unicontrast, Translite, Super Speed Direct positive, and various Industrial and Scientific papers.

 

Check out what is available here:

 

http://www.shadesofpaper.com/ There are 20 sold by Canon. Epson has 42. Many other materials are possible, including printing on metal, canvas, and plastic.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Jeff S]

Oh my...I think I'll give up after this brief comment, since we're talking past each other.

 

Kodak may not produce 'digital' papers today, but that's increasingly offset by the likes of Epson, Canson, Ilford, Hahnemuhle, and loads of others, each of which produce lots of b/w digital options. More and better ones all the time, too.

 

I've used shades of paper, and several other suppliers I like as well or better, so I'm quite well versed in the product options. And, as I've said more than once already, I lived through most of the same film era as you, with a good sense of the variety. Less than 10 years ago, I would have agreed with you, not just about the quantity, but about the quality, of comparative digital options; but that gap is increasingly closing.

 

Jeff