Gallery Digital Prints?

Though I strickly shoot 4X5 and some medium format negative film for

my gallery images, often ponder if and how soon digital archival

prints will be accepted on the level of continuous tone images. My

studio friends obviously are in a different situation, at least in

dealing with the change over sooner. Will galleries always separate

the two? How much can I depend upon my love of film. Sometimes love

only cannot pay the rent, but certainly willing to sacrifice the pain

of being late. Any comments or sources o

I am not sure I understand the question. Do you mean prints

from digital files, or prints made using a digital process ?

While the "analog" folks say their prints are "hand made", in

the end, it's the result which matters. In color, I see a lot

of digital prints in art galleries. B&W is another matter.

Q- Do me a favor and can the "analog folks" crap. That's flame bait

and you know it. Those of us who prefer to do handwork DO take a sense

of satisfaction and pride that we don't need computer manipulation to

make a photograph, and it does show that you are willing to grow in

your work using "hard" methods first. On the other hand, there are

many people who put in a lot of time in electronic manipulation, and

are quite skilled and artistic. So, yes, the result is what matters.

That does not mean, however, that there is no difference between the

working styles - each brings up different issues of philosophy,

dedication and aesthetics for those who work in them. I'll give you

two reasons to ponder why us "analog" folks get pissy.

1. That kind of phrase is rude and obnoxious, and is usually deployed

to mean: "Those old fuddy-duddies, who can't 'get with' the times,

whose work doesn't matter, and who are UNCOOL." Basically, you're

saying that those of us who prefer not to use digital techniques are

invalid, and we have NO justifiable reasons for our choices.

2. A person who goes into Photoshop, adjusts contrast, boosts

saturation, removes teleophone lines as a matter of course, etc.,. .

.has NOT proved a dedication to meticulous craftsmanship that the "old

school, get it in the negative" photographer has. I'm not saying it's

wrong to use digital, but I do resent putting someone like this on par

with a photographer who a) thinks out his composition and film/light

choices before hand b) works with a process that doesn't lend itself

to easy corrections via the "history/delete" tool. The infinite room

to screw up and start over again that computers offer the photographer

is NOT, despite the popular outcry, some great boon to the learning

process. They teach laziness. I'm not saying don't use them, but don't

tout digital as a great learning tool, when what is really does is

tell the student "It's ok, you don't have to think your work out, you

can just 'fix' it later in Photoshop." That just teaches laziness and

a too casual attitude for my tastes. The best working photographic

artists learn their craft by making the most out of the confines of

whatever medium they choose, moving up to "easier" working methods,

like the computer, once they are truly skilled. See what I mean?

there are no archival digital printing processes that i am aware of

for color work - the best available seems to be the crystal archive

paper by fuji, and it is stable for about 60 years according to what

i have read (though some testers are claiming up to 150 years). if

your goal is to produce archival-quality work (500+ years), you still

must work in the essentially classical mode of b/w, with fiber-based

paper and archival processing techniques. if all you want is very

high quality prints of your color work, digital printing is certainly

capable of that. i no longer use conventional color printing

techniques at all - all of my LF CT work is scanned and printed at a

local digital imaging house. the prints i get from this method are

visually superior to the hand-made color prints from the same CTs,

and it takes extremely close examination with a loupe to tell the

difference between which image comprises grain structure and which

comprises pixels.

<p>

if you are talking about replacing your film-based camera with a

digital camera to make your images, i would say you are jumping the

gun by about 2-3 years. the mega-pixel cameras of today (~3mb file

size) render pretty good images up to around 8x10 size, but start

losing the contest with film at larger print sizes. however,

technology is rapidly improving, and within 3 years, you will see

digital cameras that can generate 150-200mb files that should be able

to render visually satisfying prints up to about 16x20. archival

storage of digital image files is not yet a possibility (that i know

of), and i dont know how they will solve that problem. i imagine,

though, that the gold CD-type discs that NASA creates to send on

interstellar spacecraft are pretty darn stable...

The eventual outcome will be the same as when someone "paints" a

painting on the computer, then tries to pawn it off as original art

work. It might work at the swap meet, but a gallery will have a

different view of it. This is especially true when other people

actually bring in work that is created by hand. The computer is the

east way out, the "fake" way of creating anything. If you want to

make yourself look like you are playing with art instead of being

serious, just stick with the computer.

I welcome the computer era. I've seen what digitally made negs can do.

Beautiful work. I've seen J.P. Caponigro's digital work. Superb. I use

to fight the digital/silver wars. Not any more. The two are very

compatible and complimentary. Both bring different uses and outcomes

to the photographic table. When I cruise through the Galleries in LA

and Carmel, I am amazed at what photographers are doing with digital.

From creating works wholly by computer and a marriage of the two. But

I am most taken by both digital negatives and digitally enlarged

negatives, and how much the medium offers. I don't "want" that damned

power line in the image. And no, spotting is not the answer. I "want"

a black sky in the image, not a grey sky. If I can make a better

image by digital manipulation then I will use that strategy. What rule

or law says I have to do these things the "traditional" way. None. And

none of us are the arbiters of this struggle. The pictorialists were

struggling the same way when AA and Cunnigham and company came along

with f64 and their sharpness counts in technique and ideas. Many times

it takes more creativity and pure manhours to make a digital creation.

Or to manipulate the elements within an image. So when I hear the

fight song of the purists, I turn my back. It is a stupid fight. If an

image is good, that in itself is the reward to both the maker and

spectator. James

Galen Rowell prints all his work from digital files. They surely

are gallery quality prints. Some of them are giclee prints, some

onto the Fuji Crystal Archive, and some on Fujix, but all are

printed from a digital file. Some of the previous posters express

contempt for this idea.

<p>

There's nothing wrong with scanning film to digital and then

making a print. What's wrong is modifying it in a way that's not

true to the original piece of film, and then failing to include that

information. Any process that faithfully reproduces what's on film

is legitimate.

<p>

In the comparisons I saw of conventional high quality wet print

against a LightJet Fuji Crystal Archive print (from a digital file),

the digital print was superior in every way and was more faithful

to the original. There was just no comparison.

<p>

I have a 30 X 40 print from Galen in my office, and it holds up

extremely well in that size--something near-impossible from a

conventional print at that size.

<p>

I think the people who complain about new technologies that can

do things better would prefer to buy CD ROMs that have tape

hiss on them.

In all due respect to Josh Slocum (are you still single handing?)

Digital manipulation, which I still have to learn, is still lab work,

only in a computer, not wet. It still takes skill to do it and you

will not get a good product from crap images. THe skill needed to

make a photo is still needed. We will, almost all, make the jump to

digital in some form. Why whine about it. Just use it. It is still

just a tool. WE use tools, or as I prefer instruments, to produce our

work. How we get there has been constantly changing, otherwise we

would still be carting our photo equipment in wagons and using flash

powder. Each step in technology has been accompanied with complaints

about it not being good,or fast, or causing those who use it not to

learn quality. Not so, the good ones learn, the bad may have it

easier, but they willnot succeed, so why worry.

Steve:

Read my post again, then recritique. If you'll notice, I talked about

working conditions and learning situations more than I did about how

"essentially" bad digital may or may not be. Is that not clear? If you

don't like the fact that I point out some of the differences of

digital as it relates to a photographer's development, I'm sorry.

Please, however, respond to something I actually said, rather than

telling me "not to whine." That's the answer people give when they

mean "give into it because it's popular; don't have your own opinion."

No thanks, Mr. Bein.

Regarding Josh Slocum's replies, I find that dried fruit or prune

juice usually loosens me up real well.

I'm really surprised that, because my opinion represents a minority

viewpoint, that you all feel the need to resort to personal attacks.

Thanks, very much.

Josh,

<p>

If my post offended you, I apologize. I went back and reread your

post and I believe I misunderstood what you were saying. I agree

with you that fine work starts at the camera.

<p>

Lloyd