Piezography: Ansel Adams and the inkjet print

No, this isn't a thread about "WWAD" (What would Ansel do). I'm well

aware that St. Ansel embraced new technologies, sought maximum control

over prints, etc. etc. So let's not make this a

would-he-or-wouldn't-he discussion; it's safe to say he'd at least

experiment.

<p>

Instead, my query is about piezography, the quadtone ink-and-software

kit for b&w printing on Epson printers (www.piezography.com). Quoting

from George DeWolfe�s review in the new issue of View Camera, "I've

been a black-and-white printer for over 35 years. I studied with Ansel

Adams and Minor White, and I know what a beautiful print is. . . .

Piezography has changed the way I work, and it has changed the way I

see. It has allowed me to expand my vision into subtle tonalities I

didn�t know existed. . . . If Ansel were alive, he'd be into

[Piezography] big time. Big time."

<p>

Strong words. More praises from DeWolfe: "Piezography . . . has,

overnight, changed the history of photography. It is the answer to

traditional photography's toxic chemical heritage and is

environmentally safe and sustainable. The print is as aesthetically

beautiful as silver, and as archival. . . . Piezography with the

[Epson] 7000 pushes us beyond what we have known as the best in

black-and-white photography." (Read the full review on p. 58-59 of the

July/August issue of View Camera.)

<p>

"Changed the history of photography overnight"! Is Piezo really that

good? I�m curious to hear whether any frequenters of this forum are

using/have tried Piezography (perchance even with the Epson 7000?)

and/or have at least studied large Piezographic prints up close, in

person (i.e., not on the company's website). Thoughts, comments?

<p>

<><><><><><><><><><>

<><><><><><><><><><>

<><><

Some months back I obtained a small piezography sample print from Jon

Cone. The effect is quite intriguing, and I can imagine that at some

point in the reasonably near future the process will be refined to a

point where I may want to investigate further.

<p>

IMO it's a different medium which shows promise of being beautiful in

its own way, and as such is worth paying attention to. But it's no

*substitute* for a good silver-gelatin contact print - not even

close. It's just a completely different effect.

First of all, note that I know nothing about piezography.

<p>

However...the properly-processed silver print, platinum/palladium prints etc have a good track record for longevity, while so far as I know piezography has no track record, just claims.

<p>

Photography has been full of claims of archival stability that have proven to be untrue; E-3, E-4 and C-22 come to mind offhand. Much color photography of an entire generation has faded away. Epson recently continued that tradition when their "archival" print material quickly turned green.

<p>

Something to consider.

Fwiw, I see that George DeWolfe's apparently-similar article for

Camera Arts (sister magazine to ViewCamera) is downloadable as a PDF

file from Piezo's website,

http://www.piezography.com/exhibition-printing.html

<p>

<><><><><><><><

The only fair comparison is side by side prints of the same subject

and have photographers compare them without knowing which is which

and see what is chosen. Claims are not proof. Pat

Just finished looking at the prints, they both are stark contrast

without subtle tones of any kind, at least on my monitor, which is

what I am saying, the only fair comparison is side by side. The

companys website photo's would never convince me to try it. Pat

I dunno. I've been printing for 35 years too, and the inkjet B&W that

I've seen so far, and produced myself, impresses me about as much as a

badly done bromoil smudge.<br>Having said that, I haven't tried

quadtone inks, because they just don't seem to be readily available on

this side of the pond.<br>I'm willing to be convinced that they are

capable of good results, in the same way that bi-tone halftone

printing is miles better than a standard B&W halftone reproduction -

and yet..... it's still not quite a silver print is it?

Recently I too a Piezography print made on the Epson 7000 to Tomas

Lopez at the University of MIami. Tom I believe is the Chair of the

Fine Art department although it may be Art History Department.

<p>

Tom looked at the print almost had a heart attack. He stated that it

was incredible. He had never seen such a tonal range aside from

platinum.

<p>

The process has promise, but as with any medium I have seen

unbelieveably awful silver prints and as such I am sure there are

awful platinum and Piezography prints.

<p>

I have seen George DeWolff's prints in person. They are truly lovely.

But so are John Sexton's silver prints.

<p>

Another medium, with it's own set of issues, both positive and

negative.

<p>

Mike

Hi, it's me, Micah, the initial poster again. With all due respect to

the above posters who want to speculate about Piezograph prints

without having seen them, allow me to note that I specifically asked

to hear from frequenters of this forum who have studied Piezograph

prints *in person* ("not on the company's website," I said, computer

screens being completely worthless for conveying print quality).

Frankly, the only in-person experience posted here so far (the "heart

attack" one) sounds like a pretty good endorsement. Anyone else with

"in person" experience?

<p>

The archivality issue raised by John Hicks is a consideration, but I

don't know if it would be a deciding factor for a lot of

photographers, especially if Wilhelm Research or the like say that

Piezos are likely to last as long as toned b&w silver prints. Then

too, I suppose it's a different thread but the importance of

archivality to collectors/buyers in an era where pressing the "Send to

Printer" button produces an identical print could make an interesting

discussion topic. For example, I'm guessing that Piezo prints are at

least as archival as color LightJet prints or Ciba/Ilfochromes, even

though the latter substrates were employed in most of the

photographs that have set price records (six-figures) in the

contemporary photography market (Gursky, Sherman, Tillmans, etc.).

<p>

Perhaps what I'm getting at (albeit very indirectly!) is the

difference between buyers' priorities and sellers (photographers')

wishes. Once the archivality is likely to exceed the buyer's lifespan,

is the buyer more concerned about the appearance of *the image* or

whether the photograph is likely to start fading in 150 years instead

of 200 years? Hmmmm.

<p>

I struggle with these creator vs. buyer issues all the time, because I

know that what's important to me as a photographer isn't necessarily

important to my audience. It was tremendously liberating for me, for

example, when I asked Howard Bond last spring why he retired his 11x14

camera and he said, "Because neither I nor anyone I showed them to

could tell the difference between my 11x14 contact prints and my 11x14

enlargements from 8x10 negatives." (Granted, I still shoot some 11x14,

but with a different perspective than before.) I know some will

respond to this viewer-centric perspective with "Audience,

shmaudience, I shoot only to please myself," but there are at least as

many others here who are photographing for various viewers and

audiences, whether they be buyers, collectors, gallery hoppers, book

buyers, or magazine subscribers. It was to the latter group (i.e.,

those with an audience or constituency outside their own heads),

especially those who work in black-and-white, to whom I suppose I was

addressing this thread.

<p>

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

I have been printing PiezographyBW on an Epson 1160 for about a

year. I do not do have a darkroom and have never done my own B&W

printing. I just do not have the space or time. Having a lab print a

real quality B&W print for me has always been a problem. I did a

workshop 2 years ago with George DeWolfe and he had several Piezo

prints to show everyone. They were beautiful. That is when I decided

to try it. I must say that the Piezo prints are very beautiful. I

have compared Lab prints with my Piezo prints of the same subject and

the Piezo prints are much better in my opinion. I do know that

someone that is good in the darkroom can make a print as good or

better than a Piezo. For me the technology is wonderfull. It does not

take up much space. It is faster and for me very rewarding. As far as

print life goes only time will tell.

I have also been printing color on the Epson 2000P. I do believe

that this technolgy will go beyond any darkroom printing. When done

properly prints are as good as any color printing method there is.

Done properly there is no GREEN print and the prints are beautiful. I

do believe that print life will be longer than any other method out

there.

Inkjet printing will be a new and intersting way to try printing.

It will never replace traditional printing. It is kind of like buying

a new kind of camera and learning how to use it. It's fun!

Scott Squires

www.scottsquires.com

hi guys. i've seen, and made, many quadtone prints. on the

positive side, their tonal range is amazing-- right up there with the

best platinum printing, especially the smoothness of the midtones and

quartertones. i've had a lot of difficulty getting rich, silky blacks

with the quadtone process though-- they blacks tend to block up badly

from about zone 7.5 on down.

<p>

but, with that said, there is another, really fundamental problem that

i see with push-button printing. while the IMAGE can be really

beautiful on an epson print, the actual PRINT itself can never hold

its own as a work of art, because it is made by a machine with no

human effort. yes, yes, i know, the photoshop work took massive human

effort, and photoshop is a craft that requires just as much skill as

darkroom printing. but what that means is that the photoshopped image

might be a work of art, but the PRINT you make on an epson printer is

still nothing more than a fifty-cent machine reproduction that has no

more value than a postcard.

<p>

and, yes, you can sign them and number them and include a

"certificate of authenticity" and do all kinds of other tricks to make

it LOOK like they are works of art, but fundamentally a machine-made

print lacks any intrinsic value as a work of art.

<p>

one reason that ansel's prints are so valuable is that he made them

all himself, by hand. there might be a killer beautiful print of

Moonrise Hernandez out there, made by someone else (for example,

George DeWolf might have gotten ahold of the neg and made a print just

as good as any of Ansel's), and if that print did exist, it would not

be worth anything. nor would an epson print of Moonrise that was

scanned flawlessly from an ansel original. the reason is that ansel's

prints are handmade-- in other words, they are works of art. epson

prints will never reach that level, however perfect and beautiful the

images are.

<p>

just my $.02...

<p>

~chris jordan

<p>

www.chrisjordanphoto.com

Wow - you mean Ansel didn't use an enlarger..? How did he do that

then. Did he generate his own light, god that he is?

<p>

And does it matter who did the printing? or does it have to be the

photographer himself?

<p>

Or does it only become art if the manipulation is done in the 1-2

minutes the print is being made? Using what 50c or $1 worth of paper,

a few more pennies worth of chemicals and a about 5c worth of

electricity... gee that's an awful lot of technology there too.

<p>

Just as much human skill goes into making a great digital print (and

I have seen some) as into a silver or platinum print. It's just that

there are very few people out there with that level of skill.

<p>

Tim A

If a handmade print of the "Moonrise" negative laboriously printed by

George DeWolfe (or, more likely, John Sexton) is indistinguishable

from a handmade print by Ansel, why is the former "worthless" and the

latter extremely valuable? Probably because you're actually paying for

the artist's name (and time) rather than the quality of the physical

object (quality which is, to repeat, identical between the two options

given). But that brings us precisely to why people like Andreas Gursky

can sell computer-printed photographs for $150,000-plus (far higher

than Moonrises go for) even when they didn't do ANY of the work

involved in creating the print: because buyers care more about the

name of the creator (and the conception of the image) than about the

actual quality of the object (cf. "vintage prints"--I don't know any

photographers who think their prints were better 10 or 20 years

earlier, yet any famous photographer's older prints almost invariably

sell for more than recent ones do).

<p>

I'm playing devil's advocate here--as a b&w darkroom veteran I like to

think all that toil is worth SOMETHING--but I'm also asking

whether perhaps some of the old categories no longer apply in an era

when even experts with a microscope cannot tell the difference between

various prints of an artist's work. I think a lot of us in this forum

think (or at least hope) there will always be a discerning public

willing to pay a bit more for handmade darkroom silver prints. I just

wonder if developments like Piezography (i.e., developments which make

possible prints approaching the appearance of silver and platinum

prints) are more likely to increase the size of that connoisseur

public or drastically reduce it.

<p>

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

While I believe the final print is what most of us are after and

judge photographers by, getting there is half the fun. That is why we

are using LF gear in the first place.

The digital prints can be stunning and are only getting better. They

still have a way to go to match the life expectancy of Platinum and

Carbon though. As for judging them on a computer screen... a waste of

time. No matter how good your printing is on the computer screen it

is at the mercy of the equipment. Your exquisite print looks like

crap on a cheap and uncalibrated screen. You can't really judge them

this way, you have to see the prints one on one.

<p>

If it works for you then use it. I have yet to see a digital print

that matches an excellent contact print. Some of us use larger

formats not only for the contact prints but because the equipment,

with all its 'limitations', just fits how we work & see the world.

The satisfaction in the whole process is embodied in our final

prints. This can be had with a digital setup as well but I think the

mindset is a bit different as you work through the computer.

<p>

Many in the future will combine both traditional, alternative and new

processes to get their minds image on film and on the walls of the

exhibit halls. For me it all comes down to one thing... does the

print work?

Micah - Very interesting post.

I attended the Calumet Master classes workshop Three weeks ago for the

Dan Burkholder Enlarged Digital Negs. workshop. George Dewolfs Images

were hanging on the wall of the gallery with examples from other

Master Photographers past and present.( Adams, Westons, Strand )you

name them, their images were there for us to see. George Dewolf was

running his workshop the following week.

Micah THE IMAGES WERE O-U-T S-T-A-N-D-I-N-G. I took every opportunity

to look at his work up close and personal ( and I do Mean close ) each

day of the workshop I had never seen anything like them before. I have

been a black & White printer for 32 years,I've seen a lot of good and

bad work these were very very impressive.

Also a fellow classmate from England who was taking Dewolfs workshop

the following week showed me some of his work also, ( IN INK ) we

traded images.

It has change my hole out look about the printing process. I have been

tring to made prints on my epson 1280, I am waiting for Cone to make

solfware and inks for my printer in black & white, and when that

happens I'll give you one hint as to what I'm going to do. It's the

IMAGE that counts not whether It's silver or Ink. In respones to the

ink or silver question of your post Ink has been around alot longer

than silver-THINK ABOUT THAT folks.

At one of the recent Atget exhibits in New York I saw an Iris print

hanging among Atget's original albumen prints and a few modern prints

from the Chicago Albumen Works. The Iris print was a great print,

but it didn't look like an albumen print--more like a really nice gum

bichromate print. I think the difference came from the effect of

spraying ink on paper, as opposed to emulsion floated on a surface.

The ink just had different reflective properties and produced a

different kind of line.

<p>

Inkjet processes might be very good processes and could even have

excellent archival properties, but I don't see one process replacing

another, just as silver is not a replacement for platinum, gum

bichromate, Vandyke, or cyanotype. I would suspect that most of us

would not see one type of BW paper as a reasonable substitute for

another type of BW paper, let alone a particular inkjet process for

all traditional processes. They each have their own look.

Readers who live on the left coast should think about attending the

"West Coast Piezography Summit 2001" at West Coast Imaging in

Oakhurst, CA, on August 4. Look at www.westcoastimaging.com for

details.

<p>

I have been using Piezography on an Epson 1160 for a couple of months.

I can easily make superior prints to my "wet" darkroom work (but I

don't claim to have any great skill at "wet" work).

<p>

I look forward to seeing some "master" Piezography prints.

<p>

My next project, to create "high value" prints of great "artistic"

merit, is to produce prints using only fluids and materials from my

own body. No mere $.05 worth of ink, $1.00 of chemicals, or $.25 of

paper. These prints will be worth $MILLIONS! (Of course, they will be

banned from display in New York, but that can only add to the value.)

The idea of digital B&W printing is intriguing, but even if potential

image quality and permanence of Piezography prints has matched silver,

there are still a lot of issues for someone, like myself, who has no

experience with digital photography.

<p>

For example, what capital outlay is required to get started? I'm not

sure what equipment is needed, but presumably (1) a scanner (I know

that I can have scans made, but the cost is really high); (2) a

computer capable of handling the image editing (I have a PC, of

course, but I don't know whether it has the required processing speed

and memory), (3) Photoshop (costs as much or more than a good used

enlarger); (4) a printer that can be dedicated to B&W printing; (5)

the Piezography kit. My impression is that the initial investment

here could go into the many thousands of dollars. In contrast, my

initial investment to set up a wet darkroom was under $1000.

<p>

Then there is the question of obsolescence. When I bought my

enlarger, I figured that it was an investment in a piece of

equipment that would last for many years, maybe decades. My

impression is that digitally-based photographers replace expensive

equipment and software virtually constantly. Given the rapid

improvement of digital hardware and software, there is also always the

conundrum of whether to buy now or wait for the improvements that are

bound to come in six months (probably at lower cost). Looking at the

list above, this might be particularly applicable to the decision to

purchase a film scanner--I gather that affordable scanners (especially

for larger film formats) are currently the weak link in the home

digital imaging chain. But that means that if I took the "digital

plunge" now, I would have to spend $80 or so per scan while waiting

for affordable, high-quality scanners to come on market.

<p>

Finally (unless there are other problems I haven't thought of), there

is the issue of the learning curve. It's hard to know what is really

involved because all the information I have found on Piezography seems

to assume a working knowledge of digital imaging. But it looks like I

need to learn how to do scans, Photoshop, basic inkjet printing, and

the particulars of Piezography.

<p>

It's all a bit daunting. I would really like to try digital printing,

but it looks like the startup costs (in terms of both dollars and

time) are prohibitive. I'd love to hear from anyone who has taken

this on that it is simpler, easier, and cheaper than it appears.

Chris Jordan, you have a great argument. We are in the early stages

of inkjet printing, where the printer is being used as a printing

press. Why don't we take our "best" andhave it printed as a quality

laser-scanned offset lithograph. Everyone is feeling their way

through this and, yes, I don't think pushing a button 50 times to get

50 prints is the best use of a desktop printer. Still, each "print"

has a smuch validity to me as what we do in the darkroom.

<p>

The conventional photograph, no matter how glorious it can be, is also

just a photo-mechanical reproduction. A series of the same image is

no more real because we struggled to get each one the best we

could-and many are trying to replicate images here for "series."

(Including at times I imagine bulk processing prints.) The best

marriage of digital and traditional I know of is the LensWork

Quarterly Special Editions-a scanned master print that is then contact

printed on fiber base paper, selenium toned, etc. To me, 10 of those

have no less value than 10 prints done "all handmade" under the

enlarger. I know this is counter to what photography has been

fighting for all these many years, but it is the way I see it. A

single painting is different from 10 drypoints that were indiviudally

inked and pulled is MUCH different from printing the same negative

over and over-only stopping for a series.

<p>

If we wish to replicate a photograph with inkjet printing that is fine

and most of my work is stuck there. Instead, think in terms of ink on

paper and explore it for what it can create. Then, we'll stop arguing

about photograph vs. inkjet. Note: I just received some 11x14

photographs from a friend that blew me away in quality. I can't equal

them on my injet printer bu

Chris Patti raises some great points about cost and obsolescence. I

know I could only justify the expense of Piezo if I were selling

prints, and even then I would let a service bureau absorb the capital

costs, not me ($100K+ for the drum scanner, $4K for the Epson 7000,

$2500 for the Piezo kit, plus paper, ink, RAM, etc.). Otherwise, as

Chris P. suggests, it could be a bottomless pit--you buy the

top-of-the-line printer and a few months later there's one that's

twice as fast, with higher resolution, etc. Yes, the cost per print

might be higher if I pay a service bureau to make the prints than if I

owned the equipment, but then too they can amortize the capital costs

over a larger pool of clients than I can (and I suspect my personal

"cost per print" calculations might not fully account for hidden costs

like saving up for the next printer I'd have to buy).

<p>

For proofing, file, and pre-press needs I'm plenty happy with contact

prints and my enlarger; low tech, low investment. But if I were

selling prints in any quantity and didn't want to spend a lot of time

fussing over them (in the darkroom or on the computer) AND didn't want

to invest my life savings in soon-to-be-obsolete digital gear, I'd pay

a service bureau (like westcoastimaging.com) to both scan my negs and

print them.

<p>

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

To all - I saw and was wondering the same thing as West Coast Imaging

offers these prints. One factor that makes be balk is the price,

equal or more than what the best custom printers will charge for

traditional (from my limited experience anyway). Also there appears

to be a maximum size on these prints, maybe 20 some inches on one

dimention.

<p>

However ... one advantage of this process, and for all the digital

stuff, is that the dust isn't an issue. It's exceedingly difficult,

short of having a micro chip clean room set up, to get dust free

negatives, and the dust ALWAYS migrates to the place to where it can

do the most damage. I've had no experience with print spotting, but

suspect it is a last ditch, less than perfect, effort to save a print.

<p>

So I'm thinking these P. prints maybe worth checking out for my negs

that are flawed with dust.

<p>

And has anyone tried B&W printed onto fuji crystal archive via a

light jet printer? Would this be a viable option for the right image?

<p>

Regards,

<p>

T

my main problem with this concept ( and i use computers for

advertising work extensively) is the sad loss of the evolution of the

printing process. I went to the chicago museum of art and held a

moonrise printed in the 80's in one hand and a moonrise printed in the

40's or 50's in the other---what an educational experience. all this

will be lost, not only for the viewer but also for the photographer

who never advances the quality of a particular image past the initial

printing or the pressing of a button. how sad

Spotting isn't that hard, and when done well, it isn't easy to detect.

<p>

Even St. Ansel wrote of spotting as a normal procedure--just part of

putting the last touches on a print.

<p>

Speaking of St. Ansel, he does write with considerable enthusiasm in

_The Negative_ about the possibility of enhancing highlight and shadow

detail using the digital drum scanning technique employed at that time

for printing his later books, and he also is quite positive about

duotone lithography, at least as a method of mass production. One

thing he mentions, which might be of value to inkjet users is the

importance of matching the reflectivity of the ink to the reflectivity

of the paper.

I've been a silver printer for years and have recently gotten into

quadtone printing. I started with PiezographyBW on an Epson 1160 and

was astounded with the image quality and potential of the

technology.

<p>

After a few months of being impressed, however, I started seeing some

of the defects of the technology and set off on my own to see what I

could do to get a product that was more to my liking. I've started

modifying the inksets, writing and distributing Photoshop adjustment

curves to control the inks, fade testing the products, and working on

the color issues, not to mention the cost issues.

<p>

Here are some of the pros and cons I see, and some of my observations

of quadtone printing:

<p>

On the plus side, the most obvious advantage is the ease with which a

print can be made. This, of course, is also a weakness in that it

may cheapen the prints.

<p>

One reason I find the image quality so nice is that the technology

allows shoulder-less and toe-less prints. You can get a brilliance

that you'd need to use bleaching to achieve in a silver print.

<p>

The computer technology, of course, allows fantastic control over the

image. Even though I prefer "straight" landscape shots, even the

traditional burning and dodging can be done with a precision that was

impossible with analog printing. The pros and cons of the computer,

of course, is a topic that would result in an endless thread.

Suffice it to say here that of the many ways of achieving a digital

B&W output that I've tried, the quadtone print is the most satisfying

and affordable, and probably the highest quality.

<p>

The bottom line to the image quality issue is that I can almost

always produce a print with the inkjet printing systems that will be

preferred by viewers over the analog (darkroom) system print.

<p>

On the cost front, Piezo can be expensive, but I've found that MIS

inks can produce just as good quality with no software cost and much

cheaper ink costs. With the MIS inks, you use the Epson driver and

Photoshop controls.

<p>

One of the most common negatives heard among Piezo users is that the

color of the Piezo inks is too warm and/or green. That was my first

negative reaction, but has now been solved with the variable-tone

approach that I have published and distributed for free. (See my

website, below, for an explanation.) I first made a variable-tone

version of the Piezo inks, and now MIS is going to sell and support

a version of the variable-tone inkset that will allow us to print

either warm or cold-tone prints, or even split-tone prints -- all

with a single inkset.

<p>

The lack of strong blacks is also a common complaint. However, most

of us have found that with the right papers the blacks are fine. I

use Epson Archival Matte, which is inexpensive (see, for example,

atlex.com) and gives a look that is, especially under glass, very

compatible with my silver prints (when the cold version of the

variable-tone inks are used).

<p>

As a practical matter, even though the blacks are not as dark as the

silver print blacks, I've found that under glass and in normal

viewing circumstances the stronger reflections off the air-dried

silver prints often gives the much flatter-surfaced Archival Matte

quadtone print the advantage.

<p>

The inkjet prints are not as "archival" as a good, fiber-based silver

print. I use this term to include light-fastness, which is the real

issue. Inks fade when exposed to light and/or other substances. On

the other hand, the MIS and Piezo quads are pigment-based (as opposed

to the more common dye-based inks) and should last a very long time.

MIS pigmented inks have been tested by RIT to 50 years, and that test

was limited by the yellow of their color inkset. The black-only quad

should last much longer.

<p>

As a practical matter, fading in normal display is not the problem.

What is a problem is that the quadtone prints tend to warm up over

time. The pigments are apparently coated carbon particles, and the

warm native color of the carbon starts to show through. The good

news is that I've fade tested a method of dealing with the warming

that shows promise.

<p>

So, having gone on too long already, the bottom line is that my

darkroom is now much more of an ink mixing room than silver printing

room. Once you see how good these prints are, you might just find

you're hooked.

<p>

Paul,

http://www.PaulRoark.com

<p>