micah_marty1 Posted July 9, 2001 Share Posted July 9, 2001 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> <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>< Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oren_grad Posted July 9, 2001 Share Posted July 9, 2001 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_hicks Posted July 10, 2001 Share Posted July 10, 2001 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
micah_marty1 Posted July 10, 2001 Author Share Posted July 10, 2001 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> <><><><><><><>< Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pat_krentz Posted July 10, 2001 Share Posted July 10, 2001 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pat_krentz Posted July 10, 2001 Share Posted July 10, 2001 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete_andrews Posted July 10, 2001 Share Posted July 10, 2001 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike_kravit6 Posted July 10, 2001 Share Posted July 10, 2001 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
micah_marty1 Posted July 10, 2001 Author Share Posted July 10, 2001 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> <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_squires Posted July 10, 2001 Share Posted July 10, 2001 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_jordan3 Posted July 10, 2001 Share Posted July 10, 2001 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tim_atherton7 Posted July 10, 2001 Share Posted July 10, 2001 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
micah_marty1 Posted July 10, 2001 Author Share Posted July 10, 2001 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> <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan_smith Posted July 10, 2001 Share Posted July 10, 2001 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richard_a._johnson Posted July 10, 2001 Share Posted July 10, 2001 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_goldfarb Posted July 10, 2001 Share Posted July 10, 2001 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael_chmilar Posted July 10, 2001 Share Posted July 10, 2001 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.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_patti1 Posted July 10, 2001 Share Posted July 10, 2001 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_f._stein Posted July 10, 2001 Share Posted July 10, 2001 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
micah_marty1 Posted July 10, 2001 Author Share Posted July 10, 2001 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> <><><><><><><><><><><><><><> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
todd_tiffan Posted July 10, 2001 Share Posted July 10, 2001 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark_lindsey Posted July 10, 2001 Share Posted July 10, 2001 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_goldfarb Posted July 10, 2001 Share Posted July 10, 2001 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_goldfarb Posted July 10, 2001 Share Posted July 10, 2001 Correction: That's _The Print_, not _The Negative_. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul roark Posted July 10, 2001 Share Posted July 10, 2001 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> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now