Questions regarding George DeWolfe in View Camera mag

[wilhelm]

Great -- if it were just a matter of going into the darkroom and

working until the perfect print was achieved. Instead, there's half

an hour setting up, just at the time I'm most anxious to get to work,

and half an hour cleaning up at 3AM when I'm totally wiped out and

need to get to work the next morning. Not to mention the final dry-

down which may turn out badly the next day after an all night drying

down session, requiring that the whole thing be repeated. None of

that with digital, and one can start and stop when it's most

convenient. And no problem reproducing a perfect print once you've

got it; just "push the button, Max," for as many perfect duplicates

as you want. Not another whole night in the darkroom.

[jim_galli1]

' "push the button, Max," for as many perfect duplicates as you

want. '

 

<p>

 

Why would I pay more for these than an Adams print at a poster shop?

Prettier? Maybe. 100X prettier?

 

John Q Public may be bamboozled now but how long before they catch on

that their $1200.00 original can be duplicated 1200 times in 12000

minutes? Each identical to the other. Where's the intrinsic value in

that? Whatever happened to paying your dues? Is it replaced by

monthly "pay"ments on your gig-a-dollar anybody could do it set-up?

 

<p>

 

Just some thoughts....don't get me started. J

[jim_chinn1]

Maybe 40 years from now, if I am still around, I will read an

article by a master of digital processes about how he has discovered

how a print made on paper coated with silver halide or paltinum

and "wet processed" has a depth, lustre, luminosity and feel that can

not be achieved through current state of the art methods.

[michael_chmilar]

This is an interesting discussion. Valid points have been made on both

sides.

 

<p>

 

I don't buy the argument that the labour involved in making a darkroom

print increases its intrinsic value. The same argument was made one

hundred years ago to denigrate darkroom prints: a painting takes many

hours/days/weeks to produce, and results in one original. A photo? A

couple of minutes to shoot it; a few hours to print it. Once the

printing procedure is established, you can pump out copies at a rapid

rate. So, obviously, compared to a painting, a darkroom print is not

art and has no intrinsic value.

 

<p>

 

Another example:

 

<p>

 

To make a truly valuable photo, you must coat glass plates with

photosensitive chemicals, and then expose them. To use something like

mass-produced film "cheapens" the process and makes the resulting

print worthless. Likewise, purchasing mass-produced photographic paper

is cheating.

 

<p>

 

If the creation of art and intrinsic value requires machismo, pain,

and suffering, then you should go to the extreme. Anything else is

cheating.

 

<p>

 

Otherwise, where do you draw the line?

[jim_galli1]

If you'll permit me, I'll draw on your analogy of painter vs

photographer 100 years ago Mr. Chmilar. Eventually we discovered that

these are two very different art forms that could hang on a gallery

wall comfortably but mutually exclusive of each other. My bride

walks in and looks at the paintings, perhaps is even moved by one. I

walk in and look at the photography and am or/not moved by them.

 

<p>

 

Piezography is more an extension of the graphic arts/ printing medium

than it is of photography. You could use the same tools and talents

to perfectly reproduce either the paintings or the photographs.

Perfect reproductions are nice, (and what most of us can afford,) but

are they art?

[wilhelm]

I was refering to digital printing from the viewpoint of the

photographer, not the collector. I notice that Matisse and Picasso

lithographs, (for which they didn't do the work themselves), don't go

cheap.

[michael_chmilar]

Jim, I have to admit that I don't understand your point.

 

<p>

 

I guess my question is: where does "original" end, and "reproduction"

begin?

 

<p>

 

If I make 100 darkroom prints from a negative, is the first print the

original, and the remaining 99 reproductions? Perhaps only the

negative is the original, and all prints are reproductions. Of course,

the negative is only a reproduction of the scene I was looking at.

 

<p>

 

When I make a Piezography print, when do I stop having an original?

The negative, the scan, the Photoshop file, a copy of the Photoshop

file, the first Piezo print, the second?

 

<p>

 

To say that a Piezography print is a "reproduction" and a darkroom

print is not makes no sense to me. Both are repeatable.

 

<p>

 

My original point was that photography was once considered a medium of

cheap, mechanical reproduction. Now, most people seem to accept

darkroom prints as "fine art".

 

<p>

 

Now, I see people implying that Piezography is a cheap, mechanical

reproduction method. I think it is as valid as a darkroom, chemical

print. Both are photography.

[jim_galli1]

Fair enough Michael,

 

<p>

 

I guess I truly am struggling with the new rules. I am about 6 years

into filling a dumpster with bad prints. I figured when it's full

perhaps by then I will have put enough blood sweat tears & time in to

begin to see the art. But now all I've got to do is go buy a $200,000

scanner and a piezo printer and presto. Call me old school but I

believe the blood sweat tears frustration disappointment and time are

indeed part of the equation that ultimately = intrinsic value.

 

<p>

 

America is the land of the instant. Something in me is fighting

against that.

 

<p>

 

I think I'm steering this discussion off course from the original

question too. Sorry.

[michael_chmilar]

Jim,

 

<p>

 

I don't know that there are any "rules", new or old. A lot the

avant-garde art movement in the 60's and 70's was about throwing out

the rules.

 

<p>

 

As to blood, sweat, and tears, if you scroll back up in this

discussion, you can read about the blood, sweat, and tears involved in

digital: computer crashes, software upgrades, etc. You can still enjoy

all of the frustration, disappointment, and bad prints. Maybe more.

Digital moves quickly - maybe too quickly.

 

<p>

 

Getting a good print from Piezography (or LightJet, Iris, etc.) is not

"automatic". It requires some technical knowledge, just as darkroom

printing requires technical knowledge. Only the domain has changed to

computers, printers, inks, monitors, etc. instead of light sources,

lenses, chemistry, papers.

 

<p>

 

Artistic knowledge (ie. where to dodge and burn, cropping, too

much/little contrast, etc.) from darkroom printing is fully

transferable to the digital realm. Some of the best digital printers

have extensive backgrounds in traditional processes. Experience has

value.

 

<p>

 

In a few years, it is likely that Piezography/LightJet/etc. will be

obsolete. Knowledge of what constitutes a good print will not.

 

<p>

 

Digital is just a new set of tools to employ towards the same goal:

Making beautiful prints. Time, evolution, and economics will determine

which tools succeed.

[brian_ellis3]

I spent some time in Maine with George DeWolfe a year or so ago and

saw a couple of his prints. They were very fine prints but they

should be, he's spent years getting to the point he's at. I wouldn't

say they were "better" than say John Sexton's silver prints,

certainly not "better" than many platinum prints I've seen by people

who really know how to do platinum, but they were very very good. We

were supposed to visit his home but time got away from us so I didn't

see his equipment. I do remember him telling us that he used several

different printers. I believe the Epson 3000 was his principal

printer at that time. Although the Epson 1160 is supported by the

Cone materials, that wasn't what he was using then, maybe he is now.

 

<p>

 

I don't know whether he's being paid by Cone or not. There certainly

seems to be a relationship over and above just someone who likes the

equipment and writes about it. This is the third article he's written

in the last year or so raving about Cone stuff (the first two were

published in Camera Arts magazine) and of course Cone publishes the

articles on his web site. George does serve as a consultant to at

least one digital camera manufacturer so possiblyhe is a consultant

of some sort to Cone. I think he goes off the deep end a good bit in

his raves (if I remember it correctly the article in question said

something to the effect that the Cone stuff was the biggest overnight

sensation in the history of photography) and of course he does teach

workshops on the Cone stuff so he certainly has an nterest in

promoting it. Still, I don't think anyone who has seen his prints

would deny that they are really very very good.

[abiggs]

(Stupid question coming)....

 

<p>

 

What is George DeWolfe's web site? I cannot seem to find it.

[jorge_gasteazoro]

Andy, who cares? at screen resolution even if his prints are the best

thing since sliced bread, they will still look like any other print!

 

<p>

 

Brian, thank YOU! I was wondering all this time wether it was

wishfull thinking on his part or if it really was that good of a

process! Since you have seen his prints and although as you said they

are very very good, they are not anything better than say a Sexton or

a Baer. You just clarified everything for me and confirmed my

suspicions, I think that with piezography he probably has more

control over the local contrast, middle tones, etc....you can't get

any more white than paper white, or any more black than solid black,

so comparing the output of a printer without the Cone software and

the inks, then probably the piezo print is that much more

outstanding, but to go as far as saying " as good as a platimum print

and better than silver" I really don't think so!

[abiggs]

No, silly. I don't think I can get a good feeling of what is prints

are like from the web. I just want to see other factoids and get an

overall overview of what his work is like. Perhaps some of his own

comments on Jon Cone's B&W system.

 

<p>

 

what was that web site again?

[jorge_gasteazoro]

Andy, I also made a search and could not find a web site for him, so

I guess he does not have a site. I did see his article on the

piezography web site and some of the pics he shows, they are nice, of

course in screen resolution is hard to tell, but to tell you the

truth I have seen better scans and the pics, although very nice, were

not somehting I would open my wallet for.

Also in my search I found other sites that were showing people who

are printing with piezography and it confirmed my initial suspicions,

although the process might be wonderful, is all in the hand of the

artist. Some of those prints looked like crap...worse than freshman

photography...lol.

[jonathan brewer]

There are a couple of websites that I audit and they may be old

hat

to most everybody but then again some folks may not know about them,

so for what its worth I recommend checking out

http://www.wide-format-printers.org/ and

http://www.large-format-printers.org/ for an overview of the relative

vices and virtues of your better scanners, printers, and RIPS.

 

<p>

 

These folks don't seem to be on anybodies payroll, they recommend

stuff that is cost effecdtive, which systems are trouble and/or

trouble free. They'll recommend what you should and shouldn't get

based on your budget and skill level. They show examples on their

website of terrible prints from the high end printers of some very big

name outfits and they go into detail about inks and they tell you

which stuff to stay away from.

 

<p>

 

Jim if you haven't visited these folks, I strongly recommend that

you do. I don't plan on buying anything digital at this time but I

audit these sites anyway to see if anything jumps out at me in terms

of having the capacity to be operated cheaply, with very little

hassle, and something so good that it's going to hang around awile.

 

<p>

 

I've got this feeling I can't shake after a few months, years,

whatever, that something will rise to the top, become very cheap, and

simply cannot be beaten. Well, maybe something so good it will take

ten years to be beaten, and with a price of several hundred dollars

not several thousand.

 

<p>

 

I don't like the idea of $20,000 backs,$20,000 printers, $20,000

scanners, and I expect and/or hope the day will come when all of this

stuff will be very cheap and easy to operate. May be a pipedream, but

it may come true.

[tim_klein1]

This is certainly an interesting conversation and one that is very

timely for me personally.

 

<p>

 

Like many other long time photographers, I was a digital naysayer who

swore I'd never cross over to the dark side. There was no way, in my

mind, that an inkjet printer could possibly deliver output that

compared favorably to a fine archival silver print. I held to this

conviction for quite a while despite seeing several inkjet prints at

local galleries that were quite stunning. I was occasionally

surprised when I looked at the tag on a print and found that it was

ink based rather than archival silver. As time went by, I found

myself looking closely at prints to try to determine the process

prior to looking at the tag. I won't lie to you and tell you the

difference wasn't noticable because, for the most part, it was. I did

notice, however, that the difference in well done prints was minor.

In no way did the digital process detract from the strength of the

image and, in some cases, the digital printers ability to use matte

surface and watercolor papers made the images stronger and more

interesting. Basically, I guess I'm saying that I finally realized

that I was wrong (that's something you won't hear me say in public

very often!). Digital is a damn fine process that gives results that,

while different, are no less valid or exciting than those achievable

with traditional processes.

 

<p>

 

I spent years doing traditional silver processing. I've also dabbled

with platinum and carbon printing of some of my 8x10 work. Years ago

(after adding a wife, a few kids, and pets to a house that is far too

small to accomodate my clan AND a darkroom) space and safety concerns

led me to pack my darkroom away. Unfortunately, this situation will

continue until my children are older or my wife finally convinces me

buy a bigger home. I definitely miss wet processing and when my life

gets back to a place where I can restore my darkroom, it will be very

high on my priority list. In the meantime, digital has been a godsend

for me.

 

<p>

 

I started digitally printing my work with an Epson 1270. Later, I

equipped it with MIS quadtone inks so that I could focus on black and

white work. I'm in the process of testing and installing a bulk ink

system on an Epson 1160 that will become my quad printer and I'll

return the 1270 to color duty. The 1160 printer is no longer

manufactured, but units are still available from a couple of sources

for $200 to $300. It's well suited to quad work because it's a 4

color printer rather than the 6 color cartridges that are used in the

newer printers (6 color "hextone" sets are made for the new printers

that give similar results to the "quads"). The bulk ink setup I

purchased isn't required (you can get quad ink in prefilled

cartridges), but I paid $125 for the convenience of easy

refillability. The inks themselves were $42 and a starting paper

supply ran another $30 or $40. Photoshop 6.0 was available direct

from Adobe for $299 as an upgrade from the LE version that came with

my printer. I already had the computer (as, presumably, most of the

people on this board do!), so my out of pocket cost was around

$800.00 to get started. This seemed like a reasonable expense to get

in on the first floor (I think we've left the ground floor!) of a

process that's obviously showing a lot of promise. It was cheaper

than many workshops and it's been just as exciting a learning

experience.

 

<p>

 

The piece of the puzzle that's still missing for me is the scanner or

camera. I've got a consumer level (3.3 megapixel) digital camera that

I'm playing around with and I've had negatives and slides scanned

with consumer level scanners. So far, I'm not really thrilled with

either option. There are pricier solutions, but I'm not quite ready

to take that plunge yet. I've gotten excellent results from drum

scanned images, so my general conclusion is that the film/scanner

route is the direction I'll probably be heading. Digital capture is

definitely still the weak point (or cost bottleneck) in the digital

darkroom process. I can't tell you what to figure for a cost because

it's literally anywhere from a few bucks for individual scans up to

tens of thousands of dollars for a drum scanner.

 

<p>

 

The process required to balance your digital darkroom equipment and

materials is remarkably similar to the testing necessary to establish

exposure and processing parameters for the zone system. When starting

out, I decided against using the Piezography system; Not because of

any perceived weakness in Jon Cone's solution (in fact, the

Piezogrpahy system results are pretty astonishing), it's just that I

wanted to learn the whole thing inside and out. Jon's process struck

me as more of an "out of the box" solution, as opposed to the raw

inks I decided to buy. The lower entry cost was a nice side benefit

to my choice, but not my major concern. I wanted something where

software WASN'T part of the deal so that I'd have to learn, myself,

how to manipulate ink laydown (Looking back now, that was pretty

ambitious. I was coming at digital with absolutely zero experience,

and the learning curve is quite steep). Gradually, over time, I've

managed to beg, borrow, steal, and develop adjustment curves and

workflows that are generating very nice results. I definitely would

have been up and printing sooner if I'd chosen the Piezography

system, but comparing my output to that of Piezography users, I feel

that the results I'm getting are nearly equivalent and I feel like

I've learned a lot more about quad printing than I would have with an

out of the box solution. Another interesting possibility with the MIS

inkset is the ability to replace one of the grays with a specially

mixed "toner" ink that allows a user to vary the tonal qualities

(cold to neutral to warm) of the output. There are a couple of

workflows that describe this process, though I haven't yet had a

chance to give it a try. I don't believe that this is currently

possible with the Piezography system, though I'm certainly no expert

on Jon's system.

 

<p>

 

Regarding comments that digital processing is somehow "easier" or

merely the equivalent of pressing a copier button; I can safely tell

you from first hand knowledge that this notion is simply bogus.

Getting really strong prints from a digital process can be every bit

as painstaking a process as traditional "wet" processing. Sure,

there's software available that will download Joe Newcomputeruser's

JPG file from his digital point & shoot and dump a passable printout

to an inkjet printer. Comparing that result to a fine print from an

accomplished digital artist is like comparing a Wal-Mart one hour

photo to a fine archival silver print from a master printer though.

Heck, I developed my first roll of 35mm film in my bathroom when I

was around 10 years old. I bought the chemicals and equipment with

money I earned on my paper route, and I taught myself how to do it

from a couple of books my grandfather owned. How "hard" is a process

that a 10 year old can figure out with no supervision? (I didn't get

to try my first print until a couple of years later when a retired

gentleman down the street asked my parents if it was OK for him to

teach me a little about printing in his basement darkroom. Mr. Miller

is probably long gone from this earth, but I owe a lot to the

instruction he gave me).

 

<p>

 

It takes a mastery (or at least strong competence) of your equipment

and processes to make full use of your medium. In this, there is no

difference between wet darkroom processing and digital. I really look

forward to having a darkroom again, but I doubt that I'll dump

digital when that happens because each process has its strengths and

weaknesses. Combining the strengths to minimize the weaknesses will

only serve to give better results. I'm especially intrigued by the

prospect of digitally enlarging my 4x5 negs to make unusually large

alternative process prints (so, combining digital with platinum or

carbon). Why would anyone want to ignore any process that can open up

new areas of experimentation? Why would anyone turn their back on

something that could potentially make their work better?

 

<p>

 

Photographers who look down on digital ought to reconsider their

position. It may not be the solution for them now, but at some point,

digital processing will enter their work in some way. Gain some

understanding and familiarity now, and it will be that much easier

when you really need it. Along the way, you might find something that

you can use to make your work better today.

[fw1]

Having now read the article in <i>View Camera</i>, I feel able to

comment ;<p>

(i) When photography first appeared, it distinguished itself from the

aesthetic of fine art by the fact that an image was readily

reproducible. I really do not understand this new view, that has

recently appeared by stealth, that the art of the print is all. This

trivialises the other aspects of the image (exposure, development),

which are equally valid, and most importantly of all, visualisation.

The terms of the current wet v. inkjet debate are quite ridiculous ;

in this and other recent threads on this board, no-one has once

mentioned what drives them to visualise and create prints in the

first place. The fact that I use an inkjet based approach is really

irrelevant - what is important is what I am trying to convey in the

image, and the aesthetic that I want to develop. All my equipment is

merely a means to an end. By all means have a debate about the

relative merits of differnet technical approaches, but don't pretend

that this is anything more than a technical discussion, and please

don't make wholly specious arguments about the relationship between a

photographer and the print in support of a particular point of

view.<p>

(ii)The article itself demonstrates again some of the naivity of the

editor of <i>View Camera</i>. I really don't know or care if Mr De

Wolfe has a commercial interest in Piezography, but this should have

been made clear, either way. More importantly, the article doesn't

actually say anything of substance ; it would have been better to

have had a detailed article comparing a wet print to a piezography

inkjet print, to an inkjet print made using other methods (e.g. using

Lyson inks), to a platinum print. Then we could have had different

views on the technical aspects of different appraoches, which

photographers could have used in furthering their own technique.

Instead we got an article that offers nothing but an endorsement

without any facts to back that up.

[michael_feldman1]

The commercial interest that Mr. DeWolfe has is that he teaches

workshops in digital printing. Those who teach workshops usually

don't offer comprehensive instructions in magazine articles.

 

<p>

 

He currently uses Piezography, but in the past has also used and

written about MIS and Lyson inksets in the following article:

 

<p>

 

http://www.cameraarts.com/ARCDIG.HTM

 

<p>

 

Mr. DeWolfe is not alone in his opinion that Piezography now offers

the best product for B&W digital printing.

[michael_a._smith1]

I've looked at digital prints and indeed they can be beautiful, but

when compared to a fine print on Azo, they did not quite hold up.

Alred Stieglitz said, "If you place the imperfect next to the perfect.

people will see the difference between the one and the other. But if

you offer the imperfect alone, people are only too apt to be satisfied

by it." That's not irrelevant here. To compare, you have to look at

them both together.

 

<p>

 

Michael A. Smith

[tim_klein1]

No offense Michael, but I tend to think that Stieglitz's comment may

actually be irrelevant when one is talking about which process an

individual artist feels represents his work best.

 

<p>

 

AZO is simply YOUR preference for YOUR work. I know platinum printers

that would argue that platinum is superior, and presumably, George

feels that Piezography is the process that perfects his work. I

wouldn't argue with you if you told me that you feel digital prints

of YOUR work don't match up well with your preferred process, but you

can't use that to declare that the medium is somehow substandard or

inferior.

 

<p>

 

George is comapring his experience with traditional processes to

digital, and he feels he gets superior results with quadtone inks. He

is trying to create his own vision, so who can argue with him?

[jorge_gasteazoro]

Tim, although I also find Michael's post a little self centered I

have to disagree with you and I CAN argue with DeWolfe! You

apparently did not read the article in ViewCamera, in it DeWolfe

states that piezography is the equal of platimum printing and better

than ANY silver print! If he had said " I feel piezography is the

best medium to express MY art" then I would have no problem with him,

and/or you, but he actually states how much better piezography is

than any other medium, so c'mon, how can you defend this position?

Since DeWolfe teaches workshops with this system I get the feeling he

is just trying to drum up exitement for the process so that people

will take his course by making these outrageous statements. Reminds

me of the snake oil salesmen of yore!

[tim_klein1]

Jorge - My understanding was that George claimed Piezography was

equal to platinum, and superior to silver from a TONAL RANGE

standpoint. If George is making the outright claim that Piezography

is simply a superior process, then I agree with you. He would be

making the same type of statement that Michael made.

 

<p>

 

I have no problem with those who make comparisons between specific

aspects of various processes, especially when they are able to

provide something to back up their conclusion. For example, though I

think there are ways to combat the problem, I tend to agree with

those who say that quad ink prints often lack the deep blacks of most

wet processes. On the other hand, I do also happen to think that quad

prints exhibit a smoother and more pleasing tonal range than

traditional silver processes (though I don't agree that it beats

platinum in that respect). I also can't argue with those who point to

the lack of hard data regarding the archival expectations of quad

prints.

 

<p>

 

Blanket statements about a process being inferior (or superior) are

rarely worth much in my opinion.

[jorge_gasteazoro]

Tim, then we are in agreement. Actually I think with digital you do

have better control of the local contrast and middle tonal ranges

since it is so easy to build masks etc. Something that in the

darkroom might take a few days, in the pc takes a few hours. With

piezography the technology has not found a way to translate what

people saw in the monitor to a hard copy. I think this is great but

lets not get carried away and ask people to throw away the LF cameras!

[john_whitman]

Those interested in more discussion on this subject might look up a

thread from last month (filed under "Digital" threads in this forum)

called "Piezography: Ansel Adams and the Inkjet Print":

 

<p>

 

http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=005hny

[fw1]

Mr Feldman ; I don't think any of the points you are trying to make

are valid. Those writing and editing articles in magazines endorsing

specific products have a duty to back their statements up with facts,

which has not occurred in this instance ; would you accept an article

praising Nikon SLR's without any reference to Canon or Minolta?.

DeWolfe's article is also accessible from inkjetmall.com, and I find

it rather curious that it is simply reprinted wholesale in <i>View

Camera</i>. Finally, those who teach workshops can and frequently do

offer instructions, guidance, and perspective gained from experience

in magazine articles ; if not, I wouldn't bother buying any magazines.