Are They Or Aren't They?

(Are inkjet prints really superior to traditional color printing methods? Ctein and I weigh in. See the last Featured Comment just added to the "Big Mystery" post.)

Mike
(Thanks to Ed)

Original contents copyright 2014 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

TOP's links!

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

MHMG: "The fascinating thing about inkjet prints is that they aren't as homogeneous or consistent in appearance as more traditional photographic processes. Folks still call color choromogenic prints 'C-prints' as a holdover from a very early Kodak color paper that wasn't even on an RC base. The look just hasn't really changed all that much over the years. Ditto for Ilfochrome (a.k.a. Cibachrome) or Kodak dye transfer prints. They are all quite easy to recognize due to the unique constraints of the chemical and material processes involved. In contrast, Inkjet prints have an enormous degree of freedom with respect to both image-forming colorants and media. An inkjet print can be made to mimic many historic processes or it can be made to look like no other process that has ever come before it. So, it's all up to the printmaker what kind of aesthetic is going to be achieved with inkjet printing.

"Like many other reflection print processes, when made well, inkjet prints are amazing and when made poorly they are an embarrassment to be called photographs. That said,  on technical merits we can break the arguments about print quality down further:

1) As for sharpness and grain structure, even the best multi-channel inkjet printer screening patterns cannot match the super high resolution of a light sensitized analog print paper, but most optically enlarged negatives and slides could never make use of this exceptional print resolution unless the film was contact printed. This practical limitation gives today's digital image files and sharpening/noise reduction algorithms a chance to compete very well in terms of human perceived print sharpness and grain structure in the final print. This perceptual reality is especially true when making very large scale prints.

2) Color gamut of inkjet exceeds most traditional color processes with the possible exception of dye transfer (although dye transfer had a less than optimal cyan dye in particular), but even with as much control as the printmaker had over color and tone in a dye transfer print, the total color and tone control in digital imaging and inkjet printing far surpasses the control we had with analog processes.

3). With respect to overall print durability (which helps prints last longer) one has to be careful when debating inkjet versus traditional color processes. Uncoated inkjet prints do tend to be much more abrasion and scratch sensitive, but coatings can be used to create inkjet prints with as much or more physical durability as traditional silver gelation prints when the application requires it. As for light fastness, humidity resistance, gas fade resistance, and thermal stability, inkjet prints range from extremely fragile to far more stable than any other traditional color photographic processes depending on choice of colorant and media. In this regard, the printmaker must choose wisely...

"...Which brings the whole debate back to P+I+P+C!"

Comments

[Oren Grad]

testing testing 1 2 3 4

do not pass go, do not collect $200

this is only a test

if this had been a real event, you would have been instructed to load the microwave with popcorn and prepare for actual, like, y'know, *things* to happen

testing testing 1 2 3 4

[Ernie Van Veen]

Really, it all looks good to me.

[Dave in NM]

By limiting the field to "traditional color printing methods" you're begging the question—What about Black and White inkjet prints?

I know that as a former darkroom worker of many years, I'm going to be labeled a heretic by some, but I'd say that today in 2014, with the selection of high quality baryta papers that's readily available, inkjet black and white prints can be equal or superior to silver gelatin in every respect that you listed in your comment: "controllability, color purity, sharpness, lightfastness, enlargeability, and permanence".

Done well, with comparable materials, it can be difficult for even an experienced viewer to tell the difference between the two in hand—behind glass it's virtually impossible.

Of course, the process of creating those two prints is different in every respect, the wet process naturally feeling more creative in the original sense of the word, and the inkjet feeling more manufactured, in the modern sense of the word. That physical attachment to the process creates a certain bias in favor of the wet print that's difficult to discount, but I'm speaking only of the end product. When the end product (the print) is considered without regard to the process, then in my opinion, the inkjet black and white print is on equal footing with the sliver gelatin print.

[Terry Letton]

I have to agree with you Mike. Once I started working in color, I was continuously frustrated with the whole printing business. I was a decent Mono printer but I never attempted color, too expensive and too finicky for a hobbyist. With Photoshop and an inkjet I can print my images the way I want them to look. In fact, scanning those old negatives yields better prints than I ever could make in the darkroom in many cases

[Tom Legrady]

Then perhaps people should have access to old masters' negatives, so we can create our own performance of their composition.

[Bill Tyler]

Your recent posts on inkjet prints and "Snapping Their Surroundings" seem very strongly connected to me. It has to do with the unanswerable question, "What is art?" It also seems to me to have something to do with a sort of mysticism. Art can be valued on at least three levels. First is simply the impact of the work itself. An image reaches us emotionally, makes us think, or some combination of the two. This kind of value, it seems to me, is not related to the specific means used to create the image. The second level has to do with a physical connection to the artist. A print might be valued both for its content and because, say, Edward Weston actually made it in his darkroom. His hand touched it. That sort of value is present only when the artist is somehow significant to the person placing value on the work. Finally, there's a value to scarcity. This is present, however, only when the work is significant for some other reason. A painting by Rembrandt is no and a five-year-old child's finger painting are both produced in editions of one. The Rembrandt is valued both for esthetic qualities, which are there in the physical paint, and would remain if Joe Sixpack had put the paint down in exactly the same way, and for its connection to a great artist - his hand actually put down the paint, as well as for its scarcity. My own feeling is that an inkjet print is as much connected to the photographer as a silver-gelatin print made in the darkroom. It's simply the controls that differ. Others legitimately take a different view. There's no right answer. Incidentally, this idea of "hand of the artist" may have something to do with the desirability of an actual signature on the print. It becomes something that the artist's hand has touched in a meaningful way, and so adds the mystical connection.

[Mike Chisholm]

Of course they are. Any longing for RA4 and Cibachrome is a photographic form of nostalgie de la boue and, I suspect, not something indulged in by any ex-practitioner of those dark arts like me.

I have rarely felt so depressed as when, after a few hours' sweaty misery fiddling with dials in total darkness, I have held that final, highly-reflective piece of plastic with its black borders, like an invitation to the funeral of a packaging magnate.

Mike

[Bryce Lee]

Mike: Whatever is done is your choice.
I do not want the column to be an onerous burden on you as a result of an unreliable hosting service.
Have seen far too many similar daily/weekly columns go down in flames due to poor initial plans.
Whatever you do has my full support.
Bryce Lee

[Jim in Denver]

Yes. Unashamedly, unabashedly, enthusiastically, unquestionably, yes, they are much better.

[Larry Steiner]

We run RA-4 (Fuji Super PD and consumer type II) 8 channel Epson 44" and 10 channel Epson 24". The color gamut is much better on the inkjet product, but silver-halide has a look that is hard to beat.(The yellows on silver-halide don't come close to the purity achieved on the Epsons.) In fact most images don't have a big gamut and the tech advantages of inkjet don't come into play. The real problem with commercial inkjet are some of the new small format commercial photos printers that have an coarse screen/dither. Also, a lot of inkjet prints go out the door from machines that are not right - clogged heads, banding, etc. Silver-halide is easier to keep correct, at least until the chemistry or exposure deck goes off.
Silver-halide is a bit more durable, but I always found discussions on abrasion resistance a bit weird - who drags their prints across things if they care about quality?

[David]

We'll there are inkjets, and there are inkjets....
And I've just been reading about Epsons new precision core technology, will this make things 'better', or just different? Thoughts? Perhaps something for a new article on the merits of the different inkjet options?