On Vintage Prints (A Last Word)

Before we leave the topic, I'd just like to quietly point out that all the objections to inkjet prints within the photography market are very reminiscent of the objections to photography itself, back in earlier days. Not creative enough, too mechanical and thus insufficiently expressive, too automatic, too easily duplicable (and thus not unique or limited), too common and accessible to everyone without discrimination, and so on*.

Of course none of that is actually true. Try getting a print today to look just like a particular photographer's print from an era past and gone—and you don't have to pick someone like Robert Demachy as an example, either; the films change, the papers change, the methods and even the visual taste involved is peculiar to each particular maker.

Ken Tanaka mentioned this the other day: when Walter Rosenblum made his own prints from Lewis Hine's original negatives and then used his status as a Hine expert to certify them as genuine, eventually people realized that the "fake" (modern) prints looked too much like Walter Rosenblum prints. In other cases where modern prints are made from historical negatives, too, experts (and sometimes even ordinary folks) can tell the difference. I saw some modern prints made from Lartigue negatives, and while I thought they were beautiful (I tend to like replicas), there was no mistaking them for vintage prints.

Another example. When Ctein and I were going through the back-and-forth process of printing my "Wisconsin #7" (the streetlight in the snow) for my last sale, we couldn't get it to look like my original prints of the picture—partly because I stupidly didn't keep a print for myself from the earlier sale, leaving Ctein without a guide print, but also partly because I was then using a paper that's no longer available and a printer that I no longer have.

At some point—with the accelerated pace of progress, probably sooner than we can guess—inkjet printers themselves will be replaced by a newer and more efficient technology—prints from which will look somewhat different. At that time, the prestige of "vintage" inkjet prints from the era when inkjet printers were ubiquitous will begin inexorably to rise—and thousands of photographers will wish they had made more inkjet prints of their old digital files when the process was still current and it was still easy to do so**.

Mike

[CORRECTION: An earlier version of this post said that Jim Hughes had mentioned the Hine/Rosenblum controversy. It was actually Ken Tanaka, who mentioned it in a comment to the "And the Winner Is" post. Apologies to both for the mistake. —Ed.]

*And thus, they're slow to be accepted as valid and valuable art...just as photography itself was slow to be accepted.

**I've been impressed by a certain development that I've seen in my own life and work. I was mostly a "darkroom nomad" during my heavy film-shooting years (from 1980 to 2000). I had my own darkroom a couple of times—never for very long—and otherwise I used darkrooms at schools where I was a student or schools where I taught. (Or just didn't have access to a darkroom at all.) I also was often short of having enough money for paper, too. Consequently I was always "putting off" making prints of negatives I liked; either I'd stop at the workprint stage and put off making the finished print, or I'd make one finished print and assume I could make more whenever I needed to.

In the meantime, the world changed. Even now I don't have time to make new wet prints from old negatives, and most of the papers available now don't fit the old negatives as well as they fit the papers they were made for. (See here if you don't know what I mean by "fit." Be warned, though, it's complicated.) Suddenly those old prints made when the negatives were made are indeed "vintage prints"—and I wish I'd made more of them when it was natural to do so.

Meanwhile, I'm doing the same damned thing now—I've got a collection of files awaiting printing, and I'm making the assumption in my head that I'll have time in the future to catch up. I guess I never learn.

P.S. That ghost story this morning? Completely made up.  :-)

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:

Bob Gary: "Absolutely the truth, I'm sure, for a lot of us. So, we all have generations of "vintage" print projects waiting to be done, and quite possibly may just skip the unprinted ones slated for the darkroom and print them out in inkjet. I've gone back to early 1912 negatives and had to scan and print for the present time, not bothering to "match" the end result with a corresponding original print. It's always going to be different. There always seems to be more old negatives than actual surviving prints that need to be done. And, there's as much fiddling with scanning parameters as there was with darkroom exposures and chemicals. Toss in the Photoshop techniques in lieu of the enlarger printing skills, and the current printing processes are just as intensive, yet different."

xtian: "I think you are absolutely & totally 'spot on' with your point. I would only add that this whole thing not only applies to inkjet prints but also to digital photography in general. I have said from the beginning that this bickering is a total rehash of went went on between painters and photographers beginning around 1848."

Richard Newman: "I think that part of the problem is that some people tend to consider the difficulty of the technique, time required to learn the technique, and the time required to create the image, as significant value factors in judging the quality of the image. Therefore, a photograph, which can be exposed, 'Photoshopped' and printed in a day cannot be as valuable as a sculpture, oil painting, or etching—even if the images are essentially identical. This was a factor in accepting photography as an art form (how could a Kodak 'point and shoot' print be valuable? Not much skill, or years to learn how to work the shutter). And it applies to print evaluation. They further justify it by pointing at the large percentage of prints that are mediocre at best, ignoring the fact that the vast majority of painters, sculptors and such were (and are) mediocre. If digital printing could be made more mysterious it might get better reviews."

Mike replies: Ansel Adams foresaw "electronic photography" (what we call digital), but if I remember correctly, he also said on a few occasions that he wished photography weren't so easy.  :-)

Comments

[Mike]

If there is one positive (if you can call it that) that I see in the difficulty inkjet prints seem to have in gaining the same value as other types of prints, it's that it makes certain print purchases more affordable for budding collectors. I know that's not something people trying to make money from print sales might want to hear, but I certainly appreciate being able to buy a few prints each year without having to take a second job.

[Sam Kanga]

Hi Mike,

Don't leave the topic too quickly please, I think this is something that needs to be worked out, especially if one wants to sell prints, or be represented by a gallery. This is a good topic for us to discuss, as I think many of your readers are familiar with film & darkrooms as well as digital & inkjet.

I responded to your earlier post too by indicating how I describe my inkjet prints - perhaps there is a better, or more concise way of saying it, and I would be open to anyone's input. I just agree with some of the others that we have to be careful with the terminology or acronyms or initials at this point.

Also, I mentioned that galleries don't seem to have a problem with inkjet prints for colour, but are a bit wobbly when it comes to b/w fine prints.

I am a long time darkroom guy, but I really like some of the great inkjet, baryta, fibre based papers that are now available, and the ability to do all kinds of dodging/burning and "bleaching" that would have been a major pain in the darkroom. I am now scanning my old negs and trannys on an Imacon 949, and going the photoshop/inkjet/fibre based route.

Now with software and digital print options like pigment inks or piezography (which I haven't tried) we still have to put the work in to get a great print, it's just that now we can use different methods.

Thanks
Sam

[John Krumm]

I bet you are spot-on regarding vintage inkjet prints. People will talk about that certain look and depth you can no longer get from the ubiquitous superior future-tech printers.

Looking into my crystal ball, I foresee the return of a digital light table/enlarger, that combined with new light sensitive paper allows you to dodge and burn and and do other edits while standing over it (at actual print size, but fully zoom capable). Then you place the paper on the table, press a button, and the image "magically" appears. The paper would only be sensitive to the table, so no darkroom needed. Something like that.

[Tom Kwas]

A friend of mine that deals specifically with the art-photography market loves modern archival iris printing, his view, is that scanning a neg into the computer, and making all your 'moves' on the file, is the way to go. Then you can 'edition', without printing the whole edition, but more as an 'on-demand' thing. Prior to the iris printing era, he was actually investigating copper plate, and a lot of other methods that would have been simplified printing vs. the dodging and burning of each subsiquent print.

[GKFroehlich]

Re: "P.S. That ghost story this morning? Completely made up. :-)"

Um, aren't they all?

-gkf-

[John Shriver]

I saw the recent Hine exhibit at International Center of Photography. The few modern prints were awful compared to the vintage ones, bright, blown highlights, etc. Hine's were deep and dark, wonderful printing. It was wonderful to see the "art" side of his work in additional to it's powerful documentary and social commentary aspects.

[darr]

In this day and age of push button printing there is no excuse not to print your favorites. What gets me though, is the newest and greatest papers; I want to try them all and what a mess that could create. Oh the wheel of technology and the Luddite of fine art makes us believers a little crazy at times.

[sporobolus]

at a certain point, the photograph as displayed ephemerally on some sort of "screen" will become the artistic norm, accepted as art, and (assuming suitable technology) the best representation of the photographer's intent; to experience photographic art will no longer mean standing in the presence of a physical manifestation; it will be a matter of simply seeing it

a number of questions will arise — do we limit digital access so as to create exclusivity (limited editions)? what in the world will artists sell? will there still be a sense of curation or reputation? what if a hundred million truly fantastic photographers each produce several mind-blowing images daily … and they are all a finger-tap away?

mind you i write this from a home filled with vintage prints, graphic works of various traditional types, a boatload of ceramic art, and thousands of books

[Dave]

"...he wished photography weren't so easy."

But, as others have said, that's just what makes it so difficult. e.g. http://www.paulgrahamarchive.com/writings_by.html (Second piece on page)

[latent_image]

I think the reluctance concerning digital prints has to do with the perception that once the print has been "worked out" by the maker, it's possible to produce a very large number of identical prints, on the first day or months later. Producing even a modest number of "identical" prints in the darkroom is difficult. This plays into ideas about rarity.

In addition, if you examine darkroom prints within an edition closely--and I'm referring to very good ones--there are almost always subtle differences. The hand of the artist is there. There can be a tremendous amount of work in the creation of the digital print, but the machine takes over once the print button has been pushed.

I don't diminish the artistry involved in fine digital prints at all. I'm just commenting on perceptions concerning rarity and the hand of the artist.

There is a counter argument that I cannot reconcile. A friend of mine who is an accomplished photo-realist painter used to also produce incredibly detailed serigraphic prints. As soon as Iris prints entered the art market, interest in serigraphs and other forms of traditional printmaking plummeted. One would think that traditional prints, with their built-in limitations in numbers (as plates or screens wear out) and their subtle variations from print to print (hand of the artist) would have withstood this new challenge, but they didn't, at least for several years. I don't know where traditional printmaking stands in the art market today. I'd be interested to know.

[beuler]

My prediction for the next mass adoption printing technology is paperless printing with 3D printers. Printers will generate their own paper using 3D printing technology and lay down the ink at the same time. The characteristics of the paper will be chosen for each print, and printers will have simulation modes that will allow us to chose imitations of papers that we are using today.

Of course when that happens gallery curators will tell us that only pigment prints on real paper are actually art.

[Richard Newman]

Mike,
Re your response to my Post: Did Ansel Adams ever say why he wished photography was too easy? I know he was a concert pianist, which skill is decades in the making, but have no idea of how good he was. That background may (or may not) have colored his attitude. Or was it something else?

[I can't find the reference, so I can't quote directly. I think he did not say he "wished it was too easy," he said he wished it WASN'T so easy--that is, it was too accessible already and he wished it were more demanding. I just don't remember where I read this, and most of my books are in storage right now. Sorry. --Mike]

[Kenneth Tanaka]

"...all the objections to inkjet prints within the photography market are very reminiscent of the objections to photography itself, back in earlier days."
Good point, Mike. 'Tis true.

Also, to your wider remarks regarding appearance differences it's also very true that many collectors and other devotees simply "do not like" the appearance of "digital" prints, especially b&w prints. The most frequent complaints I hear (when they're audibly uttered at all) is that they're too harsh and too sharp.

Of course they rarely are willing to admit that they might --- just might --- be using badly executed inkjet prints as their reference standard. (Indeed, during a dinner conversation a fellow admitted to me that his reference standard for "digital" prints was prints his grandchildren pull off Internet pages from their desktop inkjet printer. I almost choked.)

I did have a chance to at least slightly open a few minds during last year's Abe Morell show. The prints in that show, mostly quite large, spanned chemical and digital color and b&w technologies with breathtaking seamlessness. I challenged several chemical curmudgeons to identify the digital prints. None could do so, even at closer-than-normal viewing distances.

I have seen, and done, more than enough inkjet printing to know that the medium is no longer a valid basis for prejudicial judgement. If you see an ugly print blame the Printer not the printer.