Topic: Mick Rock exhibition and digital prints

[sapata]

Music fans like me will be happy to check the latest Mick Rock exhibition http://gallery.ideageneration.co.uk/ .

I love like his work, specially because he has photographed most of my musical heroes but I have to say that I was a bit disappointed to see all B&W photos made with digital process...

Maybe it's just me but somehow those timeless images didn't really match with the digital process, to me the B&W process it's part of that particular time and this is how it should be presented... wouldn't be strange to see a Bresson exhibition made of digital copies ? Again... maybe it's me, somehow the Kate Moss shots were not so strange to see in digital...

Love to hear what you guys think about it...

[moominsean]

Yeah I'm mostly turned off by digital prints still. Something about the process of printing in a darkroom and the skill and care taken, as opposed to adjusting the scan in PS and then just printing it out. Whatever works to make a nice image, I guess, but just not the same to me.

[sapata]

I second that sean... the care taken while printing it's much more exciting, I think what puts me off the most is the fact that if you look really close you can spot straight away that is a digital copy.

Somenthing I forgot to mention is that the prints were on sale at an average GBP1.000.00...

[LT]

Something I forgot to mention is that the prints were on sale at an average GBP1.000.00...

>>> ... gulp ... <<<

[Late Developer]

I agree with the comments regarding the incremental aesthetic value of "traditional" chemical prints from a purist's perspective as, in years gone by, I've spent countless hours trying to become proficient in the art and technique of producing such. However, there are a couple of issues in play here:

Firstly, the commercial imperative - these images will sell and there's an immediate and obvious commercial advantage to being able to produce identical and consistently high quality output for a mass audience.

Secondly, the quality of some of the digital / semi-digital output is now becoming extremely good - to the point where you can produce something that - from a few feet at an exhibition - looks very, very much like a chemical print.

Sadly, I believe we are at (or possibly beyond) the tipping point at which most viewers / customers know the difference, or even care that there is a difference. The fact that someone has taken the care to produce exhibition prints is usually enough for most. The fact that the ink (compared to silver) will probably not be visible in 20 years time is an irrelevance to most as they believe it will be possible to simply "re-print" the identical image. And they're not wrong - but it's still not the same.

[CarlRadford]

I'd say that many people spend more time making a digital image than they did or do in the darkroom.  When an image is behind glass on a wall the vast majority would never be able to tell if the digital image is well crafted. 

Those that still work in the darkroom use craft as opposed to a more set routine to make an image but even this is a generalisation.  People enjoy working in the darkroom and they do it more often than not for the love of it not because they make money from it.

I love wet plate for the honesty - what you see is what you get!  With the plate in hand that is what the photographer saw.  Possibly the same feeling with instant film to a degree.

The difference between ink sitting on top of the paper and a gelatine print with the image in the paper is tangible in the hand.  It becomes an object in itself.

However; in a commercial world few I think are that concerned apart from collectors!

[sapata]

I know it's been a while but I thought I could add this:

Just found a display in a shop with several prints on sale by the "Rock Archive" founder photographer Jill Furmanovsky.

I got on the website ( www.rockarchive.com ) and there are actually several other photographers associated  but sadly most of them only offer digital copies, I believe Jill is the only one that offers for the B&W pictures a proper dark room print...

[Greys on Grey]

History: I have a darkroom, but now I only process film.  I scan the film and then do about the same as I would with a print with PhotoShop.  Then I print using a printer designed just for printing images.

Chemically developing paper was about 25 cents (US) a sheet (paper cost not chemical).  Probably used about 20 - 30 sheets for each final print.

Printing an image uses about 5 - 10 sheets and I spend $$$$$$ on ink.  paper cost is insignificant compared to ink.  Since my images are greyscale and have a heavy dose of zone 0 - 5, I go through a lot of black. 

But !  I cannot carry my enlarger with me.  I can carry my laptop and work on an image no matter where I am until I am ready to print. 

The images I developed in a tray will never have the same internal feeling as those that spit out of a printer.  The whole process of the darkroom, going from dark to light to dark to light cannot easily be explained.  I will always feel a deeper connection to that process.  The concentration and attention to detail is not translated in a silicon chip.  On the other hand, as much as I like nostalgia,  I am not going to revert to glass plates and I am not going to go back to turning silver black in a bath of metol.

I celebrate the wet process but I am firmly rooted (not counting film) in the dry.  In the end, is it about the chemistry or the image?

[sapata]

Greys... I'm with you and I welcome the whole digital workflow starting from recording an image in my digital SLR to the final print, I'm not against at all and I'm glad I have this choice as well.

I just think that there are cases where the tradition is important, I'm talking about timeless photographs being printed from digital files. An original photographic print would have come from the original negative and there's only one...someone would have handle those originals with the most care in the world (I assume...), a digital file can be copied at any time. This is something hard to explain with my english...but I want to say that the negs are the real thing and if I'm going to pay £1.000 for a copy I want straight from the original neg, otherwise a poster from the corner shop nicely framed would do the same job...