Re: Ink jet and alt / platinum in the woods
auer (auer@azstarnet.com)
Sat, 28 Dec 1996 11:50:53 -0700
Jack Fulton wrote:
>=20
> One of the primary difficulties in achieving "nice" output from ink-jet
> (which includes the IRIS technology), dye-sublimation, Fuji pictographs
> et al is that the methodology to achieve this is complex and overall th=
e
> equipment is expensive. Those, perhaps like the person whose work Klaus
> observed, had enough money to put it out for such an exhibit. A "nice"
> print, say 20" x 30" (50 x 75 mm) could cost you $300 for the 1st image.
>=20
> Most likely the photographer wouldn't know exactly how to achieve the
> exquisite result due to the 'printer' employing some sort of specific
> knowledge, hence, not being able to convey the technical aspects of its
> manufacutre.
>=20
> The feasibility of obtaining excellent results at home are about within
> one's grasp. The equipment would be similar to :
> 1. CPU w/200mhz, 2 gig HD, 128 megs RAM, 17" screen (20" w=
ould be
> superior) for about $3000
> 2. Ink-Jet printer by Encad, Cal-Comp or HP to print 36" m=
aterial and
> able to use
> the newer UV resistant inks and a bulk ink supply for a=
bout $4000
>=20
> So, you're into it for $7000. Lotta money for most, but the ability for
> creation is now rather quick and endless. I feel that at this point in
> time if one had the equipment you could offset the initial costs by
> printing for others now and then (not opening a business)
> If you are an instructor in a university atmosphere which has limited
> computer tools, you might seriously consider applying to companies for
> donations in your name to use and then work there while you both create
> and teach. That is rather awkward but feasible in the sense of whether
> you like the results or not.
> My favorite way of working is to create work 11"x14" in size and scan
> that and do additional work w/the computer for final printing. I still
> truly enjoy darkroom and studio artwork making.
>=20
> Returning the photographer w/the zippy prints on display....many just
> opt for technology due to its observed clarity but more due to the
> whiz-bang effect of using something other than a wet process. There is
> rarely a whit of theory or need for the technique involved. One of our
> recent students working in a team, Anthony Aziz and Samy Kucher
> (Aziz-Kuchar) have wonderfully blended technique with theory to produce
> a thoughtful yet alarming body of work. Their final output of faces
> w/specific features digitally removed, were large photographic color
> prints. You could not tell it was done on a computer though one had to
> recognize it was the only manner in which to achieve such spectacular
> results.
>=20
> Discussion on techniques to achieve such results would be an interestin=
g
> subject for this group.
>=20
> Sorry, but I meant to throw in my 2=E7 worth, but it has come to be abo=
ut
> four bits.
> Jack Fulton
Jack,
I think you are talking image production of the future. With my small
computer skills that dont go beyond scanning an image into a jpeg file,
I have decidely moved towards the past. The low tech approach.
Just give me a small 25 ml bottle of potassiumchloroplatinite, some=20
EDTA, a contact frame and send me off to the woods. Use a little sun,
a clear sparkling stream if necessary, and a good density 11x14
negative shot in camera.
I will come back with a great handcoated platinotype that will last
500 years.=20
No comment on iris type printers, quality is certainly in appearance.
But like most photographs taken this century, will not be viewable in
150 years. Inks and pigments for printers need to be improved to meet
real archival standards.
Gary Auerbach