[Leica] Why the mad rush / toxicity

[mark at rabinergroup.com (Mark Rabiner)]

>> She was about to learn C printing. What a waste!  C prints were bad when 
>> they
>> were good.
> 
> Indeed.  The greatest single thing about digital processes is that
> colour is freed from the intimate interlinking of hue, contrast and
> saturation.  I remember making colour and contrast masks for C type
> and especially Ilfochrome prints - it was an awful job that provided
> only best of a bad scenario results.
> 
> In comparison, well made high end inkjet prints seem miraculous.
> 
> M


In the 70's only black and white was taken seriously in galleries and you'd
get real money for.
Cibachromes came in and it seemed evident that they'd last.
Soon we'd see them up there costing the same or more. High gloss and jacked
up reds.
But also die transfers and a few other rare processes made for black and
white not being the only thing.
Then Kodak found out about this.
C prints were overnight rated to 200 years up from 20. They changed the
final bath water
I believe the marketing departments with Kodak, Fuji, and Ilford set the
archival attributes of their products. Neck in neck. Year by year. They edge
out each other.
C prints soon became not a stranger on the walls of serious collectors and
galleries. But the direct positive processes still held the edge. And then
LightJet came in of course.  But not for long.
Then inkjet went pigment and quality archival color printing became possible
for everybody. Cream of the crop image making. Second to none.
Learn to print C prints or direct positive and you're going to learn what a
magenta blue print looks like; and how to correct for it.
It just steals time away from you doing  your serious work.
Time learning Photoshop. Cranking out prints for your ongoing portfolio.



Mark William Rabiner