Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/10/17
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]on 17/10/00 8:27 pm, Martin Howard at howard.390@osu.edu wrote: > Tina Manley jotted down the following: > >> Have you seen a piezography print? >> > I don't know. Does it matter? I wouldn't have thought that my seeing a > piezography print changes the nature of the process. > >> It's possible to make identical prints, if you want to; but it's possible to >> make identical prints in the darkroom, too, if you are careful. > > Is it? I would argue that there are too many variables that cannot be/are > not controlled, such as exact temperature of chemical baths, exact amount of > residue from previous prints, exact agitation pattern, exact time in baths, > exact coating of paper, darkroom humidity, air quality in drying room, etc., > etc., etc. It strikes me this is just another iteration of the photography vs art debate that raged in the 19th century, or the 35mm vs other formats debates that raged in the 40s. Most of the arguments against digital printing are recited by people who have not taken the trouble to find out what they are arguing against (see above...not only has M not seen a piezo print he cannot conceive of how it might change his mind. Hmmm.). The argument above would mean there was no market for limited edition fine art prints which is clearly not true. I like many other people was convinced that digital prints could not possibly match the quality of silver prints until I actually found out what they were capable of. So-called 'giclee' prints are widely accepted by gallery owners. Many recent large photo shows (eg Magnum at the Barbican) contained a large proportion of inkjet prints. I hope that silver prints continue to thrive as a medium... I won't be making any of them, though. - -- Johnny Deadman http://www.pinkheadedbug.com