In the October issue of the Digital Journalist, Bill Pierce gives his take on inkjet prints, their acceptance in the art world and their archival quality. He mentions the recurring theme in photography of not wanting to accept a new medium, whether it’s inkjet printing today, or silverhalide printing decades ago. Then he goes on to the issue of collecting, and the fear that inkjet prints won’t be as unique as their predecessors and will only be mass-produced. That, he argues just ain’t so:
I understand collectors’ fears that an inkjet printer attached to a computer can turn out hundreds of soulless, identical prints at the touch of a button. That’s certainly one of the fears that surfaced when silver replaced platinum. And, indeed, if you ever saw one of the automated print houses that turned out actors’ headshots, it seems a bad dream that could come true. What protects the collector is laziness. You make an inkjet print and in spite of all your screen matching, it looks a little light. You make a darker one. It’s good, but now the shadows on the face are too dark. After awhile you’ve got six prints, each slightly different, and are bored to tears. You go to bed and hope you never have to print that picture again. Same as silver; laziness, that’s what protects the collector. Short of that, print a small edition and promise to be a good person.
Good point. It’s still work to produce fine prints, including inkjet prints.
See also my post on Henry Wilhelm and new inkjet printers or go straight to Wilhelm Research for reports on inkjet print permanence.
0 Responses to “Inkjet prints finally join the ranks of silverhalide and platinum, hurrah!”