[filmscanners] digital fiber

["HPA" <tom@historicphotoarchive.com>]

Stephen asks
> Can you explain a bit more on what is being asked for?  What do you mean by
> "fiber?"  What do you mean by "digital fiber?"  Are ink jet prints
> acceptable if they are done on the right paper?   If not, what type of
> printer is acceptable?

Julian Vrieslander asks:
> Forgive my ignorance, but what do you mean by "fiber"?  I thought that all
> papers, for wetlab or digital prints, contain fibers.

First let me assure everyone that I want to avoid a digital vs chemical
"which one is best" kind of thread that plagues so many other lists.  I do
them both, or anything the customers want, and I find them all profitable.
the observations that I made pertain to the last several months, and i
notice changes in the market on a near monthly basis.

Inkjet prints can be considered archival, provided they use the combinations
of ink and paper that Wilhelm tests approve of.  in order to fully assure
your customer about the quality of your work, print a label on the back
stating the media and the life expectancy rating given by Wilhelm (if
possible) or conservatively state the minimum life expectancy of the
manufacturers' own ratings of the ink and paper when paired.  (particular
kinds of archival ink and archival paper may not be compatible when used
together, I know of instances when they did not last thirty days.)

By fiber, I am referring to traditional silver-gelatin emulsions on fiber
photographic paper that is hand processed to archival standards.  This is
the traditional medium of black & white exhibition prints.  In the world of
signature-quality photography, this is the preferred medium for investment
quality pieces.  Laurie Solomon correctly noted the distinction between RC
and fiber in her post yesterday.

by "digital fiber", I mean any way that a silver-gelatin print can be made
from a digital original (or scan, or whatever).  many techniques are open
for inclusion here.  The point is that many photographers who have digital
originals wish they could be making exactly what many fine art buyers want:
a fiber archival print, hand made in the darkroom.

I see a big market emerging for darkrooms who can produce fiber prints from
digital originals.  Both photographers and galleries want the old-fashioned
craftsmanship generally associated with hand-made fine prints, and the
prestige accorded by more conservative elements of the photography market.

But I would say there is nothing wrong with digital inkjet prints, sales are
certainly growing every month, and the market appears very healthy.  Both
fiber and inkjet orders are up over this month a year ago, which is very
encouraging.  This is true for a number of photographers and galleries that
I know.

I know that it contradictory to say in one message that inkjet prints are
not accepted by galleries anymore, and in the next message say that inkjet
print sales are up in the galleries, so here is the difference:  Some of the
local "galleries" are actually coffee shops, restaurants, etc who are
looking for wall hangings to get free newspaper publicity.  These ones are
increasingly declining inkjet shows.  there are a number of reasons given
for this policy, but simply stated, they want the high-class stuff.   Now, a
professional gallery (one that has full time staff on print sales) who sells
photography and art work to decorators on a daily basis, or has a
significant volume of walk-in traffic with the general public, are the ones
who are moving digital prints in quantity.  This is particularly true of
galleries who are capable of "print on demand" where the customer can see a
screen shot and have a matted print from a digital file within a half hour
or so.

Best of luck.
Tom Robinson







----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe 
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or 
body