jd,

I agree to a point. From what I've seen, inkjets are becoming more accepted in the higher-end gallery market. And this trend will continue, I am certain. As more "blue-chip" artists incorporate the inkjet print into their oeuvre, resistance to the medium will become futile. For example, I just got Emmet Gowin's latest book (http://www.photoeye.com/templates/mShowDetailsbycat.cfm?Catalog=PA011). About half the images are hand-made vandykes, kallitypes, etc. and half are color pigment (inkjet) prints.

Is there any good data or research on this? I don't know much at all about this subject but I have been told recently by some very knowledgeable collectors that high-end galleries are becoming increasingly reluctant to handle inkjet prints.

Sandy King

No data or research. Just my observations, with Gowin as an example. One of the galleries I'm with, Watermark (http://www.watermarkfineart.com/)in Houston has no problems with inkjet prints. One of my other galleries, Studio 391 (http://www.studio391.net) only handles traditional prints.

Sandy,

I can add to Kerik's comments. I went to Photo LA 1n 2006 and 2007. In both instances the majority of the color prints on display were inkjet or Chromira ... most of those inkjet (where the photographer/gallery bothered to note the print type that is). I tried to keep a running talley as I went through prints and my best shot is that 2006 was ~ 85% inkjet and 2006 was about the same. For black and white 2006 was something like 60% and 2007 was a bit higher. Keep in mind that both sets of numbers are skewed by the number of older prints on display (e.g. Strand, Ray, Erwitt, etc.) which probably account for some 20% of the total work hanging. All this means is that the contemporary numbers are even higher for digital prints.

There was absolutely no price differential observable that is attributable to the printing technology. Interestingly, but not surprisingly, those gallery owners who handle artists who produce only traditional prints had nothing good to say about inkjet prints and stated they strongly advise their clients not to buy them. Of course, galleries that handle artists producing both traditional and ink jet prints feel exactly the opposite and work hard to educate their clients that the image is more important than the production method. The number of galleries displaying only traditional work (excluding those which specialize in older work) seemed to decline this year from last.

Both years I randomly interviewed folks at both the opening night festivities and on subsequent days and most of those I talked with didn't care .... a lot were only vaguely aware of the difference.

Since Photo LA, along with Photo San Francisco, Photo New York, and Paris Photo are the largest gatherings of the work of many photographers and galleries this is one of the best bellweathers you are going to get.

I wasn't at 2005 but I was at 2004, although I have to admit I wasn't paying as close attention as I did at 2006 and 2007. My impression is that the percentages increased a lot from 2004 to 2006.

Don, I think Bill's problem is that he is doing looong exposures (10 min+) and wanting prints with very smooth tones. IMHO, this is an area where film is still winning due to noise issues in long exposures from digital. Nice thing with digital in this regard? No reciprocity failure!
This is an area where digital, if handled properly, can stomp film into the ground.

Is Bill shooting in very dim light (moonlight, dawn or dusk, building interiors, etc) or in daytime illumination with long exposures (things like cotton candy waterfalls)?

I've done some quite stunning images by shooting with a Nikon D2X, setting the long exposure noise reduction off, 2, 3, or 4 second exposures (the camera can keep up with raw images at one ever 2 seconds with an Extreme 3 card, or 3 or 4 with an Ultra 2) and let the camera just churn away for the next few minutes, writing dozens hundred images. Start and end with a "dark frame" of your own and use astronomical stacking software to process the stack.

The end results are incredible, as far as tonality and shadow detail.

Wiz can you elaborate?

JD, did you just try to IM me? I got a message about an IM, clicked on the choice to open in a new window, and absolutely nothing happened.

Wiz can you elaborate?
First, you probably need image stacking software. I recommend AstroStack (about $100) or RegiStack (free). Both programs are capable of automatic, sub pixel alignment.

Then you need to decide if the image needs pretty much continuous sampling or if it can tolerate "holes". By holes, I mean whether each exposure has to be right on the tail of another, like two second exposures at two second intervals, or whether there can be gaps, like 1/60 sec exposures at 2 second intervals, or 2 second exposures at 4 second intervals. You get holes when you use the camera's built in "dark frame subtraction" feature on long exposures. Nikon calls this "long exposure noise reduction", and it engages on exposures over 1 second (most cameras) or 4 seconds (D200 and D80, of memory serves). When long exposure noise reduction is on, the camera "goes away" after each exposure for a length of time equal to the exposure length. So, there's a 2 second freeze after a 2 second exposure, and you end up with one 2 sec exposure every 4 seconds, and a 2 second "hole" between the exposures. Canon and Fuji cameras are more liberal about dark frame subtraction.

For example, if you're trying to make cotton candy waterfalls, you can tolerate holes. You can skip the neutral density filter, expose normally (say 1/100 sec at f16, ISO 100) and shoot sixty images, one every two seconds for two minutes, and get a wonderful waterfall. You could also use a neutral density filter, still shoot at f16, shoot 1 second exposures every 2 seconds for 2 minutes, and get pretty much the same results.

If you're trying to do a 10 minute shot of a building to "blur away" people, you need to shoot without holes, because 1/60 sec exposures at 2 second intervals leaves you a bunch of superimposed still people. If you're trying to make star trails, you should also shoot without holes. Sixty images, one every minute for an hour, with 2 second exposures, will give you dotted lines across the sky, instead of star trails.

Once you've made the decision about holes, compose your image, and lock the camera down on a very solid tripod. Use manual exposure mode, because you don't want the camera changing either aperture or exposure time during the course of the stack. If you're using an ND filter, compose without it, but measure exposure with it on.

If you're doing a daylight exposure, expose so that every frame in the stack will be properly exposed (maybe underexpose slightly to protect highlights). If you're shooting under dim light, you'll probably set an underexposure. This will also determine the number of shots in the stack. If you're doing a building at twilight and the camera says you're 3 stops under at 2 seconds, f8, then a shot of eight 2 second frames won't look all that different from a single 16 second exposure. 16 frames will show some enhanced tonality and shadow detail, and 32 frames will show greatly enhanced shadow detail. The rule of thumb is that twice the length of a "proper" exposure will give you noticeable enhancement, and there's about a full stop of added enhancement for every time you double the number of frames past that.

Then batch convert the raw files to TIFF, and feed them to the image stacking program. Don't just try to average them in PotatoeShop, because it can't align images, and most cameras cannot shoot images in accurate pixel alignment, even on a great tripod. For RegiStack, pick a "typical" image, find a few stationary objects (rocks, mountains, tree trunks, etc) and select them as alignment points. Then run the stacker, and save the result.

Viola!

Thanks for the run down, Wiz. I'll look into trying some of this very soon! One of my problems with the digital has been noisy night shots so this may be my answer.

This is an area where digital, if handled properly, can stomp film into the ground.Wiz, I have been reading about this and will look into giving it a try. Thanks!

Bill

RE: increasing prevalence of inkjet prints... Saw a couple good photographic exhibitions recently, two South African "street" or documentary photographers, can't remember their names of course. The first exhibition pictures had been taken digitally and the prints were called "lambda prints" which is some kind of inkjet? Didn't need close inspection to see that the prints were too large -- resolution broke down in the form of odd "softnesses" around edges and in colour transition areas. This ruined a few pictures. Also, they were all evidently heavily computer-manipulated: done well in a few pictures, badly as a whole. The second exhibition featured very large pictures (as large as 1 m x 60 cm, rectangular) that were called "archival pigment prints on 100% cotton rag paper". These I assumed to be injet prints on watercolour paper (smooth, hot-pressed, very attractive). Here the pictures were taken with film that was scanned on a drum scanner: the grain structure was very clear. This was a very powerful series of documentary pictures taken in South African prisons. I was impressed by the quality, which rewarded close inspection as much as inspection from a distance (pictures fail for me if I don't get this). The quality of colour in the high tones was very lovely: the ink broke up beautifully as it settled into the whiteness and grain of the paper. In the low tones, the colour was dense and uniform -- no mottling which is at odds with the picture. All in all, I was very impressed both with the pictures and printing. If these were inkjet prints, well, I don't think darkroom prints exposed straight from the negative can be done much better.