Can there ever be a 'digital vintage print'?

Sidney

If we define a vintage print as an individual, one-of-a-kind print of a photograph, I think the answer is yes. Through traditional a.k.a. hybrid printing, it is certainly possible to obtain individually handcrafted prints that cannot be mass produced.

I think there are legitimate worries about the not-very-proprietary nature of digital files, which, unlike a negative, can be exactly copied down to the last bit and sent to every corner of the globe in a fraction of a second, and not necessarily with anyone's consent. People are considering encryption to tackle this issue. In spite of this issue, I think a final print can be completely individual.

Can there ever be a 'digital vintage print'?

Sidney

Although there has always been a debate about what defines a vintage print, typically the strictest definition of what constitutes a vintage print is a print made by or commisioned by the photographer within one year of the making of the photograph. However this definition is frought with exceptions. For example photographers such as Henry Wessel or Lee Friedlander often print (or printed in the case of Friedlander) years after a photo was made.

So in the case of the vintage digital print, a similar definition would probably apply given that the provenance of the print can be established.

The proplem of counterfiet prints isn't restricted to digital prints but has also occured with traditional hand made prints, hence the importance of proof of ownership for vintage prints.

It may also be difficult to replicate the paper that the original digital print is printed on and this maybe one way to help id a digital vintage print.

I suspect for most of us this will never be an issue.

Don Bryant

In 2003 I think that I made the first digital fibre mural print 30x40inches, the paper was Agfa Classic that is now unfortunately gone,
These prints will never be matched unless the group in Europe can mimic the paper exactly to the previous specs.

I would consider these digital vintage prints Yes / No???

Can there ever be a 'digital vintage print'?

Sidney

I think this means you're dead.

As soon as people doing digital prints start dying, either by old age or by a plot by traditional and alternative folks to wipe them out, there will be plenty of them around.

Lenny
EigerStudios

I think the inksets are even more of a moving target than the papers, since the printers and inksets seem to be evolving every few years, while some of the papers have been made for a few hundred years for other purposes, the main difference being that they are now subbed for inkjet, and I don't know how much this subbing evolves.

I think the inksets are even more of a moving target than the papers, since the printers and inksets seem to be evolving every few years, while some of the papers have been made for a few hundred years for other purposes, the main difference being that they are now subbed for inkjet, and I don't know how much this subbing evolves.

That isn't necessarily a good thing, everything considered. The inks are changing for the better, hence I'd think it'd be easier to replicate an older look and making it much more difficult to "authenticate" a vintage print. If that term is even correct.

As for paper, with the advent of technologies like Spyder3 and Colormunki, custom ICC's are well within the reach of the common man. Hence people can make use of their own resources (financial, proximity, connections, etc) to access papers less known (or less accessible) to the mainstream market. Take for instance some of the folks living in Japan. From what I hear, there are papers available locally that surpass anything on the shelves of B&H.

My $0.02

That isn't necessarily a good thing, everything considered. The inks are changing for the better, hence I'd think it'd be easier to replicate an older look and making it much more difficult to "authenticate" a vintage print. If that term is even correct.

As for paper, with the advent of technologies like Spyder3 and Colormunki, custom ICC's are well within the reach of the common man. Hence people can make use of their own resources (financial, proximity, connections, etc) to access papers less known (or less accessible) to the mainstream market. Take for instance some of the folks living in Japan. From what I hear, there are papers available locally that surpass anything on the shelves of B&H.

My $0.02
I don't see what any of this has to do with vintage digital prints. Seems like the discussion has strayed from the original topic.

Don Bryant

I don't see what any of this has to do with vintage digital prints. Seems like the discussion has strayed from the original topic.

Don Bryant

"vintage", as I understand it, relates in some way to a measure of age, uniqueness and authenticity in whatever respect. Reproduction, as in the case of inkjet printing, seems to undermine those characteristics by virtue of its inherent automation. Thus diminishing the perceived value of the print.

Some people mentioned that media (inks, papers, etc) might anchor a "vintage print" to a specific period where/when the inks/papers may have been in use.

Hopefully that puts my response in perspective.

To my knowledge, a vintage print is a print made within the year of it's shooting (more or less).
This used to be the criteria for traditional silver printing, that is, hand printed darkroom prints; multiple prints of the same neg never being identical.

Will a digital Epson print have this same vintage uniqueness 20-30+ years from now?
Will technology be able to replace the 'hand made' character?

This was my initial thought.

Sidney

My point was that for purposes of authentication, one can test the materials in any kind of visual artwork to determine the age and source of the paper, the composition and age of the inks, etc. It may be that a new inkset can in some ways replicate the look of an older inkset, or you can profile papers so that output on one paper looks much like output on another paper, but I think it is unlikely that it will be possible to replicate the chemical and physical properties of earlier materials such that they will not be identifiable by trained conservators.

Recently I had the opportunity to request a high resolution scan of a color engraving from the 1880s for reproduction in an article I am working on, and for my own amusement, I printed it out on my HP B9180 on a couple of different papers--Hahnemühle Albrecht Durer and William Turner. These are both papers that existed long before they were subbed for inkjet, and they can still be purchased as art papers without the inkjet subbing. Both prints were attractive prints, the William Turner closer to the original, but not quite. It would be easy to detect the difference in the color and texture of the paper base alone, and would take considerable effort to find a paper that is a close match to the original. And then the inks from the inkjet don't have the gloss or the relief of the original inks used in the engraving. Even if the colors were a perfect match, ink and paper have so many other qualities, that I don't think forgery will be as simple as it may seem.

Of course many people won't be able to tell the difference, just as many people can't appreciate the difference between a painting, and inkjet print, and a four-color offset poster, but that doesn't mean that the differences aren't detectable.

I don't get it! Vintage cars, vintage wines all have to do with age. Which means if it is a pl/pt print, a fb print or a ink jet print, it all has to do with age. Nothing else. AA made hundreds of prints having to do with some of his images, even now some of them are being reproducted. But the older ones are considered vintage prints.

Although there has always been a debate about what defines a vintage print, typically the strictest definition of what constitutes a vintage print is a print made by or commisioned by the photographer within one year of the making of the photograph. However this definition is frought with exceptions. For example photographers such as Henry Wessel or Lee Friedlander often print (or printed in the case of Friedlander) years after a photo was made.

So in the case of the vintage digital print, a similar definition would probably apply given that the provenance of the print can be established.

The proplem of counterfiet prints isn't restricted to digital prints but has also occured with traditional hand made prints, hence the importance of proof of ownership for vintage prints.

It may also be difficult to replicate the paper that the original digital print is printed on and this maybe one way to help id a digital vintage print.

I suspect for most of us this will never be an issue.

Don Bryant

To further complicate the issue, something like digital printing has been practical for maybe a century, long before digital photography. Outside of the esoteric art community an early wirephoto might be considered a digital vintage print.

From the free dictionary

adj
1. (Miscellaneous Technologies / Brewing) (of wine) of an outstandingly good year
2. representative of the best and most typical vintage Shakespeare
3. of lasting interest and importance; venerable; classic vintage films
4. old-fashioned; dated