The Banality of Ink Jet Prints – February
8, 2008
Today I found myself sorting through all kinds of threads on APUG.
One thread
that happened to catch my eye discussed whether paying $500 for a photography
book was worth it. And part of the deal in buying the particular book
being discussed was that the book came with an original inkjet print by
the artist. While I think I’ve made clear my disdain for digital
photography, I thought the following comment by Jason
Brunner was spot on, and more or less summed up the way I feel about
inkjet prints as well.
If I wanted a particular book bad enough, I'd pay what the market
price was. It's a shame about the inkjet print, but I would be paying
for the book anyway. If it had a real print made by the photographer,
so much the better.
My judgment on such a print would also be considered according
to the photographer. If the photographer made inkjet prints as a matter
of course, and that was the medium they worked with, I would consider
it differently than if they worked say in silver gelatin, but the print
in the book was an inkjet. In the latter case, it would feel more to
me like a lazy cheap shortcut to add some value. Some may howl all they
want, but inkjet printing is basically a time and labor saving shortcut.
That's not to say making a good output file is easy, by any means, but
in the end, it is what it is, a print produced completely by a machine.
(I tried making them too, but I quit, because it holds no satisfaction
for me.)
In all cases I am happier with non-inkjets. I have a Brooks Jenson
print that I quite like, but I really wish it were silver. Up on the
wall next to my other prints I can tell the difference, and knowing
anybody with access to the file could produce exactly the same inkjet
print sort of keeps my affection for it at a distance. I feel like it
is a very good copy of an image, but a copy nonetheless. That’s
just how I feel, and somebody may point out that it is illogical. Maybe
so, but that is still the way I feel.
And by the way, I would have no problem paying $500 for a photography
book if that was the going price and I thought the book was well done
and the work was something I greatly admired. I’d probably be more
apt to pay $500 for a single print as opposed to a book, but either way
$500 doesn’t seem outlandish to me. And a book from an artist I
admire along with an actual handmade print, well that would definitely
be worth the trouble. |
