Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 24 of 24

Thread: Pictorico OHP, anyone found alternatives?

  1. #21

    Pictorico OHP, anyone found alternatives?

    Sorry, I wasn't clear - Pt/Pd made using digi negs.

  2. #22

    Pictorico OHP, anyone found alternatives?

    I can think of two reasons for authenticating or at least identifying process. They may wish to have confidence in vintage photography, distinguish between traditional and modern/hybrid methodology, for example.

    No one likes to find out they paid alot of money for something they thought was one thing and find out it's another.

    ...and if it's possible to fake something, there are people with an interest in doing so.

    Apparently alot of places really can't tell the difference between platinum and certain other early processes. When an entire collection is labeled 'Platinum Print' but they don't look anything alike, I wonder how they were sure...the assumptions of the person who gifted them to the museum?

    My guess is if someone can fool someone else with a giclee (supposing it were possible), and it is possible to prove one way of the other that silver grains are visible vs ink droplet spray pattern, certain institutions have an obligation to make an effort to distinguish.

    I have seen other non-photographic prints that were believed by the print owner to have been made exclusively by a single technique, amazing me that it was possible to do what they were showing me. I then saw the same print/artist in a book given to me by the person who bought the print, and it said plain as day it was a combination of two techniques!

    That explained what I thought was impossible, but I was surprised the collector didn't know. I didn't have to get a microscope to prove was in the book he gave me :O)

    If and when the day comes people cannot distinguish one method from another due to process improvement, then there will be something someone else will worry about.

  3. #23

    Pictorico OHP, anyone found alternatives?

    One thing to keep in mind is that printer in the comparison is an Epson 2200, which I think dates from around 2002 and is obsolete. The current generation can do better, and printers aren't likely to get worse in the future. As interest in hybrid methods expands, there may well be better materials than OHP.

    I can certainly see why a gallery would want to know if a print is made by purely traditional methods vs hybrid methods. No matter how good the hybrid print looks (even if it looks better than the traditional print), there will be some who put more value on the purely traditional print. Nothing wrong with that, woodworkers have been having the argument over machine-cut vs. hand-cut dovetails for a couple of decades at least. Usually, the machine-cut joints are more accurate, but people who like wood still seem to prefer hand-cut joints and will pay a lot of money to have them.

    If you want something that looks great hanging on the wall, a hybrid print (or even an inkjet print) is probably as good as a traditional print. If you are a collector, or if you are interested in how the print was made, maybe not. It's nice that both markets exist, but it's worth noting that most of the people who have to make a living at photography are using digital methods wherever they can.

    Thanks for posting the links, David. That's interesting information. And welcome to f/295!

  4. #24
    Administrator Tom Persinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Pittsburgh PA USA

    Pictorico OHP, anyone found alternatives?

    Thanks for remininding everyone that Inkpress will be at f295! Yes, they will be handing out free samples, and they'll also be providing Jill Enfield's digital negative class with transparency material (a great way to test it out too!)

    I'm with Moot, great discussion, thanks David for kicking it off!


Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts