On Inkjet Print Quality

Have just read another comment against digital, this from Mike Johnston and Carl Weese. I think we can safely say that those two haven't seen inkjet prints of such quality. That such prints don't exist however is incorrect. Their comments are divided into two parts, first the process of recording an image digitally, and also printing with inkjet. These are really separate issues as there are lots of people who record on black and white film( with it's inherently greater capability to capture dynamic range), then scan. There are even people who record digitally and make inkjet negatives to contact print in the wet darkroom.

On the subject of capturing the image digitally, I will comment later, but here are some observations about good inkjet prints.

First, let me say that at this point in time (before I have had a chance to use the new Hahnemuhle Pearl paper, inkjet prints look different from silver prints, but different doesn't necessarily mean worse.

I think my inkjet prints look better in the following ways:

1) the colour of the image is nicer. Sure, selenium toning gets rid of the seasick green colour of untoned silver prints, but there is still something wrong about the highlights - a yellowness to the gelatin that doesn't look right after you are used to looking at really good inkjet prints - and would you really pick purple as a colour of choice for the shadows? I know, its supposed to be subtle, but still...

2) Sharpness of inkjet prints is better - I never understood why book and magazine prints looked sharper than the original prints, now I see that it's part of the printing process. Of course, for digitally shot images to look great, there have to be lots of pixels and no fancy uprezing tricks (see prev. article). It can and often is grossly overdone, but we are talking the possibilities of inkjet, not the commonplace.

3) Sharpness of inkjet is better than platinum contact prints which show poor recording of detail and edges, possibly due to the papers, the homemade light senstive platinum coating or to the inherent lack of sharpness of lenses that can cover 12X20 - I'm not really sure.

4) Highlights can be recorded very well with dedicated black and white drivers for the printers (such as Roy Harrington's Quadtone Rip), in fact I would argue that you have far better control of highlights (assuming they were recorded in the first place) with inkjet prints.

Still, we don't yet have those luminous shadows seen in a naked silver glossy dried matte print on quality paper with lots of silver and fully developed. Interestingly, in my experience the difference disappears once the prints are behind glass. The matte print shaddows look every bit as luminous, but bare, in the hand, no, we're not quite there yet. With the strengths though of inkjet prints done well, for many images the inkjet image holds its own nicely.