As an instructor and as a photographer I often get asked about inkjet printing. Over the years my response has remained mostly the same; At this point, it is not my thing. This is for several reason.
1- Cost. While you can get a decent, or even a very good inkjet printer for a reasonable price, when you start to add the cost of inks and paper (the paper you use REALLY counts) into the overall equation, the cost is pretty high.
2-The environmental impact. Simple put, the myth that digital is better for the environment is just that: a myth. Yes, there are not as many chemicals in the process, but landfills are being jammed with old, outdated computers, printers and cameras. And truthfully, the chemicals in traditional photography (when handled properly) are much kinder to the environment then they once were.
3- I still really like traditional photographic prints. For color, the RA-4 process still produces superior results for less money. And, you can get away with less resolution that what is needed for inkjet print. Why? because, anyway you slice it, inkjet is dots on paper. Traditional photographic prints are still light through dyes, and continuous tone. Plus, it is still cheaper. (see point 1).
Now, does this mean I shun inkjet altogether? No. I use inkjet prints for fast turn around images for my clients, contact sheets for CDs, and for printing on my CDs. I will also admit that I have seen stunning results produced by some photographers using inkjet printing methods. If you don't believe me, go visit Jim Steele and Craig Sterling at the Torpedo Factory (3rd Floor) in Alexandria, VA. Absolutely beautiful stuff. The extra kicker with them is that they mostly shoot on film, and scan it in for the purposes of printing.
That brings me around to the whole analog versus digital photography argument/discussion, but I'll save that for my next post.
Till next time, keep shootin'.
Pete
Posts
