Author |
Topic: Silver Halide vs. inkjet (Read 1298 times) |
|
microdad
Senior Member
member is offline
Gender: 
Posts: 66
|
 |
Silver Halide vs. inkjet
« Thread started on: Jan 17th, 2006, 8:07pm » |
|
A couple of years ago someone wanted to buy a print of mine and was asking if it was "real" or not. At first I wasn't sure what he was talking about but during conversation it came to light that he wanted to know if it was printed on an inkjet printer or if it was a silver halide (what he called "real") print. This was a print I had entered into the fair the year before so it was a silver halide printed by a local lab. He was very insistent on buying only a print that was silver halide. I reassured him it was "real"  but I was baffled by this because I know many of the studios around sell portraits they printed themselves on printers.
Also, after recently moving to a new town, the local photo shop boasts that their prints are "actual silver halide prints" as opposed to inkjet prints.
Does anyone have any insight as far as the pros and cons of silver halide vs. inkjet?
Thank you in advance
|
| « Last Edit: Oct 14th, 2009, 11:30am by microdad » |
 Logged
|
|
|
|
TheLadHimself
Contributing Member
member is offline
Gender:
Posts: 15
|
|
Re: Silver Halide vs. inkjet
« Reply #1 on: Dec 3rd, 2006, 11:22am » |
|
I've just read this old thread and I thought I might be able to offer an opinion.
Out in the real world I manage a small photo lab and people do ask this question quite often. The main advantage to a proper silver halide print is the longevity of the image. A true black and white print on good quality paper that has been fixed well will literally last forever especially so if its had some kind of archival toning such as Selenium (my personal fave). Proof of that statement is that the Royal Photographic Society in Bath, England still have Fox-Talbot's original prints from 1837 and today obviously technology has provided better and more stable chemistry.
However that hasn't always been the case with colour printing. As we've all seen the colour photos from the 60's and 70's have started to deteriorate. This is mainly down to primative technology and the ways the dyes are layered on a print. So the top layer of dye is exposed to air first and starts to change before the other dyes have the same goes with colour negative film. In my business you often find cheaper film deteriorating in random ways but usually with a magenta cast first. Kodak and Fuji have created much more stable emulsions of the past 10 or so years and colour scanning technology have made printing a lot easier. My weapon of choice in my lab is the Fuji Frontier system. Colour paper too has improved when Fuji brought out the Crystal Archive Paper about 10 years ago they initially promised a 75 year guarantee (haven't seen that promise for a while). But the prints I've produced on that paper have not deteriorated over that time. Sadly a lot of labs aren't managed properly and daily chemistry tests aren't done and neither are proper maintenence schedules followed. The amount rubbish I've seen brought in by customers from other labs is shocking. All being well soon my lab will log into the Fuji Oasis remote monitoring service which will give even more accurate testing and calibration.
Inkjet is good, in fact very good. But I can't honestly believe ink will last as long as a proper photo. Also I have yet to a inkjet print that can match the tonal range of a photo especially in the black areas. When I see a print I look for detail in the black areas, you should be able to see inside the shadows. Personally I do use my inkjet for proofing and minor stuff but I'd never give or sell a print produced that way, but I'm blessed with having my own lab to play with!
Hope this opinion is of help, and it is a biased opinion.
Phil
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
SuperJr1600
Contributing Member
member is offline
Fuji says I live in the ugliest place on earth!
Gender:
Posts: 18
|
|
Re: Silver Halide vs. inkjet
« Reply #2 on: Jul 31st, 2007, 04:39am » |
|
I'd agree with TLH on this - Silver-Halide is still the way to go, providing that it is "a proper print," which is the annoying part about photos nowadays. With the unavoidable focus in digital photography, most convenient shops use a 35mm developer and scanner, and then make prints from the scan using an inkjet printer. It's cheaper for the company, and easier for those who would like prints from their digital cameras.
I actually wonder that an inkjet may be able to last longer if it is properly applied/coated by the printer, or after the print is made. Sure, photos from 1837 is hard to compete with, but think about how long inks can last - does 1776 come to mind? How about ancient texts. Granted, none of these were written with petroleum-based ink, but I imagine that modern-day inkjets print and archive at a comparable level as the silver-halide prints, and that most people who were serious enough about their photos to sell them would be certain to use only the best, and most archival printing supplies, and TLH is right, for shadow detail, and absolute-proven durability, you can't beat silver-halide prints... yet?
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Herron
Site Owner
Administrator
member is offline
No burden is heavier
than a great potential!
Gender:
Posts: 1909
|
|
Re: Silver Halide vs. inkjet
« Reply #3 on: Aug 8th, 2007, 3:47pm » |
|
An interesting site on the subject. It can be difficult to navigate, but there is a wealth of info there!
 
|
| « Last Edit: Aug 8th, 2007, 3:59pm by Herron » |
Logged
|
Ron Herron
Photographer & Camera Collector
My Blog: Painting With Light
Travel Pix: Excellent Adventure
My Store: A P E R T U R E
|
|
|
|
