Robert Glenn Ketchum on digital printing vs Ilfochromes

RG Ketchum is a famous landscape photographer who prints coffee table books
with environmental/conservation themes (like his work on the Arctic NWR or the
clear cutting of the Tongass forests in SE Alaska) and sells large fine art
prints to collectors. Since 1980 he's been shooting mostly 6x7 cm Velvia
(Pentax 67) and printing Cibachromes/Ilfochromes, generally 20x24 and 30x40".
He has his own "personal printer" (Michael Wilder) and I figured he'd be one of
the last guys to "go digital".

Well, looks like he's seen the light (or at least the LightJet) and made the
switch. Given all the angst-filled posts about digital prints not matching up
to wet ones I thought I'd quote a bit from an article describing his transition
(July 2004 "Outdoor Photographer" pg 64++). The two or three people who
haven't already made up their minds might find it interesting

"For more than 30 years, I printed almost exclusively on Cibachrome. My
hesitation to move away from Ciba to digital output was because of my concern
that prints on new digital papers wouldn't look as good as on Cibachrome. I
never felt that inkjet prints could produce the kind of results that I'm
accustomed to from true chromogenic paper". (sound familiar?)

He goes on to say how he's changed his mind after seeing LightJet prints of his
work printed on Fuji Crystal Archive paper. He notes the usual improvements
(longer projected print life, less impact on the environment, lower cost,
easier repeatability) and also had this to say, which I found interesting in
light of the guys who say they can't get a good 20x20" digital print from 6x6
cm ....

"When printing Cibachrome, we decided not to go larger than 30x40 inches
note: about a 13-14x blowup because we felt that the acuity of the image
was beginning to deteriorate when we printed any larger. At those larger
sizes, we started to see the softness of lens distortion, light diffraction
over a greater projection distance and those sorts of cumulative traditional
darkroom shortcomings."

But with digital he says the LightJet is "allowing me to print 49 inches by
whatever width my image requires. What I've found with large prints like this
is a level of sharpness that wasn't possible with traditional film enlargers."

I thought this debate between LightJet vs Ilfochromes was settled about 5 years
ago when so many of the big name guys selling prints made the switch (Muench,
Dykinga, etc). The holdouts were often people like Ketchum or Fatali or Chris
Burkett who had a major investment in learning how to do their own custom
Ilfochromes and could use it as a marketing tool (hell, if I could print
Ilfochromes like Burkett I'd probably be slow to switch too) but in the area
where I live (where many well known artists have galleries) I'd guess 90% have
switched to film scans - LightJet (or Chromira or, for the do-it-yourselfer,
Epson 9600/7600) for printing.

So if you can't get good digital prints from your scanned film you're probably
doing something really wrong.

Bill

Recently, Bill Hilton posted:
(largely snipped for brevity)
RG Ketchum is a famous landscape photographer who prints coffee table
books with environmental/conservation themes (like his work on the
Arctic NWR or the clear cutting of the Tongass forests in SE Alaska)
and sells large fine art prints to collectors.
[...]
Well, looks like he's seen the light (or at least the LightJet) and
made the switch. Given all the angst-filled posts about digital
prints not matching up to wet ones I thought I'd quote a bit from an
article describing his transition (July 2004 "Outdoor Photographer"
pg 64++). The two or three people who haven't already made up their
minds might find it interesting

To be clear, I use many technologies for output, including Lightjet. For
many subjects, those prints are just fine. So, while I may be one of the
two or three people you refer too, I'm not a "digital holdout". ;-)

He goes on to say how he's changed his mind after seeing LightJet
prints of his work printed on Fuji Crystal Archive paper. He notes
the usual improvements (longer projected print life, less impact on
the environment, lower cost, easier repeatability) and also had this
to say, which I found interesting in light of the guys who say they
can't get a good 20x20" digital print from 6x6 cm ....

Every couple of years for more than the last decade, there have been
significant improvements in digital output, and I agree that the results
one can get from a drum scan and Lightjet are impressive for many
subjects. It just amazes me that those that can A/B prints of difficult
subjects -- those requiring both sharpness and subtle color rendition --
can't see a qualitative difference between media. Then again, Ilfochromes
exhibit similar qualities to the Lightjet. So, if you like one, you're
bound to like the other.

Neil

Bill Hilton wrote:

RG Ketchum is a famous landscape photographer who prints coffee table books
with environmental/conservation themes (like his work on the Arctic NWR or the
clear cutting of the Tongass forests in SE Alaska) and sells large fine art
prints to collectors. Since 1980 he's been shooting mostly 6x7 cm Velvia
(Pentax 67) and printing Cibachromes/Ilfochromes, generally 20x24 and 30x40".
He has his own "personal printer" (Michael Wilder) and I figured he'd be one of
the last guys to "go digital".


SNIP

Bill,
Very similar to what a local nature photog told our club
recently. He to did his own Ciba's, and coincidently used a 6x7
Pentax as well, usually Velvia. (Beautiful projections). Now he
is moving to a high end printer and scanner for his MF slides.

Regarding Ketchum, is he using a MF digital back, scanning or what?

Cheers,
Alan


--
--e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--

I do use Photoshop (a very old version) but my complaint with going
digital is about philosophy: The computer industry is all about
planned obsolescence and I don't want to buy into that any more than I
must. I use a Mamiya TLR and Nikon F3 which are both over 20 years
old and still work nearly perfectly. But my five year-old computer
won't run new versions of Photoshop. Why should I have to replace
perfectly functional equipment because a software/hardware developer
refuses to make their product backward compatible and, more
importantly, refuses to sell or support anything except the latest
software? What if your mechanic said "Sorry, I can only stock parts
for 2004 model cars, you're out of luck."?

Yes this is idealistic, but I'm a hobbyist who doesn't need to make
20x24 Cibachrome prints or email PJ images from Iraq to Reuters. But
the underlying issue, in my view, is still about WASTEFULNESS and
EFFICIENCY.

dy (Bill Hilton) wrote in message ...
RG Ketchum is a famous landscape photographer who prints coffee table books
with environmental/conservation themes (like his work on the Arctic NWR or the
clear cutting of the Tongass forests in SE Alaska) and sells large fine art
prints to collectors. Since 1980 he's been shooting mostly 6x7 cm Velvia
(Pentax 67) and printing Cibachromes/Ilfochromes, generally 20x24 and 30x40".
He has his own "personal printer" (Michael Wilder) and I figured he'd be one of
the last guys to "go digital".

Well, looks like he's seen the light (or at least the LightJet) and made the
switch. Given all the angst-filled posts about digital prints not matching up
to wet ones I thought I'd quote a bit from an article describing his transition
(July 2004 "Outdoor Photographer" pg 64++). The two or three people who
haven't already made up their minds might find it interesting

"For more than 30 years, I printed almost exclusively on Cibachrome. My
hesitation to move away from Ciba to digital output was because of my concern
that prints on new digital papers wouldn't look as good as on Cibachrome. I
never felt that inkjet prints could produce the kind of results that I'm
accustomed to from true chromogenic paper". (sound familiar?)

He goes on to say how he's changed his mind after seeing LightJet prints of his
work printed on Fuji Crystal Archive paper. He notes the usual improvements
(longer projected print life, less impact on the environment, lower cost,
easier repeatability) and also had this to say, which I found interesting in
light of the guys who say they can't get a good 20x20" digital print from 6x6
cm ....

"When printing Cibachrome, we decided not to go larger than 30x40 inches
note: about a 13-14x blowup because we felt that the acuity of the image
was beginning to deteriorate when we printed any larger. At those larger
sizes, we started to see the softness of lens distortion, light diffraction
over a greater projection distance and those sorts of cumulative traditional
darkroom shortcomings."

But with digital he says the LightJet is "allowing me to print 49 inches by
whatever width my image requires. What I've found with large prints like this
is a level of sharpness that wasn't possible with traditional film enlargers."

I thought this debate between LightJet vs Ilfochromes was settled about 5 years
ago when so many of the big name guys selling prints made the switch (Muench,
Dykinga, etc). The holdouts were often people like Ketchum or Fatali or Chris
Burkett who had a major investment in learning how to do their own custom
Ilfochromes and could use it as a marketing tool (hell, if I could print
Ilfochromes like Burkett I'd probably be slow to switch too) but in the area
where I live (where many well known artists have galleries) I'd guess 90% have
switched to film scans - LightJet (or Chromira or, for the do-it-yourselfer,
Epson 9600/7600) for printing.

So if you can't get good digital prints from your scanned film you're probably
doing something really wrong.

Bill

From: Alan Browne

Regarding Ketchum, is he using a MF digital back, scanning or what?

He's still shooting Velvia and getting 300 MByte 8 bit/channel drum scans from
West Coast Imaging (http://www.westcoastimaging.com/ ). WCI does all the
digital work and ships him proof prints, which he critiques ... from the
article it seems it sometimes takes several passes for him to get *exactly*
what he wants.

"Mike Schuler" wrote:

What if your mechanic said "Sorry, I can only stock parts for
2004 model cars, you're out of luck."?

Hi Mike,

This is probably the best single-line summation of the issue I have yet
seen... I, too, refuse to be led around by the nose by the high-tech
industry, and I work in it.

Ken

"Mike Schuler" wrote in message
om...
I do use Photoshop (a very old version) but my complaint with going
digital is about philosophy: The computer industry is all about
planned obsolescence and I don't want to buy into that any more than I
must. I use a Mamiya TLR and Nikon F3 which are both over 20 years
old and still work nearly perfectly. But my five year-old computer
won't run new versions of Photoshop. Why should I have to replace
perfectly functional equipment because a software/hardware developer
refuses to make their product backward compatible and, more
importantly, refuses to sell or support anything except the latest
software?

For me, the obsolecense isn't in the software, necessarily, but in the fact
that I can get much larger file sizes with a new scanner that my old
computer won't support, or is unable to manage in terms of memory
allocation. It's also true that the software isn't designed to handle such
large file sizes as well as the latest, greatest--at least in Photoshop's
case.
I could stick with what I've got, or I could upgrade in search of better
quality. Ultimately, then, it's the quest for ever greater quality that
drives the obsolesence. That's why it's still too early to jump on the
digital SLR bandwagon, unless you've got the $7000 (as does Bill Hilton) to
plunk down on the 11 megapixel canon. You'll just want another one before
long. The time will come when enough quality is enough, for most of our
needs, at any rate. Some are there already.

--
Regards,
Matt Clara
www.mattclara.com

In article , "Matt Clara"
wrote:

For me, the obsolecense isn't in the software, necessarily, but in the fact
that I can get much larger file sizes with a new scanner that my old
computer won't support, or is unable to manage in terms of memory
allocation. It's also true that the software isn't designed to handle such
large file sizes as well as the latest, greatest--at least in Photoshop's
case.

Unclear. Are you saying that Photoshop CS won't handle large files,
possibly files larger than 2gb? It will, you know.

"one_of_many" wrote in message
news
In article , "Matt Clara"
wrote:

For me, the obsolecense isn't in the software, necessarily, but in the
fact
that I can get much larger file sizes with a new scanner that my old
computer won't support, or is unable to manage in terms of memory
allocation. It's also true that the software isn't designed to handle
such
large file sizes as well as the latest, greatest--at least in
Photoshop's
case.

Unclear. Are you saying that Photoshop CS won't handle large files,
possibly files larger than 2gb? It will, you know.

Apologies: I intended to edit that part, and then forgot. What I'm saying
is that Photoshop CS is much better at handling large file sizes than its
predecessors.

--
Regards,
Matt Clara
www.mattclara.com

Bill Hilton wrote:


So if you can't get good digital prints from your scanned film you're
probably doing something really wrong.


What I'm -not- doing is sending my film out to be drum scaned, manipulated
(or learning how to use the software to do it myself) and then sent out to
be printed. I'm shooting the film, then developing and printing it at my
home so I control the whole process. To get "good digital prints from
scanned film" without sending it out at least for a drum scan (which the
link you provided is $80 a pop) would cost thousands of dollars in
equipment that would be obsolete in 2-3 years. I've tried some of the
cheaper film scanning places and was very disapointed in the results I was
given back. I'm sure this place is good, for $80 a scan I would hope it
would be! :-) Most people aren't using a service this good to have their
film scanned.

Bottom line is I already own the darkroom gear, rarely make prints larger
than 11X14 so why would I go to the trouble and -expense- to go that route
right now? For these pros who already pay someone else to do their
printing, it makes sense. For people who already have a darkroom, at least
to me, it makes no sense whatsoever to spend that type of money just to "go
digital"..

--

Stacey