|
All
dots are not created equal
Compared to a typical desktop inkjet printer, which may boast
700–1,400 dpi, the Iris' 300 dots per inch might seem limited.
But the Iris uses dots that vary in size. While ordinary inkjets lay
down a scattered pattern of tiny, fixed-size dots, the Iris overlaps
dots on top of dots, in all different sizes, to mix its colors. Because
of this you get the perceptual effect of a higher resolution a "visual
dpi" of 1,200 to 1,800.
A desktop inkjet, such as the Epson 3000, prints many dots in the shadows
of an image, packed closely together, but very few dots in the highlights.
The sparse distribution of these fixed-size dots in light areas is often
visible to the naked eye. By contrast, the Iris printer's 32 different
dot sizes make it a true variable dot size printer. "With an Iris printer,
you're maintaining 300-dpi resolution all the way into the highlights,"
says Wilhelm.
Why
choose old-fashioned when there's digital
Just as screenprinting or serigraphy became an accepted art
medium in the 1960s after years of use in commercial printing, so too
is digital print technology entering the mainstream of art.
It's not just the cost advantage that is making this possible. Once
you eliminate the expense of traditional printmaking, which includes
numerous proofs by the artist, a print run that must be executed entirely
at one time, and results that can vary from beginning to end, digital
printmaking still comes out ahead in Wilhelm's mind. "It's the digital
control that is the tremendous advantage," he says.
Cone explains that the move toward new technology is having an impact
on future artists. "As more and more computers have entered the classroom
and art studios, university art students are more inclined to study
new software applications and to incorporate digital technology into
their work instead of learning more traditional printmaking methods.
We may have to relearn traditional printmaking.
"What we try to do [at Cone editions] is provide workshops for students
to show how traditional printmaking can be combined or enhanced with
the inclusion of digital output."
The
digital darkroom
Giclée is particularly, but not exclusively, appealing to
photographers. Established artists, such as Gordon Parks, Helena Chapellín
Wilson, and John Isaac, are turning to digital printing of their photographic
images.
Parks, a photojournalist for Life magazine for more than 20
years, is the subject of a major retrospective organized by The Corcoran
Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C. The touring exhibition includes approximately
200 photographs and a selection of inkjet prints. The artist, whose
photographs capture images of racism, poverty, high fashion, and celebrity,
began experimenting with digital printmaking in the early 1990s. Twenty-four
of his inkjet prints are now in the Corcoran's collection.
Author, artist, and award-winning photojournalist for the United Nations,
John Isaac recently switched from conventional developing to digital
printing, because he finds "there is so much more I can do."
These days, after scanning his negatives, Isaac adjusts color and contrast
levels in Photoshop then saves his images on CD. His experiments with
dye-sub printers led him to try inkjet. "When I printed the negative
of the girls working on the loom on Pictorico's glossy paper with my
Epson Photo EX, I was surprised at the detail. The faces of the girls
had never printed that clearly before. You can see their expressions
through the warp." In fact, Isaac says he now prefers digital printing.
"It's the way to go. Plus, it takes the dirty work out of printing."
Helena Chapellín Wilson agrees. After years of specializing in gum
printing, an age-old, labor-intensive developing process that requires
the use of highly toxic chemicals, she now uses her G3. Wilson shoots
35mm black and white film, scans the negatives and combines them in
Photoshop, then outputs on an inkjet. She varies the results by using
different printers, inks, and papers, as well as additional coatings.
|
