PDA

View Full Version : How do you describe ink jet process



John Brady
24-Nov-2008, 17:36
I know this thread can go downhill quickly and I hope it doesn't but here goes anyway.

I have been doing juried art shows this year and I am showing 32x40 inch framed black and white prints I make on an epson printer from 8x10 film. Some of my patrons love the fact that I still shoot film but then we get into the inevitable discussion about printing. First off they think they are silver prints but I explain to them they are giclee, a term I hate using by the way. Calling them ink jet doesn't sound very flattering either. I try to explain to them that I had been a silver printer since I was a boy and had even worked at a lab back when they still had such things. I try to explain to them that for the work I am doing today that I couldn't achieve the same results any other way and feel it is the best method to produce the look that these prints have.

I am trying to come up with an honest yet better way to describe this process. If any of you have any suggestions I would love to here them.

An observation I have made is that the people who are buying my work are not concerned about the process but are instead buying the image. The people who want to have lengthy discussions about the process once had a dark room and in most cases have no interest in buying my work anyway.

I would love to develop some brief statement that brought people back to admiring the work and not get hung up on the process.

I am not embarrassed about my methodology and I am not trying to appear better or worse then anyone doing wet prints. I would just like people to focus on the quality of the image, that is if they feel it has any.

Any advice would be appreciated.
www.timeandlight.com

Bill L.
24-Nov-2008, 17:49
FWIW, I tell them that I print on an Epson professional photo printer using archival inks (or that I'm using a 9800 or 4800 inkjet printers if the person is interested). If people ask me about giclees, I discourage the term as too generic, it can be used by some to mean high quality archival prints or by others for someone's $50 home inkjet. Our take is that if the artist is reasonable, they should be willing to talk about their processes at least sufficiently so that the buyer knows what to expect for permanence of the print. I agree with your observation that those who are interested in buying the photo have not really cared about the process in general. I shoot primarily color, though.

The one downside of going through my process lately has been "oh - can you print MY photos like that?" Sigh.

Cheers!
Bill

Joel Truckenbrod
24-Nov-2008, 18:26
Giclee is really just a marketing tactic in my opinion - while it works for some, I'm also not a fan of the term. I prefer to describe it in terms of the material process - think of "Gelatin Silver" as an example. So, in my case the materials typically would be described as "Pigment on Cotton Rag Paper".

BarryS
24-Nov-2008, 18:42
These days you'll rarely see a museum or reputable gallery use the term giclee. I use the terms "pigment print", or "pigment ink print", and I've been seeing more museums use similar terms.

Walter Calahan
24-Nov-2008, 18:45
Gee Clay – clear as mud to me.

I hate the French term for spaying ink on paper.

But then I'm sure the French hate it when they are forced to use an English word to describe something.

Ha ha ha ha ha

Eric Brody
24-Nov-2008, 19:22
I like the terms "pigment print" or "archival pigment print." Both terms are accurate, I hope the archival part is true with K3 inks on the new baryta papers. I too dislike "giclee" because it sounds pretentious. I don't use the term "inkjet" because I believe that prints made on the higher end Epsons (and probably Canons and HP's though I know nothing about them) ARE superior to dye inkjet prints made on many home printers. I like Joel's choice of "pigment on cotton rag," because it is descriptive. Any description that is honest and not pretentious is ok with me.

Eric

Kirk Gittings
24-Nov-2008, 20:31
"Archival Pigment Ink Print" or simply "Pigment Ink Print".

roteague
24-Nov-2008, 21:14
Ink Jet prints

David A. Goldfarb
24-Nov-2008, 21:33
"Pigment print" is a historical process, also called "pigment transfer print," and should not be confused with "pigment inkjet print." Calling an inkjet print of any sort simply a "pigment print" is a distortion and to my mind, fraudulent.

Toyon
24-Nov-2008, 21:42
I agree, if I saw "Pigment print" I would suspect the artist is hiding something. Inkjet seems quite accurate and doesn't denigrate the medium. Giclee is simply French slang for "ejaculate", so one can make generative inferences. I value inkjets less than silver gelatin, as many people do, simply because a wet print is the actual artifact of light-induced chemical reactions, so it is actually a photograph, while an inkjet is a reproduction of a light-induced reaction happening on a separate device. So the inkjet is one-step removed. Others don't care, the final product is what matter to them. But to me, process is integral.

Oren Grad
24-Nov-2008, 21:43
I'd just say that they're inkjet prints that use pigment-based inks; the first part is the simplest statement of what they are, while the second is a reasonable qualification because it establishes that they're likely to have decent longevity.

I'd skip the apologetics about how you used to be a silver printer. You're entitled to use whatever medium you want; the fact that to your taste this one best achieves your current esthetic objectives is justification enough.

D. Bryant
24-Nov-2008, 22:04
-

Any advice would be appreciated.
www.timeandlight.com

Carbon pigment ink jet print is often used these days, assuming that you are using carbon pigment inks.

Don Bryant

JBrunner
24-Nov-2008, 22:05
My thoughts-use the medium you prefer, and call it what it is. "Archival Inkjet Print" Why all the hubub and pretense? There are bad cheaply done silver gelatin prints, and really great ones that stretch the media to the limit. Same with inkjet. I swear some of the people that print inkjet are more hung up on process than us dinosaurs.:D

eddie
24-Nov-2008, 22:12
I value inkjets less than silver gelatin, as many people do, simply because a wet print is the actual artifact of light-induced chemical reactions, so it is actually a photograph, while an inkjet is a reproduction of a light-induced reaction happening on a separate device. So the inkjet is one-step removed. Others don't care, the final product is what matter to them. But to me, process is integral.

well said! i agree. i think i will write this down. i could not have expressed myself better than this!

thanks

David Luttmann
25-Nov-2008, 06:36
"Archival Pigment print on Cotton Rag" (or Bamboo) for me. I only mention the substrate it's printed upon just like those who print on conventional paper only mention Silver Gelatin......I never see the process mentioned.....light projection on silver Gel.

Brooks Jensen
25-Nov-2008, 06:55
Pertinent to this discussion, here is text from a sheet I include with prints, just to be fully transparent about such things:

"I am now offering inkjet images — the correct terminology is actually "pigment-on-paper." I refuse to call these giclée — a term I’ve always thought was meant to disguise rather than to elucidate. Gelatin silver and platinum/palladium prints are so designated because they indicate precisely the nature of the imaging chemistry and/or substrate. Neither of these are defined as their mechanical means of production — "projection prints" or "contact prints" although these would both be technically accurate terms that are occasionally used as supplemental descriptions. Similarly, "inkjet" is an accurate term describing the mechanics of delivery used, but pigment-on-paper describes the material — chemistry and substrate — and is a better equivalent for comparison to "gelatin silver" or "platinum/palladium" prints."

I believe that total transparency is the key to building trust with an audience. Whatever medium we use, as photographers we should do everything possible to help our audience have a full understanding of what we use and why we use it.

Brooks

John Brady
25-Nov-2008, 07:34
Pertinent to this discussion, here is text from a sheet I include with prints, just to be fully transparent about such things:

"I am now offering inkjet images — the correct terminology is actually "pigment-on-paper."

I believe that total transparency is the key to building trust with an audience. Whatever medium we use, as photographers we should do everything possible to help our audience have a full understanding of what we use and why we use it.

Brooks

Thank you all! this is the kind of discussion and feedback I was hoping for.

Brooks, thank you for articulating so well what I was trying to get to. My goal is not to deceive but to help my patrons understand that my ink print process in no way resembles what they could do at home. I don't think they would understand my use of a rip or my use of a printer with 8 separate inks etc. I want to keep it simple but at the same time understand that this is quality.

I like the "pigment on paper" statement.
www.timeandlight.com

Miguel Coquis
25-Nov-2008, 07:44
Digital Prints, and this can be one or the other. After scanning, everything becomes dig.
No matter if it is a Silver Gelatin or Petrol Jet (inks source) prints are Digital.
No ?

JBrunner
25-Nov-2008, 08:44
"Archival Pigment print on Cotton Rag" (or Bamboo) for me. I only mention the substrate it's printed upon just like those who print on conventional paper only mention Silver Gelatin......I never see the process mentioned.....light projection on silver Gel.

Actually it is mentioned with fair regularity in provenance. "Silver Gelatin Enlargement " and "Silver Gelatin Contact Print"

David A. Goldfarb
25-Nov-2008, 08:54
I'm a little dubious about variations on "ink on paper" as a way of describing inkjet prints. "Ink on paper" is usually used to described pen-and-ink drawings, sumi-e, and such. If someone took a pen-and-ink drawing, scanned it, and printed it out on an inkjet printer, I think most people would find it misleading to call it simply, "ink on paper."

Brian Ellis
25-Nov-2008, 09:52
Gee Clay – clear as mud to me.

I hate the French term for spaying ink on paper.

But then I'm sure the French hate it when they are forced to use an English word to describe something.

Ha ha ha ha ha

My understanding is that "giclee" actually isn't even a French word, it's a word dreamed up from the actual French word for spraying or something like that. I hate the term myself, it screams "pretentious" and "marketing ploy" to me.

If I'm just showing prints (i.e. not for sale) I don't say anything. I never used to go into detail about the materials and methods used for darkroom prints and see no reason to do so for digital. If someone asks I tell them. If prints are for sale I call them ink jet prints made on such and such a paper. That's what they are and I see no reason to try to gussy up the description for marketing purposes. If the people like the photographs they buy them and don't care how they're made. If they don't like them they won't buy them no matter how they're made. If people were paying thousands of dollars for my photographs it might be different but unfortunately they're not.

pablo batt
25-Nov-2008, 16:36
i allways call them crapjets

Maris Rusis
25-Nov-2008, 16:57
When buying or selling I like to specify all art media, ink-jets included, in terms of what "mark making stuff" on what substrate. For example Epson pigment ink on Canson watercolour paper, gelatin-silver photograph on fibre/baryta base, Windsor and Newton oil paint on Belgian linen, and so on.

When discussing the technical, aesthetic, and philosophical implications of various media the means whereby the "mark making stuff" gets onto the substrate is relevant. Oil painting is the result of someone using hand power to push paint over a surface with a tool. Ink-jet is using a mark placing machine to plot out the contents of an electronic file. And a photograph is an accumulation of marks formed in a sensitive surface as a consequence of being penetrated by light.

Each medium has a different relationship to subject matter and in consequence a different relationship to the astute viewer.

Brian Ellis
26-Nov-2008, 01:12
i allways call them crapjets

Congratulations on your 4th post.

Greg Lockrey
26-Nov-2008, 03:21
Congratulations on your 4th post.

Don't feed the troll, Brian.

Brian Ellis
26-Nov-2008, 10:26
Don't feed the troll, Brian.

You're right Greg. I actually tried to delete my response but for some reason couldn't get back to the "edit" button.

JBrunner
26-Nov-2008, 10:46
Don't feed the troll, Brian.

I have been impressed that except for the one dense response that this thread has remained in the realm of thoughtful considerations. I honestly don't think any universal term will be forthcoming from photographers to describe these "new process". I think the slow and methodical world of the curator will eventually come to bear. I have to admit that I have a peeve with the multiple descriptions that must be deciphered at times to figure out what I am considering, particularly when I can't see the physical artifact in person, such as on the internet. Some say that process is irrelevant, that is of course true for those that hold that opinion, but in my mind that is sort of like saying a photograph of a statue and the statue in person are the same experience. Since I am a "print oriented" person, process is relevant, because process imparts character, and knowing the process helps me make an informed decision about what that character is, in absence of being there. I'm glad that I'm not so numb to media as to think it is nothing but information. I have several inkjets or whatever you want to call them in my collection. One by Brooks that I quite like, and elicits remarks of satisfaction in almost everybody who views it. I don't discriminate about method, but some clarity would be nice. I have remarked elsewhere that the attempt by some to homogenize all photographic mediums as the same thing does damage to photography as a whole. Sort of like we can't get it together, as an artistic medium. If we can't get it together, why should else anyone take us seriously?

Paul Kierstead
26-Nov-2008, 14:28
Congratulations on your 4th post.

My apologies for veering OT, but why is he listed at 4 posts? He has quite a few more then that. Me no count so good, but me count more then four OK. Well, up to 10 if wearing socks.

David Luttmann
26-Nov-2008, 14:36
Actually it is mentioned with fair regularity in provenance. "Silver Gelatin Enlargement " and "Silver Gelatin Contact Print"

That may be so....bit I must admit I've never seen enlargement mentioned....but I see contact print a fair bit.

I'm certain there will never be a truly correct answer to this.

Greg Lockrey
26-Nov-2008, 16:42
My apologies for veering OT, but why is he listed at 4 posts? He has quite a few more then that. Me no count so good, but me count more then four OK. Well, up to 10 if wearing socks.


Lounge posts do not count.

Rakesh Malik
27-Nov-2008, 12:01
My apologies for veering OT, but why is he listed at 4 posts? He has quite a few more then that. Me no count so good, but me count more then four OK. Well, up to 10 if wearing socks.

It seems to me that you should be able to count to 12 if you're wearing socks :)

Lenny Eiger
27-Nov-2008, 13:14
I value inkjets less than silver gelatin, as many people do, simply because a wet print is the actual artifact of light-induced chemical reactions, so it is actually a photograph, while an inkjet is a reproduction of a light-induced reaction happening on a separate device. So the inkjet is one-step removed. Others don't care, the final product is what matter to them. But to me, process is integral.

This is ridiculous. Please don't imagine that I am attacking you personally, I have only respect for everyone here, but I find this statement without merit. What photographers work with is light. Who cares what mechanism is used to transfer the light? A camera is a mechanical device. They made similar arguments about photography not being an art in the late 1800's because the art was made with a device, rather than one's hand. This is the same kind of thinking.

And what about platinum prints? Beautiful, are they not? Highly regarded for sure.... However, how about all those folks who use pictorico to make enlarged negatives on their inkjets that they then use to make the contact prints? Are these sub-standard platinum prints? I don't think so....

The inkjet medium, with the right materials, knowledge and processes has a longer tonal range than a darkroom print, a darker dmax, for those of you that care about that, and you get to use beautiful papers made by mills that are hundreds of years old, that feel like magic in your hand. What's the problem?

I'm not suggesting for a minute that anyone has to like inkjet prints, the process of making an inkjet print or that they should change what they are doing. But the medium is every bit as capable as the darkroom medium, the alternative print medium, etc., for making prints. Each medium has its advantages. You can make a wide format print look exactly like a platinum print, with every bit of detail and atmosphere, and everything else. It's just as hard as doing it in the darkroom. There simply is nothing "less" about it.

As much as some of you don't want to leave the darkroom process, I don't like the look of prints encased in goo, also known as emulsion. It doesn't make me want to suggest that a Alfred Stieglitz print is any less than it is, which is fantastic, to say the least. He worked in the best medium that was available at the time, for him. I think people working in any excellent medium should be afforded the same courtesy.

Lenny

Carioca
27-Nov-2008, 13:46
Ink Jet prints

Ink Jet, I agree.
What's wrong with it?
If you care about the quality of your image, why bother with it's term?

Ken Lee
27-Nov-2008, 14:51
I call mine Ultrachrome prints.

That's what Epson (http://www.epson.com/cgi-bin/Store/Landing/UltraChromeK3.jsp) calls the inks, so that's what I call the prints.

Carioca
27-Nov-2008, 15:17
I call mine Ultrachrome prints.

That's what Epson (http://www.epson.com/cgi-bin/Store/Landing/UltraChromeK3.jsp) calls the inks, so that's what I call the prints.

K3 or K4?
Terms change fast these days...

Jeffrey Arthur
29-Nov-2008, 09:53
I always have to be careful looking at a print, especially online that is called pigment or carbon. I have always been interested in old school carbon printing with pigment printing being the three color variety. Sometimes I have looked online at a sight describing works as carbon pigment prints thinking it is old school only to find that it is ink jet. Terminology can be misleading so I am grateful for a candid description of what the process is.

Brian_A
29-Nov-2008, 10:47
How do I describe the ink jet process?

Time consuming.

But, that said, I am all about complete control of the end print.

John Brady
29-Nov-2008, 11:52
Along with your artist statement you might consider posting or printing a short synopsis of the working methods you use for the viewers to read. This will help keep you from having to explain the same thing over and over again and might stimulate some questions from buyers that can only help better inform them and create more interest in your work. This might be very helpful to those who think digital is what they see at Walmart labs as your explanation puts the images in the realm of art instead of what their cousins nephew does in high school. Education of clients never hurts.

Hi Dakotah, thats what led me to my original question in the first place. I post a brief bio and also a brief description of my process. In that description I have been refering to my prints as Giclee. As mentioned I hate the term but I don't want to mislead people into thinking they are silver prints. When they realize I shoot film they assume that I print in the darkroom. If I just call them ink jet it makes them think that it is similar in quality or process to what they can do at home on their $99.00 printer.

So far I really like some of the suggestions such as the simple phrase "pigment ink on paper".

Thank you all for the intelligent discussion and suggestions.
john
www.timeandlight.com

lecarp
29-Nov-2008, 13:17
If I just call them ink jet it makes them think that it is similar in quality or process to what they can do at home on their $99.00 printer.
[/url]

If you are truly worried about misrepresenting your work, then call them what they are, inkjet prints.
The fact that you paid more for your printer does not change them into something else.

John Brady
29-Nov-2008, 13:37
If you are truly worried about misrepresenting your work, then call them what they are, inkjet prints.
The fact that you paid more for your printer does not change them into something else.

Sorry, I spoke to soon about intelligent discussion.

Steve M Hostetter
29-Nov-2008, 13:43
My thoughts-use the medium you prefer, and call it what it is. "Archival Inkjet Print" Why all the hubub and pretense? There are bad cheaply done silver gelatin prints, and really great ones that stretch the media to the limit. Same with inkjet. I swear some of the people that print inkjet are more hung up on process than us dinosaurs.:D

Hello J,,,, I wanna take oppertunity to thank you for helping me gain the confedence to process film after viewing your youtube videos,,, but I had to translate all that info into Jobo drum terms .... :D Regards

lecarp
29-Nov-2008, 13:52
Sorry, I spoke to soon about intelligent discussion.

Funny how the truth is considered not to be intelligent these days.

Lenny Eiger
29-Nov-2008, 13:57
Hi Dakotah, thats what led me to my original question in the first place. I post a brief bio and also a brief description of my process. In that description I have been refering to my prints as Giclee. As mentioned I hate the term but I don't want to mislead people into thinking they are silver prints. When they realize I shoot film they assume that I print in the darkroom. If I just call them ink jet it makes them think that it is similar in quality or process to what they can do at home on their $99.00 printer.

So far I really like some of the suggestions such as the simple phrase "pigment ink on paper".

Thank you all for the intelligent discussion and suggestions.
john
www.timeandlight.com

I hate the term Giclee. I'm no prude, but called my prints "sperm prints" seems to cheapen them a bit. I work very hard at it (as do a lot of others) and Giclee seems to be for those folks who are kind of haphazard at it... I talked to one local fellow who does fine art reproduction and he has the artist come over and asks them continuously "is that good enough" until they relent and he can deliver some half-baked piece of junk. Roland is now making canvas for ecosol ink so that the people who print signs and banners can also make Giclee's. Pretty soon there'll be a Costco/Walmart kiosk for it... less and less quality.

I am also cognizant that the terms Giclee and/or inkjet do not connote any quality differential. It's true that one can make a truly exquisite print on a $99 printer, altho' it might be 8 1/2x11 or smaller. Most of the difference is good paper...

Since I use b&w inks, I like the term carbon pigment prints. That separates them from carbon prints, which are indeed wonderful, and also from plain old Epson ink, ABW, etc. The ink I use is pure carbon pigment. It is wonderful stuff....

That's my 2cents.

Lenny

paulr
29-Nov-2008, 21:29
There's no shame in "inkjet print," especially if you're showing to an audience that knows a lot about photography. My fear, though, is that people less versed in newer printing methods will think I just hit print on an office printer like they do picures of their kids.

So in my own materials, I call my b+w work (which is printed with quadtone pigments) "carbon pigment ink prints," and my color work (printed with 8 color pigment inks) "pigment ink prints."

Jeffrey is right that you must never call the carbon pigment prints "carbon prints." That's just total confusion.

For the first time an ink print of mine was acquired by a museum, and it showed up in their catalog as just an inkjet print. They can call it whatever they want!

Los
29-Nov-2008, 22:56
in mixed company, i appreciate an "ink jet" description.

Rakesh Malik
30-Nov-2008, 02:02
I am also cognizant that the terms Giclee and/or inkjet do not connote any quality differential.



Of course they do, otherwise this discussion wouldn't be happening.

I suspect that you meant to say that they don't indicate any quality differential, which is true, since they're exactly the same thing. :)

sanking
30-Nov-2008, 09:58
It is not normally necessary to clarify the mechanics of production of true continuous tone photographs because the mechanics of delivery is necessarily a print processed in a wet darkroom. There may be some exceptions but for the most part we know that prints identified as salted paper, cyanotype, platinotype, albumen, carbon collodion POP, matte collodion, gelatin developing out papers, etc. were processed in a wet darkroom and are continuous tone. There are, however, some processes where the nature of the imaging chemistry and/or substrate was not seen as sufficient for full identification. One clear example of this would be a carbon print compared to a woodburytype. Although both are comprised of a pigment encapsulated in hardened gelatin a carbon print is a true photograph whereas the woodburytype is a print made with photomechanical process that could produce multiple prints. Carbon and woodburytype prints are “virtually” indistinguishable because both processes give continuous tone images.

My take on the above is that it is indeed important to identify the mechanics of delivery because that fact will clarify whether the print is a continuous tone photograph or one made with a photomechanical process capable of multiples. So the use of the delivery device in the production of the print, say inkjet, or whatever may be used in the future, is an important part of print identification.

Some respect for the history of the medium is needed. Clearly we should not call inkjet prints as “carbon prints” because carbon printing has a strong presence in photographic history, both as direct carbon and as carbon transfer. And the term “pigment print” has also been used. Strand used it to describe gum bichromate and other pigment based processes used by the pictorialists, and the term is also used to describe carbro prints made by Josef Sudek. These processes, known by different names, are in fact very similar to each other in that in every case the image is comprised of a pigment encapsulated in a hardened colloid (gum or gelatin) carrier, and are continuous tone in nature.

Personally I find the terms “carbon pigment inkjet” or “pigment inkjet” perfectly acceptable. Giclée, IMO, is a useless and pretentious designation, as is “archival pigment print.” I don't find that pigment on paper adds much to the discussion, in fact may confuse it some since some supports are more archival than paper and one of the primary purposes of the use of pigment inks is to enhance the archival qualities of the print.

Sandy King



Pertinent to this discussion, here is text from a sheet I include with prints, just to be fully transparent about such things:

"I am now offering inkjet images — the correct terminology is actually "pigment-on-paper." I refuse to call these giclée — a term I’ve always thought was meant to disguise rather than to elucidate. Gelatin silver and platinum/palladium prints are so designated because they indicate precisely the nature of the imaging chemistry and/or substrate. Neither of these are defined as their mechanical means of production — "projection prints" or "contact prints" although these would both be technically accurate terms that are occasionally used as supplemental descriptions. Similarly, "inkjet" is an accurate term describing the mechanics of delivery used, but pigment-on-paper describes the material — chemistry and substrate — and is a better equivalent for comparison to "gelatin silver" or "platinum/palladium" prints."

I believe that total transparency is the key to building trust with an audience. Whatever medium we use, as photographers we should do everything possible to help our audience have a full understanding of what we use and why we use it.

Brooks

JBrunner
30-Nov-2008, 14:48
I don't think inkjet is a dirty word. I don't feel the need to differentiate between a really good print and a really poor print made using similar methods holds any water. The quality is in the print, not in a description. The description should be non-obscufatory. Describing one of my prints correctly as gelatin silver does not elevate it from poorly executed examples of the same medium. FWIW I feel the need to come up with some kind of exotic name for a common method that is practiced with different levels of quality is pretentious.

nathanm
4-Dec-2008, 09:04
Expensivus Inkus Print
Light Impact Dot Matrix Print

ljb0904
4-Dec-2008, 11:26
How about just calling it art. :-D

How can calling an inkjet print a "pigment print" be a distortion. The device sprays pigment on to the paper. Call it a "pigment spray print" if you like, but it's still a paper with pigment on it that obeys the laws of physics and reflects certain spectra of light.

I don't like "giclee" cuz it has a reproduction connotation that I don't like. When people ask me if my prints are giclees, I say no.

My prints are made from an inkjet, but do not use pigment, but rather dyes. I like my fancy term "dye infusion print" :-)

paulr
4-Dec-2008, 12:19
How can calling an inkjet print a "pigment print" be a distortion.

It's not so much about it being a distortion. It's about arriving at a standard vocabulary that everyone understands.

If you call something an "inkjet print," it's accurate, but at this point in time may still give people an inaccurate impression (is it a final print or just a proof?)

If you call it a "pigment print," no one will know what you're talking about, because that's not a standard term.

We have this issue now because these prints just haven't been in use long enough (and they've been evolving so quickly).

It looks like the art establishment is slowly settling on "inkjet print," but until that's comfortably entrenched, a little added description can be helpful. In much the same way I list some of my traditional prints as "gold toned gelatin silver prints." Gelatin Silver is the official term, but the added description is relevent and accurate.

roteague
4-Dec-2008, 12:48
How about just calling it art. :-D

How can calling an inkjet print a "pigment print" be a distortion. The device sprays pigment on to the paper. Call it a "pigment spray print" if you like, but it's still a paper with pigment on it that obeys the laws of physics and reflects certain spectra of light.

Some people who don't use inkjet printers for their work, don't want their work confused with inkjet prints.

Mike Lopez
4-Dec-2008, 13:10
Some people who don't use inkjet printers for their work, don't want their work confused with inkjet prints.


If inkjet output is as bad as its detractors claim, this shouldn't be a problem, should it?

Vaughn
4-Dec-2008, 14:17
A photograph consists of two parts. The image, and the method of reproducing/viewing the image. IMO, the most successful photographs are created in a perfect blending of the two parts. Nothing can beat a strong image presented well.

That said, the question becomes "What is the value of the photograph?" And this is where it is important that accurate and clear information is provided to the viewer. As a true, black-goo carbon printer, I know that any person passing off an inkjet print as a "Carbon print" should burn in the deepest pits of Hell. :p

As photographers, we place a value on our work...but in the end it is the buyer that actually creates the monatary value (one can price one's work at $1000, but if no one buys it, it does not have a value of $1000) and history that places the intrinsic value.

Given photographs of equally strong images (a subjective decision, to be sure), I give greater value to the photograph hand-made by the photographer. That is a generality to be sure, and my bias. But given two well-printed 8x10 prints of the same image -- one an inkjet , the other a platinum print -- I would place the value of the latter at least 5:1 over the former (for example $400 for the latter and $80 for the former). Most ink jet prints (IMO) are grossly over-priced.

So that is why I feel that it is important to label one's work honestly and clearly. If it is made with an inkjet printer, it should be labeled as such. The quality of the inkjet printer does not matter -- that will be seen in the print itself...just as there is no reason to label what type of enlarger/lens one prints a silver gelatin print -- the quality of the printed image will disclose that.

Vaughn

roteague
4-Dec-2008, 14:44
If inkjet output is as bad as its detractors claim, this shouldn't be a problem, should it?

I don't think it necessarily has to do with quality, at least for some people. There are other reasons why people don't want to use, or be associated with inkjet printing, for their work. It could just be a matter of esthetics or a simple desire to have or create something by hand.

paulr
4-Dec-2008, 15:39
The main thing is that it's customary to label work with the type of media. Oil on Canvas, marble, Lithograph, etc.. Photographs are almost alwyays labeled according to the print medium, not the capture or processing method. Platinum print, chromogenic print, photogravure, daguerrotype, cibachrome, etc... In all these cases, a standard name was arrived at by consensus. With any new medium, it takes a while.

sanking
4-Dec-2008, 19:00
But to put things in perspective, it has also been customary to differentiate between processes capable of similar or near identical multiples, and processes that were typically worked one-off. I mentioned earlier the case of carbon transfer versus woodburytype. One is a photograph, the other is a print made with a photo mechanical process.

The same distinction could also be made between a carbon print and a photogravure. While each begins with a carbon tissue, in the case of carbon transfer there is one unique photograph produced, whereas with photogravure the carbon tissue becomes the matrix for making multiple prints.

I personally see inkjet printing as a photo mechanical process that produces prints, and is capable of similar or near identical multiples. This to me is an important distinction between an inkjet print and photographs as we have understood them in the past.

Sandy King







The main thing is that it's customary to label work with the type of media. Oil on Canvas, marble, Lithograph, etc.. Photographs are almost alwyays labeled according to the print medium, not the capture or processing method. Platinum print, chromogenic print, photogravure, daguerrotype, cibachrome, etc... In all these cases, a standard name was arrived at by consensus. With any new medium, it takes a while.

David A. Goldfarb
4-Dec-2008, 20:45
How can calling an inkjet print a "pigment print" be a distortion. The device sprays pigment on to the paper. Call it a "pigment spray print" if you like, but it's still a paper with pigment on it that obeys the laws of physics and reflects certain spectra of light.

You're ignoring history. There is already a kind of print called a "pigment print" produced by a very different process than a pigment inkjet print. Calling a pigment inkjet print a "pigment print" is suggesting an equivalence between the two, which is misleading for the reasons Sandy King has stated.

roteague
5-Dec-2008, 11:33
In all these cases, a standard name was arrived at by consensus. With any new medium, it takes a while.

The technology we now have, it certainly will take time to sort out and come to a consensus on naming.

I have an old Epson R200, and I guess I could describe prints I could make on it as "pigment print" or even "inkjet", but would anyone consider prints from this old printer to be fine art or even quality? Doubtful.

IanG
5-Dec-2008, 12:26
How about just calling it art. :-D

How can calling an inkjet print a "pigment print" be a distortion. The device sprays pigment on to the paper. Call it a "pigment spray print" if you like, but it's still a paper with pigment on it that obeys the laws of physics and reflects certain spectra of light.


There is some confusing here because there are two totally different materials being used. 99% of inkjet printers use dyes which are organic compounds. Some will have far better light fastness than others. Under 1% of images made with an Inkjet printer use Pigments instead of dyes. Actually David Goldfarb is wrong in a way because thepigments used have much in common with the older Pigment processes.

What is important is that digital prints whether made with dyes or pigments are correctly b described and aren't passed off as something they aren't. There was the case last year of a photographer selling digital produced Platinum prints.

Last time I exhibited Digital prints, back around 2001, I described them as "Consumer Inkjet prints". Personally I hate the term Giclee which came into use around the time that Graham Nash, the musician & photographer, became involved in setting up a company producing high quality inkjet prints.

Ian

David A. Goldfarb
5-Dec-2008, 14:17
The pigments have much in common with the earlier pigment processes, but the process has little in common with the earlier pigment processes, and that is the salient point.

Kirk Gittings
5-Dec-2008, 14:23
This debate reminds me of something we did in the late 60's while in art school. One of the processes I was very involved in was photo silkscreening. Using the identical facilities, equipment and inks, we were making political posters (on cheap paper) for demonstrations on one hand and fine art prints (on good rag papers) for classes and exhibitions on the other hand. The first were known popularly as silkscreen posters or screenprints, the later were known as serigraphs. It was an accepted distinction then and now. Serigraphy was a relatively crude process (with its own charm surely) compared to stone lithography which had its own institute on campus (stone lithographers definitely looked down their noses at serigraphy), but I don't remember any effort by the lithographers to define what serigraphs should or should not called.

The history of the term "serigraphy" seems to say allot about the situation we are in now with "inkjet prints":

"A group of artist who later formed the National Serigraphic Society coined the word Serigraphy in the 1930s to differentiate the artistic application of screen printing from the industrial use of the process.[8] "Serigraphy" is a combination word from the Latin word "Seri" (silk) and the Greek word "graphein" (to write or draw).[9]" Wikipedia

IanG
5-Dec-2008, 14:36
The pigments have much in common with the earlier pigment processes, but the process has little in common with the earlier pigment processes, and that is the salient point.

Which is why I only said "wrong in a way" :D I guess many of us agree that the current terms used in digital prints can be very misleading. Some of the problems are compounded by the manufacturers of Inkjet inks (dyes), pigmented inks, and also paper suppliers. One supplier sells Platinum paper (Inkjet), they also sell analog photo products, that really doesn't help.

Kirk makes a good point about prper distinctions.

Ian

Carioca
5-Dec-2008, 15:52
An observation I have made is that the people who are buying my work are not concerned about the process but are instead buying the image.

I would love to develop some brief statement that brought people back to admiring the work and not get hung up on the process.

I would just like people to focus on the quality of the image, that is if they feel it has any.


What is quality of an image?
To me, there are three major elements involved (in order of importance)
-What you see (object)
-How you see it (your interpretation)
-The way you show it (medium)

All are important and somehow correlated. People seem to underestimate the last step of printing, by lack of knowledge of the traditional or historic processes, as well as understanding of a good ink jet print.

See it that way: If only visual content quality matters, maybe we should just sell our work online, as Jpegs or Tiffs, and have our art admirers print them by technique of choice. ;)

Sidney

cjbroadbent
5-Dec-2008, 15:55
Isn't the big divide between continuous tone and half-tone processes?
Half-tone dots (as in printer's screen, inkjet, digital negatives, etc) being for mass production and Tone (as in silver and sensitized gelatin) being the Real Thing.

Carioca
5-Dec-2008, 16:04
A quality factor I personally like about 'non-ink jets':
Hand made.

Sidney

paul08
5-Dec-2008, 18:36
I have a great piece done by an old friend. It's a drawing on newsprint, done with a ballpoint pen (blue, even). The strength of the work is in its content and execution, not its materials. When my prints are shown they are labeled "Archival Inkjet Prints." I don't think that turns anyone off too much, and if it does, well, f#*k 'em.

paulr
5-Dec-2008, 23:15
A quality factor I personally like about 'non-ink jets':
Hand made.

It's funny, because by most standards of art making, photographic prints are very much machine-made.

Some of them completely. Others with a bit of intervention by the darkroom technician. The promise of photographic printmaking has been the same as that of other printmaking processes: mechanical production of identical multiples.

All the fussing around we do in the darkroom is really about establishing the inititial print values: working with the chemistry and development times, choosing the paper, deciding overall and local exposures etc.

Once this is done, a monkey (or darkroom assistant, or automated machine, using a burn/dodge mask) could turn out flawless multiples.

Speaking as someone who's spent a major chunk of my life under safelights, I feel that digital printing just inches photography closer to its early promise of mechanical reproduction.

sanking
6-Dec-2008, 09:19
Anyone is free to call their prints whatever they want but IMO "archival" is a marketing term, not a word that serves any useful purpose in print identification. It might be useful in identification if there were some industry standard that sets standards for processing to "archival inkjet print" status, but so far as I know there is no such thing.

Sandy King



I have a great piece done by an old friend. It's a drawing on newsprint, done with a ballpoint pen (blue, even). The strength of the work is in its content and execution, not its materials. When my prints are shown they are labeled "Archival Inkjet Prints." I don't think that turns anyone off too much, and if it does, well, f#*k 'em.

Paul Kierstead
6-Dec-2008, 09:51
Anyone is free to call their prints whatever they want but IMO "archival" is a marketing term, not a word that serves any useful purpose in print identification.

It separates it from the clearly non-archival ink-jet prints (most dye prints).

You're complaint is pretty unfair; there are no industry "standards" for any other process term; at best there are norms.

sanking
6-Dec-2008, 10:16
What is unfair about my comment? I do not use and am not advocating the use of "archival" for any kind of print identification so it not as if I am trying to set up unique barriers for inkjet print. As I stated, I consider the use of the term nothing more than a pretentious marketing word that has different meaning for different people.

Sandy King






It separates it from the clearly non-archival ink-jet prints (most dye prints).

You're complaint is pretty unfair; there are no industry "standards" for any other process term; at best there are norms.

Kirk Gittings
6-Dec-2008, 14:26
It might be useful in identification if there were some industry standard that sets standards for processing to "archival inkjet print" status, but so far as I know there is no such thing.

Sandy King

In the preservation field maybe there is such a standard that makes "archival inkjet print" a valid status. See this 2005 policy statement from the National Parks Service/National Register and National Historic Landmark (NR-NHL) programs. In the "preservation" business, these NR-NHL standards are generally seen as the current archival photo "standard". HABS is considering similar changes but as The Library of Congress is the final destination for HABS submitals, that will be the final word?


Photographs submitted as official documentation to the National Register and National Historic Landmark (NR-NHL) programs are expected to last 75 years or longer before showing significant signs of fading, deterioration, or discoloration. Black-and-white prints have been required since the inception of both programs because of their superior permanence. This policy significantly expands the range of photographic media that may be submitted as official documentation. While we continue to accept conventional black and white photographs, digital images produced by methods demonstrated to meet the 75-year permanence standard are also now acceptable.


No firm, universally acceptable definition of archival exists, and many manufacturers now use the term for marketing purposes. In some instances, products labeled archival will last considerably longer than non-archival products but may not meet the NR-NHL standards. Independent testing has shown that some popular photographic papers marketed as archival, for example, will begin deteriorating in far less than 75 years and therefore cannot be accepted as official documentation. Therefore, archival products should not be accepted at face value but only if they meet the NR-NHL documentation standards.

See whole article here for recommendations on media, traditional b&w vs. inkjet vs. C-41 etc.:

http://www.nps.gov/history/nr/policyexpansion.htm#digital

sanking
6-Dec-2008, 15:09
Kirk,

I had already seen this document. From my perpective it makes the exact point I was trying to make, i.e. that the term "archival" does not have any universal meaning?

The standards given in the NR-NHL documen are for processing to specific permanence standards. The document specifically notes that the use of the term "archival" is confusing, and my point is, by logical extension, that it has no place in process identification.

Sandy King

Kirk Gittings
6-Dec-2008, 15:59
I understand your point. While avoiding the word "archival" the NR-NHL has defined for their purposes what permanence values are suitable for archiving in their collections. A confusing disassociation of terminology at best.

"Archival Processing" has always been a marketing point for silver prints as long as I can remember, and there were ways to test this to a standard on every print (residual silver). I can remember early on labeling prints as "archivally processed gelatin silver prints". HABS could and did test b&w film and silver contacts submitted to them. But was there ever a universal standard or meaning for archival outside of silver prints?

steve_782
8-Dec-2008, 11:33
Here you go...the real story of giclee...


The True Story of Giclee

By Harald Johnson


Get Your Digital Wagons in a Circle, Here Comes Giclée

One thing that became quickly apparent to the digital pioneers was the lack of a proper name to describe the prints they were making. By the close of the 1980's, IRIS printers were installed all over the world and spinning off full-color proofs in commercial printing plants and pre-press shops. These prints were used to check color and get client approvals before starting the main print run. They definitely were not meant to last or to be displayed on anyone's walls. Most people called them "IRIS prints," or "IRIS proofs," or, more simply, "IRISes."

However, this wasn't good enough for the new digital fine-art printmakers like Maryann Doe of Harvest Productions and Jack Duganne, who was the first printmaker (after David Coons) at Nash Editions. They wanted to draw a distinction between the beautiful prints they were laboring over and the quickie proofs the commercial printers were cranking out. Just like artist Robert Rauschenberg did when he came up with the term "combines" for his new assemblage art, they needed a new label, or, in marketing terms, a "brand identity." The makers of digital art needed a word of their own.

Little Squirt

And, they got it. In 1991, Duganne had to come up with a print-medium description for a mailer announcing California artist Diane Bartz' upcoming show. He wanted to stay away from words like "computer" or "digital" because of the negative connotations the art world attached to the new medium. Taking a cue from the French word for inkjet (jet d'encre), Duganne opened his pocket Larousse and searched for a word that was generic enough to cover most inkjet technologies at the time and hopefully for some time into the future. He focused on the nozzle which most inkjet printers used. In French, that was le gicleur. What nozzles do is spray ink, so looking up French verbs for "to spray," he found gicler, which literally means "to squirt, spurt, or spray." The feminine noun version of the verb is (la) giclée, (pronounced "zhee-clay") or "that which is sprayed or squirted." An industry moniker was born.

Controversy Rides in on an IRIS Inkjet Printer

However, the controversy started immediately. Graham Nash and Mac Holbert had come up with "digigraph," which was close to "serigraph" and "photograph." The photographers liked that. But, the artists and printmakers doing reproductions had adopted "giclée," and the term soon became a synonym for "an art print made on an IRIS inkjet printer."

Today, "giclée" has become established with traditional media artists, and some photographers. But, many photographers and other digital artists have not accepted it, using, instead, labels such as "original digital prints," "inkjet prints," "pigment prints," or "(substitute the name of your print process) prints."

Passing into the Generic Landscape

For many artists, the debate over "giclée" continues. Some object to its suggestive, French slang meaning ("spurt"). Others believe it is still too closely linked to the IRIS printer or to the reproduction market. And some feel that it is just too pretentious. But, for many, the term "giclée" has become part of the printmaking landscape; a generic word, like Kleenex, that has evolved into a broader term that describes any high-quality, digitally produced, fine-art print or reproduction.

One problem, of course, is that when a term becomes too broad, it loses its ability to describe a specific thing. At that point, it stops being a good marketing label--and make no mistake about it, "giclée" is a marketing term. When everything is a giclée, the art world gets confused, and the process starts all over again with people coming up with new labels.

Paul Kierstead
8-Dec-2008, 11:55
What is unfair about my comment? I do not use and am not advocating the use of "archival" for any kind of print identification so it not as if I am trying to set up unique barriers for inkjet print. As I stated, I consider the use of the term nothing more than a pretentious marketing word that has different meaning for different people.

Just so there is no misunderstanding, I am not using "unfair" in any kind of moral sense. Your point that you don't advocate it for other print types is a good point and does seem to level the playing field. However, if the term has different meanings for different people, this would imply that it has no universal meaning so you don't really mislead people by using it; no one expects it to mean something firm.

It is fair to try to differentiate the dye-based from the pigment based printers, and particularly those who have at least tried to improve archival properties by using archival friendly inks and papers. They should get some credit for that, at least IMO, especially considering that some of the dye prints won't even last the "fashion cycle" in a well lit room; they aren't even good for over the couch for a few years, really. If they can't actually say it is archival, what would be the way to put it?

John Brady
8-Dec-2008, 12:33
Here you go...the real story of giclee...

Well done Steve, that article does a great job of summing things up.

The article still leaves the original question open, what do we as professional digital printers call our prints to differentiate them from the average lesser quality home desk top print. And yes there is a difference.

Some have weighed in that all ink jet is the same. To me thats kind of like saying that a formula one race car and a Chrysler K car are both cars and there should be no distinction. It appears that the folks that dislike the idea of a separate distinction the most are the silver print folks, almost as though we are somehow trying to diminish the quality of their work.

I love silver prints and have great respect for those who produce quality ones. I think there is room for both of us to produce quality work that is similar yet different.

A universally accepted name that doesn't confuse the public yet explains the exceptional quality difference over desk top home printers would be great.

www.timeandlight.com

David A. Goldfarb
8-Dec-2008, 14:51
If a museum has reason to exhibit a drugstore color print from the 1970s, they'll call it a "chromogenic print" just like they would designate a handmade C-print, and if it's B&W, they'll call it a "silver gelatin print," just like a print that was handmade by Ansel Adams.

Greg Miller
8-Dec-2008, 15:16
A quality factor I personally like about 'non-ink jets':
Hand made.

Sidney

What is more important: That the print is hand made or that the print most closely resembles the artists vision?

In a hand-made print (assuming that the printer has consistency or repeatability as a goal), any difference from print to print would indicate that the printer varied from the artist's vision. Is that really desirable?

sanking
8-Dec-2008, 15:31
What I have suggested is either "pigment inkjet print" or "carbon pigment inkjet print" whichever may be more appropriate. That seem to me to clearly differentiate prints made on the higher quality printers from prints made with dye based printers.

I have no problem with the use of "archival" as a marketing tool, but I do object to it for the purpose of print identification.

My own work is carbon transfer, usually with carbon base pigments. For print identification I simply call my prints "carbon transfer prints" or "carbon prints." Both terms have a long history of use but I prefer "carbon transfer" because there was another fairly popular historical processes that was known as "direct carbon." I would not call them "archival carbon transfer prints" for identification purposes, though I might mention in a description of the process that it is considered very archival, and with pt./pd the most permanent of all photographic processes.

Sandy King





Just so there is no misunderstanding, I am not using "unfair" in any kind of moral sense. Your point that you don't advocate it for other print types is a good point and does seem to level the playing field. However, if the term has different meanings for different people, this would imply that it has no universal meaning so you don't really mislead people by using it; no one expects it to mean something firm.

It is fair to try to differentiate the dye-based from the pigment based printers, and particularly those who have at least tried to improve archival properties by using archival friendly inks and papers. They should get some credit for that, at least IMO, especially considering that some of the dye prints won't even last the "fashion cycle" in a well lit room; they aren't even good for over the couch for a few years, really. If they can't actually say it is archival, what would be the way to put it?

Lenny Eiger
8-Dec-2008, 15:34
If a museum has reason to exhibit a drugstore color print from the 1970s, they'll call it a "chromogenic print" just like they would designate a handmade C-print, and if it's B&W, they'll call it a "silver gelatin print," just like a print that was handmade by Ansel Adams.

I was one of the people originally making the point that injket, or more specifically, giclee, does not indicate quality. Your point is well taken, however. I think, in retrospect, that it is the fact that inkjets are not as highly regarded as I think they ought to be, that not enough people have seen a truly exquisite one, that is the problem. It's not so much in the name...

As to Sidney's point, I dismiss it outright. I would suggest that an inkjet print is just as much handmade as a darkroom print. I custom-mix my own black and white inks - you use paper that is coated with some sort of light sensitive goo - that you know very little about. You don't know where it comes from or its composition.

You stick your "goo-coated" paper in liquid, I stick mine in a device which sprays liquid.

What matters is what the final result is, and whether you are happy with it.

Lenny

sanking
8-Dec-2008, 18:55
Lenny,

If you are happy with your results, that is important, and if all you want to do is look at them that is the end of it. However, if you choose to exhibit or try to market your prints the issue of quality is out of your hands. Other people get to make that decision.

Perhaps I have misunderstood you again. I am trying to process what you mean. Sidney makes true carbon transfer prints, but the prints that you pull from an inkjet printer are every bit as homemade as his? I don't think so!!

To put things in perspective, Sidney makes real carbon transfer prints from digital negatives. That is, he makes the negative, scans it if film to get a digital file, and then works on it in Photoshop, just as you do. The difference is that the print is not made when the digital negative is pulled from the printer, as it is for you with the print. This is just a first step in making a carbon transfer print. If you really believe that your inkjet prints are "as homemade" as what Sydney does you are clueless.


Here is what we do after pulling the digital negative from the printer.

1. Carbon tissue must be bought or made. Most of us make it, which is about as difficult as coating your own silver gelatin emulsion. It takes on average at least 24 hours from the moment you decide to make the tissue until it can be used to print.

2. The carbon tissue. Then you have to wait about 1-2 hours until it dries.

3. The sensitized tissue is mated with a negative, and exposed with a UV pritner. Takes anywhere from 5-30 minutes.

4. The exposed tissue is mated with a final transfer paper in cool water, then put side for about 30 mintues.

5. The carbon print is developed in warm water. Takes on average 15-30 minutes.

6. After dry, the carbon print is returned to a bath of sodium bisulfite to clear the dichromate. Takes about 5 minutes, then about 15 minutes clear water wash.

7. The print is placed on a rack to dry, which takes about two hours.

I have an article on carbon printing here. http://www.alternativephotography.com/articles/art110.html

I suggest you read it before wasting any more of my time arguing that what you do in making inkjet prints is in the same league of homemade as making real carbon transfer print.

BTW, I am assuming that Carioca/Sidney is the professional photographer from Paris who came to Istanbul in 2006 to attend a carbon workshop that I gave there. If not, my apologies to the other Sidney.


Sandy King





As to Sidney's point, I dismiss it outright. I would suggest that an inkjet print is just as much handmade as a darkroom print. I custom-mix my own black and white inks - you use paper that is coated with some sort of light sensitive goo - that you know very little about. You don't know where it comes from or its composition.

You stick your "goo-coated" paper in liquid, I stick mine in a device which sprays liquid.

What matters is what the final result is, and whether you are happy with it.

Lenny

D. Bryant
8-Dec-2008, 19:39
As to Sidney's point, I dismiss it outright. I would suggest that an inkjet print is just as much handmade as a darkroom print. I custom-mix my own black and white inks - you use paper that is coated with some sort of light sensitive goo - that you know very little about. You don't know where it comes from or its composition.

You stick your "goo-coated" paper in liquid, I stick mine in a device which sprays liquid.

Lenny

This has to be one of your most absurd posts that you have ever made.

Have you ever made a carbon print from any kind of negative (digital or in camera)?

If you had you would never suggest that an inkjet print is just as handmade as a carbon pigment transfer.

I'm not a carbon pigment printing expert as Sandy is but I can tell you again that your statement above just has no merit.

Don't misunderstand, I'm not knocking finely made inkjet prints, but they definitely aren't in the handmade arena even if you mix and blend your own inks.

By implication you suggest that you somehow you know more about the constituent ingredients of the ink you are using and blending compared to what a carbon pigment printer knows about the tissue they make.

I even wonder if you have seen a carbon print with a raised relief of pigment.

Your statements are ridiculous.

Don Bryant

nathanm
8-Dec-2008, 20:12
There's way too much emphasis put on what went into making a print rather than what the thing looks like. Photographers care about the craft and process, but why should the end viewer if they are not an artist\photographer themselves? All the sweat and labor we put into whatever process we do becomes more and more irrelevant over time. Sure it's fun to discuss NOW, but ultimately it doesn't matter how you got there. People will have to decide if they like the thing or not.

I started out wanting to be an analog purist, but the fact remains that I suck at darkroom printing. Why would I discard my decades of digital experience just for a romantic notion of an old process when I can make superior-looking inkjets that have the same aesthetic feel? You can break down any process to the point of ridiculousness (like, how about mining your own silver from the ground?) but if it doesn't serve to make the print you want to make better, then why bother?

If I go to a museum most of the time I'm not studying the tags to see what materials the artist used. It might be an interesting side note, but really all I care about is what the image is. If the guy mixed his own paint or bought it from the corner shop I could care less, the point is that's a gorgeous painting. We still seem fine with calling what we do "photography" so what's wrong with calling inkjets or any other kind of print a "photograph" and be done with it?

Vaughn
8-Dec-2008, 20:16
What is more important: That the print is hand made or that the print most closely resembles the artists vision?

In a hand-made print (assuming that the printer has consistency or repeatability as a goal), any difference from print to print would indicate that the printer varied from the artist's vision. Is that really desirable?

Based on your assumption, the answer is no. But I question the validity of your assumption. It assumes that the power of photography lays (lies?) in its ability of exact repeatability...and that only one strictly adhered to version of an artist's vision is allowed. AA's "Moonrise..." is often used as an example of an artist's changing vision -- whether for the good or for the bad, is an individual decision, but I think the artist has a right to deviate from the first printing of an image.

I do not even hold that all the prints of an edition must look exactly the same, though it is unusual for there to be significant differences (and of course defining what is "significant" is a matter of opinion.)

Intellegence has been defined as having the ability to hold two opposing views in one's mind at one time. Perhaps artistic intellegence might also be defined as being able to hold in one's mind more than one complete perfect vision of a photograph at a time?

Vaughn

PS...Lenny's inkjets with handmade inks start to bring the inkjets towards handmade. Those who make their own ink and their own paper come even closer. They become more that just machine-made prints, but less than full-on handmade prints -- hybrid prints perhaps?

nathanm -- I will disagree only in that for some (such as myself), the process of making a photograph and seeing its qualities as it rests in my hands is of upmost importance. While it is true that the public will determine a prints monetary value, the print must hold value for the artist, or the process itself is not worth doing. If producing inkjet prints is a value to an artist, that is fine with me, for my own work I hold different values. There are also qualities of handmade processes that a photomechanical reproduction process such as inkjet printing will not be able to get close to duplicating. The way I work with light and how I want to get that light into a print can not be done with an inkjet printer. And I believe that someone who takes an image, and with skill and vision works with it in PhotoShop and outputs it to a printer, can be the equal to any photographer working with handmade photographic processes.

Oren Grad
8-Dec-2008, 20:31
So here's a bit of empirical evidence about current practice. Yesterday I had the chance to visit the Minneapolis Institute of Arts, and saw among other things this exhibit:

http://www.artsmia.org/india-ppps/

Many of the still pictures in this show, both monochrome and color, were inkjets. But the various inkjets were described in almost every possible way - digital prints, inkjets, Epson prints, you name it. It would appear that either the MIA has a policy of simply accepting whatever description the photographer provides, or they have no coherent policy at all on this point.

Kirk Gittings
8-Dec-2008, 20:36
It would appear that either the MIA has a policy of simply accepting whatever description the photographer provides

I have never had a print hung in a museum that used anything but the media description I supplied them.

Greg Miller
9-Dec-2008, 07:27
Based on your assumption, the answer is no. But I question the validity of your assumption. It assumes that the power of photography lays (lies?) in its ability of exact repeatability...and that only one strictly adhered to version of an artist's vision is allowed. AA's "Moonrise..." is often used as an example of an artist's changing vision -- whether for the good or for the bad, is an individual decision, but I think the artist has a right to deviate from the first printing of an image.

I do not even hold that all the prints of an edition must look exactly the same, though it is unusual for there to be significant differences (and of course defining what is "significant" is a matter of opinion.)

Intellegence has been defined as having the ability to hold two opposing views in one's mind at one time. Perhaps artistic intellegence might also be defined as being able to hold in one's mind more than one complete perfect vision of a photograph at a time?

Vaughn


I guess I can only speak for myself, but when I am making a print I am very precise about what I want it to look like. Variations from print to print during a printing session are not desirable.

Now that may change over time, as with AA's Moonrise, but I'm pretty sure that AA went to great lengths to have all prints made at a given point in time look as identical as possible.

I would rather have a print that demonstrates the artist's vision, as opposed to a print that is handmade and unique but not necessarily the artist's vision. Bit I realize that options vary.

Carioca
9-Dec-2008, 07:38
...came to Istanbul in 2006 to attend a carbon workshop...

Sandy King

Hi Sandy
It's me all right.

Sidney

sanking
9-Dec-2008, 08:49
Hi Sidney,

BTW, I really liked your earlier comment, "If only visual content quality matters, maybe we should just sell our work online, as Jpegs or Tiffs, and have our art admirers print them by technique of choice."

I can remember saying almost the same thing in the past. And by extension, why even bother to print if visual content is the only thing? -- let's just look at the content on our computer screens.

For those persons who believe that visual content is the only thing that matters in photography I would invite them to read William Crawford's book, The Keepers of Light: A History and Working Guide to Early Photographic Processes, especially the introductory chapters on photographic syntax. He writes, "The syntactical elements that determine how the image finally appears can be called printmaking syntax. If we print the same negative on albumen paper, on platinum paper, and on modern resin-coated paper, we will end up with three distinctly different objects."


Sandy King



Hi Sandy
It's me all right.

Sidney

Vaughn
9-Dec-2008, 08:54
I guess I can only speak for myself, but when I am making a print I am very precise about what I want it to look like. Variations from print to print during a printing session are not desirable.

When I was making silver gelatin prints, I was of the same opinion as you. Absolutely no defects, identical printing (though after a year or so I would have a hard time differentuating between the final prints and the few I rejected as not be spot-on.) But I never kept printing notes. The next time I printed the image (a rare thing for me to do, anyway) I wanted to approach the negative from a fresh viewpoint -- one that took advantage of new things I have seen, learned and felt.

When I began to make hand-made prints (as opposed to machine made photo paper) it was liberating to be able to accept a certain level of "defects" -- the hand of the artist in the work, so to speak (or literally when a beard hair gets in the gelatin! :p )

I have come to look at each print I make as its own piece of art -- not just a reproduction of an original idea. But for the most part, most people would still have a hard time seeing any difference between the prints.

Vaughn

Paul Kierstead
9-Dec-2008, 09:16
... William Crawford's book, The Keepers of Light: A History and Working Guide to Early Photographic Processes, ... "If we print the same negative on albumen paper, on platinum paper, and on modern resin-coated paper, we will end up with three distinctly different objects."

In which case the printing process determines some of the visual content, which is hardly surprising. So, we should pick a process that matches our desired visual content. That still doesn't elevate process beyond anything more then a tool, just like a viewfinder.

Lenny Eiger
9-Dec-2008, 09:51
Perhaps I have misunderstood you again. I am trying to process what you mean. Sidney makes true carbon transfer prints, but the prints that you pull from an inkjet printer are every bit as homemade as his? I don't think so!!

I suggest you read it before wasting any more of my time arguing that what you do in making inkjet prints is in the same league of homemade as making real carbon transfer print.
Sandy King

OK,OK, you and Don - don't bite my head off. This is a 10 page thread. I'm busted - I didn't read fully, or read it too quickly. My apologies. I thought Sidney was just one more fellow who thinks that darkroom prints are the only results that are "real" photography. I know what carbon prints are, I used to teach non-silver processes, live and breathe by Crawford's book - and I have plenty of respect for them and the process.

On the other hand, I do believe that the result is more important ultimately than the process. If a carbon print is what one must do to express one's vision, then a carbon print it must be. However, I am sure you have seen carbon prints you didn't like - because you didn't like the image. It all has to work together.

I do rail against the idea that one just sort of gets it ok on the monitor and then a great print just magically appears out of the printer. I think sensitive printing in any of the mediums, from darkroom prints to alternative processes to inkjet, is a matter of the eyes, and one's ability to develop that sensitivity. I think its just as hard in any medium one chooses.

Lenny

JBrunner
9-Dec-2008, 10:02
In which case the printing process determines some of the visual content, which is hardly surprising. So, we should pick a process that matches our desired visual content. That still doesn't elevate process beyond anything more then a tool, just like a viewfinder.

Precisely. The name of the process doesn't elevate anything. It is merely meant to be descriptive. The gist of the OP was to find a fancy name for a well made inkjet print in an attempt to elevate it from more mundane prints made by the same process.

Silver gelatin, carbon etc. are not fancy names, the are simply accepted descriptions of a particular process. An accurate description that everyone understands takes or gives nothing to the content of a print, as that is a separate, and possibly more important issue.

Never the less, if the print is to be described, it should be done accurately, rather than with an affectation.

Everyone understands "inkjet" including most lay people. That a very strong indication that the prints should be called "inkjet" or more specifically "pigment inkjet" or "carbon inkjet". The point is that then everybody knows exactly what we are talking about, and that is all the words need to accomplish.

Greg Miller
9-Dec-2008, 10:22
Everyone understands "inkjet" including most lay people.

The problem is that lay people equate "inkjet" with the $50 printer they buy at Staples. They have no knowledge of the state of the art pro level inkjet printers. Which results in an incorrect perception of what they are viewing. That's why people here try to add other adjectives to help differentiate their product.

Using "inkjet" as a descriptor for high end collectors is not a problem because they should already have an understanding of what "inkjet" means.

Paul Kierstead
9-Dec-2008, 10:23
Everyone understands "inkjet" including most lay people. That a very strong indication that the prints should be called "inkjet" or more specifically "pigment inkjet" or "carbon inkjet". The point is that then everybody knows exactly what we are talking about, and that is all the words need to accomplish.

The crux of the inkjet discussion (which is not really the only discussion underway here) is that not all of us are convinced that everyone understands "inkjet". The word comes with baggage; it is not just a literal word, but it has context. Just read through some of the threads here and you will see a wide range of misconceptions about the process, and the results. Maybe in the end, when people see enough inkjet prints to sway their opinion, the name will have more credibility but for the moment, it often does not, especially with the public at large, who think of their crappy HP deskjet at home. I expect this is less of a problem for gallery display, where they see the result before they see the process label, but recent results concerning peoples preference for specifications tells us that they will like something with better "specs" even in the face of poor results; they consider inkjets to have poor specs, just like a goodly chunk of the folks here.

Bruce Watson
9-Dec-2008, 10:23
A quality factor I personally like about 'non-ink jets':
Hand made.

Hand made? What about a silver gelatin print is hand made? Certainly not the paper itself as that's all done with high precision machines. Certainly not the coating(s), that's done with extremely high precision machines. Certainly not the chemicals, even those workers who make their own developers are using base chemicals from a chemical supplier. For those using enlargers, not too many darkroom workers make their own, and certainly not their own enlarger lenses and light sources.

Hand made? I don't think so. The bottom line here is that there is precious little of the artist's hand in a typical silver gelatin print.

Having done both silver gelatin and inkjet fairly extensively I can say with certainly that if you want more of my hand in a print, you want an inkjet print.

I spend considerably more time on the inkjet print because digital manipulation allows me greater control. I can control fairly exactly my dodges and burns digitally where with darkroom work dodging and burning are more gross controls. I can make intricate contrast masks that are beyond anything I could do in the darkroom. I can dither around with unsharp masks until I get it exactly right where in the darkroom I'd settle for good enough (or go insane).

I can do more digitally, and this results in my spending more time working the image. The reward for putting more into it is that I get more out of it; I get an image that more closely matches my vision than I was ever able to get from the silver gelatin process.

My inkjet prints are more "hand made" than my silver gelatin prints ever were. That's a fact.

JBrunner
9-Dec-2008, 10:29
The problem is that lay people equate "inkjet" with the $50 printer they buy at Staples. They have no knowledge of the state of the art pro level inkjet printers. Which results in an incorrect perception of what they are viewing. That's why people here try to add other adjectives to help differentiate their product.

Using "inkjet" as a descriptor for high end collectors is not a problem because they should already have an understanding of what "inkjet" means.

Silver gelatin also exactly describes the things churning out of my high school darkroom, many of which have serious conceptual, technical, quality, and archival issues, but I still call my prints done by the same process by that name. Should I call them "Activated Silver Bromide on Byrata" so they have the "correct" perception? If the execution of a particular process is excellent, it need make no apologies or subterfuge in being what it is. My five year old does watercolors. He has yet to be confused with Winslow Homer. :)

Greg Miller
9-Dec-2008, 10:38
Silver gelatin also exactly describes the things churning out of my high school darkroom, many of which have serious conceptual, technical, quality, and archival issues. If the execution of a particular process is excellent, it need make no apologies or subterfuge in being what it is. My five year old does watercolors. He has yet to be confused with Winslow Homer. :)

But lay people have no preconception of silver gelatin. So the term does not skew their perception. They can see the print with an unprejudiced eye. Lay people that see "inkjet" will have see the print with a skewed perception because of their association of the word with the $50 model at Staples..

David A. Goldfarb
9-Dec-2008, 10:42
For many decades, photographic prints of any sort weren't taken very seriously either. For inkjets to be more widely accepted, perhaps the medium has to pay its dues and circulate in the market for a while, rather than trying to confuse the market by borrowing terminology in a misleading way from existing processes.

JBrunner
9-Dec-2008, 10:48
But lay people have no preconception of silver gelatin. So the term does not skew their perception. They can see the print with an unprejudiced eye. Lay people that see "inkjet" will have see the print with a skewed perception because of their association of the word with the $50 model at Staples..

I was adding while you were replying.

I highly doubt lay people have any perception at all in regard to process. The persons who do deserve a clear description.

To me the idea of hiding the fact that a print was made by a particular process sounds like an unfounded inferiority complex, because that's what is being done, and is pretty much the basis of your premise.

sanking
9-Dec-2008, 11:01
Lenny,

Anyone who knows and appreciates Crawford's book is ultimately real OK in my book.

Sandy King




OK,OK, you and Don - don't bite my head off. This is a 10 page thread. I'm busted - I didn't read fully, or read it too quickly. My apologies. I thought Sidney was just one more fellow who thinks that darkroom prints are the only results that are "real" photography. I know what carbon prints are, I used to teach non-silver processes, live and breathe by Crawford's book - and I have plenty of respect for them and the process.

Lenny

Lenny Eiger
9-Dec-2008, 11:13
Lenny,

Anyone who knows and appreciates Crawford's book is ultimately real OK in my book.

Sandy King

Why thank you. That said, the book is amazing. One thing that I loved is that some of the images I had only seen in books printed in black and white were actually very colorful. Especially the Stieglitz and Steichen, and there is one by Negre, which I always loved that has a steely gray-blue tone to it.

Lenny

Paul Kierstead
9-Dec-2008, 12:01
To me the idea of hiding the fact that a print was made by a particular process sounds like an unfounded inferiority complex, because that's what is being done, and is pretty much the basis of your premise.

Well, the "inferiority complex" part is uncalled for, but I will admit that part of it does bother me, even if I think the term "inkjet" is pejorative for the public at large.

JBrunner
9-Dec-2008, 12:16
Well, the "inferiority complex" part is uncalled for, but I will admit that part of it does bother me, even if I think the term "inkjet" is pejorative for the public at large.

Actually I said "unfounded inferiority complex", as in I believe their should be no need to obfuscate how a good print is arrived at. It wasn't meant to be insulting.

Here is another way to look at it:

Once upon a time, and not so very long ago, the term "giclee" actually meant something. For better or worse inkjet printing is now the de facto method of the masses, having supplanted silver, and their makers wanting to them to become special on something other than merit, many inkjet prints became "giclees". Now ebay is awash with thousands of $6 "giclee" prints, made with the finest inks on blah blah blah, and so now it means nothing, and everybody with an IQ bigger than their shoe size knows exactly what they are. The ones who don't aren't going to pay the price for a decent print no matter what you call it. If somehow somebody comes up with a new cool name, that same name will be adopted and corrupted in short order by those same people with the $50 printers. In other words, there isn't much point. It is pedantic. Call the print what it is and let it stand or fall on its own merits. There are plenty of inkjet originated prints that have fetched far more than I can pay. The inkjet process obviously isn't the defining factor. Obfuscating the process serves no purpose other than vanity, or a self evasive method to avoid examining the real reasons someones prints are not in demand.

Greg Miller
9-Dec-2008, 12:22
I was adding while you were replying.

I highly doubt lay people have any perception at all in regard to process. The persons who do deserve a clear description.

To me the idea of hiding the fact that a print was made by a particular process sounds like an unfounded inferiority complex, because that's what is being done, and is pretty much the basis of your premise.


I guess we disagree on what the general public thinks of when they hear "inkjet". And I think you missed my point that the general public has no preconception of the term "silver gelatin" but they do with "inkjet". In that sense they do have a perception (albeit an ingnorant one) when it comes to inkjet process.

I'm not sure how you concluded that I have an "inferiority complex". I simply want the viewer to understand what my inkjet print is. The general public is not educated enough in printing technology to accurately interpret this word. I simply wish to avoid that misunderstanding.

Using the term "inkjet" does not provide a clear description when the audience has a different understanding of the word.

nathanm
9-Dec-2008, 13:48
We're just struggling to try and appear elite and exceptional in the face of the mass proliferation of affordable technology. We want to be on the stage and perform for the audience, but we're living in a world where anyone can get on the stage. So when everyone knows how it is done, when anyone can get their hands on the same tools as you, the only thing left is your own vision and creativity. That has never changed. The exceptional quality boils down to the individual's skill and no amount of marketspeak about the tools and materials will change that.

Yes, the $50 Staples inkjet is an inkjet just like my $3000 Epson is an inkjet, but so what? Look at this print and decide if it looks good or not. If the viewer wants to dismiss you based on frivilous preconceptions about the technology used, then let them. There's nothing you can do about it. Every kid in the world has gone to the museum, looked at some piece of art they didn't like and said, "*Hmph* Well geez, I could do that!" Fine, so go and do it. No matter what the wheat and chaff will get separated, the pros will rise to the top; and even then it's all subjective anyway.

sanking
9-Dec-2008, 15:25
You make good points, and I am again reminded of what Abigail Godeau wrote a quarter century ago. "Art photography has always defined itself, indeed, was compelled to define itself, in opposition to the normative and boundless ubiquity of all other photography." In "Winning the Game When the Rules Have Changed: Art Photography and Postmodernism," in New Mexico Studies in the Fine Arts 8 (1983).

Sandy King





We're just struggling to try and appear elite and exceptional in the face of the mass proliferation of affordable technology. We want to be on the stage and perform for the audience, but we're living in a world where anyone can get on the stage. So when everyone knows how it is done, when anyone can get their hands on the same tools as you, the only thing left is your own vision and creativity. That has never changed. The exceptional quality boils down to the individual's skill and no amount of marketspeak about the tools and materials will change that.

Yes, the $50 Staples inkjet is an inkjet just like my $3000 Epson is an inkjet, but so what? Look at this print and decide if it looks good or not. If the viewer wants to dismiss you based on frivilous preconceptions about the technology used, then let them. There's nothing you can do about it. Every kid in the world has gone to the museum, looked at some piece of art they didn't like and said, "*Hmph* Well geez, I could do that!" Fine, so go and do it. No matter what the wheat and chaff will get separated, the pros will rise to the top; and even then it's all subjective anyway.

Carioca
9-Dec-2008, 16:28
The next time I printed the image (a rare thing for me to do, anyway) I wanted to approach the negative from a fresh viewpoint -- one that took advantage of new things I have seen, learned and felt.

I have come to look at each print I make as its own piece of art -- not just a reproduction of an original idea. But for the most part, most people would still have a hard time seeing any difference between the prints.

Vaughn

In a way, this describes my point of view regarding my statement about 'hand made' prints.
Each silver print (in Vaughn's case) will be different.
Printing the same neg one year later will result in a new image, with new interpretation, this is compulsory, because it is an uncontrollable step in final print making.
This final step with silver printing, is the second last step in digital printing (=PS, or other digital manipulation), there after, the resulting prints will be identical regardless the number inserted in the print menu.
I wonder how many photographers 're-work' their RAW's a year later, to get a new interpretation.

Sidney

Paul Kierstead
9-Dec-2008, 16:32
I wonder how many photographers 're-work' their RAW's a year later, to get a new interpretation.


If I had to guess, I'd say damn near all of them. It is practically an obsession, often starting with "oh, I got a new scanner....".

Carioca
9-Dec-2008, 16:39
Hand made?
My inkjet prints are more "hand made" than my silver gelatin prints ever were. That's a fact.

I don't doubt your digital skills, my respect.
Print ten of each and then tell me why your ten silver prints look different one from the other (I'm not talking about machine printed work), compared to the digital print batch.

Sidney

Carioca
9-Dec-2008, 16:49
If I had to guess, I'd say damn near all of them. It is practically an obsession, often starting with "oh, I got a new scanner....".

Maybe I explained wrong.
If in a one year time, someone asks to get a digital copy print from you, you'll probably just make a new copy and it will look identical from the first one.
If I had to print a silver print again, one year later, it will most probably not look the same, that's where I consider the 'hand made' issue come into play.

S.

Kirk Gittings
9-Dec-2008, 16:50
Questions this discussion brings to mind. The difference between "hand made" and "quality craftsmanship". I haven't thought this through really, but to my mind simply being hand made relates more to a nostalgic attachment to old technologies and does not necessarily equate with good craftsmanship. I have seen tons of "hand crafted" crappy prints in my time. Good craftsmanship is independent of technology.......virtually any technology can be used to craft fine products appropriate to the technology. Why hang so much value on photography being "hand made". It is always a compromised statement anyway. Why is only the print end of the process important in hand made? How many people coated their own film? or processed their own color film?

Today I went to lunch in an upscale bar/restaurant with a client. The place was decorated with large b&w inkjet prints of some very nice romantic images of horses etc. Some I had seen published before and are somewhat well known. Well the printing was to my mind inferior, poorly crafted. I know from personal experience that better prints were possible either traditionally or with inkjet. What came to my mind was not "oh these are not hand made", but jeez these could be so much better, better crafted, in many different media. They could have been exquisite in platinum or in inkjet or in silver. The problem was that they were poorly crafted in the media used.

sanking
9-Dec-2008, 16:51
Well, I am in a small majority. I have some great negatives from the past but my interest is much more in finding and photographing new things than re-working stuff from the past. I can think of one or two exceptions (my personal "Moonrise" shots) but for the most part what was in the past stays in the past.

Sandy King



If I had to guess, I'd say damn near all of them. It is practically an obsession, often starting with "oh, I got a new scanner....".

Bruce Watson
9-Dec-2008, 17:23
I don't doubt your digital skills, my respect.
Print ten of each and then tell me why your ten silver prints look different one from the other (I'm not talking about machine printed work), compared to the digital print batch.

I doubt my digital skills enough for both of us and more besides. ;-) Which is what keeps me trying.

The silver gelatin prints I made in the past showed minor variations print-to-print because I lacked the skill to do better. It's not because I didn't want them to be identical. I did and do want that. It wasn't from lack of effort either. Traditional darkroom silver gelatin printing is multi-variable problem that is difficult to consistently solve as all darkroom workers know.

But that print-to-print consistency is what many (most?) photographers want. And many teachers (Adams, Picker, etc.) taught/teach methods to improve consistency. The inevitable variances are flaws. If the flaws are too great, the print gets scrapped. The rest are compromises. And that is what bugs me most about my own silver gelatin printing.

Today however I can solve the problem. I can scan the film, edit it, and output to film recorder at print size. I can then contact print as many as I want and make identical silver gelatin prints. Yet I don't.

I don't because silver gelatin doesn't do for me what B&W inkjet does for me. What I want is to make prints that equal my vision. I can't get there with any medium yet. But inkjet prints come the closest.

I'm not saying that it's wrong to value the print-to-print variances that result from a darkroom enlarging workflow. I understand that many people not only value it but genuinely like it. All I'm saying is that I don't value those variances, and as an artist I find those variances in my own work disturbing to the point of moving to a whole new medium to rid myself of them.

Better to possibly lose some print sales than to loose my artistic integrity. Then again, I might be gaining sales from other people who understand the beauty of inkjet prints. Who knows? Really, who cares? If I was driven by what other people think I probably wouldn't be involved with photography at all, let alone LF photography.

Lenny Eiger
9-Dec-2008, 17:52
Maybe I explained wrong.
If in a one year time, someone asks to get a digital copy print from you, you'll probably just make a new copy and it will look identical from the first one.
If I had to print a silver print again, one year later, it will most probably not look the same, that's where I consider the 'hand made' issue come into play.

S.

With all due respect, you are incorrect. You can make a darkroom print just as consistent as anything else. And - if your prints from an inkjet printer are coming out exactly the same after a year, then you aren't printing to a very sensitive level. It's simply an unsupportable conclusion that doesn't match the reality of it.

Things are different because of variables. In the darkroom the temperature can vary from a year ago (thermometer changing and air temp), your level of agitation, paper batches, chemistry batches, strength of the enlarger bulb, light leaks that weren't there before - or a safelight acting differently and lots more. In the inkjet world, you have batches of paper, batches of ink, the heads wearing out in your printer, a damper changing the suction of ink through the lines on you or maybe just an extra clog or deflections on a few nozzles, not to mention software updates, and the largest likely - temperature and humidity affecting the ink absorption on the paper - and lots more. Even a week is a fairly large change.

There have been a number of folks talking about how inkjet hasn't been appreciated for the level it has reached by some of those working in this area. I would agree (if I haven't already). There are now exquisite ink sets and exquisite papers, advanced methodologies with RIP's, linearization, profiling techniques and everything else. It's at least as sophisticated at the high end as any other process. The idea that its all sort of machine-like and repeatable is just not true.


Lenny

sanking
9-Dec-2008, 18:26
Well, if you are an inkjet printer you get to have it both ways in this thread.

Bruce Watson states, “I'm not saying that it's wrong to value the print-to-print variances that result from a darkroom enlarging workflow. I understand that many people not only value it but genuinely like it. All I'm saying is that I don't value those variances, and as an artist I find those variances in my own work disturbing to the point of moving to a whole new medium to rid myself of them.”

Implied in this is that there are no variances with inkjet printing, which he now prefers.

Lenny Eiger, on the other hand, makes the opposite point, when he points out all the variables that prevent one from making exact duplicate prints. He writes. “Things are different because of variables. In the darkroom the temperature can vary from a year ago (thermometer changing and air temp), your level of agitation, paper batches, chemistry batches, strength of the enlarger bulb, light leaks that weren't there before - or a safelight acting differently and lots more. In the inkjet world, you have batches of paper, batches of ink, the heads wearing out in your printer, a damper changing the suction of ink through the lines on you or maybe just an extra clog or deflections on a few nozzles, not to mention software updates, and the largest likely - temperature and humidity affecting the ink absorption on the paper - and lots more. Even a week is a fairly large change.” And concludes, “The idea that its all sort of machine-like and repeatable is just not true.”

But at least they are consistent in their criticism of Carioca, though from an entirely opposite perspective.

¡Viva la diferencia!

Sandy King

Paul Kierstead
9-Dec-2008, 18:28
Maybe I explained wrong.
If in a one year time, someone asks to get a digital copy print from you, you'll probably

No, you didn't explain wrong. I would very likely be interested if I could improve the print. Why wouldn't I?

Bruce Watson
9-Dec-2008, 18:44
Questions this discussion brings to mind. The difference between "hand made" and "quality craftsmanship". I haven't thought this through really, but to my mind simply being hand made relates more to a nostalgic attachment to old technologies and does not necessarily equate with good craftsmanship.

Yes! That's exactly what I was trying, albeit unsuccessfully, to articulate in my post somewhere above. There is not a strong tie between "hand made" and "quality craftsmanship." That's the point that needs to be hammered home.

One can apply great craftsmanship in any media. But just because it's hand made doesn't automatically mean that it's good quality!

Back in my engineering days I spent a while in a paint shop. We put in a robot to handle a powder paint line. There were some good reasons to do this. Number one was to get the human out of the powder -- anyone who's done any powder paint work knows how long it takes to get the taste out of the powder out of your mouth and throat, and if you think about it you know it's even worse for your lungs. And no amount of protection is good enough -- all it takes is the right twist of your head and you make a tiny gap between the respirator and your face and you get a good snoot full of powder. (Our painters used to say that what working the powder really meant was that it took at least a six-pack to get the taste out of your mouth. Every night. And you know that ain't good for ya long term!)

But the secondary reason was that the robot could record our best painter on his best day and play it over and over and over. It wasn't until we put in the robot that our painters understood, really understood, how variable they were personally. And our painters were really good.

Our customers never had a problem with telling the difference between hand made and machine made -- they could always pick out the hand painted ones and they invariably shipped them back as rejects!

Bruce Watson
9-Dec-2008, 19:00
Well, if you are an inkjet printer you get to have it both ways in this thread.

Bruce Watson states, “I'm not saying that it's wrong to value the print-to-print variances that result from a darkroom enlarging workflow. I understand that many people not only value it but genuinely like it. All I'm saying is that I don't value those variances, and as an artist I find those variances in my own work disturbing to the point of moving to a whole new medium to rid myself of them.”

Implied in this is that there are no variances with inkjet printing, which he now prefers.

Lenny Eiger, on the other hand, makes the opposite point, when he points out all the variables that prevent one from making exact duplicate prints. He writes. “Things are different because of variables. In the darkroom the temperature can vary from a year ago (thermometer changing and air temp), your level of agitation, paper batches, chemistry batches, strength of the enlarger bulb, light leaks that weren't there before - or a safelight acting differently and lots more. In the inkjet world, you have batches of paper, batches of ink, the heads wearing out in your printer, a damper changing the suction of ink through the lines on you or maybe just an extra clog or deflections on a few nozzles, not to mention software updates, and the largest likely - temperature and humidity affecting the ink absorption on the paper - and lots more. Even a week is a fairly large change.” And concludes, “The idea that its all sort of machine-like and repeatable is just not true.”

But at least they are consistent in their criticism of Carioca, though from an entirely opposite perspective.

¡Viva la diferencia!

See, this is why I try to stay out of discussions like this (and yes, I know that I failed again -- you don't need to remind me). If I could adequately express myself in writing, I wouldn't need photography so much!

What I meant was that I moved to inkjet to lessen the variability. I didn't mean to imply that I got rid of it. Lenny is right about that. And Lenny was/is probably a better darkroom printer than I was too. So my darkroom prints were probably more variable than his.

And the variability was the least of it -- what I really wanted was the extra control. What I didn't know then (and don't imagine that I'll ever fully understand) is that the extra control means that I spend ever more time on each image. And as I learn more I want to go back and rework old images to make them better (in my view, maybe not in anyone else's view). It'll become a vicious circle if I let it and then I'll never do any new work. Sigh...

Vaughn
9-Dec-2008, 20:29
And the variability was the least of it -- what I really wanted was the extra control. What I didn't know then (and don't imagine that I'll ever fully understand) is that the extra control means that I spend ever more time on each image...

Ain't that the truth! Same goes with hand-made processes. I have control over many variables as a carbon printer -- but one can get quite involved in tweaking this and that, one variable affects another, etc! The control is great, but it comes at a cost!

Vaughn

sanking
9-Dec-2008, 21:06
I love the variability. As a printer I am absolutely confident that with a good negative I could go into the darkroom (or compute room) tomorrow and make 20 identical silver gelatin prints, or 20 identical inkjet prints. In fact, I am willing to bet on it.

So what. What good does it serve, except for the satisfaction of having done it? In fact, I love the small variability that I get with alternative processes like carbon transfer, kallitype and pt./pd. Some times the small variations disappoint, but every now and then they offer a wonderful surprise. The possibility of something beyond my expectation is one of the things that excites me in developing negatives and in printing.

Sandy King



Ain't that the truth! Same goes with hand-made processes. I have control over many variables as a carbon printer -- but one can get quite involved in tweaking this and that, one variable affects another, etc! The control is great, but it comes at a cost!

Vaughn

Vaughn
9-Dec-2008, 22:56
That's right, Sandy! As a form of commercial printing, photography has the definite advantage of repeatability in large numbers. As an art form, that repeatability becomes far less important (to you and me, anyway), and what increases in importance is the photograph as an object of art...a synergy of image and print-making. A great photograph has a Presence -- however one may define what that is, LOL!

Vaughn

sanking
10-Dec-2008, 10:21
A question of terminology. A silver gelatin print, including POP, where the paper is coated at a factory, is not by my understanding of the term a home made print. A hand made print is one where the emulsion is hand coated, using a brush or rod, wtih a light sensitive emulsion. Since there are no commercial sources of factory coated paper for proceses like vandyke, cynaotype, pt/pd, kallitype, all prints made by these processes are necessrily hand made. Most carbon prints are also hand made because of the very limited source of commercial tissue.

Few reasonable persons would argue with the premise that hand made and quality do not always go hand in hand. In fact, it may be the opposite with photographs because acquiring the skill to produce top quality prints with hand made processes takes a lot of time and practice. Anyone who doubts this should spend a month working with one of the easier hand coated processes, say cyanotype or vandyke.

So we should not be at all surprised that we see a lack good craftmanship in many hand made prints. And sometimes, as Kirk suggests, people use hand made processes for nostalgic or romantic reasons that have nothing to do with getting the most quality from the process. For some a bad vandyke print is better than a finely printed silver gelatin or inkjet print. In fact, some people consciously strive to show defects as process artifacts. Just look, for example, at much of the wet plate collodion work that is produced.

Why then, as Kirk asks, do we hang so much value on the hand made? For me the answer is very simple. A hand made photograph, assuming great craftmanship, is a unique piece of art that can not be reproduced in multiples without some variation from print to print.

I fully agree that it takes great craftmanship to make high quality inkjet prints and I love the digital technology that makes such wonderful control of the final print possible. Not only do I love it, I embrace it and use digital controls extensively in scanning, file preparation and in printing digital negatives for my carbon printing. But making a fine inkjet print, which I an pefectly capable of doing, does not give me nearly as much satisfaction as carrying the process one step farther and producing a fine hand made print, because that is where I find the greatest challenge.

Sandy King









Questions this discussion brings to mind. The difference between "hand made" and "quality craftsmanship". I haven't thought this through really, but to my mind simply being hand made relates more to a nostalgic attachment to old technologies and does not necessarily equate with good craftsmanship. I have seen tons of "hand crafted" crappy prints in my time. Good craftsmanship is independent of technology.......virtually any technology can be used to craft fine products appropriate to the technology. Why hang so much value on photography being "hand made". It is always a compromised statement anyway. Why is only the print end of the process important in hand made? How many people coated their own film? or processed their own color film?

Today I went to lunch in an upscale bar/restaurant with a client. The place was decorated with large b&w inkjet prints of some very nice romantic images of horses etc. Some I had seen published before and are somewhat well known. Well the printing was to my mind inferior, poorly crafted. I know from personal experience that better prints were possible either traditionally or with inkjet. What came to my mind was not "oh these are not hand made", but jeez these could be so much better, better crafted, in many different media. They could have been exquisite in platinum or in inkjet or in silver. The problem was that they were poorly crafted in the media used.

Lenny Eiger
10-Dec-2008, 10:38
I'd like to take a moment and celebrate the spirit of excellence that's been expressed here. Numerous people have discussed how far they go in their pursuit of a great print, one with "presence", or however else one may describe it. Whether they do it in the darkroom with silver processes, with alternative or inkjet doesn't much matter to me.

After being depressed for months about the state of photography when the seemingly incessant questions revolving around "how cheaply can I do this" I am heartened by the attitude of total commitment by the people who have participated in the discussions on this thread. It's really nice to know you're there.

Lenny

Kirk Gittings
10-Dec-2008, 11:05
I am not oblivious to the value of "hand made" (and yes I have done hand coated VanDyke's and PT/PL and really enjoyed the process). Let me give you an example. I recently donated a silver print to a museum that was from a negative that is currently too damaged to print traditionally and had never been printed in great numbers. That was the last print I made from it before the damage and it was the best print I had ever made of it and had reserved it for my personal portfolio. But a situation developed where I wanted to give something special to this museum in honor of the work of a colleage and that print came to mind. That is a special print because: A it is a great image and a very good print, B it is a very limited edition form of that print that cannot be reproduced as a traditionally enlarged image again (there is maybe 6 or so in existence). IE I gave it to them emphasizing the uniqueness of the traditional methodology used in its production. They were happy to have it.

Now I also told them that I would scan and fix the negative digitally sometime in the future and would continue to print it in some digital or hybrid method. Quite frankly I look forward to doing that because I am quite sure I can make a better print of it that way, solving some aesthetic issues that I could not solve traditionally. That will be immensely satisfying to me, being able finally to realize my original vision with this image. I never feel obligated to try and reproduce a previously printed silver image when I print it inkjet anyway. I always want to fully explore the capabilities of what technology I am using and frankly because you can do more, good inkjet is oftentimes much more work than printing silver.

It remains to be seen in the long run whether the marketplace will value the traditional silver image over the digital because of notions related to it being "handmade", but for me the satisfaction will come from the version that fulfills my original vision.

David Luttmann
10-Dec-2008, 12:30
"Why then, as Kirk asks, do we hang so much value on the hand made? For me the answer is very simple. A hand made photograph, assuming great craftmanship, is a unique piece of art that can not be reproduced in multiples without some variation from print to print."

Sandy, the same can happen with a digital print as well. For every print, go back to the Raw file and start over. Each print will be different.

Easy!

sanking
10-Dec-2008, 13:57
Dave,

The issue is not digital versus analogue. One can reasonably make a case that my prints are digital carbon transfers since nearly all of my printing is done with digital negatives.

To go back and re-work the RAW file for the sole purpose of making a print that is a slight variation from another is somewhat contrived in my opinion. That to me would be like adding brush strokes to the digital file and then printing an inkjet print. Or like deliberately introducing frilling with a carbon transfer print to show that it is a home made prints.

One of the things I have learned with digital controls is, "don't do a thing just because you can do it."

The slight variations that occur in my carbon transfer printing are there not because I am trying to to make them happen, but because they happen in spite of my best efforts to make duplicates. I accept them because the process "is what it is" and "gives what it gives."

Sandy king



"Why then, as Kirk asks, do we hang so much value on the hand made? For me the answer is very simple. A hand made photograph, assuming great craftmanship, is a unique piece of art that can not be reproduced in multiples without some variation from print to print."

Sandy, the same can happen with a digital print as well. For every print, go back to the Raw file and start over. Each print will be different.

Easy!

Kirk Gittings
10-Dec-2008, 16:18
Variation in printing is a matter of choice for me. I have this mental disease. After living with a print for awhile, I always (no matter how many times I have printed it) think I can make it better. So unless I actually make a number of identical prints at a sitting (I try to make 3-6), each time I return to a negative the print will be different. This is true for all print medias and technologies.

Carioca
10-Dec-2008, 16:35
Dave,

....That to me would be like adding brush strokes to the digital file and then printing an inkjet print.....
Sandy king

Isn't that a bit what's happening?

With every step of progress in print technology in the past, we accepted more or less the intrinsic qualities and defaults of each process as such.
With digital printing (and digital capture), we have made a huge step ahead regarding resolution, fidelity, sharpness and speed, but, somehow we make many steps back adding PS lens flare, lens abberation, film defects and artificial grain.

I haven't figured this one out, yet.

Sidney

David Luttmann
11-Dec-2008, 10:21
Dave,

The issue is not digital versus analogue. One can reasonably make a case that my prints are digital carbon transfers since nearly all of my printing is done with digital negatives.

To go back and re-work the RAW file for the sole purpose of making a print that is a slight variation from another is somewhat contrived in my opinion. That to me would be like adding brush strokes to the digital file and then printing an inkjet print. Or like deliberately introducing frilling with a carbon transfer print to show that it is a home made prints.

One of the things I have learned with digital controls is, "don't do a thing just because you can do it."

The slight variations that occur in my carbon transfer printing are there not because I am trying to to make them happen, but because they happen in spite of my best efforts to make duplicates. I accept them because the process "is what it is" and "gives what it gives."

Sandy king


Sandy,

While I may agree to a point, it is no more contrived than going to the darkroom to work with the negative each time for print. I am only pointing out that it is silly to make comments that with digital capture or printing that it's only done once and then we spit out the same shot like an assembly line.

As I said, one could treat the Raw file like the negative and go back for each print. The reverse it true as well....I scan the neg once, and then work on it for print. I can go back each time and work with the Raw scan if that somehow makes it more valuable to the person viewing it. I however find that they don't care. They either like the image of not.....whether or not it says Silver Gel, Chromira, Pigment on Bamboo, Lightjet, etc, etc.

Sorry to ramble, but the "one of a kind" thing with Silver Gel is a tired old argument that doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

sanking
11-Dec-2008, 14:44
Maybe someone will develop a random variability plugin for Photoshop. Each time you print on your friendly inkjet printer you run the RVP and it introduces a small variation. I think there is already one of these for clouds, right?



Sandy King







Sandy,

While I may agree to a point, it is no more contrived than going to the darkroom to work with the negative each time for print. I am only pointing out that it is silly to make comments that with digital capture or printing that it's only done once and then we spit out the same shot like an assembly line.

As I said, one could treat the Raw file like the negative and go back for each print. The reverse it true as well....I scan the neg once, and then work on it for print. I can go back each time and work with the Raw scan if that somehow makes it more valuable to the person viewing it. I however find that they don't care. They either like the image of not.....whether or not it says Silver Gel, Chromira, Pigment on Bamboo, Lightjet, etc, etc.

Sorry to ramble, but the "one of a kind" thing with Silver Gel is a tired old argument that doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

Kirk Keyes
11-Dec-2008, 15:09
They have one. It's called the "Noise" filter. Feel free to apply it to all your prints before you print them.

Don Hutton
11-Dec-2008, 15:26
Sandy,

While I may agree to a point, it is no more contrived than going to the darkroom to work with the negative each time for print. I am only pointing out that it is silly to make comments that with digital capture or printing that it's only done once and then we spit out the same shot like an assembly line.

As I said, one could treat the Raw file like the negative and go back for each print. The reverse it true as well....I scan the neg once, and then work on it for print. I can go back each time and work with the Raw scan if that somehow makes it more valuable to the person viewing it. I however find that they don't care. They either like the image of not.....whether or not it says Silver Gel, Chromira, Pigment on Bamboo, Lightjet, etc, etc.

Sorry to ramble, but the "one of a kind" thing with Silver Gel is a tired old argument that doesn't hold up to scrutiny.David

I think Sandy's point was that his strictest definition of a hand-made print excludes silver gelatin anyway and that a "hand-made" print should require that the application onto the substrate be a "by hand process"... and at that level, there are unique differentiating attributes to every single print as a result of that very direct creative process - which are not contrived in an attempt to be so, but rather the result of the "human factor" in the process.

Despite the fact that traditional silver gelatin printing requires enormous skill and aptitude to perform well, I'd have to agree that a "hand coated" print should become an automatic differentiation at many different levels. If you've ever observed first hand the amount of skill, effort and dedication that goes into a complicated alt process like carbon transfer or tri color gum, I think you'd not even question the merit and differentiation of such prints from prints made through other basically mechanical processes. I mean I can actually make an inkjet print while sitting on the can armed with my laptop instead of the NYT, provided I load paper into the printer first...

nathanm
11-Dec-2008, 16:03
Variation in inkjet printing is inevitable given the dozens of different settings you can screw up, forget to set, forget to save a preset for, load the wrong paper, use the wrong paper setting, load the wrong profile, choose the wrong rendering intent, oh and hey, the ink just ran out 90% of the way through the print… Getting a totally consistent, boring and predictable result time after time is the real trick!

willwilson
11-Dec-2008, 17:17
Variations do not make a print good. Inkjet prints are Inkjet prints. The viewer should read the title block next to your work, look at your work, read the title block again, and then look at your work again and say, "Wow, that's an inkjet print. That is one hell of a photograph."

If you don't get the "one hell of a photograph" remark, I don't think a fancy name for your print medium will push them over the edge.

Just call them inkjet prints, and get over it. If you are french call them giclee.

David A. Goldfarb
11-Dec-2008, 17:47
I think the French would be the least likely to call them "giclee."

JBrunner
17-Dec-2008, 08:20
One of the problems that I see, and it's not a shot, just a consideration, is that many artists use inkjets (or whatever you care to call them) as a method of reproduction, and although many of them take great pains to make the prints as faithful to the original as possible, they would be taken to task if they called them "original".

A case in point:

If I take one of my bleached and toned cyanotypes, make a high quality scan, use a paper that is similar or identical to the paper I printed the original on, and use a proper profile on a high quality printer, and all the other attendant details needed to produce a fine inkjet print, that is exactly what I will have, a very fine print that isn't the original, nor could I ethically sell it as an original, but still matches an "original" inkjet print by all the technical specifications or descriptions that could be offered.


As far as photography, Clyde Butcher for example offers open edition "giclees" at a lower price point, in addition to the original silver gelatin prints, and I have no doubt the giclees are well executed.

OTO you have somebody who takes a file from a digital camera or film scan and uses the inkjet printing method to produce their original work. In that case it is absolutely original, as that print represents the intent of the artist. By that mark, inkjet printing is subject to interpretation as to intent, and so all of a sudden the digital printer has that to contend with.

I think as long as artists use the format as a method to reproduce original work, and market as such, there will be a stigma to overturn on the part of digital printers who use it as the original iteration of printing. I feel that is a far more difficult perceptual hurdle for the digital printer than the $50 officemax printer crowd and their decor seeking customers, as a really good printer of any medium never need be overly concerned with that bunch. I think that the digital printer must find a way to be comfortable with the fact that their chosen printing method is also a medium of reproduction for artists working in other media, and the fact of that illustrates that photography is a branch of the arts with its own subdivisions. Photography these days is a big word, that covers may disciplines. It isn't all the same thing. That makes it doubly important to make intent clear, and be proud of the method used to arrive at a print.

I might offer "signed reproductions" of some of my prints in the future, and they will be as good as I can make them. With proper consideration they should be pretty darn good. What should I call them? IDK.

David Luttmann
17-Dec-2008, 08:43
David

I think Sandy's point was that his strictest definition of a hand-made print excludes silver gelatin anyway and that a "hand-made" print should require that the application onto the substrate be a "by hand process"... and at that level, there are unique differentiating attributes to every single print as a result of that very direct creative process - which are not contrived in an attempt to be so, but rather the result of the "human factor" in the process.

Despite the fact that traditional silver gelatin printing requires enormous skill and aptitude to perform well, I'd have to agree that a "hand coated" print should become an automatic differentiation at many different levels. If you've ever observed first hand the amount of skill, effort and dedication that goes into a complicated alt process like carbon transfer or tri color gum, I think you'd not even question the merit and differentiation of such prints from prints made through other basically mechanical processes. I mean I can actually make an inkjet print while sitting on the can armed with my laptop instead of the NYT, provided I load paper into the printer first...


Don,

If I could do that while on the can, and have a rack of magazines close by....I'd never have a reason to leave.

Don Hutton
17-Dec-2008, 08:45
Don,

If I could do that while on the can, and have a rack of magazines close by....I'd never have a reason to leave.:eek:

David A. Goldfarb
30-Dec-2008, 17:38
I'm visiting SF MOMA today, and took note that the term used in the photo galleries here is "Ink-jet Print" or "Ink-jet print on paper."

Fine exhibition of 19th-century scientific (and a few quasi- and pseudoscientific) photographs up now, by the way, including some things like Talbot's photomicrographs.