Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 71

Thread: Inkjet, posters, and limited edition prints

  1. #21

    Inkjet, posters, and limited edition prints

    Just hold this thread for a second.....my bag of popcorn needs a refill.....

  2. #22

    Inkjet, posters, and limited edition prints

    "Is this "cheating" on the part of the photographer? He is offering prints outside of a limited edition"

    Not cheating, merely confused marketing. The choice of limited or open editions is the decision of the individual and in itself has no bearing on the quality of the image on offer.

    "How much have the two processes differ? If not photosensitive/ink, then what? Does the fact to call the prints "posters" make them so? What is the difference between prints and posters?"

    Posters are conventionally produced by the litho/press process. When made in quantity they cost mere pence/cents to produce. There would be less confusion between a LightJet/Ultrachrome and a conventionally produced poster than between a LightJet and an Ultrachrome. Whether it makes marketing sense or not is open to debate.

  3. #23

    Inkjet, posters, and limited edition prints

    Does the fact to call the prints "posters" make them so ? What is the difference between prints and posters ?

    Unfortunatelly, somewhere along the way photographs started to be called "prints." Unfortunatelly the term was stolen from the printing industry I guess for simplicity. A photograph has a clear definition, not so a print if one is to go by the dictionary.

    Does the fact that we call an image made with inks on a piece of paper "photographs" make them so? Is an ink jet "print" different than a poster just because the dots are smaller or have better resolution?

    You be the judge.

  4. #24
    Abuser of God's Sunlight
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    brooklyn, nyc
    Posts
    5,796

    Inkjet, posters, and limited edition prints

    In the fine art world, the essential idea of "print" is multiples made from a single original; it has little to do with the mateials being used.* There is no medium or substrate intrinsic to all printing processes. It made sense for photography to adopt the same terminology, as soon as Fox Talbot invented the negative/positive process on salted paper--it was a process that allowed making multiples.

    Photography actually has a less clear definition than printmaking. Take a look at this link, courtesy of Paul Buzzi: http://www.metmuseum.org/special/photography2001/photo_glos.htm

    Considering that the photography department at the Met is one of the most conservative major collections in the country, it's telling to see the range of what they consider photography.

    "Poster" is even harder to define. It's not true that they're all mass produced by offset litho. There's a rich tradition of hand-made silkscreen posters that require a great deal of craftsmanship to produce. I suspect a real working definition has more to do with intintion--a poster is typically practical. Even though it often gets consumed as art, it's usually created for some kind of publicity, fund raising, or advertising purpose. Traditionally, posters of fine art don't really mimic the originals. A poster of an Ansel Adams photograph will will typically have his name in big letters at the bottom, and the name of the exhibit or book or national park being publicized/subsidized. When the poster is done in the same medium as the original, and looks similar, then you're on murky ground, and it's understandable that people would be a bit confused. Edition numbers are not a very robust distinction.



    *Yes, monoprints are a conspicuous exception But they are not a mainstream printing process, and do not serve the same purpose that other printing processes were invented for.

  5. #25
    Abuser of God's Sunlight
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    brooklyn, nyc
    Posts
    5,796

    Inkjet, posters, and limited edition prints

    "Now you can call it a collage if you want I call it a total misrepresentation of a fine art photograph."

    Ahhh. Based on your new description, I'd have to agree. It's not collage; it's just garden variety postmodernism. "why create what you can appropriate?"

    I don't respect it much either, but again, the demon isn't in the pixels; it's in the artist's brain, or perhaps the artist's MFA program. This genre has not been around as long as montage, but it's much older than photoshop. And while it isn't quite dead yet, you'll be glad to know that it doesn't seem to be as booming as it was in the '80s.

  6. #26

    Inkjet, posters, and limited edition prints

    Photography actually has a less clear definition than printmaking. Take a look at this link, courtesy of Paul Buzzi:

    Well, no....photography actually has a very clear definition.....

    Photography: The art or process of producing images of objects on photosensitive surfaces.

    Photograph: An image, especially a positive print, recorded by a camera and reproduced on a photosensitive surface.

    Courtesy of Websters dictionary. Sadly as I said before they use the term "print" which is misapplied.

    No matter how much you try Paul, there is no escaping the very simple definitions. What you and Butzi presented are classifications not a definition of photography or photographs. I suppose these are necessary by the museums or curators. Notice that in the classifications, the only process not dependent on a light sensitive surface are ink jet "prints." Imagine that!

    In the fine art world, the essential idea of "print" is multiples made from a single original; it has little to do with the mateials being used.* There is no medium or substrate intrinsic to all printing processes. It made sense for photography to adopt the same terminology

    Nope, actually in the printing world is where the essential idea that a print is multiples of an original was borne, mostly from mechanical means. Fine art posters are traditionally called "prints" and not always include graphics and/or text. This term was misapplied to photography and a photograph and it actually made no sense to adopt this terminology since the processes are totally different. In a lab I mix ingredients, in a kitchen I mix ingredients.....I dont call synthetizing aspirin cooking....do you? Just because you end up with a flat piece of paper with a two dimensional image on it does not mean both are "prints" one is a photograph, one is a print.

  7. #27

    Inkjet, posters, and limited edition prints

    "Well, no....photography actually has a very clear definition....."

    "Photography: The art or process of producing images of objects on photosensitive surfaces"

    "Photograph: An image, especially a positive print, recorded by a camera and reproduced on a photosensitive surface"

    "Courtesy of Websters dictionary"


    There will come a time in the not too distant future if we haven't reached the point already when most images will have nothing at all to do with film and traditional light sensitive materials. Like it or not there will also come a time when Websters Dictionary will redefine "photography" to reflect this change.

  8. #28
    Abuser of God's Sunlight
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    brooklyn, nyc
    Posts
    5,796

    Inkjet, posters, and limited edition prints

    Jorge, ALL words, no matter how complex or controversial, have simple definitions in the dictionary. Our friends at Merrieam Webster do a wonderful job, but only sometimes does the discussion end, and not just begin, at the dictionary. The operating definitions of words get formed by cultures and subcultures, and they evolve and they expand and contract. Some other words that you will find simple definitions for in the dictionary: Art, Jazz, Poetry, Metaphor, God. Now go ahead and tell me that the dictionary encompassed all possible definitions, and that the philosphers, practitioners, and scholars who have fought out the meansings of these words over their lifetimes were just spinning their wheels.

    "Just because you end up with a flat piece of paper with a two dimensional image on it does not mean both are "prints" one is a photograph, one is a print."

    You're questioning the logic of a definition, which is fine ... but it doesn't change the definition. If you look at how the art historical and curatorial worlds have actually evolved the meaning of "print," they've come up with a useful one in the way they apply it to photographs. The use of the multiple is actually helpful. A platinum print and a gelatin silver print are both multiples made from an original. A daguerrotype and a kodachrome are not. All photographs; only the first two are prints. You've made it clear what you wish the definition to be, but at this point you are aruguing with the definition-makers, not with anyone here. Their logic is not wrong; it's just different from yours. It makes little differene that I happen to agree with them.

  9. #29

    Inkjet, posters, and limited edition prints

    I disagree Paul, we are not talking about words here, we are talking about defining a process with words. A very simple example which I am familiar with is chemistry. In chemistry we have definitions like organic chemistry, the branch of chemistry that deals with molecules of which carbon in covalent bonds is the main structure. Within organic chemistry we then have classifications, e.i. Oranic bases, organic acids, organic alcohols, esters, ethers, organometallic compounds etc, etc....Regadless of the classification you are talking about, all of them have the underlying common denominator where carbon in covalent bonds is present and gives the molecule some of it's chemical characteristics.

    In photography and a photograph we have a very simple definition, the rest of the cassifications you presented are nothing more but branches which all have in common one factor, a light sensitive material with the exception of ink jet "prints."

    No, I am not questioning the definition, I am simply using it. If you examine the definition, specially of a photograph so see that it is a reproduction of an original which was created with light sensitive materials, both the original and the copy. This is not true for ink jet prints. Like you say, you have made it clear what you wish the definition to be, but at this point you are ignoring it to fit your wishes.

  10. #30

    Inkjet, posters, and limited edition prints

    So, Jorge, you're saying that dye transfer prints are not photographs, they're posters?

Similar Threads

  1. Limited vs unlimited edition prints?
    By Mike Tobias in forum Business
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 13-Jun-2009, 09:14
  2. Yet another limited edition post but different
    By Mark_3632 in forum On Photography
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 23-Oct-2005, 00:33
  3. Limited edition, not really that limited ?
    By QT Luong in forum Business
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: 19-Oct-2005, 16:45
  4. Replies: 28
    Last Post: 3-Dec-2003, 16:28

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •