Inkjet, posters, and limited edition prints

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Dye transfer requires exposure of the matrix film. That is the light sensitive part of the reproduction. The aditional steps of inmersing in dyes and registering the 3 matrix films are just that, aditional steps. As the definition states, the reproduction requires a light sensitive step or steps in this case.

The funny thing is that while Paul can come up with obscure poster references, 99.99% of the posters made in the world are made by the litho/offset process. If you examine the poster with a magnifier you see dots. If you examine an ink jet print with a magnifier you see dots, what does that suggest? Even so, I can even go further and suggest that making posters is even more "photography" than ink jet prints. As the plates need to be exposed to create the master. With ink jets you have bypassed all of this and gone directly to spraying ink on a paper.

[David Luttmann]

Yes Paul,

It appears that dye transfer must be classified as a poster. But then again, maybe we should investigate what Webster means by "light sensitive material". Many would agree that it would refer to visible light....that which the public using the dictionary would understand. And thus, using UV for pt/pd prints wouldn't fit the definition of a photograph or print.....thus rendering them posters as well.

I guess that any definition can be stretched to ridiculous lengths to attempt to prove a point.....just like I've done. In the end, it doesn't matter. I've seen beautiful output on silver, pt/pd, albumen, and inkjet. Some are not willing to recognize this. Ignore them and continue selling your prints.

All the best!

[Paul Butzi]

Jorge, I'm not trying to pick holes in your argument, here. I'm just trying to understand the bounds of what you'e saying.

You write :As the definition states, the reproduction requires a light sensitive step or steps in this case.

That's fine, except that the definition as you quoted it reads Photograph: An image, especially a positive print, recorded by a camera and reproduced on a photosensitive surface

Now, no matter how you want to play it, a dye transfer print is not a photosensitive surface, any more than the paper on which a photogravure is printed is a photosenstive surface, or the roll of paper which currently hangs in my inkjet printer is a photosensitive surface. The matrix films used to transfer ink to the paper in making a dye transfer print are photographs (by this definition) but the actual dye transfer print is not.

And, by the definition you've quoted, this means that a dye transfer print is just a poster, and not a photograph.

Mind you, I think the whole argument about poster/print/photograph is silly. If you want to call me a photographer, and call what I make photographs, I'm fine with that. If you want to call me a print maker, and call what I make prints, I'm fine with that, too.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

LOL....Paul, do me a favor and dont insult my intelligence. Dont start with with I'm not trying to pick holes in your argument, here. and then proceed to try and do the exact thing you are claiming you are not trying to do.

I agree with you, the final Dye transfer print is not a photosenstive surface, as you say the separation matrices would be the "photograph." But in the end it is closer to the meaning of a photograph than that of an ink jet print. You cannot have it both ways and expect the definitions to be loosely enough interpreted when it suits you and strictly intepreted when it does not.

As I told Paul a few threads back, this topic once again demostrates we are spinning our wheels and nobody here is going to change their mind. The only thing I have seen that is different from this kind of discussion from a year or two back is that presently there seems to be in this and the glicèe thread more people who want ink jet prints to be represented as such. Back then I was the only one arguing this, now there seems to be more members of this forum who would like to see a more honest description and properties of the prints. Personally, I welcome ink jet posters, it can only benefit me so I have decided no to participate in this kind of threads anymore, you call what you do what you want, I will call what you do what I want. Fortunatelly for me, what I do has only one very well recognized and stablished name... ;-)

[David Luttmann]

"so I have decided no to participate in this kind of threads anymore...."

:-)

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Of course, I can always change my mind to refute the nonsense some people here want to spout....

[paulr]

Oh, you're back.

I'm curious to know if you can name a public collection, curator, or photography historian that defines photography the way you do. I've been searching for a while and can't come up with any. All of them use the term "prints" for processes that create multiples, and all of them consider non-light printing processes (gravure, dye sublimation, inkjet) to be photographs.

Your distinctions are logical, and they may work for your personal use, but i don't see the point of trying to get people to go along with you when all the authorities on the topic have long since taken a different path.

[Wayne]

The only thing I have seen that is different from this kind of discussion from a year or two back is that presently there seems to be in this and the glicèe thread more people who want ink jet prints to be represented as such. Back then I was the only one arguing this, now there seems to be more members of this forum who would like to see a more honest description and properties of the prints.

Part of the reason for that is people like me went away from this forum (and photography) in part because there were so few people arguing it and, to be honest, all seemed lost. I agree, more people are fed up with the digiBS and "arent going to take it anymore", and it is clearly gathering steam rather than going away.

Your distinctions are logical, and they may work for your personal use, but i don't see the point of trying to get people to go along with you when all the authorities on the topic have long since taken a different path.

By your logic, the Iraq war was a wise and correct decision because all the authorities believed it to be so. Follow blindly if you will, as you clearly prefer to have your eyes closed. Meaningful change almost always comes from the outside, otherwise there isnt much of a change .

[paulr]

"By your logic, the Iraq war was a wise and correct decision because all the authorities believed it to be so. Follow blindly if you will, as you clearly prefer to have your eyes closed. Meaningful change almost always comes from the outside, otherwise there isnt much of a change ."

Wayne, don't insult eveyone's intelligence.

The definition of photography is not a moral one. It's one of convention and of accepted standards. In all matters of this sort the best guidance comes from the people who's job it is to have their finger on the pulse of the community at large. In this case, that would be the photographic community, and the people who make sense of what goes on, and to distill the defintions and catogories, are the curators and historians. Lucky for us it's not too hard to find out what they have to say on these basic topics.

[paulr]

And I'm especially confused by your remark about keeping my eyes open and about change always coming from the outside. Who here is noticing and accepting changes? And who is blindly resisting them?