I am not sure I understand the original question. Personally I see very little difference between the two processes. Hit the print button and both will give you exact duplicates like making a poster. The only difference would be the cost of the materials. As long as you are honest with your labeling then great but I would not market them in the same place if the buyer could not see a difference between the two.
"I also find this statement laughably consistant with you always keeping one eye closed and your blind eye open, as you toss 170 years of convention and standards into the wastebasket."
Huh?
Have you ever opened one of your own eyes to the history of photography? If you look again you might see a medium that has done nothing but expand its definition since the beginning. A French dictionary in 1840 would have defined photography as daguerrotype. There were partisans saying that Talbot's process wasn't real photography. When the dry plate was invented, there were wet plate photographers saying that that wasn't photography. When the brownie was invented, there was a world of large format professionals declaring it to be the death of the medium. The same thing with the invention of color photography. And 35mm. And now with digital. There have only been two real constants: change, and luddites who cry out against it on general principle.
"If you are doing the best prints of your life with ink jet, I say good for you! But dont tell me they last as long as any photographic process, that the "look" the same as other photographic processes and that for all practical purposes they are the same, because we will keep on having these disucssions and boring the shit out of everbody else."
I'm sure we'll continue to bore the world, but I don't actually make most of those claims. I can only speak for the particular ink process that I use personally ... it can mimic some other processes fairly well (I'm using it now to come close to the look of my older silver prints) but this isn't its strength. As with any process, what's good about it is its own unique look. I think that if I continue to use this process, I'll get more accustomed to its unique properties and my prints will look even less like silver prints.
I can't make claims for longevity, other than to cite tests done by other people. The pigments are 100% carbon, so they are probably more resistant to polutants than silver, but are likely less resistant to UV. It's certainly more archival than any color process.
As far as me making my best prints, this is for my esthetic and for the body of work I'm completing now. Platinum is a beautiful process, but not appropriate for this work. Silver works great, but this seems to work even better.
For the purpose of this discussion, I can say that my tools have changed, but not in a way that fundamentally changes what my work is about ... at least to me. It still feels like having a vision, and then having a lot of hoops to jumo through to get the material world to cooperate.
... jump, not jumo
Wayne....
I wasn't talking to you. I was referring to Jorge. Sorry if you took offense.
All the best.
Yeah Wayne, for some reason I keep ignoring this bufoon and he keeps adressing me....go figure!
Anyhow, both Pauls, you should read this.....written by a person doing ink jet.
http://www.cjcom.net/articles/digiprn6.htm
I've seen that article. Thoughtful piece. I'll probably end up calling my prints whatever the standard becomes ... there's little reason to add to the confusion. If you use a process that others are using, but call it something different, you risk looking like a big dork.
His notes on carbon content apply to MIS inks, but not Piezo inks ... cone is making his inks with 100% carbon pigment, unless you get the portfolio black option (darker blacks) ... these have some metal compounds added to the black ink, and are a bit less lightfast.
cone is making his inks with 100% carbon pigment
I ran across this piece because I was looking for the ink's ingredients. I am starting to doubt many of these "carbon pigments" are really carbon. Carbon does not come in red, brown or sepia tones, there has to be some colorants added, some metallic color will last as long as the carbon, but some fade very fast.
Anyhow, I was surprised someone doing ink jet prints had the same opinion as many of us here. I think he is a little misled in the archival issue, but IMO his article is a step in the right direction.
In their most common state, the carbon pigments produce a warm brown image. cone's carbon sepia inkset is an example. he figured out how to get cold grays out it by varying the size and structure of the carbon particles (much as a fine-grained silver print emulsion is warm and a coarse-grainded emulsion is cold). He gets the in-between colors by blending. His hardest project has actually been a pure neutral black--that's in the works now. His only additive is in the black ink for the darker black. Aparently that fades under UV eventually, but when it does it just drops to the d-max of the regular, pure carbon black.
I have no problem with that guy's article or his conclusions, in general. His proposed name is a good one--descriptive and not dishonest. As long as you're not calling them carbon prints ...
Hi Wayne. I only addressed Jorge because he does a great job avoiding the topic at hand. You'll note the question of how to respond to the museum issue when his dictionary definition collapsed....and instead of dealing with it, he grasps a red herring of the gravure and photogravure spelling, etc. Typical. Instead, he resorts to name calling and insults. Also typical on this forumn and others. A good example of his typical abuse is here:
http://www.photokb.com/Uwe/ForumPost.aspx?article=photo-large-format:1035:2jR1d.28992%24aW5.2713%40fed1read07
This is his standard tactic. You cannot debate with someone who resorts to name calling and insults and finally abuse. This nonsense of shutting up the Ilford team is hilarious. I've been through enough galleries in the US & Canada to know that properly done inkjet or silver, etc, is not going to be totally eclipsed in quality by a pt/pd print. That is simply wishful thinking.
I have no problem with him ignoring me. I rather enjoy it. I'll continue being open to new methods as opposed to closing me eyes to what these new methods offer.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks