LOL...you hit it right on the head Rich.
LOL...you hit it right on the head Rich.
I like the term "inkograph" or "pigmentograph" over fauxtograf, but I guesss Rich and Jorge don't consider dye transfer or tri-color carbro prints to be photographs either.
You guess wrong.........
Than as usual Jorge, your argument collapses.....
Of course inkjet prints are photographs....
No. Not "of course". Perhaps erroniously and colloquially though.
Inkjet prints may among other things be: perfect; collectible; exhibition quality; splendid; worthwhile; marvelous; and engaging. However, Inkjet/Giclee prints are prints, images, pictures, but not photographs. They are transcriptions of photographs.
Actually Wayne, for most commercial work, clients prefer digital....
Yeah, I guess they prefer ink jet posters because they look more like a printed magazine ad..... ;-)
Fauxtographs it is! I have long said that the digital crowd should have come up with a name for their art other than photography-but you all may have waited too long. Fauxtography is perfect.
BTW, I dont see anyone here who is "anti" anything except anti-BS like "Of course inkjet prints are photographs."
Wayne is right, heck it even has a french word.....how about that? Fauxtography.....I like better by the minute...
Since I know this is a large format forum, and some of you may know who Leslie Stroebel is; I thought I'd post Leslie's definition of a "photograph."
"An image of one or more objects produced by the chemical action of light or other forms of radiant energy (gamma rays, x-rays, ultraviolet radiation, infrared radiation) on sensitized materials. By extension, an image formed by an electronic imaging system (electronic photography)."
You'll notice that Leslie has no problem calling an image formed with an electronic imaging system a photograph.
And I sort of like Ellis' "inkograph." But, I'd really like to see it "ink-o-graph." Somehow, that just looks better. Can I use that Ellis? Or, are you going to copyright it?
I like all kinds of photographs. I just don't think that one type of production method is inherently better than another. That's a personal value-judgement for photo dilettantes who seem to know what's best; and the only true, pure photographic way (power of the Photo-Force & all that stuff).
In my photo world, there's only the best choice for the image and the artist's intent. That's something that the analog only advocates seem to forget in their zeal to prove that digital imaging is somehow "bad" - what's best for the image and the artist's intent.
They want to concentrate on their perceptions that analog is "harder to do" and is therefore "better." For me, that's the same specious argument that black and white photography is harder to do than color, and therefore it's inherently "better."
I guess that's all relative too. I think it's the challenges you set for yourself within your medium of choice.
I make big color prints. Bigger than I could ever make in my darkroom. I make prints with multiple images. Something I've worked on for over 20 years and never been wholey satisfied with the results available through traditional photo processes - even through people who purchased them liked them immensly.
I wasn't satisfied, because I knew I wanted more and the prints still didn't do what I saw in my mind. Computers and large format inkjets have finally opened up the avenue for me to make what I want to see - and really, that's all that counts for me personally.
I spend at least as much time, if not more, working with images to get the results I want using a computer than I did in the darkroom. I have one print that I've been working on for nearly a year because I still can't get exactly what I want.
For all of those of you who think printing with a large format print is like doing the laundry - press the button and the machine does the rest. You haven't done it - I know that for a fact.
I've thrown away many large prints because of an imperfection caused in printing. That means I baby sit every print I make for as long as it takes (multiple hours for each print), to ensure that the image is absolutely perfect when it is taken off the printer.
As for longevity, I'm still testing that. I live in New Mexico - we get a lot of sunshine. I had 3 prints in a southeast facing window for a little over a year. An inkjet print done with Ultrachrome pigment ink on a 9600 printer, an Ilfochrome, and a C print done on Kodak paper.
I put them in the window in March of 2004. By May of 2004 the C print was looking a bit faded. The Ilfochrome looked good. The inkjet print also looked good.
March 2005. The C print is history. The Ilfochrome is showing a marked magenta tint (about 15cc), the inkjet print colors still look exactly like the control print kept in a drawer. However, the paper is beginning to yellow. I expected that as I used cheap paper (Epson Enhanced Matte) on purpose so I could see what a semi-worst case would look like.
Frankly, I'm surprised at the results. I printed Ilfochromes for 25 years and was hoping they'd do a bit better.
Totally unscientific. Uncontrolled, and only one sample of each. What does that prove? Probably nothing other than in some instances an inkjet print MAY outlast a color photographic print made on two types of traditional color materials.
I've thrown those prints away because I have a 9800 on order with a better inkset (I hope). You can bet the first print off the printer will go back in the window to see what happens with the new inks.
In the end, I guess I just don't understand the close-minded, bitter, vituperous comments made toward digital printing. You don't have to do it. Revel in the wet darkroom. I did that for years.
I just have something I find far more interesting as it meets my criteria for producing my images better - is that so hard to accept?
Well said Steve!