Gregory Colbert

[Sanders McNew]

Tim, greetings.

I am often wrong. Look at me! I'm stuck in film, in silver gelatin, in black and white. A concatenation of poor choices! HOWEVER, I think you should be just a bit more open in your estimation of art. You should come by and see my collection of Kinkaids ... truly stunning on the wall. :-)

I hope this note finds you well.

Sanders.

[tim atherton]

"Look at me! I'm stuck in film, in silver gelatin, in black and white." - I have no issue with that at all - just hat it isn't the only (even though it is one very good way).

"You should come by and see my collection of Kinkaids ... truly stunning on the wall. :-) "

hmm - I'd rather not.. you might not like the resulting mess :-) All of us have to draw the line somewhere - mine is somewhat above Kinkaid and Romance....

[clay harmon]

Tim, I have no problem with inkjet prints. My point really is that the quality (or lack of quality) in a print is self evident. Giving it a name adds nothing. Just as in black and white silver gelatin. I have seen plenty of silver gelatin prints that stink. Some of them have even come out of my own print washer. It still seems to me that people are going to great lengths to give ink jet prints a new name (and some uspcale 'association' or cachet) when their attributes should (and do) speak for themselves.

"Incorrect on both counts really. If there is move for disassociation, it is probably to remove the processes from the conception of the prints resulting from $99.99 home desktop printers of 8 or 9 years ago. Colour went through a similar problem - people either associated colour photographs with the cheap processes of the local high street lab and their holiday snaps or gaudy over the top advertising work. Yet now a majority of good photographic art today is probably being made in colour. That the work may be partly or wholly computer generated isn't a problem"

[tim atherton]

"My point really is that the quality (or lack of quality) in a print is self evident. Giving it a name adds nothing. Just as in black and white silver gelatin. I have seen plenty of silver gelatin prints that stink. Some of them have even come out of my own print washer. It still seems to me that people are going to great lengths to give ink jet prints a new name (and some uspcale 'association' or cachet) when their attributes should (and do) speak for themselves."

My problem with this is (and why I dislike the term "inkjet") is that the technology got saddled with the name when it wasn't used to produce high end, high quality prints but rather low end desktop colour reproduction as a cheaper alternative to office laser printers and as an improvement over dot matrix pritners.At that time the technical quality was really quite poor.

Now the quality and technology has increased by leaps of magnitude, but the name is still in many ways linked or associated to its introductory phase and the poor quility it produced then.

[tim atherton]

further - imagine colour film and print technolgy was only initally developed with the invention of the 1970's mini-lab and then only later did high quality larger format colour enlargers, better quality film and papers and enalrger lenses etc come along. But as a result every colour print is always call a "mini-lab" print - explains what I am getting at?

[Kirk Gittings]

"Ink" prints are printed on an "inkjet" printer. The name inkjet print has no logic and is not consistent with medium names in photo or other art mediums. I have a friend who is a really famous painter with shows at the Corcoran, Castelli Graphics etc., who airbrushes with enamel paint. He does not describe his medium as "airbrush paint". His medium is always listed as "enamel on canvas" or "enamel on paper".

By the way, at my recent museum show, I had no trouble selling "pigment ink" prints to the most knowledgeable of my local collectors, the curator of art (a photographer himself), the museum director and the museum foundation (for the permanent collection)--all bought "pigment ink" prints that they knew were printed on an "inkjet" printer.

[Kirk Gittings]

Clay, by the way you should use your full name here. It makes it easier to find examples of your work (some of which I think, by the way, is extraordinary). I always like to look at the work of people that I am having a discussion with. If they do not have some descent work to show somewhere, it is hard to take them seriously. That is certainly not the case with you.

Calling something an ink print is not deceptive. It is simply more accurate because it describes the actual medium instead of the delivery system. The "verbal laziness" you use to describe your prefered medium is not a virtue. I simply prefer more accuracy. From your site:

"First, virtually everything currently shown on this site is printed either using platinum-palladium or gum-platinum. In general, when I refer to platinum prints, I am using a generic moniker to describe everything from prints made with a combination of 50/50 platinum/palladium to 100% pure palladium. This verbal laziness is common in the alt-process world, and we excuse our terminological imprecision because we feel ever so virtuous about everything else we do."

This was very enlightening. I have always found it curious the way P/P people so vehemently attack digital printers. I used to do P/P. I still do silver. So what? Dick Arentz does digitally enlarged negatives, a slippery slope. You link to him on your site. Why would you care so much? Ahh.......you are defending virtue. Traditional processes have virtue. You may find virtue in a particular medium, but I find that an odd concept to say the least.

[clay harmon]

Kirk,

First, I have posted my full name now. Sorry.

First, my site. The quote you made was intended to be ironic, self deprecating and funny, because I think a fair number of alt-process people do take themselves a little too seriously. And your point is well taken: verbal sloppiness is rampant in the photo world. For what it is worth, when I sell work through a gallery, the print is labelled accurately. I do not call a print with no platinum in it a 'platinum print'. In fact, if anything, I err the other way and often label a print as a "palladium print" when it in fact has a fair amount of platinum. I'm sure this is all TMI, as my daughters say (too much information).

Next, I did not mean to imply that calling something an ink print is deceptive. I was really trying to say that I think it is just sort of ... redundant. I have no quarrel with inkjet prints. I am not attacking inkjet prints. I make them myself and I own a few. It is really not my 'main' medium, but that is a personal decision based on a lot of things that I am not sure I can even articulate fully. I certainly do not think it makes me superior in any way. In fact, as long as you promise to tell no one, about 50% of my work now is done with digital negatives. So I am not the purist you seem to think. The only point brought up by this thread is the seeming attempt to hide the provenance of Colbert's work behind the moniker "Encaustic print", which I find sort of funny and sad at the same time. To me, the work speaks for itself. It's big, sentimental and apparently beautifully printed. Why wrap it up in more mumbo-jumbo?

'Ink print' is fine with me. As far as I know, that name has no specific historical process implications. I do sort of laugh when I see nonsense like "platinum giclee" and so forth. But whatever. I really don't "care so much" We'll all manage to live through it.

As for being a snob, well, frankly, I'm just above that sort of common behavior. (HUMOR ALERT!)

[clay harmon]

Just noticed my post had two 'firsts' That'll teach me to post when munching on a salad. So either ignore one 'first', or change the second 'first' to 'secondly', or just roll your eyes and say "sheesh"

[Michael Mutmansky]

Kirk,

"Calling something an ink print is not deceptive. It is simply more accurate because it describes the actual medium instead of the delivery system."

I've got to take exception to that statement, as there are many processes out there that use ink in some manner, and because of that some use the delivery system as part of the naming convention. To call an inkjet print an 'ink print' flies in the face of all the other ink and paper processes out there that could just as well be called an 'ink print'.

Everything from the oldest illuminated manuscripts to gravure, bromoil, suibokuga, comic books, and the money in your wallet all fit this definition. For some reason people feel it is worthwhile to be a little more precise about what the process is with other printing methods, and it seems that there is an obfuscation in the mind of artists that are unwilling to use the term 'inkjet'.

As Tim said:

"Now the quality and technology has increased by leaps of magnitude, but the name is still in many ways linked or associated to its introductory phase and the poor quility it produced then."

There is clearly a second class connotation at least among some people, and I think this is a self-imposed problem. Clay isn't ranting against inkjet prints, he is merely questioning why the prints have such an unnecessarily flowery and cryptic name. I don't generally sell inkjet prints but I have a show coming up that will probably have a series of them included, and I will call them 'pigment inkjet prints'. It's straightforward and honest, just like me (mostly).

---Michael