That's how I read it.
Eric.
That's how I read it.
Eric.
Eric,Originally Posted by Eric_Scott
You can certainly make the case that a piezography print is a pigment print. However, the point I tried to make earlier is that the size of the colorant particles in the pigment inks used in inkjet printers is much smaller than the size of the coloring particles that are used in traditional carbon printing. Also, I still maintain that the term "carbon pigment print" is confusing in that it suggests a direct link with traditional carbon transfer printing, which has traditionally been commonly called both carbon and pigment printing, and somewhat less commonly, carbon pigment printing. It seems to me there are other terms that accurately describe pigment printing with inkjet printers that are not problematic, including but not limited to such names as "carbon ink prints," "pigment ink prints," "carbon pigment ink prints," "carbon inkjet prints," and "Pigment Giclee Prints." But let's please avoid the use of terms that have been used in the past to describe other types of printing.
Comparing traditional carbon transfer prints to carbon ink prints made with inkjet printers is something of an apple to orange comparison, even though the two forms of printing have more in common than either have with traditional metal salt based photography.
There are two basic differences between a traditional carbon transfer print and a carbon ink print made with an inkjet printer. One is the size of the colorant particle. In traditional carbon printing the size of the pigment particles tends to be on the order of 500-1000 nm, usually closer to the higher figure than the lower, whereas in inkjet pigment ink sets the size of the colorant particle is on the order of 100 nm or even less. Other things being equal, larger aggregates of pigments should, at least in theory, be more light fast than smaller aggregates.
The other difference, which I mentioned earlier, is the fact that traditional carbon transfer prints are comprised of a fairly thick layer of pigment encapsulated in a rather thick layer of hardened gelatin. This layer of hardened gelatin, IMO, provides much more protection than do the relatively thin binder of pigment prints made with inkjet printers, where the pigment tends to rest more on the surface than in an encapsulated layer.
Nothing I have said is meant to denigrate current pigment prints made with inkjet printers. I like the look very much and find that on the whole these prints have much more in common with the traditional type of carbon printing I practice than with metal salt technology. And I particularly like the results of color printing with pigment inks on fine art papers. These prints are by far more attractive to me than any of the C-prints and chrome type printing processes of the past, and all but the best true color carbon prints of the past.
Sandy King
I've never seen that. I've seen "carbon print" and "carbon transfer print" for the tradtional medium.
There's no agreed upon name yet for carbon pigment inkjet prints ... for the sake of clarity it's probably helpful to have the world ink in there somewhere. letting people know that it's done in ink gives you an idea of the broader category of print it belongs to.
For the use of term "pigment print," check out the book Josef Sudek: Sixty Pigment Prints from the Artist's Estate. Salander-O'Reilly Galleries. New York, NY: 1998.
Although the technical information in the introduction is scant, persons with a good knowledge of carbon and carbro printing know that the pigment prints made by Sudek are in fact "carbro" prints, a variation of carbon printing.
Sandy King
Let me add that the term "pigment processes" has been widely used in the photographic literature to describe many different kinds of processes based on the use of pigment. The list of such processes includes Artigue, carbon, carbro, Fresson, Resinopigmentype, Sury's Process, several versions of Powder Processes, bromoil and bromoil transfer, many propietry systems of gum bichromate printing, and I probably left some out.
All of these processes were based on the use of pigment, but all used a more descriptive name than "pigment print" because that use would have been absurd witin the historical context.
Sandy King
Sandy,
Shouldn't the description of pigment processes be expanded to include the new digital printmaking methods that make use of pigment ink such as Cone's system? In my opinion it should. Piezography prints would be included in the list of pigment processes. As you say, more descriptive terms would be used to identify each printmaking method. Carbon transfer and carbon inkjet fit the bill nicely.
Eric.
Eric,
Yes, it should IMO. All I am trying to communicate is that this new form of printing should take a name(s) that does not confuse it with historical printing processes.
However, I seriously doubt that "carbon inkjet" will be widely accepted, for several reasons, of which the most important is that very few people, IMO, are going to use a term that so obviously establishes the mechanical linkage to the type of technology used. The current use of terminology to describe prints made by inkjet printers appears more driven by a desire to obfuscate the nature of the technology than to establish logical and rational nomenclature. Consider, for example, the wide-spread use of the term "Giclée in the world of fine art printing.
Sandy King
For a number of years I raised the point on various inkjet lists about the numerous variations of "carbon print" referring to already exisitng tradtional processes - probably 90% had enver heard of them and were suprsied the terms were already in use as it were.
However, I seriously doubt that "carbon inkjet" will be widely accepted, for several reasons, of which the most important is that very few people, IMO, are going to use a term that so obviously establishes the mechanical linkage to the type of technology used.
On that, I think you are somewhat mistaken. It may be he case for a few, but I think the biggest barrier in many users minds is not that the term "inkjet" obviously establishes the mechanical linkage to the type of technology used but rather that it establishes a link to the early days of (mainly colour) inkjet machines, with poor inks, poor papers and prints that sometimes faded within a few weeks. So now, while the inks, papers and machines have evolved beyond all recognition (for example, to the point where, for colour at least, the best inkjet prints will probably far outlast traditional C-Prints), there's still a sort of mental link between inkjet and poor product which is pretty much innacurate.
It's that outdated link in peoples minds that is still the biggest barrier to using the term.
(sort of the opposite of using Cibachrome... Ciba established in people's minds from the get go that their prints were the best thing since sliced bread for colour - especially in terms of longevity. And even when the data and real world examples came out that the stuff had far poorer potential longevity than had been hyped, the link was established to the point where people still believe it today despite all the evidence to the contrary)
It's why Cone was shrewd in grabbing the term "piezo" for his product - and then establishing a positive link to the exact same technology in the nomenclature of his materials.
So I don't think it's at all about a sort of secretly shameful sense of the use of the particular technology. Rather the anachronistic linkage to how the materials performed in their early days.
You'd be amazed how small the demand is for pictures of trees... - Fred Astaire to Audrey Hepburn
www.photo-muse.blogspot.com blog
Wow, this thread certainly morphed into something a lot bigger than I had expected.
What is a RIP? I keep seeing references to them in this fourm thread. Is this a reference to a software program that is used to run a printer? Is it a photoshop plug in? How do you use it?
Thanks.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks