How do you describe ink jet process

[JBrunner]

But lay people have no preconception of silver gelatin. So the term does not skew their perception. They can see the print with an unprejudiced eye. Lay people that see "inkjet" will have see the print with a skewed perception because of their association of the word with the $50 model at Staples..

I was adding while you were replying.

I highly doubt lay people have any perception at all in regard to process. The persons who do deserve a clear description.

To me the idea of hiding the fact that a print was made by a particular process sounds like an unfounded inferiority complex, because that's what is being done, and is pretty much the basis of your premise.

[sanking]

Lenny,

Anyone who knows and appreciates Crawford's book is ultimately real OK in my book.

Sandy King

OK,OK, you and Don - don't bite my head off. This is a 10 page thread. I'm busted - I didn't read fully, or read it too quickly. My apologies. I thought Sidney was just one more fellow who thinks that darkroom prints are the only results that are "real" photography. I know what carbon prints are, I used to teach non-silver processes, live and breathe by Crawford's book - and I have plenty of respect for them and the process.

Lenny

[Lenny Eiger]

Lenny,

Anyone who knows and appreciates Crawford's book is ultimately real OK in my book.

Sandy King

Why thank you. That said, the book is amazing. One thing that I loved is that some of the images I had only seen in books printed in black and white were actually very colorful. Especially the Stieglitz and Steichen, and there is one by Negre, which I always loved that has a steely gray-blue tone to it.

Lenny

[Paul Kierstead]

To me the idea of hiding the fact that a print was made by a particular process sounds like an unfounded inferiority complex, because that's what is being done, and is pretty much the basis of your premise.

Well, the "inferiority complex" part is uncalled for, but I will admit that part of it does bother me, even if I think the term "inkjet" is pejorative for the public at large.

[JBrunner]

Well, the "inferiority complex" part is uncalled for, but I will admit that part of it does bother me, even if I think the term "inkjet" is pejorative for the public at large.

Actually I said "unfounded inferiority complex", as in I believe their should be no need to obfuscate how a good print is arrived at. It wasn't meant to be insulting.

Here is another way to look at it:

Once upon a time, and not so very long ago, the term "giclee" actually meant something. For better or worse inkjet printing is now the de facto method of the masses, having supplanted silver, and their makers wanting to them to become special on something other than merit, many inkjet prints became "giclees". Now ebay is awash with thousands of $6 "giclee" prints, made with the finest inks on blah blah blah, and so now it means nothing, and everybody with an IQ bigger than their shoe size knows exactly what they are. The ones who don't aren't going to pay the price for a decent print no matter what you call it. If somehow somebody comes up with a new cool name, that same name will be adopted and corrupted in short order by those same people with the $50 printers. In other words, there isn't much point. It is pedantic. Call the print what it is and let it stand or fall on its own merits. There are plenty of inkjet originated prints that have fetched far more than I can pay. The inkjet process obviously isn't the defining factor. Obfuscating the process serves no purpose other than vanity, or a self evasive method to avoid examining the real reasons someones prints are not in demand.

[Greg Miller]

I was adding while you were replying.

I highly doubt lay people have any perception at all in regard to process. The persons who do deserve a clear description.

To me the idea of hiding the fact that a print was made by a particular process sounds like an unfounded inferiority complex, because that's what is being done, and is pretty much the basis of your premise.

I guess we disagree on what the general public thinks of when they hear "inkjet". And I think you missed my point that the general public has no preconception of the term "silver gelatin" but they do with "inkjet". In that sense they do have a perception (albeit an ingnorant one) when it comes to inkjet process.

I'm not sure how you concluded that I have an "inferiority complex". I simply want the viewer to understand what my inkjet print is. The general public is not educated enough in printing technology to accurately interpret this word. I simply wish to avoid that misunderstanding.

Using the term "inkjet" does not provide a clear description when the audience has a different understanding of the word.

[nathanm]

We're just struggling to try and appear elite and exceptional in the face of the mass proliferation of affordable technology. We want to be on the stage and perform for the audience, but we're living in a world where anyone can get on the stage. So when everyone knows how it is done, when anyone can get their hands on the same tools as you, the only thing left is your own vision and creativity. That has never changed. The exceptional quality boils down to the individual's skill and no amount of marketspeak about the tools and materials will change that.

Yes, the $50 Staples inkjet is an inkjet just like my $3000 Epson is an inkjet, but so what? Look at this print and decide if it looks good or not. If the viewer wants to dismiss you based on frivilous preconceptions about the technology used, then let them. There's nothing you can do about it. Every kid in the world has gone to the museum, looked at some piece of art they didn't like and said, "*Hmph* Well geez, I could do that!" Fine, so go and do it. No matter what the wheat and chaff will get separated, the pros will rise to the top; and even then it's all subjective anyway.

[sanking]

You make good points, and I am again reminded of what Abigail Godeau wrote a quarter century ago. "Art photography has always defined itself, indeed, was compelled to define itself, in opposition to the normative and boundless ubiquity of all other photography." In "Winning the Game When the Rules Have Changed: Art Photography and Postmodernism," in New Mexico Studies in the Fine Arts 8 (1983).

Sandy King

We're just struggling to try and appear elite and exceptional in the face of the mass proliferation of affordable technology. We want to be on the stage and perform for the audience, but we're living in a world where anyone can get on the stage. So when everyone knows how it is done, when anyone can get their hands on the same tools as you, the only thing left is your own vision and creativity. That has never changed. The exceptional quality boils down to the individual's skill and no amount of marketspeak about the tools and materials will change that.

Yes, the $50 Staples inkjet is an inkjet just like my $3000 Epson is an inkjet, but so what? Look at this print and decide if it looks good or not. If the viewer wants to dismiss you based on frivilous preconceptions about the technology used, then let them. There's nothing you can do about it. Every kid in the world has gone to the museum, looked at some piece of art they didn't like and said, "*Hmph* Well geez, I could do that!" Fine, so go and do it. No matter what the wheat and chaff will get separated, the pros will rise to the top; and even then it's all subjective anyway.

[Carioca]

The next time I printed the image (a rare thing for me to do, anyway) I wanted to approach the negative from a fresh viewpoint -- one that took advantage of new things I have seen, learned and felt.

I have come to look at each print I make as its own piece of art -- not just a reproduction of an original idea. But for the most part, most people would still have a hard time seeing any difference between the prints.

Vaughn

In a way, this describes my point of view regarding my statement about 'hand made' prints.
Each silver print (in Vaughn's case) will be different.
Printing the same neg one year later will result in a new image, with new interpretation, this is compulsory, because it is an uncontrollable step in final print making.
This final step with silver printing, is the second last step in digital printing (=PS, or other digital manipulation), there after, the resulting prints will be identical regardless the number inserted in the print menu.
I wonder how many photographers 're-work' their RAW's a year later, to get a new interpretation.

Sidney

[Paul Kierstead]

I wonder how many photographers 're-work' their RAW's a year later, to get a new interpretation.

If I had to guess, I'd say damn near all of them. It is practically an obsession, often starting with "oh, I got a new scanner....".