Originally Posted by Paul Kierstead
Lartigue, when he was 10.
(he did his more famous work as a teenager)
Lartigue, when he was 10.
(he did his more famous work as a teenager)
Gentlemen,
For your information, and whether anyone has a moment to consider this or access to these documents, but you might want to occupy a wee bit of your time to read these ISO Standards and ANSI Standards documents, where they might possibly be found at your local library, and where you might find them to be an interesting set of standards regarding the photographic process with "inkjets..."
The associated documents listed below are related to the following key document:
"ISO 18055-1:2004: establishes a classification of photo-grade inkjet papers and films with regard to nomenclature, formats and thickness/grammage. It does not include non-photo-grade media, non-paper/film media, or media intended solely for laser printing. This title may contain less than 24 pages of technical content..."
The associated standards short list, which does not list all of the associated ISO 18055-1:2004 standards, is as follows: ISO 1:2002, ISO 216:1975, ISO 554:1976, ISO 534, ISO 11093-4:1997, ISO 18903:2002, ISO/IEC 24711, ISO 11789, ANSI Z39.48-1992, ISO/IEC JTC 1, ISO 9001:2008. The associated standards wander off to discuss, paper pulping process, the archival qualities of inkjet's photo paper, how much ink can flow, how much ink be laid down on a paper's surface and which solvent or water solution, the paper's photographic surface receptor quality, pigments and dye fade resistance, et al...
That said, the ISO folks and the ANSI folks know that photography and the photographic process are now deeply entrenched in the digital environment, and since they emphatically recognized that fact several years ago, so much so, that these internationally recognized organizations designed and illustrated a group of standards for the photographers and the photographic industry going forward. The standards address each facet within the weakly named inkjet process, such as the inkjet ink industry, the inkjet paper industry, and inkjet equipment industry, and where these standards are also being designed to assist the conservator, with the new digitally produced photographic objects.
Their presence begs the question how we or any individual can ignore the world wide standard organization groups that recognize digital photography as a photographic process? Go figure...
As a side note, if anyone wants to be a part of any ISO or any ANSI reconfirmation process, because they are living standards, I do believe that you could become involved, but you might need more credentials than "I don't like it..." So, if you want your voice to be heard within an organization that sets directives and standards, and you happen to strongly disagree with their direction, you should do so with immediate effect.
Again, my two pennies.
jim k
I don't think this is central to what Duchamp was showing. It's a bit closer to what Warhol was interested in, but even he was more into the comodification of images themselves ... not just process.
Re: fungibility ...
I believe that it's an artist's vision that's unique. The craft aspect of art has been commodified for milennia. The stone sculptors of ancient Greece, of the gothic cathedrals, and the members of Michelangelo's crew were all workers for hire ... guild members. They're the ones who actually made the stuff. And if one of them called in sick, there were others who could take over. The end result was not fundamentally changed.
In photography, look at guys like Walker Evans, Cartier-Bresson ...
They didn't even care who made their prints. That side of photography, to them, was beside the point.
Van claims that Ciba is c***p for portraiture, but Cole Weston did stunning portraits
on Ciba, and I had clients who demanded it. Different look and strategy than doing
C-prints, for sure, but c***p? Just depends if you know how to handle it. However,
all photography is illusionism. Once you take the three dimensional world and put it
on a flat piece of paper or a monitor or whatever, it's an abstraction. Some magicians are considered skilled; some are not. I really don't care whether you choose disappering tigers, rabbits, or pigeons for your act. I personally enjoy the tactility of darkroom work; others like a different approach. So what? The fact that inkjet is extremely popular right now, especially in color, means that there will be a helluva lot of crappy inkjet prints being made, just like there were a lot of crappy
C-prints being made a couple decades ago. But out of the general mess will come a few exceptional printmakers. Yet the public eye fatigues very fast, and ironically darkroom prints or printing seems "new" and exciting to some people at the moment. But it's all relative. And the terminology will itself inevitably bounce
around quite a bit in the process.
We can already imagine what will happen when the Next Big Thing comes along and obsoletes inkjet printing. The faithful will decry the upstart, the inkjet printer will become the object of instant nostalgia and fetishization, and it will be elevated as one of many revered examples of the good ol' days. And of course inkjet will become an alternative process. And we'll all kick ourselves for not hoarding spare Epson parts and ink, when we see their future prices on ebay.
Thanks Jim, I knew there'd be relevant ISO standards. To me that means longevity of a print may be assured by stating that a process complies with the standards.
As looks go, I am sure that a photograph that would reproduce effectively in gravure would look amazing in ink.
Ret, Your provocative comments reminded me of a few thoughts. You reminded me about the roots of the ink medium we are discussing. I had the pleasure to spend two weeks 1987 in Alaska with a member of the team at HP who introduced the world to the first DeskJet printer. Perhaps to reflect the roots of this technology, you might want to call practitioners "deskjetters" it might be more accurate and less derogatory-sounding. You also reminded me something I don't always think of. I am first a printer. I take photographs secondarily to give myself something worth printing. It's been long established that photography can be art. I would say photography and printing can be art, craft or a job. It's the effort to communicate that raises it from one level to another.
Brent,
Thats the same as always, everybody has their favorites.
I am still a TMax guy.
Basically I am at the same point you are. Quit shooting for a dozen years, now trying to catch up again.
FWIW, I went the V700/3880 route. Just got the printer set up.
Will I be able to produce work that will satisfy other people? Who knows.
I just want to produce something to satisfy myself.
Kevin
it isnt photography
tell that to all the photographers and art historians since since Oscar Rejlander and Henry Peach Robinson's days (1850-1890)
Is Jerry Uelsmann a photographer?
I quit reading this thread back about page five or six (got busy inkjettering my 4x5 and 8x10 film thingies) only to return to the religious flames of Modernism, sheesh, when will it ever end?
Well in anycase all I will add is: long live copperplate photogravure!
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks