Anybody else getting heartburn with the new 'Carbon Print' ?

[D. Kevin Gibson]

"They are prints made with carbon pigmets, plain and simple. In fact it is probably more accurate (and truthful) than the term "carbon prints" for the historic process which often doesn't even use carbon black

You are displaying your ignorance, what do you think is used to make watercolor pigments? If you guessed carbon black for black color you would be correct. Depending on the color not only is carbon black used, but also chromates, cadmiun and many other metals which impart the particular color to the pigment. In addition real carbon prints are not made only of water color pigments, there are other pigments used as well. Many of which are carbon or carbon in combination with metals."

Au contraire - I don't believe it is my ignorance that is on display.

Fron "Making the Pigment (Carbon) Print"

"The "Carbon" in the term "Carbon process" is really a misnomer nowadays, since the colorant now used is a mixture of permanent watercolor pigments. However, Carbon Black was originally used and the name remains. The popularity of these beautiful prints has suffered in the past because many people think that Carbon granules are somehow incorporated into the final image."

The point being that many "Carbon" prints - monochrome ones - don't actually incorporate any carbon/carbo black pigment at all - but rather pigments of different sorts.

So now, who exactly is being "ignorant, naive, disingenuous, or some combination of the above" I wonder? "Carbon" print makers perhaps?

BTW, having dealt with a good number of "carbon prints" in collections I can say that their longevity can be somewhat overstated - poor storage leads to serious deterioaration, and while the pigment may be fine and last for aeons, many were and are made on substrates that can display serious deterioration long before that even when stored in ideal conditions.

Now I had better go and make some Gelatin Silver Fibre Based Enlarger prints

[Andre_3662]

I now print on 100% cotton, acid free, lignin free, OBA free, 2% buffered fine art paper using carbon pigment inks. I call my prints carbon pigments prints. And I know that my carbon pigments prints will outlast anything I've made in the darkroom.

I will not use the word inkjet for the same reason I was not using the term "enlarger made silver print" or "chemically processed silver print" when I had the darkroom.

If any darkroom workers sees a problem with this, that's their problem not mine. If and when they start using the term "enlarger made chemically processed silver print" then I will consider using the term inkjet.

[Michael Chmilar]

co-opts the association with real skill and craft involved in the traditional method.

Yup! That computer-y stuff requires no skill whatsoever. Darn machine does everything for you.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Au contraire - I don't believe it is my ignorance that is on display.

Fron "Making the Pigment (Carbon) Print"

"The "Carbon" in the term "Carbon process" is really a misnomer nowadays, since the colorant now used is a mixture of permanent watercolor pigments. However, Carbon Black was originally used and the name remains. The popularity of these beautiful prints has suffered in the past because many people think that Carbon granules are somehow incorporated into the final image."



LOL...I see you beleive everything you read and is obvious you and the person who wrote this "Making the Pigment (Carbon) Print" is as ignorant of the fact that watercolor is but ONE of the many pigments available for Carbon prints.



But if you want to play the quoting game, let me quote the instructions for making carbon tissue from Luis Nadeau's book, "Modern Carbon Printing". Who BTW is a true and recognized authority in this area.



Glycerin......4 ml
CARBON BLACK....1 gr
Gelatin.........50 gr
Water.....500 ml.

So you see, yes your ignoarnce is in display, as a matter of fact, since water color pigments are so expensive and so much is used in making the tissue rarely any real carbon printer uses them to make tissue.



BTW I see you still refuse to answer, if content is so important, why not name them ink jet prints?



As to your comment on durability, at least there are Carbon prints which are 100 years old and more. The accelerated tests you are so proud to quote do not take into account air pollution, common atmospheric contaminants, the effect of variable humidity and temperature, etc. I have read the testing methods used by Wilhelm, RIT and others and at best they are an indication that the ink jet prints could last this long, but by no means are they the final proof that they will.



so to use your question:



So now, who exactly is being "ignorant, naive, disingenuous, or some combination of the above" I wonder? Ink jet printers perhaps?

[Clayton Jones]

Hello All,

There have been numerous threads on the subject of "what to call them" in the digital BW printing community, and I'd like to share a few things from that perspective:

1) There is general dislike for "Giclee" for being too pretentious, the French meanings, etc., same as here.

2) There is general unwillingness for calling them "inkjet prints" because of the reputation that term has earned by the poor performance of the early dye-based inks, and a great many people simply don't know the difference. There _are_ many different technologies these days under the umbrella of "inkjet", and those who spend long hours and considerable expense struggling to get good and long lasting results want some way to differentiate what they are doing from what the uneducated masses think of when they hear "inkjet".

3) As for what term to use, several things have been debated, but "carbon pigment" seems to be the one that is winning (I once put forth the term "carbon ink", but it didn't get many takers). I remember a discussion about whether this was coopting the early process, but the general consensus was that the early process was always called "carbon print", and that "carbon pigment print" was sufficiently different as to not be infringing. I have looked in two books on photo history and did not see "carbon pigment" used. I think that this term is the one that caught on because it most accurately describes the process the serious practitioners use. The use of "carbon pigment" seems to be so widespread today (just spend an evening surfing photo web sites) that I would submit that at this point nobody thinks that "carbon prints" are being advertised. I seriously doubt that the term is causing any confusion of the two processes, or that anyone thinks a photographer is trying to trick someone into thinking they are buying a "carbon print".

I think it is disengenuous to accuse digi practitioners of maliciously stealing an honored name for nefarious purposes. From _experience_ participating in the forums (not a fantasy imagination of what these folks are all about) I submit that digital practitioners are as sensitive to, and care as much about, this issue as those alt process folks who are hurling the accusations. The digi printing cummunity is made of of some very fine photographers who love photography and its history as much as anyone.

Regards, Clayton Jones

[Tom Baker]

I have been doing large format photography for many years. I'm extremely please to be involved in the evolution of the digital medium. Based on the way some on this forum react to the changing world, I see that large format photography may die a natural death...from boredom, and/or boordom.

Tom Baker

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

As for what term to use, several things have been debated, but "carbon pigment" seems to be the one that is winning (I once put forth the term "carbon ink", but it didn't get many takers). I remember a discussion about whether this was coopting the early process, but the general consensus was that the early process was always called "carbon print", and that "carbon pigment print" was sufficiently different as to not be infringing



I suppose this "conclusion" was reached solely by ink jet printers, I doubt you asked any real carbon printer.



Since Gibson started the quoting game, let me provide you one. "Traitè gèneràl de photographie" published in 1880 and dealing with Carbon printing and naming it as such. This is only one of the many references in the literature that go this far back, so they are out there, if you know where to look.



SO this "general consensus" sounds highly suspect to me.....

[Crispin Agnew]

"I suppose this "conclusion" was reached solely by ink jet printers, I doubt you asked any real carbon printer. Since Gibson started the quoting game, let me provide you one. "Traitè gèneràl de photographie" published in 1880 and dealing with Carbon printing and naming it as such. This is only one of the many references in the literature that go this far back, so they are out there, if you know where to look. SO this "general consensus" sounds highly suspect to me....."

Can't you see it doesn't matter? (nor does anyone need the "permission" of the small band of carbon printers, the "keepers" of the historical process to use a similar name for a new or current process).

Language and usage (like photography) changes and evolves over time. If the alt/carbon printing crowd don't like it - well that's really their problem and no one else's - they need to learn to cope with change. Things will just go rolling along quite happily without them.

As well, I don't think anyone says - "I just made a gelatin silver enlarger print" or "I just made an Azo bare bulb contact print" or an Ultra Violet Light Bank Platinum print" do they? So why you stubborn and obdurate insistence on "inkjet"? We usually just refer to the paper type or brand (gelatin silver, azo, Ilfochrome) or the chemical process (dye transfer, dye coupler) or whatever. We don't generally refer to the machine used to make the print. How do you describe you platinum prints Jorge? Do you describe the light source used?

A process that uses carbon pigments should have no qualms about saying so.

[Sergio Caetano]

And he (Clyde) says he prints on a archival LexJet paper. Something printed with ink/dyes can be considered archival ?

[Crispin Agnew]

"And he (Clyde) says he prints on a archival LexJet paper. Something printed with ink/dyes can be considered archival ?"

Please - at least read the posts or do a bit of research - he's using pigment inks not dye based inks. So yes