Maybe. But, the reality is that these inks are carbon based, and the word carbon belongs in the description somewhere. The folks using carbon based inks don't want it confused with other inkjet inks either. Paul Roak, for instance, refers to his work as 'carbon pigment'. This is not an attempt to steal the term 'carbon print'. But, that still doesn't address the issue of somehow saying 'how' the 'carbon pigment' is applied to the paper.
Tom Baker
You could call them, for instance, "Fine Art Ink Jet Prints," as Clyde Butcher seems to be doing on his newly revised page. Go back to that original link, and things look a bit different than they did when I first saw it.
I make inkjet prints using the Piezography software using carbon based inksets. And I agree that perhaps "carbon print" wasn't the best term used for the process, although the print is actually using carbon pigments. It's just so funny how people get so worked up and offended at someone else's interpretation of how to name the process. It's not like someone called your mom ugly or something. People will do things without thinking all the time. What's the sense of getting into a flame war over it. Just my $.02... Enjoy your printmaking no matter what process you use!
"Nobody here is saying that ink jet prints are "bad", it is precisely because they can be very good that people making them should not be ashamed of calling them what they are. If otoh the term "carbon print" is used to elevate their status, well then, that is dishonest no matter how much you claim the "content" is all that matters."
"Interesting theory. But wrong. If someone tries to sell an inkjet copy of a Van Gogh at an auction and call it an original, they will go to jail. So yeah, the copy might bring some of the same satisfaction to the viewer, but representing one kind of 'artifact' as something it is not IS deceptive. People cannot just take home "the image". They have to take home the physical instantiation of the image, in other words, what you scornfully refer to as 'artifact'. When I buy a car, I am not buying the 'idea of a car', I am buying a chunk of metal. If someone tells me that I have bought a Ferrari, and I end up with a Yugo, then telling me to 'imagine' that I am driving a Ferrari is a little unsatisfying." -
Not so - describng such prints as "carbon pigment prints" is completely accurate. 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, even in its "B&W" process but rather "permanent" watercolor pigments - along with gelatin etc.
Carbon pigment print is an entirely accurate and truthful description of the process. And considering he has a whole paage of detailed explanation, it's pretty hard to see how Clyde Butcher could be accused of trying fool or "defraud" people with regard to his prints.
I've used Piezo since it came out and there has been a lot of thought about what to call the darn things. 'Inkjet prints' don't do it any more than 'enlarger prints' would do it for silver. Inks come in many forms, dyes, pigments, hybrids, and inkjet printers come in many shapes or forms. Inkjet printing isn't easy, you need to be able to use a densitometer same as in wet printing - its just taken me three days of solid work to get a print the way i wanted it. The concensus on the piezo list was to call them 'carbon pigment inkjet' prints so as to avoid the confusion with carbon prints. Cone preferred 'piezo prints' but piezo is the name of the head technology in certain inkjet printers so yet another problem. Also there are lots of different inks out there now so some sort of name is needed to differentiate between the plug n play auto printers and those of us who are using serioius technology.
I'm happy just saying that mine are Epson Ultrachome Inkjet prints. I think it's even a little presumptuous to call anything 'fine art'. I think that's in the eye of the beholder. That's the problem I have with the term 'giclee'.
Tom Baker
Giclee implies Iris to me, and I don't mind seeing it that way. When Ultrachrome prints are called "giclee," that seems pretentious to me (aside from the fact that many consider Ultrachrome to be superior to Iris).
"Giclee implies Iris to me, and I don't mind seeing it that way. When Ultrachrome prints are called "giclee," that seems pretentious to me (aside from the fact that many consider Ultrachrome to be superior to Iris)."
Most inkjet printers despise the use of the word giclee. YOu are right in thinking it emerged as a name for iris prints. iris prints have a poorer life-span and poorer colour gamut than UltraC inks. But there again UltraC prints are epsons trademark for archival highload pigment colour inks. If I use MIS hi load carbon pigs, what do I call it?
"Does a rose by any other name smell as sweet?"
If those of you who have defended the use of these deceptively named processes don't believe that the name is important, you are either ignorant, naive, disingenuous, or some combination of the above. Mr. Butcher is not naive, and is fully aware of the carbon pigment process, its history and cachet.Lets be clear, these digital innovations are not trying to compete with their modern chemical counterparts, but with the very pioneers of the photographic process. If an "artefact", or photograph could be produced digitally today that could in any qualitative way compare to those created by the legitimate carbon pigment printers of 100 years ago, the digital movement would declare victory and, you can be sure, come up with a new name to describe their superior process. This issue is really one of honor. The appropriation of this process' name dishonors those who, through ingenuity, dedication perseverance and inspiration perfected a very unique and painstaking process to create what are arguably the highest quality images ever created by mankind. It is dishonorable because the purveyors of these false processes introduce them to the same market with the legitimate processes, and thereby devalue the efforts of their fellow and historical artists. It has been suggested that these legitimate practitioners have been too sensitive regarding the names of these processes, and that suggestions should be made for acceptable names. My suggestion is that these digital pioneers use the same ethics and practices of their traditional predecessors and name thier processes in the most straightforward and descriptive ways possible. A carbon pigment print is so named to describe the materials used that differentiate it from other contemporary processes, as do the names platinum print, albumen print, etc. Alternatively, they could follow the examples of the early entrepreneurs who sought recognition and remuneration by naming their processes for themselves, in which case the name Butchertype might be considered. As it stands, these cleverly contrived names only bring discredit to those who pioneer them, and I can't imagine any short term financial gain being worth the diminished respect that they guarantee. So Mr. Butcher et al, please have some pride in your own process, and some respect for those upon which yours depends.
"Giclee implies Iris to me, and I don't mind seeing it that way. When Ultrachrome prints are called "giclee," that seems pretentious to me (aside from the fact that many consider Ultrachrome to be superior to Iris)."
That is part of the point - if you talk to some of the IRIS pioneers - Jon Cone or Graham Nash you will find they say exactly that about the superiority of Ultrachrome inks and systems with regard IRIS, and they are heavily into the Ultrachrome systems
"If I use MIS hi load carbon pigs, what do I call it?" Ultratones... (though I guess they are only calling the quadtones inks that)
You'd be amazed how small the demand is for pictures of trees... - Fred Astaire to Audrey Hepburn
www.photo-muse.blogspot.com blog
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks