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

[Bill_1856]

I quit making Carbon prints over 50 years ago, when Carbo pigments became virtually impossible to obtain because they were often replaced with Dyes for Kodak's Dye Transfer process (which I also gave up 50 years ago when I started college). How many of you indignent purists have ever actually made a "real, old fashioned Carbon Print?" I'm not aware of any requirement that a carbon print be transfered to a gelatin coated paper.

[sanking]

"Carbon pigment print is an entirely accurate and truthful description of the process."

But the issue is that there is a history of use of this term for another process that goes back to the 1860s. And not only is there the long history of use but also quite a number of persons today are still making real carbon prints. Why should these people, and places like Ataraxia Studios where you can still have real carbon prints made, allow the misappropriation of the term when, 1) making a high quality real carbon print is about 10,000 times as difficult as making an inkhet print, and 2) real carbons are not phytsically identical to inkjet prints made with pigmented inks, nor do they have the same look?

[D. Kevin Gibson]

Oh Jay, give it a break, "ignorant, naive, disingenuous, honour, deception" These are photographs we are talking about, snapshots, things to put on your wall for decoration - not the cure for cancer or the League of Nations. Such hyperbole does nothing but highlight the silliness of it.

[Tom Baker]

Ain't that the truth.

Tom Baker

[Jay DeFehr]

Then we know where you stand.

[David A. Goldfarb]

Maybe my post a few back is a little too cryptic. Check the link that started this discussion:

http://clydebutcher.com/emarket2//home.cfm?emailid=64

The headline now reads, "FINE ART INK JET PRINTS" and though there is a reference in the text to "the archival carbon print," it looks like the page has been substantially revised, and Clyde Butcher and his gallery are trying to do the right thing.

[Nick_3536]

Nothing new. You can buy a six pack of champange cans to.

[John D Gerndt]

I am a little late getting my post in but for anyone still listening I'll say that it is out of respect for those persons who DID master the technique and explore(d) its values that the original term "Carbon Print" be spared. Everyone knows what a Kodachrome is. Let Ultrachrome take its place in history (or not).

John D Gerndt

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

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.



Furthermore, as I understand the so called "carbon" inks require a dye to obtain a deep black, as the pigment itself does not provide enough density.



Just because you say it describes it perfectly does not make it so, specially with the reasons you have given.



BTW, nice deflect on the question of naming the prints what they are, somehow you always miss to answer this question. SO I ask you again, if content is all important, what is wrong with saying they are ink jet prints?



I think Julian has it right when naming a print carbon pigment inkjet That! accurately describes the content and method of printing, just saying "carbon pigment prints" is inaccurate and misleading.

[Bruce Watson]

Wow. Must be a slow news day. Hard to believe that y'all are arguing so vehemently over something as arcane as a naming convention. Y'all are taking this extremely personally, like the name of the process somehow validates your life, and forms your identity. It doesn't, BTW.

The deal with phonetic languages, like English, is that they change over time. That's why when you look words up in the dictionary you find that they have more than one meaning. That's why you can no longer read Shakespeare in the original. Put another way, that's how descriptors like "carbon pigment" end up with more than one meaning.

People, you can't stop the language from changing. 'Tis the nature of the beast.

That, and the fact is that the image on the paper is formed from carbon pigment. That's an accurate description no matter how much it makes people scream. What I call it is a "carbon pigment inkjet print" which accurately describes the result (carbon pigment) and the process used to create the result (inkjet). If you've got a problem with an accurate description like that, take it up with your high school English teacher.

Now, can we get back to printing, using whatever process makes you happy? Come on people, lighten up!