Digital Platinum?

[Cletus]

Easy and consistent?

[Doug Howk]

All things are relative, no absolutes. After having tried Kallitypes for a couple of years and other alt processes too, pt/pd is a breeze.
Ease: 3 methods of which NA2 may be the easiest to learn ( and uses little if any Platinum). If you can determine the density range of the negative (densitometer or light table + step wedge), then how many drops of each element of the coating for contrast control are in readily available tables. Some printers don't even bother with this step, and print all negatives the same ( consistently exposed negatives, eg BTZS).
Consistent results: keep good notes of the variables and practice consistency of workflow.

[Thebes]

I note that there are "collected" photographers whose work is sometimes already misrepresented as "carbon print" due to previous marketing rubbish.
I dearly hope that shucksters aren't trying to co-opt yet another term to apply to their giclees.

[Kirk Gittings]

I note that there are "collected" photographers whose work is sometimes already misrepresented as "carbon print" due to previous marketing rubbish.
I dearly hope that shucksters aren't trying to co-opt yet another term to apply to their giclees.

Who for instance? I have heard of people doing this but have not seen any examples.

[adam satushek]

When I lived in Seattle near my (shared) 9800 I printed large negatives for a photographer who was making platnium prints. It seems like a cool process, but at least the negative printing was very exacting. I printed small proofs/test strips for him, and each time he would go back to his darkroom and make test prints, and then tweak his files to to bring to me for additional proof files. This happened 5 or 6 times...but of course no complaints because he paid for the prints and my time. Eventually, once the process what honed, I printed 3 or 4 ~30 x 30 inch negatives for him to make platnium contact prints from.

This is not quite what is being refered to in this thread, but it was an interesting process. I just wish I would have made an effort to see the final results

[Vaughn]

Easy and consistent?

Relatively speaking, of course. If one can do a cyanotype, one can easily do a platinum/palladium print. Pick a good paper, spread a few drops of the ferric oxalate and the metal salts (bought pre-mixed), toss in a tray of the developer, a few clearing baths (HCA or whatever), wash and you have a print. Making good prints consistently takes a little more effort.

[Thebes]

Who for instance? I have heard of people doing this but have not seen any examples.

In particular I am speaking of Michael Berman, whose "home town" gallery rep told me carbon ink prints were "carbon prints" and whom luminous lint and other fine art resources list as having worked in that process, though he never seems to have. I know that there were problems early on with Cone's inks and Clyde Butcher as well, although he seems to have acted reasonably to end such confusion when workers in the carbon process expressed concern.

I think, naturally enough, that people working in giclee processes wish to differentiate their work from their peers. The problem I see is that sometimes to do so they attempt to co-opt a term for another process to market themselves or their inks. Even "pigment print" which has come to mean a pigment giclee, has takeb the name for a process of Mortensen's. I know he's not so well regarded today as he was while alive and publishing his many books and teaching workshops, but a fair number of people seem to have worked in his process. Now that process is relegated to a side note, just to find a new way of saying giclee. Artists working with acrylics never felt the need to come up with a hundred ways to say acrylic. I don't think digital photography can come into its own as an art-form until people embrace the newness of the media rather than attempt to make it into something from photography's "past".

[Kirk Gittings]

I think your points are well taken, with a couple of points I would take issue with. I know of no serious (a judgmental term I know) photographers working with digital prints who use the term Giclee. Giclee is a widely accepted term in the broader arts but not in photography as it doesn't fit with some common naming conventions in photography and doesn't sit well with photographers-me included. Its describes the mechanics of making the print-not the makeup of the print. It would be like calling P/P print an "optically exposed contact print" instead of what distinguishes the makeup of the print from other printing papers. When I was first showing silver prints in the early 70s I started referring to them as "Gelatin Silver Prints" which was very common at the time in museums and galleries and I continue to use it today. Hence most serious photographers prefer something like "Archival Ink Print" or "Archival Pigment Ink Print" or if you are using one of the pure carbon inksets I have seen "Carbon Ink Print" used. Some use the name of the particular ink set like "Ultrachrome Print" or "Piezography Print". A name reflecting the type or brand of inkset is becoming common. In all the myriad of group shows I have been in or seen I have never seen anyone use then intentionally confusing terms you describe above, but maybe it was a trend that has passed and I missed it.

The other point is "I don't think digital photography can come into its own as an art-form until people embrace the newness of the media rather than attempt to make it into something from photography's "past"". With digital photography widely exhibited in galleries, museums etc and widely collected by the same-this has really been a non issue for a long time except in small enclaves of pre-digital traditions like this forum. You may feel this way personally but the greater art/photography community has embraced digital at all levels. While there is wide respect for people working with traditional processes that is not the same thing as lack of acceptance of digital workers. That ship has long since sailed.

While very little of my personal work is "pure" digital work (ie digital capture>digital printing-4 images to date.) I have had no problem exhibiting or selling digital prints to knowledgeable collectors or museums. AAMOF both my volume of exhibits, print prices and volume of sales have increased with digital prints. Where is the not yet "come into its own"?

[Lenny Eiger]

I don't think we should call inkjet prints "carbon prints". I am happy to be accurate, and do not want to confuse what i offer with with other types of printing. I usually use the term "carbon pigment" print, and I let everyone know it is done with an inkjet printer. I might also let them know I work in a "hybrid" process, that begins with film, and a scan.

If someone comes up with something more reasonable, I'll be be happy to use it.

However, the term "Giclee" is slang in France for the concept "to ejaculate". I am sorry, I am not going to call my prints "sperm prints". I like sex (with my lovely wife of 17 years) as much as anyone else, but I work a little too hard at this to be flip about what I am producing. I find it sincerely disrespectful.

I want to be respectful of the alternative process and their original names as well. Carbon pigment seems to work, people seem to understand it. I think its just a matter of agreeing to something, that respects all sides, and moving forward.

Lenny

[Vaughn]

There is only one doing Pixiegraphs on this forum...