Inkjet, posters, and limited edition prints

[QT Luong]

What would you think if someone started offering the same image as limited edition prints (at a very high price),
and as a reproduction posters (at a very low price) ? This is done all the time, and there is no confusion between
a photograph and something that is mass-printed with ink, right ?

Now what if the limited edition print was a Lightjet (a photo-sensitive process)
and the posters would be a Epson ultrachrome print ?
This is a process that photographers such as Joseph Holmes or
our own Chris Jordan deem the best color print available, yet others in this forum
call them "posters", or "photocopies". This scenario doesn't have to be limited to color (eg. the work of David Fokos).

[Kirk Gittings]

Wait a minute let find my fire extingusiher................

[Paul Butzi]

Or, what if the 'limited edition print' was an inkjet print, and the poster was a mass produced reproduction a la the gelatin silver prints done by Lenswork, with digital contact negatives?

[Graham Patterson]

It boils down to making a distinction and a difference. A watercolourist of my aquaintance has either originals, or printed reproductions. The reproductions are not done with watercolours. Photography has a whole range of techniques that are very similar for reproduction. The difference lies in how much human manipulation goes into each stage, and the intrinsic expense of the method.

I think the boundary between 'original' and 'reproduction' is always going to be fuzzy and subject to frenzied interpretation.

Unless or until I have enough work with a strong popular demand that requires me to consider a two-tier reproduction method (don't hold your breath 8-) ), I think I will just watch the debate with amusement.

[Keith Laban]

You might as well reverse the scenario and offer the LightJets as the posters and the Ultrachromes as the limited edition prints. The LightJet process produces the best colour prints available on glossy media and the Ultrachrome process produces the best colour prints available on matte art papers. If you want to go into the business of mass producing and selling cheap posters then use the conventional processes used by poster companies.

You'd probably sell lots of cheap posters and few if any limited edition prints. Frankly you’d need the reputation of the likes of Ansel Adams to sell the same image as both.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Some galleries are already offering ink jet prints as "limited" editions, a good example is the present featured photographer at the afterimagegallery.com.

Havent we had enough discussions about this? I thought most here agreed that the "limited" edition was a gallery gimmick which was started to supposedly create supply scarcity and thus giving reason for the high prices.

I guess this ties in with the glicèe thread, if some guy is going to call his ink jet prints "platinum glicèe" or as Cone decided to start his false advertising by saying that pt/pd printing is dangerous, poisonous and it is too hard and rarely anybody is doing it any more and so his "digital platinum glicèe" is a better option, I have the same right to call them ink jet posters.

I admit I started using the term "ink jet poster" to goad Dave, but it does has it's kernel of truth. A poster made with screens is just depositing ink on a paper through a printing plate, and ink jet print is depositing ink on a paper through a mechanical device like a printer and has more in common with the printing industry than with photochemical processes. Albeit a much higher quality one.

But this is inmaterial, contrary to what many beleive here I am not antidigital, or anti ink jet prints. I say use whatever you like, but it irks me and many other of us who have chosen classical methods to see some people right out lying and trying to belittle traditional processes in an effort to elevate the perceived quality of their ink jet prints. As I keep saying and I wont stop saying it, it is time those using ink jet prints stand on their own two feet and accept both the benefits as well as the drawbacks of their chosen process without trying to make it look something that it is not. Lets be honest and accept that an ink jet print does not have the negative connotation it had 10 or 15 years ago where the quality was just not there. If anything, it is becoming the more prevalent medium in galleries. So then, why try and misrepresent them?

I figure the lonegevity issues are between the photographer and the client, with the warning that promising ink jet prints to last 150+ years, when there is a chance they might not can only hurt you and those using this as their medium. If I was really anti ink jet prints, I would be the first one to be pushing that you guys claim the prints can last 500 years, after all the more incidents there are about ink jet prints fading in a few years or months could only benefit those of us who rely on processes with stablished and known longevity data, no?

I am unsure as to what is really the point of your question or comment, personally I have a hard time paying $600 and above for ink jet prints just because they are big, but this is a personal choice. OTOH I would buy one of Foko's print in a second if I could afford it, even though in the end I am not sure Fuji Crystal archive prints will last longer than an ink jet print. The difference is that he makes no apologies for his prints, does not try to represent them as something they are not, does not come up with cutsy names to try and mislead the buyer. If you see any of his prints in a gallery it will be clearly labeled, "digital print on Fuji Crystal Archive" at least this has been the case for those I have seen in person.

In the end, as long as there are people out there like Cone who are flat out lying about their inks and processes, there will some of us out there who will be just as strident in exposing them for what they are, snake oil salesman.

[Brett Deacon]

Either type of process could be used to create images designated as "limited edition" and priced accordingly. Likewise, either type of process could be used to make images that are clearly identified as posters (e.g., with a large white border and your name printed on the bottom) and priced much lower. Because there is no universal agreement as to which process is inherently superior or more valuable (plus both cost about the same), I think it's the photographer's prerogative to decide what's best. IMHO this is more of a marketing/salesmanship issue than a quality or artistic issue.

[Bruce Watson]

What would you think if someone started offering the same image as limited edition prints (at a very high price), and as a reproduction posters (at a very low price) ?

It depends on what they were actually offering. If the limited edition prints were of sufficient quality that they could command the high price, so be it. If the posters were of substantially lower quality, then they might have a go at it.

What I think you are suggesting though, is that both the high priced version and the low priced version have the same quality level. You wouldn't be stupid enough to give more money for the same quality level would you? Then why do you think other people would???

This limited edition thing comes primarily from galleries - it's the only real way they can make more than one sale of a painting. You sell the original for a very high price, and you sell reproductions at less than a tenth that price. We've all seen it. It makes some level of sense for both the artists and the galleries.

But the limited edition model doesn't apply well to photography, no matter how the galleries try to "one size fits all" the problem. The deal with photography is that we can't sell the original (film or digital capture). We can only sell prints we make from the original (whatever technology you want to use), and there's really no end to the number of prints one can make. Even Jorge can make platinum print after platinum print if he wants to ;-)

The technology with which we make these prints isn't really the issue (or is at best a side issue for angry photographers to make the "mine is better than yours" arguments). And the quality level of the prints is subjective, clearly. Most of us use the best process we can to produce the highest quality level we can. If the customer doesn't agree, they don't buy the print. It really is that simple.

[neil poulsen]

Whether it be limited editions of Lightjet, Ultrachrome, or quad-tones, I don't see much difference between these and limited editions of silver gelatin prints. They're all forms to which the following apply:

> The artist can maintain sole control over reproduction.

> Any number of reproductions can be generated.

I see the decision of whether or not to limit the number of reproductions as part of the artistic expression of the artist. A work doesn't have the same impact if it's seen too often.

[Eric Fredine]

We are fortunate to have a wide range of excellent output options today. Most of them offer excellent quality and the choice of which is 'better' is a mostly a matter of preference. As such, distinctions in value based on the output technology (with the exception of hand printed images of course) seems ludicrous to me.

[Wayne Crider]

I like to see a print labeled as to it's type of creation. When it's not labeled, I question the producer/seller. "What kind of print is this?" It's about then, that I find many times I start getting an explanation as to the particular process like they have to make a point or give a comparsion. My question is why the explanation, if they believe in the image.

[Paul Butzi]

I like to see a print labeled as to it's type of creation. When it's not labeled, I question the producer/seller. "What kind of print is this?" It's about then, that I find many times I start getting an explanation as to the particular process like they have to make a point or give a comparsion. My question is why the explanation, if they believe in the image.

Well, I expect that the reason they give you an explanation is that you've asked what kind of print it is, and they're trying to give you an answer.

If, in response to your question "What kind of print is this?", you got an answer along the lines of "The type of print doesn't matter, if you believe in the image. That's why I don't label the type of print," would you be happier?

[Michael Gordon]

I'm not really answering Q.T.'s question but responding to some of the other comments. As Eric Fredine said, "distinctions in value based on the output technology" are ludicrous. Most of sell our work primarily to those buying the print because the image moves them, not value-based collectors. Our buyers could care less what the substrate or process is. It's only the image that matters.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Our buyers could care less what the substrate or process is. It's only the image that matters.

Speak for yourself buddy.......let me guess, you are selling ink jet prints...right?

[robert_4927]

Jorge, I can't help to chuckle. It seems in every post the only ones who claim " it's only the image that matters" are the ones selling inkjets. I just entered some of my platinum work in The 35th Annual Cleveland Photo Exhibition. This was a juried show and it included entries from all over the United States, Canada, and Mexico. Out of the 200 and some odd entrants 45 artists work were selected. I had three of the five pieces I submitted selected for the show, ( all pt. pd. prints). Out of all these entries I'd say 30% were inkjets. At the show's opening I talked to an "artist" who had a so called computer manipulated print. He said he never shot that image but put it together from various images he downloaded onto his computer. Now I know very little about photo shop but in some way this was cut and pasted together. I asked, " let me get this straight, you took numerous photos, taken by someone else and created an image and claim it to be your work?" His reply was, " basically yes". For some reason that left a real bad taste in my mouth. For those who claim that inkjets are approaching the quality of pt.pd. and silver gels let me just say my work was judged with all the other mediums in this show. My print, "Rollo" (clown on piano bench) won best in black and white. Now I encourage an artist to work in what ever medium he or she chooses. But to make false claims about their process ( such as archival inks) and claims that this inkjet will be around as long as a pt. pd print is totally absurb and an insult to those of us who have spent thousands of hours perfecting our process. When confronted with this issue I guess it would only be fitting to claim " it is only the image that matters". Tell that to the guy who spent 600.00 on that inkjet that is fading away on his wall three years later. I love some of the work being done with inkjets and I even own a couple of pieces. But let's call them what they are and not even associate them with the term archival or platinum.

[Wayne]

It seems in every post the only ones who claim " it's only the image that matters" are the ones selling inkjets

As I said elsewhere "This is a widely held opinion-but held exclusively by people doing some variation on ink/digital imaging. I have never heard a single person who uses only "traditional" photographic processes who shares it"

I'm still waiting to hear from that single person, then you know what? We'll have a single person!

Of course it matters what the substrate and process is. The attempt to obscure and deny obvious and easily observable differences is truly pathetic, at best. At worst its, well, even worse than pathetic

[Mark Sawyer]

I could largely go along with the theory "it's only the image that matters," but fear that a few years after buying an inkjet print, I may not have one. Archival issues seem yet to be sorted out, and that is very significant if work is sold at art-world prices.

But getting back to QT's original question, "what if the limited edition print was a Lightjet (a photo-sensitive process) and the posters would be a Epson ultrachrome print?", I think the distinction between Lightjet and Ultrachrome has no clear hierachy of "being the original" in many people's minds, including artists and curators who work with both.

My issue (besides archival quality) would be that both are digital outputs, and while the photographer may have done all the shooting and digital manipulation, when it comes down to making the final print, he pushes a button and a machine spits it out, same identical result, machine-made perfect, every time. (I guess with a lightjet you have the option of running what the machine gave you through the chemicals by hand...) Yes, we tend to all use industrial tools, (cameras, lenses, film, photo paper), but further digitalization seems to remove one of the few remaining points of human touch in making the physical object.

I think there is image value and object value, and personally, I attach more object value to traditionally made images. I think it's part of why many people attach more value to hand-coated alternative process works. It's why some prefer the work of a potter to factory-made dinnerware. This may be traditional-elitism and an otherwise-unsupportable aesthetic position, but it's where I'm at now. I could be wrong, but I don't think I'm alone...

[paulr]

"At the show's opening I talked to an "artist" who had a so called computer manipulated print. He said he never shot that image but put it together from various images he downloaded onto his computer. Now I know very little about photo shop but in some way this was cut and pasted together."

I think this is clouding any issues here, Robert. The guy you talked to was working in photomontage, or more specifically, collage, which has existed for over a hundred years. The fact that his process was digital has nothing to do with it.

[robert_4927]

Paul, This image was being displayed and sold as a fine art photograph. No mention was being made of it being a collage of others work. No mention was being made to unknown buyers of it being a collage, only a " computer manipulated photograph (notice I didn't say photographs) It was composed as a single image using bits and pieces of others work. Composed to look like a single image not a montage or any noticable beginning or end of a series of photographs arranged as a collage but to look like a single image a single photograph and no credit was being given to the contributing photographers whose images were used to produce it. Now you can call it a collage if you want I call it a total misrepresentation of a fine art photograph. So tell me who is clouding the issue here. If it were a literary piece of work I would call it plagiarism. Now you may feel comfortable with taking credit for something you arranged but had no part of the actual creative process other than the arrangement But I don't. And if so , then call it a collage. So what you're saying is i can take your photos arrange them how i want in photoshop and produce my own fine art prints, sell them for a profit without ever mentioning your name and you're fine with that? Paul I will apologize for my bluntness in advance but in all honesty I could teach a monkey to do that.

[QT Luong]

Saying that there is no intrinsic value or appeal in the craft of a process such as PT is as uninformed as saying that all inkjets would deteriorate in three years. Let's stay on topic, and not rehash the PT v. inkjet discussion with those kind of arguments.

It is difficult to define the intrinsic expense of each method. For instance, the price of consumerables per square inch favors the RA-4 machines by a factor of 5 over Epson prints. However, most photographers don't own a RA-4 printer, and for them cranking out Epson prints would be much more economical over what a lab would charge for RA-4 printing, even in quantities.

If the potential buyer would see the print and the poster side-by-side, he would realize that there isn't much difference, but there are plenty of ways to market where the two wouldn't be shown side by side.

The questions that I thought the scenario would raise are:

Is this "cheating" on the part of the photographer ? He is offering prints outside of a limited edition.
How much have the two processes differ ? If not photosensitive/ink, then what ? Does the fact to call the prints "posters" make them so ? What is the difference between prints and posters ?

[David Luttmann]

Just hold this thread for a second.....my bag of popcorn needs a refill.....

[Keith Laban]

"Is this "cheating" on the part of the photographer? He is offering prints outside of a limited edition"

Not cheating, merely confused marketing. The choice of limited or open editions is the decision of the individual and in itself has no bearing on the quality of the image on offer.

"How much have the two processes differ? If not photosensitive/ink, then what? Does the fact to call the prints "posters" make them so? What is the difference between prints and posters?"

Posters are conventionally produced by the litho/press process. When made in quantity they cost mere pence/cents to produce. There would be less confusion between a LightJet/Ultrachrome and a conventionally produced poster than between a LightJet and an Ultrachrome. Whether it makes marketing sense or not is open to debate.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Does the fact to call the prints "posters" make them so ? What is the difference between prints and posters ?

Unfortunatelly, somewhere along the way photographs started to be called "prints." Unfortunatelly the term was stolen from the printing industry I guess for simplicity. A photograph has a clear definition, not so a print if one is to go by the dictionary.

Does the fact that we call an image made with inks on a piece of paper "photographs" make them so? Is an ink jet "print" different than a poster just because the dots are smaller or have better resolution?

You be the judge.

[paulr]

In the fine art world, the essential idea of "print" is multiples made from a single original; it has little to do with the mateials being used.* There is no medium or substrate intrinsic to all printing processes. It made sense for photography to adopt the same terminology, as soon as Fox Talbot invented the negative/positive process on salted paper--it was a process that allowed making multiples.

Photography actually has a less clear definition than printmaking. Take a look at this link, courtesy of Paul Buzzi: http://www.metmuseum.org/special/photography2001/photo_glos.htm

Considering that the photography department at the Met is one of the most conservative major collections in the country, it's telling to see the range of what they consider photography.

"Poster" is even harder to define. It's not true that they're all mass produced by offset litho. There's a rich tradition of hand-made silkscreen posters that require a great deal of craftsmanship to produce. I suspect a real working definition has more to do with intintion--a poster is typically practical. Even though it often gets consumed as art, it's usually created for some kind of publicity, fund raising, or advertising purpose. Traditionally, posters of fine art don't really mimic the originals. A poster of an Ansel Adams photograph will will typically have his name in big letters at the bottom, and the name of the exhibit or book or national park being publicized/subsidized. When the poster is done in the same medium as the original, and looks similar, then you're on murky ground, and it's understandable that people would be a bit confused. Edition numbers are not a very robust distinction.



*Yes, monoprints are a conspicuous exception But they are not a mainstream printing process, and do not serve the same purpose that other printing processes were invented for.

[paulr]

"Now you can call it a collage if you want I call it a total misrepresentation of a fine art photograph."

Ahhh. Based on your new description, I'd have to agree. It's not collage; it's just garden variety postmodernism. "why create what you can appropriate?"

I don't respect it much either, but again, the demon isn't in the pixels; it's in the artist's brain, or perhaps the artist's MFA program. This genre has not been around as long as montage, but it's much older than photoshop. And while it isn't quite dead yet, you'll be glad to know that it doesn't seem to be as booming as it was in the '80s.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Photography actually has a less clear definition than printmaking. Take a look at this link, courtesy of Paul Buzzi:

Well, no....photography actually has a very clear definition.....

Photography: The art or process of producing images of objects on photosensitive surfaces.

Photograph: An image, especially a positive print, recorded by a camera and reproduced on a photosensitive surface.

Courtesy of Websters dictionary. Sadly as I said before they use the term "print" which is misapplied.

No matter how much you try Paul, there is no escaping the very simple definitions. What you and Butzi presented are classifications not a definition of photography or photographs. I suppose these are necessary by the museums or curators. Notice that in the classifications, the only process not dependent on a light sensitive surface are ink jet "prints." Imagine that!

In the fine art world, the essential idea of "print" is multiples made from a single original; it has little to do with the mateials being used.* There is no medium or substrate intrinsic to all printing processes. It made sense for photography to adopt the same terminology

Nope, actually in the printing world is where the essential idea that a print is multiples of an original was borne, mostly from mechanical means. Fine art posters are traditionally called "prints" and not always include graphics and/or text. This term was misapplied to photography and a photograph and it actually made no sense to adopt this terminology since the processes are totally different. In a lab I mix ingredients, in a kitchen I mix ingredients.....I dont call synthetizing aspirin cooking....do you? Just because you end up with a flat piece of paper with a two dimensional image on it does not mean both are "prints" one is a photograph, one is a print.

[Keith Laban]

"Well, no....photography actually has a very clear definition....."

"Photography: The art or process of producing images of objects on photosensitive surfaces"

"Photograph: An image, especially a positive print, recorded by a camera and reproduced on a photosensitive surface"

"Courtesy of Websters dictionary"

There will come a time in the not too distant future if we haven't reached the point already when most images will have nothing at all to do with film and traditional light sensitive materials. Like it or not there will also come a time when Websters Dictionary will redefine "photography" to reflect this change.

[paulr]

Jorge, ALL words, no matter how complex or controversial, have simple definitions in the dictionary. Our friends at Merrieam Webster do a wonderful job, but only sometimes does the discussion end, and not just begin, at the dictionary. The operating definitions of words get formed by cultures and subcultures, and they evolve and they expand and contract. Some other words that you will find simple definitions for in the dictionary: Art, Jazz, Poetry, Metaphor, God. Now go ahead and tell me that the dictionary encompassed all possible definitions, and that the philosphers, practitioners, and scholars who have fought out the meansings of these words over their lifetimes were just spinning their wheels.

"Just because you end up with a flat piece of paper with a two dimensional image on it does not mean both are "prints" one is a photograph, one is a print."

You're questioning the logic of a definition, which is fine ... but it doesn't change the definition. If you look at how the art historical and curatorial worlds have actually evolved the meaning of "print," they've come up with a useful one in the way they apply it to photographs. The use of the multiple is actually helpful. A platinum print and a gelatin silver print are both multiples made from an original. A daguerrotype and a kodachrome are not. All photographs; only the first two are prints. You've made it clear what you wish the definition to be, but at this point you are aruguing with the definition-makers, not with anyone here. Their logic is not wrong; it's just different from yours. It makes little differene that I happen to agree with them.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

I disagree Paul, we are not talking about words here, we are talking about defining a process with words. A very simple example which I am familiar with is chemistry. In chemistry we have definitions like organic chemistry, the branch of chemistry that deals with molecules of which carbon in covalent bonds is the main structure. Within organic chemistry we then have classifications, e.i. Oranic bases, organic acids, organic alcohols, esters, ethers, organometallic compounds etc, etc....Regadless of the classification you are talking about, all of them have the underlying common denominator where carbon in covalent bonds is present and gives the molecule some of it's chemical characteristics.

In photography and a photograph we have a very simple definition, the rest of the cassifications you presented are nothing more but branches which all have in common one factor, a light sensitive material with the exception of ink jet "prints."

No, I am not questioning the definition, I am simply using it. If you examine the definition, specially of a photograph so see that it is a reproduction of an original which was created with light sensitive materials, both the original and the copy. This is not true for ink jet prints. Like you say, you have made it clear what you wish the definition to be, but at this point you are ignoring it to fit your wishes.

[Paul Butzi]

So, Jorge, you're saying that dye transfer prints are not photographs, they're posters?

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Dye transfer requires exposure of the matrix film. That is the light sensitive part of the reproduction. The aditional steps of inmersing in dyes and registering the 3 matrix films are just that, aditional steps. As the definition states, the reproduction requires a light sensitive step or steps in this case.

The funny thing is that while Paul can come up with obscure poster references, 99.99% of the posters made in the world are made by the litho/offset process. If you examine the poster with a magnifier you see dots. If you examine an ink jet print with a magnifier you see dots, what does that suggest? Even so, I can even go further and suggest that making posters is even more "photography" than ink jet prints. As the plates need to be exposed to create the master. With ink jets you have bypassed all of this and gone directly to spraying ink on a paper.

[David Luttmann]

Yes Paul,

It appears that dye transfer must be classified as a poster. But then again, maybe we should investigate what Webster means by "light sensitive material". Many would agree that it would refer to visible light....that which the public using the dictionary would understand. And thus, using UV for pt/pd prints wouldn't fit the definition of a photograph or print.....thus rendering them posters as well.

I guess that any definition can be stretched to ridiculous lengths to attempt to prove a point.....just like I've done. In the end, it doesn't matter. I've seen beautiful output on silver, pt/pd, albumen, and inkjet. Some are not willing to recognize this. Ignore them and continue selling your prints.

All the best!

[Paul Butzi]

Jorge, I'm not trying to pick holes in your argument, here. I'm just trying to understand the bounds of what you'e saying.

You write :As the definition states, the reproduction requires a light sensitive step or steps in this case.

That's fine, except that the definition as you quoted it reads Photograph: An image, especially a positive print, recorded by a camera and reproduced on a photosensitive surface

Now, no matter how you want to play it, a dye transfer print is not a photosensitive surface, any more than the paper on which a photogravure is printed is a photosenstive surface, or the roll of paper which currently hangs in my inkjet printer is a photosensitive surface. The matrix films used to transfer ink to the paper in making a dye transfer print are photographs (by this definition) but the actual dye transfer print is not.

And, by the definition you've quoted, this means that a dye transfer print is just a poster, and not a photograph.

Mind you, I think the whole argument about poster/print/photograph is silly. If you want to call me a photographer, and call what I make photographs, I'm fine with that. If you want to call me a print maker, and call what I make prints, I'm fine with that, too.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

LOL....Paul, do me a favor and dont insult my intelligence. Dont start with with I'm not trying to pick holes in your argument, here. and then proceed to try and do the exact thing you are claiming you are not trying to do.

I agree with you, the final Dye transfer print is not a photosenstive surface, as you say the separation matrices would be the "photograph." But in the end it is closer to the meaning of a photograph than that of an ink jet print. You cannot have it both ways and expect the definitions to be loosely enough interpreted when it suits you and strictly intepreted when it does not.

As I told Paul a few threads back, this topic once again demostrates we are spinning our wheels and nobody here is going to change their mind. The only thing I have seen that is different from this kind of discussion from a year or two back is that presently there seems to be in this and the glicèe thread more people who want ink jet prints to be represented as such. Back then I was the only one arguing this, now there seems to be more members of this forum who would like to see a more honest description and properties of the prints. Personally, I welcome ink jet posters, it can only benefit me so I have decided no to participate in this kind of threads anymore, you call what you do what you want, I will call what you do what I want. Fortunatelly for me, what I do has only one very well recognized and stablished name... ;-)

[David Luttmann]

"so I have decided no to participate in this kind of threads anymore...."

:-)

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Of course, I can always change my mind to refute the nonsense some people here want to spout....

[paulr]

Oh, you're back.

I'm curious to know if you can name a public collection, curator, or photography historian that defines photography the way you do. I've been searching for a while and can't come up with any. All of them use the term "prints" for processes that create multiples, and all of them consider non-light printing processes (gravure, dye sublimation, inkjet) to be photographs.

Your distinctions are logical, and they may work for your personal use, but i don't see the point of trying to get people to go along with you when all the authorities on the topic have long since taken a different path.

[Wayne]

The only thing I have seen that is different from this kind of discussion from a year or two back is that presently there seems to be in this and the glicèe thread more people who want ink jet prints to be represented as such. Back then I was the only one arguing this, now there seems to be more members of this forum who would like to see a more honest description and properties of the prints.

Part of the reason for that is people like me went away from this forum (and photography) in part because there were so few people arguing it and, to be honest, all seemed lost. I agree, more people are fed up with the digiBS and "arent going to take it anymore", and it is clearly gathering steam rather than going away.

Your distinctions are logical, and they may work for your personal use, but i don't see the point of trying to get people to go along with you when all the authorities on the topic have long since taken a different path.

By your logic, the Iraq war was a wise and correct decision because all the authorities believed it to be so. Follow blindly if you will, as you clearly prefer to have your eyes closed. Meaningful change almost always comes from the outside, otherwise there isnt much of a change .

[paulr]

"By your logic, the Iraq war was a wise and correct decision because all the authorities believed it to be so. Follow blindly if you will, as you clearly prefer to have your eyes closed. Meaningful change almost always comes from the outside, otherwise there isnt much of a change ."

Wayne, don't insult eveyone's intelligence.

The definition of photography is not a moral one. It's one of convention and of accepted standards. In all matters of this sort the best guidance comes from the people who's job it is to have their finger on the pulse of the community at large. In this case, that would be the photographic community, and the people who make sense of what goes on, and to distill the defintions and catogories, are the curators and historians. Lucky for us it's not too hard to find out what they have to say on these basic topics.

[paulr]

And I'm especially confused by your remark about keeping my eyes open and about change always coming from the outside. Who here is noticing and accepting changes? And who is blindly resisting them?

[David Luttmann]

Paul,

Save your breath. All you'll get from this minority is circular logic, evading the central topic at hand, and eventually insults .....because in the end, they have nothing to offer in the way of true insight.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Paul, perhaps Wayne was a bit extreme but his comment is right on the money. Even though you might think that calling them prints is ok because all the "authorities" do, that is no reason not to start a change in the views these curators and experts you mention have. Just because people are starting to demand that thing be called what they are does not mean they are resisting change.

OTOH only in the US and perhaps the UK is the term "print" used as a blanket for all these kinds of processes. I know that at least in the spanish speaking world the difference is clearly enunciated. One talks about "impresion por injeccion de tinta" when talking about ink jets, and one talks about a "fotografia" when talking about photographs, we do not use the word "impresion" when we talk about a photograph. This is also the case for France, Italy, Spain and many other countries.
So just because your curators and museums use the term it does not make it automagically right or correct. Perhaps we should stop thinking the US as the center of the universe.

BTW, please tell me what museum considers gravure a photograph, I will make sure not to visit it as they seem not to know what they are talking about.

[Kirk Gittings]

Ah, at the risk of sonding naive, some of my favorite Strand photographs are only seen presented in his gravures........................

[paulr]

"So just because your curators and museums use the term it does not make it automagically right or correct. Perhaps we should stop thinking the US as the center of the universe."

I'm perfectly willing to consider an alternative view from curators or historians in other parts of the world. Is there a major museum in Europe, South America, or Asia that considers gravures, photographic inkjet prints, or dye sub prints anything but photography?

"BTW, please tell me what museum considers gravure a photograph, I will make sure not to visit it as they seem not to know what they are talking about."

Just for starters, you can cross off your list MoMA, the Metropolitan Museum of Art, the International Center of Photography, the Whitney Museum, the Museum of Fine Arts in Houston, the Colorado Historical Society, the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art, the Getty, and the Victoria and Albert Museum. I'm sure others here could add to this list until Mr. Luong throws us all out for boring everyone to death.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

You mean his photogravures Kirk? There is a difference you know.........

[Paul Butzi]

BTW, please tell me what museum considers gravure a photograph, I will make sure not to visit it as they seem not to know what they are talking about.

Paul has already done that. The Metropolitan Museum of Art website provides the following page www.metmuseum.org/special/photography2001/photo_glos.htm (http://www.metmuseum.org/special/photography2001/photo_glos.htm )

On that page, there's a list of "Principal Photographic Processes, Arranged Chronologically".

Included are daguerreotypes, Albumen silver prints, platinum prints, photogravure, carbon transfer prints, gelatin silver prints, chromogenic prints, dye transfer prints, dye diffusuion prints, and even ink jet prints.

Check it out. Sorry you won't be visiting the Met.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Arrrgghhh..... PHOTOGRAVURE and gravures are two different things.....herein lies the problem, shoddy use of terms......

[David Luttmann]

Thanks to both Pauls for giving me a great laugh. I'm sure we'll see an attempt to change the topic now to get out of the painted corner......do I hear a "Yak, Yak, Yak" coming?

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Ah, I wish someone would turn on the mosquito repelent, seems there is one around.

Paul, having lived in Houston for 10 years, been a MFAH contribuitor and visited the museumat least 8 times a year I can tell you they have photogravures, not gravures as part of their photographic collection. Same with the MoMA and Metropolitan which I had the opportunity to visit while doing a job in Manhattan for Con Ed. So, sorry buddy, but you are wrong.

[Wayne]

Wayne, don't insult eveyone's intelligence.

Paul, the point as you well know is that authority is not always correct. They can be indoctrinated with false beliefs just like the rest of us. Its not hard for me to think of other fields where the so-called authorities are just plain wrong for these reasons, but that would veer too far off topic.

[David Luttmann]

Great change of topic. Boy you can just see them coming!

Maybe you can explain to both Pauls the discrepancy of these museums listing inkjet as accepted items of photographic prints. I presume you can answer the question without another attempt to change the topic.

I'm sure we all anxiously await to hear your explanation of this discrepancy. Or maybe all these museums, curators, etc, etc the world over are wrong. Please enlighten us all!

[paulr]

Photogravure is a type of gravure process (printing from an etched metal plate). I thought it was pretty clear in the context of this discussion that we were using gravure as shorthand for photogravure ... it's a common shorthand, and no one's been trying to pass off hand-etched gravures as photographs. If you honestly thought I was refereing to other kinds of gravures, then I guess I'll have to run my posts by the copy editing and legal departments to make sure there's no chance for further confusion.

But the real point is this: the photography world has long since voted on these issues, and a number of people don't like the results. The good news is that none of this has to change the way you approach your craft. Do what you love and no one will fault you. The bad news is that you're not going to change history. Energy you spend beating your head against the museum walls is energy you are wasting. You are also likely beating your mind closed rather than beating it open. I would be willing to bet that we all have more to learn from the opinions of people like Peter Galasi and John Szarkowski than we do from the opinions of our closest friends who already agree with us.

What do you want most ... to learn? Or to have your prejudices proven right?

[paulr]

"Its not hard for me to think of other fields where the so-called authorities are just plain wrong for these reasons, but that would veer too far off topic."

Maybe. But I'd be dying to hear any theory proposing taking the word of some guys on the internet over the word of a group of respected and unrelated authorities ...

Which leads me to addressing the oft-expressed idea that these curators, historians, and other members of the "art world" are in on some kind of conspiracy. I think it's significant to note that these people disagree all the time, sometimes on major issues. This makes me take even more notice when they all happen to be aligned on something.

By the way, do ever show your work to the curators at major collections? I realize people don't often think of it this way, but saying No to this is just like saying you don't vote. The only way the powers that be can know what kind of work is being done is if it gets shown to them.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Photogravure is a type of gravure process (printing from an etched metal plate). I thought it was pretty clear in the context of this discussion that we were using gravure as shorthand for photogravure .
See, this is exactly the problem Paul, the idea or assumption that you can use a generic inprecise term as shorthand because it is in the "context" of a discussion. I am sure like you, somewhere along the way someone decided that saying "photograph" was too much bother so he/she started using "prints" for everything with an image on paper or any other substrate. This is why we are having this discussion.

As I said and you and Paul glossed over very quickly, the only process that does not have some photosensitve step for the reproduction in the clasification shown is ink jet prints. Even photogravure requires as the name implies that the plate be etched by using a photosensitive layer on top of the plate which will harden by the action of light and specially UV light. IMO the inclusion of ink jet prints in this clasification is wrong. Why? because we then have people who have little training and little knowledge and who are unable to think for themselves and assume that just because it is written in the museum web site, it must be true. We have a perfect example in this forum. This is part of the things that people like Wayne and me and others in this site are tired of. The wrongly used terms applied to things for the sake of expediency, sounding more sophisticated or simply gain acceptance by stealing the proper nomenclature of other well stablished processes.....Sorry, but "paltinum glicèe", "selenium ink jet prints" are bullshit names....

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

What do you want most ... to learn? Or to have your prejudices proven right?

I forgot, it appears you are arguing just as hard to have your prejudices proven right...otherwise you would have stop arguing a long time ago...no?

[David Luttmann]

Or maybe the staff of museums, galleries, and most photographers in general are correct......and you are wrong.

[paulr]

"forgot, it appears you are arguing just as hard to have your prejudices proven right...otherwise you would have stop arguing a long time ago...no?"

Actually, Jorge, the reason I'm belaboring the point is specifically because my prejudice is the same as yours. Or similar. I'd be happy to dig up some things I wrote 10 years ago that argue the position opposite the one I'm arguing now.

I was lucky enough to have a very openminded mentor. The person who taught me how to make silver prints in college, and later how to make gum prints and platinum prints, all the while railing against the MFA programs and postmodernists, was also the first person I knew who made high quality inkjet prints. When he first told me he was making some of the best prints of his life with Piezography inks, I thought he'd lost his mind. Part of it was I didn't even know what he was talking about (he was one of the first users of that particular process). And part of it was my prejudices. If I'd heard it from someone else, I probably would have dismissed it. But he got me to keep an eye on the whole thing, and eventually to try it.

In the mean time, it's been impossible to ignore the photographic world changing, as it has always changed. Processes are invented, rise to prominence, and are eventually supplanted by others. Jock Sturgess (the second person I know who started making excellent inkjet prints) said it well: "The history of photography is littered with the bones of photographers who were unwilling to adapt." Maybe a bit melodramatic, but now that the one silver paper that I really loved is gone, I can see his point. Am I going to sulk about it? Or be commited to finding something at least as good, no matter what it happens to be?

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

OTOH Paul, is it really a show of prejudism to argue in favor of appropriate naming?

You know, this is not the first time I hear the "I am making the best prints of my life with ****ink." Yet, I keep looking for these prints and I cant find them anywhere. I saw the best that Mexico can produce on ink jet printing done by a lab that their only bussiness is printing fine art both in ink and silver.(and before you scoff, let me tell you that Ilford had a team going from state to state demostrating ink jet technology. Mexicans are enamored with technology, I have met more people here who have Epsons 4000 and 7600 than I ever did in the US) . The prints were nice, but nothing to write home about and they definitly did not rival a print made by Kenna or Caponigro.

To these guys misfortune I was at the same place showing my portoflio, and they unknowingly started spouting the Cone bullshit about how pt/pd was dangerous, poisonous, nobody did it anymore, it was too hard (hell if it was easy everybody would be doing it!) etc, etc.....so I let them finish and I asked them to show me their best print, they proudly took out a 6x14 mounted and matted ink jet and showed it to me, so I opened my portfolio and I took out one of my 12x20 pt/pd prints and placed it right next to it.......the silence spoke very loudly. Needless to say I did not make any friends, since the people who were listening to them proceeded to ignore them to ask about the pt/pd process. It was at this instance that I understood that people who have never seen the difference will beleive the lies, misrepresentations and con games many people printing with ink are spreading.

If you are doing the best prints of your life with ink jet, I say good for you! But dont tell me they last as long as any photographic process, that the "look" the same as other photographic processes and that for all practical purposes they are the same, because we will keep on having these disucssions and boring the shit out of everbody else.

Then again, you and Butzi are knowledgeable enough that it is fun arguing with you..... :-)

[Wayne]

Great change of topic. Boy you can just see them coming!

uhh, are you talking tome? Cuz if you are you should reread my answer, which was a direct reply to Paul. Perhaps you were upsect that I didnt address Paul's

The definition of photography is not a moral one. It's one of convention and of accepted standards.

Precisely, and the processes in question have not been around long enough to become standardized or terms of convention. Given the rapid changes still taking place in the field, and digital imaging's ability to bear superficial resemblence to photographs, its not surprising that people have been duped. Given time to settle, I believe the distinctions will become clear to all and you will be eating crow. 10-15 years is hardly enough time for the brainwashed to be de-programmed. I give it another 10-15, but at least the process has begun.

In all matters of this sort the best guidance comes from the people who's job it is to have their finger on the pulse of the community at large. In this case, that would be the photographic community, and the people who make sense of what goes on, and to distill the defintions and catogories, are the curators and historians. Lucky for us it's not too hard to find out what they have to say on these basic topics.

So the duped are leading (or re they following) the duped, that so many people are wrong does nothing to change the reality. This will change in time-just like people are finally waking up to the mistake we (well, THEY) made with GWB. Hey, there have been wacko lefto fringe people like me saying that all along, but we were in the minority so we must be---wrong, right?? Oops!

Maybe you can explain to both Pauls the discrepancy of these museums listing inkjet as accepted items of photographic prints. I presume you can answer the question without another attempt to change the topic.

I already have explained. I do it again below.

I'm sure we all anxiously await to hear your explanation of this discrepancy. Or maybe all these museums, curators, etc, etc the world over are wrong.

That exactly what I already said. You seem surprised.

[Wayne]

The definition of photography is not a moral one. It's one of convention and of accepted standards.

I also find this statement laughably consistant with you always keeping one eye closed and your blind eye open, as you toss 170 years of convention and standards into the wastebasket.

[Mark_3632]

I am not sure I understand the original question. Personally I see very little difference between the two processes. Hit the print button and both will give you exact duplicates like making a poster. The only difference would be the cost of the materials. As long as you are honest with your labeling then great but I would not market them in the same place if the buyer could not see a difference between the two.

[paulr]

"I also find this statement laughably consistant with you always keeping one eye closed and your blind eye open, as you toss 170 years of convention and standards into the wastebasket."

Huh?

Have you ever opened one of your own eyes to the history of photography? If you look again you might see a medium that has done nothing but expand its definition since the beginning. A French dictionary in 1840 would have defined photography as daguerrotype. There were partisans saying that Talbot's process wasn't real photography. When the dry plate was invented, there were wet plate photographers saying that that wasn't photography. When the brownie was invented, there was a world of large format professionals declaring it to be the death of the medium. The same thing with the invention of color photography. And 35mm. And now with digital. There have only been two real constants: change, and luddites who cry out against it on general principle.

[paulr]

"If you are doing the best prints of your life with ink jet, I say good for you! But dont tell me they last as long as any photographic process, that the "look" the same as other photographic processes and that for all practical purposes they are the same, because we will keep on having these disucssions and boring the shit out of everbody else."

I'm sure we'll continue to bore the world, but I don't actually make most of those claims. I can only speak for the particular ink process that I use personally ... it can mimic some other processes fairly well (I'm using it now to come close to the look of my older silver prints) but this isn't its strength. As with any process, what's good about it is its own unique look. I think that if I continue to use this process, I'll get more accustomed to its unique properties and my prints will look even less like silver prints.

I can't make claims for longevity, other than to cite tests done by other people. The pigments are 100% carbon, so they are probably more resistant to polutants than silver, but are likely less resistant to UV. It's certainly more archival than any color process.

As far as me making my best prints, this is for my esthetic and for the body of work I'm completing now. Platinum is a beautiful process, but not appropriate for this work. Silver works great, but this seems to work even better.

For the purpose of this discussion, I can say that my tools have changed, but not in a way that fundamentally changes what my work is about ... at least to me. It still feels like having a vision, and then having a lot of hoops to jumo through to get the material world to cooperate.

[paulr]

... jump, not jumo

[David Luttmann]

Wayne....

I wasn't talking to you. I was referring to Jorge. Sorry if you took offense.

All the best.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Yeah Wayne, for some reason I keep ignoring this bufoon and he keeps adressing me....go figure!

Anyhow, both Pauls, you should read this.....written by a person doing ink jet.

http://www.cjcom.net/articles/digiprn6.htm

[paulr]

I've seen that article. Thoughtful piece. I'll probably end up calling my prints whatever the standard becomes ... there's little reason to add to the confusion. If you use a process that others are using, but call it something different, you risk looking like a big dork.

His notes on carbon content apply to MIS inks, but not Piezo inks ... cone is making his inks with 100% carbon pigment, unless you get the portfolio black option (darker blacks) ... these have some metal compounds added to the black ink, and are a bit less lightfast.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

cone is making his inks with 100% carbon pigment

I ran across this piece because I was looking for the ink's ingredients. I am starting to doubt many of these "carbon pigments" are really carbon. Carbon does not come in red, brown or sepia tones, there has to be some colorants added, some metallic color will last as long as the carbon, but some fade very fast.

Anyhow, I was surprised someone doing ink jet prints had the same opinion as many of us here. I think he is a little misled in the archival issue, but IMO his article is a step in the right direction.

[paulr]

In their most common state, the carbon pigments produce a warm brown image. cone's carbon sepia inkset is an example. he figured out how to get cold grays out it by varying the size and structure of the carbon particles (much as a fine-grained silver print emulsion is warm and a coarse-grainded emulsion is cold). He gets the in-between colors by blending. His hardest project has actually been a pure neutral black--that's in the works now. His only additive is in the black ink for the darker black. Aparently that fades under UV eventually, but when it does it just drops to the d-max of the regular, pure carbon black.

I have no problem with that guy's article or his conclusions, in general. His proposed name is a good one--descriptive and not dishonest. As long as you're not calling them carbon prints ...

[David Luttmann]

Hi Wayne. I only addressed Jorge because he does a great job avoiding the topic at hand. You'll note the question of how to respond to the museum issue when his dictionary definition collapsed....and instead of dealing with it, he grasps a red herring of the gravure and photogravure spelling, etc. Typical. Instead, he resorts to name calling and insults. Also typical on this forumn and others. A good example of his typical abuse is here:

http://www.photokb.com/Uwe/ForumPost.aspx?article=photo-large-format:1035:2jR1d.28992%24aW5.2713%40fed1read07

This is his standard tactic. You cannot debate with someone who resorts to name calling and insults and finally abuse. This nonsense of shutting up the Ilford team is hilarious. I've been through enough galleries in the US & Canada to know that properly done inkjet or silver, etc, is not going to be totally eclipsed in quality by a pt/pd print. That is simply wishful thinking.

I have no problem with him ignoring me. I rather enjoy it. I'll continue being open to new methods as opposed to closing me eyes to what these new methods offer.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

I have no problem with that guy's article or his conclusions, in general. His proposed name is a good one--descriptive and not dishonest. As long as you're not calling them carbon prints ...

The only problem I see is that people would want to shorten the name to carbon prints, specially those that do not know there is a Carbon process already in existence. In any case it was refreshing to read someone doing ink jet saying it should stand on it's own and not pretend to be something it is not.