Ending Film camera sales + print fading challenge [Archive]

John Cook

8-Aug-2005, 12:56

Everything in your pocket at this minute is one of a million (nearly) mass-produced products. The cheap handkerchief from JCPenney, the plastic pocket comb, the metal coins, the wallet, the plastic credit card, the Zippo lighter, the Pilot ballpen, the car keys, the pack of chewing gum and on and on and on.

You cannot afford to purchase one-off custom-made products. As expensive as an automobile is, try making one yourself. Here is a shovel - go dig some iron ore to start. How about a crystal mouth-blown catsup bottle?

Like everything else, the great unwashed masses of people out there drive the marketplace. (60% of all Hasselblads are bought by amateurs) When they stop buying anything by the millions, it quickly disappears from the mass marketplace. Like Kodak paper.

When the vacation happy-snappers stop buying 35mm cameras they will begin to disappear from the mass marketplace. Or the price will be forced into Leica-Land because of the low volume.

As for the point of my earlier reply (which often gets lost), making something tangible at home with your hands is extremely rewarding. As anyone can attest who, like me, received for his 12th birthday a genuine Kodak print-making kit with plastic acorn safelight and contact printing lightbox.

Having “images” automatically appear on a cathode ray tube does not qualify as making something tangible with your hands.

By Saturday evening, I have created a stack of fiber prints in my lab, or perhaps a chair or bench in my wood shop. The neighbor’s kid has only a “score” which he racked up on his computer game to show for the entire day’s efforts.

I feel sorry for that kid and what he is missing. I also feel sorry for anyone who thinks I’m just a silly old man living in the past.

paulr

8-Aug-2005, 14:02

John, one thing you said has always been true for the majority of people:

"You cannot afford to purchase one-off custom-made products. As expensive as an automobile is, try making one yourself. Here is a shovel - go dig some iron ore to start. How about a crystal mouth-blown catsup bottle?"

It's a misconception to think that back in the days when all things were made by hand, most people could afford to have them. They couldn't. The standard of craftsmanship was high, but the standard of living was very low by some of the most basic measures. In the Seventeenth Century, long before disposable Ikea furniture, all furniture was made by hand from hand-prepared wood (there wasn't even lumber in today's sense, so do-it-yourself building was really limited to professionals). The furniture was all very nice. The flipside of this is that the typical middle class household would have one or two real pieces of furniture. Typically a rough hewn table with benches and an heirloom chest of drawers. These would be worth months and months of wages and would be passed on for generations. It was impossible for all but the very rich to have things like chairs, sofas, beds. Is this a better situation than ours today? In some ways, and from some perspectives, yes. But in many ways no. I don'k know too many people who would prefer it.

Photography is a more recent example, For its first several decades it was a pursuit limited to the elite. Only very wealthy members of the leisure class could afford the time, equipment, and materials to practice it. Gradually, technological innovations like the dry plate, film, silver paper, the brownie, the 35mm camera, and now the digital camera, have democratized the medium. Is this a good thing? Not in the eyes of the very rich who'd rather keep it to themselves. But I think it's been good for the world that more people have had a chance. How much great talent would never have been known if photography remained limited to the elite few?

Does this progression have its downsides? Of course--everything does. Are they insurmountable? Get real. It's been a hundred years since platinum printing died (with the discontinuation of commercial platinum papers). Yet somehow, there were more people making platinum prints in 1999 than ever before in history.

... And others making silver prints, and others making digital prints. In the big picture, choices are expanding, not contracting. Of coure this leaves room for people to make unfortunate choices--if your neighbor's kid truly does nothing but play video games, then that is indeed sad. But there are other kids doing amazing things--mixing music and making videos in home studios, inventing new sports, silkscreening original designs on shirts, and in some cases doing photography. If it's digital photography, then great. It means that kids who ten years ago couldn't have afforded to explore that side of their creativity can do so today. Would you take that away from them?

Ted Harris

8-Aug-2005, 14:18

John,

I also feel you are doing a great diservice to today's kids when you say "I feel sorry for that kid and what he is missing." He (or she) may be starting with a digital image and manipulating it in Photoshop but he is still using his creative abilities, exercising his talent, still taking an image in his minds eye and translating it into an image for the world to enjoy. Can you honestly say that the final print that he may produce is any worse than that you produced when you were a kid? Maybe he got there walking a different street but he still got there.

David Luttmann

8-Aug-2005, 15:06

True Ted,

And that kid probably feels sorry for the poor soul working in the dark handling a variety of environmentally questionable chemicals, to in the end have less control of the final product than he can with a mouse.

Jorge Gasteazoro

8-Aug-2005, 15:25

environmentally questionable chemicals

Do you have any idea of the damage chip manufacturing causes the environment? Stay away from things you know nothing about.

As to the control, you are right. Learning how to control real photographic materials is harder, but as they say, if it was easy everybody would be doing it. Sort of like ink jet printing... ;-)

David Luttmann

8-Aug-2005, 15:45

Paulr,

The market has been a wonderful place for vinyl lovers the last decade. I picked up a new Sota open chassis vacuum Millennia turntable with SME Series V tonearm. The quality of output has improved incredibly over the last decade. New small companies are reissuing remastered LP pressings that are of better quality then ever before. I see the same happening with film. It will be around a long time being supported as a niche part of the market. And there is nothing wrong with that as long as we can still get the emulsions we love.

Regards,

paulr

8-Aug-2005, 15:49

"but as they say, if it was easy everybody would be doing it. "

This is perfect example of the kind of elitistist thinking that clouds these issues.

The only people who object to something becoming easy are the people who believe they have some kind of higher status based on mastering something difficult. In the arts, there have always been people who objected to newer easier processes, because they feared losing their elite status if the "unwashed masses" (to borrow John's phrase for the people he shares the planet with) could do what they do too. The fear runs even deeper if there's a chance that their status was based on nothing BUT mastering that process.

This is why artist's who keep the emphasis on their vision don't seem to be threatened by new processes that make their work easier.

As far as the damage that chip making causes the environment, yes it's significant. But you're talking about the one-time manufacture of hard goods that are reuseable for years. In the world of film, you're talking about the chemical processing that has to be done every time film is developed or a print is made. The hidden benefit to digital snapshooting is that consumers tend print in a way more similar to serious photographers: they only print the images they want. As opposed to the minilab way, which is to print all 36 crappy exposures on every roll (sometimes twice).

Paul Butzi

8-Aug-2005, 15:52

Learning how to control real photographic materials is harder

Really, Jorge? How do you know this?

Maybe you should stay away from things you know nothing about.

David Luttmann

8-Aug-2005, 15:55

True Paul,

Although, for some the process has become the definition of who they are or want to be, and are threatened if someone comes along and can recreate what they do and more. These people fade into the woodwork when no one is willing to listen to status fluff any longer.

This thread has brought on a sudden desire to plunk on a jazz LP and enjoy for a while.

Later.

Jorge Gasteazoro

8-Aug-2005, 16:21

Ok, lets start with Butzi. How do I know? Well, see, you assume that I know nothing about ink jet printing or how to use Photoshop, as usual your assumption is wrong. So, I did not have to move to ink jet printing because I needed more "control." How come you did? I will gladly stay out of things I know nothing about when you do the same.

Paul, do not even go there. I worked for 15 years in hazardous waste disposal and environmental remediation. Chemicals used in the darkroom, including fixer have little impact on environmental issues. As a matter of fact even those used in one hour labs have little impact compared to manufacturing of chips. In this case you are talking about something you know nothing about. Chip manufacture is not a "one time" process as you would like us to believe, while it is true that chips are made once, this is a continuous process, they dont stop once they finish one chip. To better illustrate this issue, Intel and IBM were one of our better customers and spent millions cleaning up their shit. Kodak OTOH only had problems with heavy metals disposal, which compared to the crap I had to clean up at Intel or IBM it was a drop in the bucket.

Furthermore, all of the chemicals used in home darkrooms break down by the action of bacteria and oxidizers as well as UV light to form simple carbon compounds like methane with the exception of silver. The concentration of silver in spent fixer is so small that is easily removed by activated carbon, a normal procedure in sewage and water treatment plants. And even if it was not removed, you would have to drink fixer in a daily basis for years before you saw heavy metals poisoning.

As to your "insult" about being and elitist. Here is the definition of elite:

1. A group or class of persons or a member of such a group or class, enjoying superior intellectual, social, or economic status: “In addition to notions of social equality there was much emphasis on the role of elites and of heroes within them” (Times Literary Supplement).
2. The best or most skilled members of a group: the football team's elite.

Somehow I am not offended by your implication.

The funny thing is this claim that "artist" who emphasis their vision are not threatened by new processes, like only those who make ink jet posters are the ones who can make claim to this exalted position. You are right Paul, all the photographers who came before us were only interested in the process, not in making good photographs...... You are the only ones who care about vision....lol

It is time you guys come up with a new argument, this one is wearing rather thin.

David Luttmann

8-Aug-2005, 16:48

Hey Paul,

Jorge says,

"Well, see, you assume that I know nothing about ink jet printing or how to use Photoshop, as usual your assumption is wrong. "

But Paul, I think you're correct. Reading some of Jorge's other threads he has said the following:

“I can assure you it would take me a lot less time to learn and master PS and do an ink jet print…."

"This is what I dont get, even the most ignorant person about digital printing (like me)”

So, based on his own admission, he knows nothing about inkjet printing or PS. All he is trying to do is highjack the thread to turn it into another inkjet vs whatever he likes argument. Waste of time to give him his much needed ego boost.

Paul Butzi

8-Aug-2005, 16:48

Well, see, you assume that I know nothing about ink jet printing or how to use Photoshop, as usual your assumption is wrong.

You claimed that 'learning to control real photographic materials is harder".

I'm asking you how you know.

Show me the credentials. In fact, show me credentials that demonstrate that you actually, via first hand experience, are familiar with the difficulty of learning of both traditional photographic materials, and digital photographic materialsl.

Have you been teaching how to use both? Have you been using both, extensively, to produce work for public display? Have you produced a considerable quantity of work using both (Let's be charitable and call 'considerable quantity' something on the order of hundreds of prints which you'd be willing to hang in a public show. Or, if you prefer, several years of hanging shows with work done both traditionally and digitally.

I await your exibition record and credentials.

David Luttmann

8-Aug-2005, 16:53

Paul,

See my post above. Jorge has already answered your questions with his previous posts. ;-)

Jorge Gasteazoro

8-Aug-2005, 17:01

LOL....ah Paul, you assume your opinion matters enough to me to show you my "credentials". OTOH I dont need to make 100 prints to know how well a project works, one is enough. I am sorry to see you dont have this ability....

Printing tech, I saw some of your wedding shots.....I now know why you are hesitant to post any shots here... ;-)

David Luttmann

8-Aug-2005, 17:09

Really Jorge? Considering my web site is not yet up and running, the only photos I can think of online may be from a friend from high school after being handed a disposable camera at her wedding and being "hired" on site ;-)

Great swing on topic changing. Like Paul, I'm still waiting to see how you can be experienced in digital printing and PS, and at the same time be the most ignorant person about it. We're waiting.....

Jorge Gasteazoro

8-Aug-2005, 17:21

uh huh...!

But you know, talk is cheap. You have my challenge, and I gladly extend it to Butzi. I will put any of my pt/pd prints against your ink jet posters, I know why I did not choose the ink jet route and/or digital negatives, do you? are you as sure and confident of yourselves and your art?

Hell I will even let you choose who judges them.... :-)

David Luttmann

8-Aug-2005, 17:27

Ah,

Here we go again. Whenever you're cornered, you got back and try a stab at some old thread. This one is easy Jorge.....stop trying to change the topic and answer the question.

How can you be both an expert and yet be ignorant? You said it....we didn't.

So, it appears you're either clueless, or a liar. I'll leave it up to you to choose.

Brian Ellis

8-Aug-2005, 17:28

I spent a lot of time learning to make silver prints in a darkroom and I've spent a lot of time learning to print digitally. The big difference for me has been that with traditional silver printing I probably got about 90% as good as I was ever going to get from a technical standpoint in the first year or so and I certainly learned all the necessary techniques that first year (except for unsharp masking). Almost all of the time after the first year or so was spent trying to gain that elusive extra 10% of improvement. Plus a lot of the improvement over the years didn't take any effort in the sense of studying complex subject matter and learning complex techniques, it was more a matter of learning from experience (and from attending workshops by people like John Sexton and Bruce Barnbaum) how to better apply the techniques I already knew (with the exception of unsharp masking, which I didn't learn until after I had been printing seriously for maybe five years).

Learning to print digitally has been much different and much harder. It took a lot of study and a lot of effort to even make a respectable print and it's taking a whole lot more time and study and learning new things to even approach making an excellent print or feeling that I'm anywhere close to knowing all I need to know. When someone talks about digital printing in terms of pushing a few buttons I know they've never done it seriously. After about five years of off and on effort I'm still studying new books, still learning new techniques, and I think (or hope) I'm improving all the time and will continue to improve as long as I keep at it.

Alt processes are a different matter. Some are pretty easy to do reasonably well - cyanotype and vanDyke brown come to mind as two that weren't overly difficult. Gum was much more difficult. I've never tried platinum but I'm sure it's much more difficult as well. So I'm not comparing digital printing with those processes, only with traditional silver printing.

Paul Butzi

8-Aug-2005, 17:29

LOL....ah Paul, you assume your opinion matters enough to me to show you my "credentials".

Well, I admit I'm not surprised that a guy with no credentials at all refuses to show them.

You know, talk is cheap, Jorge. Take up my challenge. Show us your credentials and exhibition history.

paulr

8-Aug-2005, 17:36

" this case you are talking about something you know nothing about."

Jorge,

I sat in on a number of environmental hearings in both Colordo Springs and Providence that were both concerned with photographic silver thiosulfate in the waste water. In Colorado Springs it became a crisis issue because the concentration of silver ions grew high enough at several points (this was in 1989 and 1990) to kill off the seeded bacteria in the sewage treatment plant. The result each time was that tons of untreated sewage, silver and all, overflowing into the environment.

The study that was sponsored showed the sources of the silver ions to be, in the following order:

1. Dental and medical darkrooms

2. School darkrooms

3. Minilabs

4. Home darkrooms

Larger commercial labs were not a major contributor because they tended to comply with recovery laws and to employ better technology.

As a chemist, I trust you know that chemical effluent can be damaging to the environment even if it is in theory biodegradeable. If you doubt this, I'll be happy to send you some research, if for no other reason than to encourage you not to dump silver ions down the drain.

Your main point is irrelevent, though, because it presumes that traditional cameras are free of microchips. We were specifically talking about consumer snapshot cameras (the type that are rapidly being replaced with digital ones). These, whether point and shoot or SLR, contain microchips, circuit boards, and batteries, just like the digital cameras. These consumer cameras require chips to be manufactured in addition to requiring the constant use of chemicals over their life.

As far as how easy it is to use photoshop for photography, I'm curious to know if you've ever used it to make high quality prints (and I realize I'm tempting you to jump on me with cirucular reasoning like "you can't make high quality prints with photoshop"). I ask this because I personally used the program for 10 years as a designer before using it for my photography (for anything beyond making proofs). I pretty much had to go back to school. The learning curve was a steep one.

Paul Butzi

8-Aug-2005, 17:36

Brian-

I'm just curious about your experience with unsharp masking and silver printing.
My question is, what fraction of that elusive 10% do you think masking might have covered?

paulr

8-Aug-2005, 17:55

I agree with everyone who says making a good digital print is hard, but I still think this misses the more important point. If a tool came along that made it easy, this would take nothing away from anyone.

The mechanics of writing a symphony are complex; the mechanics of writing a blues song are simple. Mastery of one or the other says absolutely nothing about the value of what you have to say. The composer John Williams is an impressive technician compared with bluesman Robert Johnson (who probably only learned three chords his entire life). But Williams does nothing besides rip off Wagner and Mahler, while Johnson plays what's in his soul. Musicians and critics revere Johnson, while they make fun of Williams. Which in the end makes all his skill and knowledge seem kind of sad. It's too bad he didn't put it to use for something real.

Jorge Gasteazoro

8-Aug-2005, 18:07

You know, talk is cheap, Jorge. Take up my challenge. Show us your credentials and exhibition history.

What happened with the "final product is what matters?"....Do I need to teach a subject to know its capabilities? Furthermore, just because you teach it does it mean is good? No on both counts. But then the final product is what matters, here is your chance to showcase your exceptional expertise, to show all of us how much more control you have and finally shut me up once and for all......what are you afraid of?

I know why the printing tech wont take me on given what I have seen of his work, but I am surprised at your reluctance. You have some nice work, you have printed hundreds of prints for show, what is the problem? Are your credentials that you teach a workshop a few times a year? Is this what I am supposed to be impressed with? You have all these impressive credentials, prove it!

C'mon Butzi, once and for all shut me up.....

Paulr, I hope you are not equating sitting on environmental hearings and working in the waste disposal and environmental remediation field for 15 years. Did I say just cameras Paul? What about your printer, your computer you keep updating every 3 years, your extra memory. All of this is far more damaging that the chips made for 35 mm cameras.

As to the effluent from commercial activities, this is far different than what the printing tech implied in his ignorant comment about household darkroom chemistry. Let me remind you that the EPA made effluents from household streams exempt from regulation precisely because they dont represent any problems for treatment. As a chemist I know far better than you the effects of the chemistry in bacterial breakdown, and I will tell you that with exception of the fixer, the rest of the chemicals are in fact beneficial for bacteriological breakdown.

Printing tech, I am no more clueless than someone pretending their ink jet posters will last more than a few years... ;-) But then again seeing your work I know your tier level in the wedding industry. I am not surprised now why you call your prints "paltinum" toned chromira, I am sure you hope the name will wow them....not the work.

Paul Butzi

8-Aug-2005, 18:13

What happened with the "final product is what matters?

Ah, yes, another attempt to change the subject.

Look, Jorge, you're the one who started admonishing people 'Stay away from things you know nothing about'.

I'm thinking that when it comes to the relative difficulty of learning to use traditional photographic materials and digital photographic materials, you don't know what you're talking about.

So prove me wrong. Show us your credentials and exhibition record.

Michael Gordon

8-Aug-2005, 18:18

here is your chance to showcase your exceptional expertise, to show all of us how much more control you have and finally shut me up once and for all......what are you afraid of?

Fer chrissakes, Jorge, you sound like a twelve year old. Every time I see your name in a thread, it's in an antagonistic and defensive tone. Your "inkjet poster" schtick is growing quite old, and so is your argumentativeness. If photography is this stressful for you, I recommend baking or needlepoint.

Brian Ellis

8-Aug-2005, 18:21

Paul - I had to grin when I read your question. As I'm sure you know, my numbers were approximations. But if the 90% number is accurate I'd say unsharp masking took me maybe a half a percentage point further. It didn't make a "knock your socks off" difference but for some prints, especially those with a lot of important shadow detail, I thought it made a subtle but noticeable improvement. I never became an expert at it, the method I used was taught by John Sexton and was considerably simpler than Howard Bond's method. I used it sparingly, partly because it was pretty hard for me to stike the right balance in making it effective without also making its use obvious.

Brian Ellis

8-Aug-2005, 18:35

paulr - You're certainly right. My point wasn't that digital was better because it was harder. I was just relating my own experience with traditional and digital because it was the opposite of what someone else said or implied about the relative difficulty of the two methods. I learned a long time ago that if I show a print and start talking about how difficult it was to make - had to get up at 3 a.m., hiked ten miles in snow, hung from my toes upside down from the edge of a cliff with my 8x10 camera to get the picture - I'll see a lot of yawns. Nobody cares about how hard it was to make a photograph and rightfully so, a mediocre photograph that was hard to make is still a mediocre photograph.

Jonathan Brewer

8-Aug-2005, 18:36

'It's a misconception to think that back in the days when all things were made by hand, most people could afford to have them. They couldn't.'............................................................When I was small kid, my father took along while he shopped for a car, we stopped by the Mercedes showroom, at that time you could buy a handmade Mercedes sportscar for $5600.00, this was less than a Cadillac, Mercedes weren't always prohibitively expensive, now MF and some LF gear which have traditionally 'pay thru the nose' are dirt cheap, just a short while back, two weeks ago I believe, one of my lenses, the Mamiya RB 100-200W (used to retail for $4000.00) sold on e-bay for $568.00 NEW!!! I already have that lens or I would have bid on this one.

A lot of precision film gear is going for nowhere near what it use to sell, and once they're sold time will pass and this won't come around again, nobody will ever make this gear like it was made up until now, perception is everything, some folks look at the downside/this to be the death of film, I see it as a blessing for folks who're financially challenged to pick up some fine gear at nowhere near what it use to see.

Who cares who stops selling film gear, there are hundreds of film cameras on the planet, they're well made to last forever, I've got more than a dozen of them, and live in the same city w/two technicians who can fix all of them, so anybody like me is set for life, cameras is not the issue, it's two things, film and technicians to fix the gear.

Jorge Gasteazoro

8-Aug-2005, 18:38

Exactly Butzi, the printing tech was talking about environmental impact, something he knows nothing about and which is far different than photography (of which he knows little too). Now, do I have to give you the number of exhibitions and magazines I have been published to prove my credibility? Why is that? If you are such a great exhibited photographer, with such a wealth of work of such great quality, then I would have thought that if a nobody like me told you they know why they did not choose ink jet posters and can prove it to you by comparing with your prints, you would have been so confident in your process that shutting me up would have been an easy thing to do.

As I told you, I dont have to explain myself, give your proof that I know what I am talking about or submit my CV for your approval. All I have to do is put one of my prints right next to one of yours and let it speak. You are not willing to do that, that in itself is very telling.

Paul Butzi

8-Aug-2005, 18:51

As I told you, I dont have to explain myself, give your proof that I know what I am talking about or submit my CV for your approval. All I have to do is put one of my prints right next to one of yours and let it speak. You are not willing to do that, that in itself is very telling.

No, the issue is not whether your prints are better or worse than mine. The issue is whether you know what you're talking about with regards to the relative difficulty of learning to use traditional materials and learning to use digital materials.

Stop trying to change the subject, and just tell us what your credentials are with regards to your pronouncements about the relative difficulty of learning to use traditional materials and digital materials.

Jorge Gasteazoro

8-Aug-2005, 19:15

The issue is whether you know what you're talking about with regards to the relative difficulty of learning to use traditional materials and learning to use digital materials.

No, the issue is whether I know enough about making ink jet posters and being able to choose to follow a different process based in this knowledge. The best proof that I can offer is with the "final product." It really does not take a mental giant to learn about raster image process programs, monitor calibration programs, working with layers and masks in PS, etc, etc.

Content versus content it is impossible to say that your print or mine is better, it would all depend of whom we would send the print, but if we are going to constrain ourselves to the process and having the knowledge to make the best decisions, then the best proof is the print. You want me to explain myself to you, I dont have to do that, you are nobody to demand my CV. All I am telling you is I know enough about ink jet printing to be able to make a judgment, and based on that judgment I am confident on my results. Are you?

David Luttmann

8-Aug-2005, 19:16

That's all he'll do Paul....change the subject. He's been caught again and it drives him crazy. It's become tiring watching him squirm all the time.

I'm off to our cottage for 3 weeks to lounge around the lake. I'll probably finish the coding for our website to allow Jorge to criticize my real work rather than blathering on about a few point and shoot snapshots I did for a friend. I wouldn't expect anything less of him.

Bye guys....enjoy the rest of August.

Jorge Gasteazoro

8-Aug-2005, 19:22

Caught? by you? LOL........

Gene Crumpler

8-Aug-2005, 19:30

Jorge;

These guys seem to have it in for you. I worked for 30 years with the USEPA and developed regulations under the following ACTS

1. Hazardous waste disposal under RCRA. I conducted testing on landfills, chemical, biological and physical disposal methods and all of the work on Incineration for 8 years.

2. Developed federal permits for PCB destruction by chemical processes and incineration under TSCA.

3. Developed the 503 waste water sludge recycle and disposal regulations, specifically Subpart E-Incineration and thermal disposal methods under the 1977 amendments to the CWA. The whole Congressional Intent for the 1977 amendments was to drive tightening of effluent guidelines from all industrial discharges.

4. Developed a number of toxic emissions regulations under the CAA 1990 Ammendments for Copper Smelting, Wood preservation, sludge incinerators (emphasis on dixions), Magnesium Manufacturing, etc.

5. Lectured to Graduate Students at Howard University in the Civil Engineering Department.

Wrote three books on hazardous wate disposal.

Consulted for many national and international industries on hazardous waste permitting and incinerator designs.

In all that 30 years, I don't remember ever finding silver as a problem pollutant. Enough of any material, except water, will kill bugs in secondary Activated Sludge plants. Most of you have silver in your mouth, and the mercury in your fillings are of the greatest concern.

I'm doing both silver printing, digital from film and digital capture. Silver is harder. Digital is easy.

See my work at http://genecrumpler.home.att.net

Jorge struggled with some of my CFR Federal Standards while at Rollins Environmental:>)

paulr

8-Aug-2005, 19:33

I'll put one of my fauxtograf posteurs, or whatever anyone wants to call them, next to anyone's platinum prints.

Not with the goal of winning a pissing contest, and yes, with the complete acknowledgement that this is a change of subject ... I'll do it to demonstrate the pointlessness of these comparisons. Good work is good work. I stand behind what I do, and people are free to judge it any way they like.

And you're right, Jorge, learning a raster image program doesn't take a mental giant. Neither does mixing chemicals, coating papers, or contact printing. But doing either of them well takes a lot of learning and a lot of work. If you were unable to get results you liked from one of the processes in question, I'm not sure whose side of the argument that supports. but it doesn't sound like it's yours.

Paul Butzi

8-Aug-2005, 19:43

No, the issue is whether I know enough about making ink jet posters and being able to choose to follow a different process based in this knowledge. The best proof that I can offer is with the "final product." It really does not take a mental giant to learn about raster image process programs, monitor calibration programs, working with layers and masks in PS, etc, etc.

Look, Jorge, it's really very simple. You stated that "Learning how to control real photographic materials is harder" than learning to use digital materials.

You further stated "you assume that I know nothing about ink jet printing or how to use Photoshop, as usual your assumption is wrong. "

And you further took people to task, suggesting that they not write about something they know nothing about.

So I've asked you - is this subject (the relative difficulty of learning to use traditional materials versus the difficulty of digital materials) something you know something about?

It's not about final product, or whether your art is better than my art, or even whether your chosen set of materials (pt/pd printing) is better than my set of chosen materials (scanning and inkjet printing). It just boils down to whether or not you have any significant experience that would allow you to make authoritative statements about the relative difficulty of learning to use traditional materials versus the difficulty of learning to use digital materials.

You've often put people down, claiming that they don't know what they're talking about. You've repeatedly insisted that other people meet your standards for proof of competence.

So, Jorge - show us your credentials and exhibition history.

Jorge Gasteazoro

8-Aug-2005, 19:45

Yeah Gene, but is good to see them here making fools of themselves talking about things they dont know. I sure did strugle with your standards, but then thanks to you and the permit you wrote for Rollins on TSCA they were paying me a lot of money to route disposal, so in a sense I owe my early retirement to you.. :-)

Neither does mixing chemicals, coating papers, or contact printing. But doing either of them well takes a lot of learning and a lot of work. If you were unable to get results you liked from one of the processes in question, I'm not sure whose side of the argument that supports. but it doesn't sound like it's yours.

Nice try Paul, first I never said it was dificult to learn the chemistry part. But you and Butzi imply that learning how to make a good ink jet poster is only for the gifted. NOT!

Finally someone takes my challange! just choose who you want for us to send the prints and it will be in the mail this week. I hope you will play fair and not choose Butzi or the printing tech, we all know where their bias lies. Maybe Kirk Gittins would volunteer..... :-)

paulr

8-Aug-2005, 19:45

"What about your printer, your computer you keep updating every 3 years, your extra memory. All of this is far more damaging that the chips made for 35 mm cameras."

What about them? I'd have a computer and a printer even if I never used them for photography. Just like you do. Unless you've found a way to get online using a contact printing frame and a foil hat. The computer I'm sitting at right now is from 1999, and has a 600MB photoshop file grinding away ever so slowly in the background. I'm not rich enough to be a big polluter just yet.

"Let me remind you that the EPA made effluents from household streams exempt from regulation precisely because they dont represent any problems for treatment."

No, they made them exempt because they're impossible to enforce. I know this from conversations with the EPA. It's much easier (although demonstrably innefective) to let the small darkrooms pollute freely while holding the big labs to extrememly tough standards for allowable silver concentration.

"As a chemist I know far better than you the effects of the chemistry in bacterial breakdown, and I will tell you that with exception of the fixer, the rest of the chemicals are in fact beneficial for bacteriological breakdown."

I've seen plenty of research suggesting this isn't so, but at any rate, fixer's all I was talking about. All these processes use fixer, and we have darkrooms a-go-go that don't recover their silver and just dump it all down the drain.

Gene, I don't think you'll have too much trouble finding information on the silver related problems they were having in Colorado Springs. I think it was the local DEP that was dealing with it.

Jorge Gasteazoro

8-Aug-2005, 19:52

LOL...Paul, you keep repeating yourself, you will keep getting the same answers. You chose to believe I know nothing about ink jet printing, fine with me. I dont care and as I wrote I am under no obligation to prove myself to you. All I have is the final product, you claim the final product is what matters, put your money where your mouth is.

Paulr, why bother arguing with you on something I am confident you know nothing about? You are right in all counts Paul, happy now?

paulr

8-Aug-2005, 20:01

I propose we take up a collection for the "Get Jorge Laid" fund. If that doesn't put an end to these threads, I don't know what will.

David Luttmann

8-Aug-2005, 20:02

"You chose to believe I know nothing about ink jet printing, fine with me."

Yawn....

We don't choose to believe.....we just quoted you saying it. Man your circular reasoning is hilarious.

Goodnight.

David Luttmann

8-Aug-2005, 20:03

Paulr,

That'll have me laughing for the whole 3 weeks.

Jorge Gasteazoro

8-Aug-2005, 20:07

I see, lets dump on classic materials and it is all good (darkroom chemicals are bad...uuuuhhhh..), answer and I am uptight.....well, you and Butzi are right here with me, so you must be in the same boat. Keep the donation I do fine on my own...

What would you know about reasoning printing tech? I am not surprised you cant recognize it....

Paul Butzi

8-Aug-2005, 20:13

You chose to believe I know nothing about ink jet printing, fine with me. I dont care and as I wrote I am under no obligation to prove myself to you

Obligation? Heck no. There's no obligation, any more than Dave Luttman is obligated to show you his prints so you can pass judgement on them, or any of the other people you insult so consistently and venemously are obligated to live up to your peurile notion that you have some god-given right to judge whether they're entitled to their opinion.

There's no obligation, just the recognition that if you don't, it becomes even more painfully obvious to everyone that you're an arrogant blowhard with no experience to back up the opinions you spout off constantly.

So show us what you've got. Tell us what experience you have that makes you so authoritative on the subject of the relative difficulty of learning to use traditional materials and learning to use digital materials.

David Luttmann

8-Aug-2005, 20:15

As I said Jorge.....you're caught. I provided your quote showing you saying you knew nothing about the topic, and now you claim that you do. It appears the error in reasoning is not mine. It also appears you have a problem acknowledging the obvious and being truthful.

Here's a dollar for ya Paulr to start off the collection plate. I'm shutting down all the computers in my "light-room" and packing so I don't allow myself to witness anymore of this sad thread.

Maybe when I'm back Jorge will have admitted to mispeaking. I was probably a bit harsh with the liar comment.

paulr

8-Aug-2005, 20:24

"lets dump on classic materials and it is all good (darkroom chemicals are bad...uuuuhhhh..)"

this was never the point. we weren't even talking about serious photographers with home darkrooms (who are all probably smart enough to learn to recover their silver). I made the point that for minilab-using point-n-shoot photographers (who outnumber all other kinds by a lot) digital processes are a more environmentally friendly choice than traditional ones.

The switch will greatly reduce photographic film manufacture, paper manufacture, chemical manufacture, and waste chemical disposal. The big consumeable becomes ink. Except in minilabs that print digitally to chromogenic paper, but even these will be making fewer prints, because customers edit before seeing the prints. On top of that, more and more people are simply sending and viewing their snaps on screen, and not making prints at all.

The digital cameras do use silicon chips, but so did the film cameras they were using before. Most of these people will have computers and printers whether they use them for photography or not. If the next generation is upgrading their computers every couple of years, it's for video game performance, not photoshop. Any dimestore computer these days is powerful enough to print vacation pictures.

Jorge Gasteazoro

8-Aug-2005, 20:27

Not harsh with the liar comment printing tech, after all you call yourself a photographer, I take into account who sends the insult.

There's no obligation, just the recognition that if you don't, it becomes even more painfully obvious to everyone that you're an arrogant blowhard with no experience to back up the opinions you spout off constantly.

So show us what you've got.

I might be an arrogant blow hard, but at least I am not afraid to put my money where my mouth is. As matter of fact I rather be an arrogant blow hard than a spineless know it all, which is painfully obvious for all to see as you say. How do you like them apples?

I got the print right here, I will be glad to show you what I got, do you have the balls or are you just talk? C`mon Butzi, you have so much experience, you think I dont, I can tell you right now, I can make a pt/pd print that will blow anything you can make in your ejaculation machine.....you up for it?

Jonathan Brewer

8-Aug-2005, 20:28

I love film, I've also used Photoshop since '97 starting in w/photoshop 3, it doesn't take a mental giant to START using the rudiments of Photoshop, IT IS VERY DIFFICULT to master many of the more complex operations, because the manuals as difficult as they are, have often been poorly written in terms of making things clear, worst, they leave things out.

I struggle quite sometime for instance, w/gradient effects to suggest first solidity in an object that tails off to transparency, until calling support and finding out that they left out of the manual that for that particular effect that U first need a mask on the layer, using Photoshop, getting to know Photoshop enough to master the more complex operations despite the manuals IS VERY DIFFICULT, and it shouldn't take a mental giant to understand that.

I spent one year to the regret of my family, in front of my computer learning photoshop, calling support about what they left out of the manual, practicing effects,........... learning a big percentage of photoshop enough to use it so that it doesn't look obvious is very, difficult, as opposed to using adjust-curves-levels-contrast/brightness-saturation.

In fact this is my pet peeve w/many digital artists, their work often LOOKS like it was done w/Photoshop and it sticks out like a 'sore thumb', and to me a mistake by the individual artist, as opposed to any issues regarding the artistic worth of using digital/Photoshop.

The mastery of filmtools is just as difficult,.........as to both processes, there's the use, and then the mastery of it, and if someone can do them both well, then all this pissing is moot because the ability to master a process means more than the process itself, AND the abilities of the Artist in regards to the content of a work.

Take this to it it's ultimate extreme, how many can duplicate the mastery of the old masters w/a pencil? It doesn't take a mental giant to use a pencil, then again we're talking about something else sitting in a museum from the likes of Da Vinci, mindblowing art w/absolutely the most rudimentary of tools.

Paul Butzi

8-Aug-2005, 20:37

I might be an arrogant blow hard, but at least I am not afraid to put my money where my mouth is. As matter of fact I rather be an arrogant blow hard than a spineless know it all, which is painfully obvious for all to see as you say. How do you like them apples?

So, Jorge. Put your money where your mouth is. Show us the credentials that make you an authority on the relative difficulty of learning to use traditional materials versus learning to use digital materials.

Jorge Gasteazoro

8-Aug-2005, 20:43

I will do so Mr. Butzi, when you tell us how many pt/pd print exhibitions you have had I will galdly tell you how many ink jet poster exhibitions I have had. Then maybe you will work up the courage to put your money where your mouth is and take me on.

We can go in circles like this all night, I am printing for some sales I made, so I got plenty of time.... :-)

RichSBV

8-Aug-2005, 20:49

Oh-boy, another didgi-traditional arguement ;-)

Jorge, why waste your time??? These two or three people will never give in because they _HAVE_ to justify the outlay for their equipment and the high prices they charge for the inkjet prints. They _HAVE_ to try to convince everyone that their work is better than real photography or else they'd be out of business. It's the same joke as that thread the same three people started questioning the archival qualities of trditional prints. Noone really got involved becuase it was an obvious trolling attempt at furthering their own digi-designs...

The only thing difficult about photoshop is Adobe. They have always been the worst company for creating a worthwhile user interface. I stuggle with Adobe products daily. It's no fun. And I've been doing digital imaging since it meant redefining character sets and then finally being able to actually manipulate indivual pixels in a bitmap. Long before there was an Abobe... But as far as being 'good' with PS. I know 14 year olds who could run rings around anyone on this forum! Big deal... As far as digi-print manipulation? All you're doing is marking a section of an image and requesting an unknown programmer to make changes. If it doesn't work right the first time, UNDO... Anyone who brags about PS proficiency has some major issues that should be dealt with...

Really guys, who cares if you think you're good at PS or not? Who cares if you make inkjet prints? But when you try to pass them off as photographs, you're simply commiting fraud. And to try to drag traditional photography down to your level is simply childish... Go make your inkjet prints, join a digi forum and live a happy life...

paulr

8-Aug-2005, 21:00

I'm not sure what anyone would hope to prove by winning a printmaking contest.

The winner might go away believing that he's the better printmaker than someone else, but we wouldn't be any closer to resolving any questions that were raised here.

Personally, I don't think how good an artist you are has that much to do with how good a printmaker you are, and how good a printmaker you are doesn't have much to do with what process you use. Jorge, if you truly are a great platinum printer then it would only be a matter of mechanics for you to become a great printer in silver or in ink or in any other process. The greatness lies in your ability to interpret an image. That skill can translate to any materials with enough work (and I'm not suggesting that every material is equally good for every image or every artist ... just that mastery of printing is something that transcends process).

At any rate, one person's abilities to make a great print with process A tells us nothing about the relative difficulties of two processes, the relative worths of two processes, or whether it's a good or bad thing that consumers are switching to a different kind of camera, or if John's grandma can knit a warmer sweater than your grandma, or whatever it was that started this. Oh yeah ... I think it was about how everything sucks today, and why we should feel sorry for the children. Right. Let's settle that with a print contest.

For our next thread, how about a barbeque contest.

Jonathan Brewer

8-Aug-2005, 21:29

'Anyone who brags about PS proficiency has some major issues that should be dealt with...'..................................................................where do see that in this thread? Nobody bragged about using Photoshop, you're suggeting that. If you don't care who knows or doesn't Photoshop then don't waste your time typing in a response.

You're probably right about the other issue, and you've probably got a few of those 14yr. olds in this pissing contest.

Jonathan Brewer

8-Aug-2005, 21:37

I got a question for anybody, you have a very close friend/loved one pass away, nobody can find a picture of him/her, you ask around, nobody seems to have one, then somebody send you one, but says 'by the way, this is a digital print'..............................................this is the only likeness of the person you care about, and there are no other images, anybody throw it away because it's a digital print?

Steve Clark

8-Aug-2005, 22:49

Barbeque? So soon ? After this weenie roast? :-)

paulr

8-Aug-2005, 23:28

"Who cares if you make inkjet prints? But when you try to pass them off as photographs, you're simply commiting fraud."

we can stop taking donations now. looks like we found jorge his girlfriend.

Brian C. Miller

8-Aug-2005, 23:39

Johnathan: What you do is make a copy of the digital print with your camera, then throw it away! :-)

Paulr: The barbeque contest sounds great!

If you guys still want to have a photography contest, consider this: All competing photographers will photograph a full plate of spaghetti on a white plate with flat light and a white background, then produce an 8x10 print. The prints will be unsigned, except for a letter on the back side. A sealed envelope will contain the identification letter and the photographer's name. The prints will be sent around as a package to all who want to judge them. The judges may add their own photos to the package too, just to show what they've been doing, but only the spaghetti prints will be judged. The last judge will then open the envelopes with the photographer's names, and post the scores of the spaghetti prints.

RichSBV: "...they _HAVE_ to justify the outlay for their equipment..."
I just looked up the price of an Imacon 343 scanner. $5000. Just a scanner, and it doesn't do large format. $10,000 for the Imacon 646 which does large format. A brand new Omega D-5XL Dichro is under $4000, and slightly used for $1000 on Ebay. Eh, yeah, its a bit of sticker shock.

Jorge Gasteazoro

8-Aug-2005, 23:43

we can stop taking donations now. looks like we found jorge his girlfriend.

Better my girlfriend than your boyfriends.....

paulr

9-Aug-2005, 00:04

"...they _HAVE_ to justify the outlay for their equipment..."

I'm not so sure there's always a big difference in outlay. Analog or digital, there are ways to go cheap and ways to spend it all. My enlarging lens cost twice as much as my scanner.

Jonathan Brewer

9-Aug-2005, 00:06

I don't begrudge anybody smoking Peyote.....................................................but there's a coupla of guys on here that need to quit dipping it in weedkiller.

Don Wallace

9-Aug-2005, 05:00

I always get a kick out of this forum when a perfectly reasonable and interesting discussion degenerates into a major dick contest. Some of you need to grow up. Sheesh.

Remember that photography when it first appeared was considered to be quite a sophisticated technology. Many representational artists, from painters to printmakers, felt threatened by it. Digital is a new technology and many people will use it creatively, just as they did photography.

Personally, I am not fond of digital, for a variety of reasons, but mainly because it forces me to become a database manager and reader of huge manuals. I work in high tech and thus doing it as a hobby is the classic busman's holiday. I also like "going into the basement" to make hand-made prints. I just don't think we have to consider young people today to be shallow louts in order to feel good about what we do.

pico

9-Aug-2005, 05:33

A new vernacular is rising from the digital photography, art and animation world. People growing up in the digital paradigm have new defaults, new visual language, new presumptions, and by definition of the 'average', they have a lack of understanding and possibly appreciation for the Old World's photographic handcrafted work. And darned few of us old-timers understand their view. It goes both ways.

As my boss said, Digital is the liberation of Analog Traditional Photography. Do not lament. It is a good thing for us.

paulr

9-Aug-2005, 08:42

"Do not lament. It is a good thing for us."

This was ultimately true for painters and illustrators when photography was invented. The invention of something with similar but different strengths helped painting focus on what it was really good at ... which had little to do with photorealistic depiction.

But I also think the us vs. them attitude is unecessary. Most of the people I know who use digital photographic processes use traditional ones too, and mix and match them freely to suit their purposes. On this board alone, I've heard from people doing every imaginable thing, with both pixels and silver at various stages a work's creation. I'm using large format film, and am making carbon pigment inkjet prints. Others are using digital cameras, making enlarged negatives, and printing in alternative processes. Others are scanning film, and outputting digitally to chromogenic paper. It's all just tools. They're changing all the time. Why not just use what serves you.

RichSBV

9-Aug-2005, 08:59

Ahh, paulr, it's nice to see that you're first resort to someone who dissagrees with you is a personal insult... Very revealing!

I'm also amused by the digi-heads who try to fall back on their selective 'history'. What they fail to mention is that early photographs were NOT sold as paintings or watercolors. They stood on their own ground as _photographs_! The fauxtographers of today are afraid to try letting their digi-art stand it's own ground. What are they afraid of???

Oh-yes, there were those few who hand painted on top of photographs and tried to sell them as paintings. They got their due... History does sometimes reapeat itself! ;-)

paulr

9-Aug-2005, 09:46

No insult intended, Rich, just a pithy remark in response to a comment that must have been intended to provoke one.

"What they fail to mention is that early photographs were NOT sold as paintings or watercolors."

This is true, but you're making assumptions about what constitutes a whole new medium (like painting vs. photography) and what constitues a different process within the same medium (like fresco vs. oil painting). I know you have an opinion about this, and from your posts I'm pretty sure I know what it is. However, we both need to acknowledge that there is a degree of arbitrariness to these distinctions, and that you and I are not the ones whose opinions the world listens to. In the end it's the people who buy, collect, critique, and curate the work who decide what the distinctions are, and their defintion of photography seems to be a lot broader and more expansive than yours.

I don't really care how my work is categorized. I care about making it and about expressing what I want to express. When it comes time to show the work and to try to sell it, I'm happy to take the categories and labels used by the institutions I'm showing and selling to. My last body of work was all gelatin silver prints. I called it photography because that's what the institutions were calling it. My current body of work is inkjet prints. I'm calling it photography, too, because that's what the institutions are calling it. In both cases, the defintion is based on the work being lens-based art, and has nothing to do with the printing process.

You don't have to agree with these institutions, but you're not going to make many friends or change many opinions by calling people "frauds" for using accepted definitions.

RichSBV

9-Aug-2005, 11:21

paulr... You're right about opinions. Just yesterday, my wife and I couldn't understand why the whole world wouldn't let us run it because we could fix the whole thing ;-)

My 'opinion' of 'fraud' is so basic that people refuse to accept it. "photo"graphy is in it's very deffinition and constuct, created with light. Do we forgot the 'photo'=photon part of the very word??? The only light in digi is the luminance created by a monitor when an electron hits the phosphor. It's not, by deffinition, 'photo'graphy. Simple as that.

I also have a personal problem with "digital darkroom" where fauxtographers use photoshop to alter their pics as all they are doing is requesting the change from some unknown programmer through the programs interface. It's more like sending a negative out to a lab than printing it by hand, and there's a distinction in true photography using labs also...

In spite of what many people here may believe, I have nothing against digital. I do believe in a balance and as happened on another forum, the digi-peope basically took over. I hate to se that happen here and peope like Jorge get out numbered. So I join their side in these 'discussions'. I also believe there should be a distinction between photography and digital. If I wanted to go digital, I would have no problem letting people know what an inkjet print was without trying to gloss it over with photographic terms. Like I said, what are the digi-people afraid of??? I wouldn't be... But I do understand that they have to make their money and worry about the public not wanting to buy a digi-print...

And yes, I did think your comment was an insult. If not, it should have been followed by a 'smiley'...

tim atherton

9-Aug-2005, 11:27

"My 'opinion' of 'fraud' is so basic that people refuse to accept it.
"photo"graphy is in it's very deffinition and constuct, created with
light. Do we forgot the 'photo'=photon part of the very word??? The only
light in digi is the luminance created by a monitor when an electron hits
the phosphor. It's not, by deffinition, 'photo'graphy. Simple as that."

the photograph is made when you click the shutter - ever hear the term "take a photo"?

Even with digi (which I don't use) - that's photons on a form of light sensor

paulr

9-Aug-2005, 11:48

Tim's definition is what all the major collections and critics and historians are using. That's just an observation ... you can do with it what you like. These points have been made many times before here, but you should remember that prints made on non light-sensitive materials have been curated as photographs for a long time. This includes photogravure and dye transfer prints.

"I also believe there should be a distinction between photography and digital"

The distinction that makes more sense is between analog and digital. Because both kinds of tools can be used to make photographic or non-photographic work. I have two friends who work with photopaper and chemistry, but they are not doing photography. They work by painting developers and bleaches on the paper and letting the process work its magic. There are also plenty of people using digital tools who are not doing photography. Their work more closeley resembles painting or collage.

But when either group uses their tools to physically fix some kind of lens-based image (to borrow a phrase from a couple of curators) it's considered photography. How the image came into the world has a lot more to do with its fundamental nature than the means by which it's printed. I have digital and analog prints of some of my same images. No one would look at them and say that they're completely different mediums. The differences are purely superficial. Both are recognizeable as the same work.

tim atherton

9-Aug-2005, 12:11

The way it is usually described is that the photograph is the original matrix - usually captured with a camera of some sort - and from that matrix other expressions of the photograph are then produced

Here I think Rich is talking about what should more accurately be called "photographic prints".

But there are many other ways in which that original photograph can be expressed and displayed, and this goes far beyond the narrow confines of art in a glallery or museum - it might be projected (in the case of transparencies), it might be printed in a book, or magazine or newspaper, or even as one of Jorge's "posters" (and obviously not all posters are made from photographs), it could be displayed on a TV screen or even a computer monitor or in a digital picture frame, or as a photo-gravure or dye-transfer.

The pictures in a book of photography don't cease to be photographs just because they are printed with ink in a book. They don't strangely become "non-photographs" because they are printed in a newspaper. It's just a different form of expression and dissemination of the image from that original photograph made (usually) in the camera.

The disitinction has always been more clearly made between photographs and imagery that utilizes photographic materials - such as photograms or photo-collage - than between the different ways a photograph (as above) is expressed.

RichSBV

9-Aug-2005, 12:12

Well, that's where opinions differ... I see the difference between photography and digital.

To use Tim's example... The actual image is created on the surface of the sensor array. After that, a computer scans the image into bits and stores it in memory. This would be the same thing as a photographer who uses a film camera to take a negative, processes the negative, then scans that negative into a computer. It's the negative that is a true photograph, _not_ the scan in the computer. That is simply a ('xerox') copy of the negative. With a digi-cam, the true image is lost as soon as the button is pressed and the image scanned. All that is left is a computer copy of the image.

If you put a camera obscura on top of a xerox machine and spit out a copy, is that a true photograph? It _is_ essentially the same thing as a digi-cam, minus the permanent memory (which is also available).

And "_all_ the major collections and critics and historians are using" Deffinitely not from what I've heard and read! Yes, many but NOT all...

tim atherton

9-Aug-2005, 12:34

Another way of putting it is that the semiotics and the phenomenological nature of photography is very distinct and quite different from, for example, film (movies) or painting or drawing.

This unique aspect of photography remains basically the same (as do peoples responses to it) however it is mediated - when it is displayed or expressed in any of the forms mentioned above - whether it is as an Edward Weston silver print in a gallery, images from the Library of Congress viewed on a TV screen in Ken Burns Civil War documentary, in a book, a magazine advert or as an ink print from a digital camera and so on

The nature of the photograph hasn't changed - only the way it is being expressed or mediated

tim atherton

9-Aug-2005, 12:36

"The actual image is created on the surface of the sensor array. After that, a computer scans the image into bits and stores it in memory. This would be the same thing as a photographer who uses a film camera to take a negative, processes the negative, then scans that negative into a computer. It's the negative that is a true photograph, _not_ the scan in the computer. That is simply a ('xerox') copy of the negative. With a digi-cam, the true image is lost as soon as the button is pressed and the image scanned. All that is left is a computer copy of the image. "

which is almost exactly Benjamin's arguemnt, in modern form, that photographic prints from a negative are "merely" mechanical reproductions

What you say above can clearly be applied to the photographic negative and pritn when followed to it's logical conclusion

And we've been there many times before....

paulr

9-Aug-2005, 12:52

"If you put a camera obscura on top of a xerox machine and spit out a copy, is that a true photograph?"

Sure. A xerox machine is a camera. Older ones are analog cameras. The fact that it's designed to be used for mundane document copy work doesn't change this. You won't have much trouble finding xerographic prints in any number of major photography collections (though probably not in more traditional ones, like the Getty).

paulr

9-Aug-2005, 14:43

"But I do understand that they have to make their money and worry about the public not wanting to buy a digi-print..."

that might be where some people are coming from (if they have a very traditional-minded clientelle) but it hasn't been my experience. The curators and collectors I've shown work to don't care what process I used to make the print.

I just object to people attacking what I happen to be doing now, imposing their very rigid ideas about what is and isn't photography.

"And "_all_ the major collections and critics and historians are using" Deffinitely not from what I've heard and read! Yes, many but NOT all..."

Sure, you'll find exceptions and dissenting views on all topics. So the word "all" is always an exaggeration. But to put it in perspective, MoMA, the Metropolitan Museum of Art, the Whitney, the Brooklyn Museum, the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art, the Museum of Fine Arts in Houston, the Chicago Art Institute, the George Eastman House, the Center for Creative Photography, the International Center of Photography, the Photo Resource Center, the Victoria and Albert Museum, and the Bibleoteque Nationale all collect photogravures, dye sublimation prints, and inkjet prints as photographs. I haven't yet encountered a public collection of contemporary photography that doesn't.

As an interesting case, next week I'm going to offer an inkjet print to a museum as a replacement for a silver print of the same image that they already have. It's a unique case for me ... it's an image from an early negative that I was never able to get a print from that I was happy with. Finally, on my fourth attempt at printing it, I got the print I wanted. It happens to be an inkjet.

I don't say this to ruffle feathers by implying ink is better than silver; just that in this case the negative was better suited to the newer process. I've had other negatives where I liked the silver print results better.

Brian Ellis

9-Aug-2005, 17:01

"I also have a personal problem with "digital darkroom" where fauxtographers use photoshop to alter their pics as all they are doing is requesting the change from some unknown programmer through the programs interface. It's more like sending a negative out to a lab than printing it by hand, and there's a distinction in true photography using labs also... "

O.K., let's think about that. If I use my hand to hold a piece of cardboard under an enlarger light for a length of time that I decide upon so that the portion of the image that I select will when printed become lighter to a degree that I determine then I'm engaging in "true photography." But if I use my hand to move the dodge tool in Photoshop over the portion of the image that I select (with my hand by the way) for a certain number of times that I decide upon so that the portion of the image that I select will when printed become lighter to a degree that I determine then I'm just requesting the change from some unknown programmer, kind of like handing my negative to a lab?

I don't think so. What I think is that with this unknown programmer statement and lab analogy you've made it obvious that you don't have a clue as to how a good print is actually made digitally.

tim atherton

9-Aug-2005, 17:06

"It's more like sending a negative out to a lab than printing
it by hand, and there's a distinction in true photography using labs
also... ""

Many of the very best and most recogniosed photographers have often "sent the negative out to a lab"/printer who then prints their photographs

Jorge Gasteazoro

9-Aug-2005, 17:25

O.K., let's think about that. If I use my hand to hold a piece of cardboard under an enlarger light for a length of time that I decide upon so that the portion of the image that I select will when printed become lighter to a degree that I determine then I'm engaging in "true photography." But if I use my hand to move the dodge tool in Photoshop over the portion of the image that I select (with my hand by the way) for a certain number of times that I decide upon so that the portion of the image that I select will when printed become lighter to a degree that I determine then I'm just requesting the change from some unknown programmer, kind of like handing my negative to a lab?

On the enlarger example you are working with light. You cannot "undo." Not so with the computer. Why call it a "darkroom" when there is nothing dark about it?

But this is an old argument, the nomenclature and as usual it wont be resolved.

What I am more curious is this idea that one can come to this or any other forum and blatantly make false innuendos, and when this innuendos are addressed one is "uptight."

More curious is know it all Butzis position, that one has to be an expert in something to make a judgment. We keep hearing the "final product is what matters" if so, do I have to be an expert making ink jet posters to know that the final product is not what I consider good? Not IMO, but if I taught a little workshop a few times a year and I had 100 exhibitions even if they were at frame shops then I would be an "expert" and thus my opinion more valid.

Bottom line, as someone posted in another forum:

And yet, I haven't seen a lot of traditional printers sticking "glicèe" labels on their product so that they can bask in the glow of the added status that it affords.

paulr

9-Aug-2005, 21:21

If you're drawing your status from any label attached to your work, true or false, you're drawing it from a very shallow well.

RichSBV

9-Aug-2005, 21:27

If we're taling 'funny' here, then... If the camera obscura on top of a xerox machine can make true photo prints... Then if you place a print on top of a xerox and push the "COPY" button to make 100 dupicates, you now have in your hand 100 true photographs???? I really have to laugh at this line of reasoning!! It really shows the "faux" in this fauxtography!!!

Some folks here obviously have a _VERY_ broad deffinition of anything 'photo' for whatever reason. I don't. I doubt we'll meet in the middle.

Brian, I happy for you that you consider a programmer's work as your own. May you have a happy life with that decision. I'll do my handy work with _my_ hands...

Tim, of course many photographers send out their work, even in B&W. But many other people consider that type of print worth much less than a print made by the photographers own hands...

And since when is a xerox a camera? You could make an arguement with the old direct machines but certainly not now. They never were camera and are not now. Maybe that's why they were called "photo COPIERS" And they make photo COPIES, _not_ photographs!

Let's strecth things as far as they'll go... Certainly the public doesn't care and the only vocal ones here are those trying to justify their digi-work by stealing terms from true photography...

And someone mentioned above something about a lens. There is NO need for a lens in photography as all those pinhole people will testify. Just bease a digi-cam has a lens does not make it a camera. It is simply a hand-held computer scanner that happens to have a lens in front of it. If you remove the lens, then I suppose it's no longer a camera? Hmmm, actually, I would agree with that ;-)

Jorge Gasteazoro

9-Aug-2005, 21:34

If you're drawing your status from any label attached to your work, true or false, you're drawing it from a very shallow well.

Lol...I knew you would miss the point entirely....that is ok though.

tim atherton

9-Aug-2005, 21:49

"Tim, of course many photographers send out their work, even in B&W. But
many other people consider that type of print worth much less than a print
made by the photographers own hands..."

Some people do, most people don't - how's $600,000 for a photograph "sent off to the lab to be printed"? (and sometimes close to that much for a digital photograph...)

Here's a short list of some of those who send (or sent) their work out to the lab

Richard Misrach
Stephen Shore
Avedon
Sternfeld
Robert Frank
Jeff Wall
Elliott Erwitt
Nachtwey
Cartier Bresson
Capa
Bruce Davidson
Eliot Porter
Pete Turner
Salgado
Koudelka
Burri
Doisneau
Gene Richards
Larry Towell
Duane Michaels
Kertesz
Eggleston
Bill Brandt
Lynne Cohen
Gursky
Struth
Mary Ellen Mark
Helen Levitt
David Bailey
Ruth Bernhard
Walker Evans

I don't see their prices suffering in the least, nor are they exactly second class photographers

Jorge Gasteazoro

9-Aug-2005, 22:24

How long is the list of photographers who do their own printing and are just as acomplished?

RichSBV

9-Aug-2005, 22:51

Tim, the "Some people do, most people don't" is really all that's needed here. Lists and examples go both ways... For exagerated prices of art, should we bring up that toilet again?? ;-) People have proven themselve to pay absurd prices for just about anything...

And Jorge... Maybe I should have clarified that the girlfriend comment was not offensive as being related to you. Had he said 'boyfriend', maybe I would have just passed on it... Although, if it includes a good dinner and you know a place that makes a killer Mole, I might reconsider :-P

Brian C. Miller

9-Aug-2005, 22:54

Tim, I know that Bill Brandt did at least some of his own printing. How much print work did he send out to someone else and how much did he do himself?

paulr

9-Aug-2005, 23:07

"Lol...I knew you would miss the point entirely....that is ok though."

i get your point. you've made it before. and i think we're in agreement that people shouldn't label their work in deceiving or stupid ways. calling an inkjet print a carbon print, as you pointed out, is misrepresentation. calling it a giclee strikes me as a bit of an affectation, but at least most people seem to know what it means.

my point about drawing status from labels is one to consider. i think it's a lot more important than the whole analog vs. digital ritual, because it's something that i see actually holding back people's creativity.

As far as Tim's list of photographers who didn't print their own work, I don't think his point was that this constitutes most photographers. It's just a lot of examples demonstrating that printing your own work is not a requirement for being a real photographer.

tim atherton

9-Aug-2005, 23:10

"How long is the list of photographers who do their own printing and are just as acomplished?"

probably equally long - that was just a list from an article on a number of well known printers who did work for well known photographers

"Tim, the "Some people do, most people don't" is really all that's needed here. Lists and examples go both ways... For exagerated prices of art, should we bring up that toilet again?? ;-) People have proven themselve to pay absurd prices for just about anything... "

Certainly, but the point being, you raised the issue of lower prices for work "sent out to the lab" - when in fact it really matters little in many cases one way or the other - yes, some photography has gone for very high prices recently, but the prices for work by most of those listed are pretty much the same as for those of their contemporaries and equals who printed their own work - sometimes more sometimes less - usually a few thousand or so. And of course, some well known photographers are just atrocious darkroom technicians - some just find it a waste of their time and energy.

"Tim, I know that Bill Brandt did at least some of his own printing. How much print work did he send out to someone else and how much did he do himself?"

As have many - quite often it was down to pure expediency - how busy the photographer was and what the circumstances were at the time (and sometimes they were just poor darkroom workers). And many never differentiated between the two - Walker Evans signed prints as his that were printed by himself, by his assistants or by government, Fortune or university lab technicians as all the same - the same for many others. Which wasn't and isn't dishonesty at all.

paulr

9-Aug-2005, 23:35

"And since when is a xerox a camera? You could make an arguement with the old direct machines but certainly not now. They never were camera and are not now. Maybe that's why they were called "photo COPIERS" And they make photo COPIES, _not_ photographs!"

A copy machine uses a lens to take an image from the subject and focus it onto a light sensitive material. The image is then transfered (mechanically or digitally) to a two dimensional print on paper. Conceptually it does the same thing as a copy camera, only it is automated and does its own printing. It's a camera by any definition I've ever seen. And it's used as a camera by a lot of artists (who don't restrict themselves to photographing flat documents with it).

"And someone mentioned above something about a lens. There is NO need for a lens in photography as all those pinhole people will testify".

Optically and conceptually a pinhole is a lens. A lens does not have to be made of glass. Lenses for focussing electron beams are made of magnets. Telescope lenses are made of polished metal. A pinhole serves the same purpose: it optically projects a two dimensional image that can be viewed or captured.

The idea of photography being defined as "lens-based images" is a casual, working definition being used by quite a few curators. Others use the even more vague qualification of "optically derrived images." Their general goal is understanding what qualities make something photographic, not trying create a rigid, narrow, or exclusive definition that is bound to become obsolete with the next discovery or artistic innovation.

paulr

9-Aug-2005, 23:47

If you're looking for an example to test the idea of "lens based image," a photogram would be a good one. I think you'll find some people classifying these as photographs, others not. Here the issues are actually interesting ones.

RichSBV

9-Aug-2005, 23:59

Tim, I didn't say anything about 'price'. I said 'worth much less'. Minor difference, or major depending on the person's viewpoint ;-)

paulr,

I believe it was Xerox who defined the machine as a "Copy Machine" and NOT a copy camera. To use selective definitions to suit a sided arguement doesn't really help...

I would personally consider a 'photgram' a true photgraph. It is created by light onto a light sensitive material. That has been the definition of photography from the beggining, which is where it all falls apart with digi. It removes both the light and the light sensitive material. It's rather hard to have a photograph without both! Back to my original statement and deffinition.... Want to go around again??? ;-)

Jorge Gasteazoro

10-Aug-2005, 00:06

pinhole is a lens

Sorry, but this is not true. A pinhole lacks one very important attribute to be classified as a lens and that is the ability to focus, depth of field not withstanding. As you correctly described a magnetic lens has all the attributes of an optical lens (focal length, angle of divergence, capability to focus) as well as the errors (chromatic aberration, spherical aberration, etc). A pinhole camera is nothing more than a camera oscura and is well known as a lens less camera.

Not everything that projects an image is a lens.

paulr

10-Aug-2005, 00:28

Rich, what Xerox calls their machine has nothing to do with what it actually is or does. I'm not using selective definitions; I'm using the definitions that have evolved and been accepted by the art-historical establishment.

Your definition that a photograph as anything created by light on a light sensitive material simply is not the accepted definition of a photograph. And I'd be surprised if it's really yours. My friend Anne's murals, created by painting developer and bleach onto exposed photopaper, do not fit any curatorial definitions of photography that I've seen. They have more in common with painting than with photography, even though they use traditional photographic materials. The image is not lens based (or "optically derived").

That being said, some photography collections do include photograms, possibly because they fit the criterion of optically derived.

If you want to see a partial list of the Met's categories of photographic processes (and remember this is a pretty conservative institution), check out http://www.metmuseum.org/special/photography2001/photo_glos.htm

Jorge, for the purposes of photography, a pinhole is a lens. It does not share all the qualities of a glass lens, but it serves the same purpose. Perhaps it's quibbling over what is a lens that leads some curators and historians to use the clumsier and more vague phrase, "optically derived image." At any rate, the core meaning of "lens based image" is an image created by focusing the light reflected from a subject onto a surface for viewing or capturing.

Jorge Gasteazoro

10-Aug-2005, 00:42

is an image created by focusing the light reflected from a subject onto a surface for viewing or capturing.

So how do you focus a pinhole? Sorry, but "all practical purposes" does not cut it. I am sure you would like it to be for your argument, but that does not make it so. This is exactly the problem, when it suits you, the language is always changing. Sorry, not always and not in optic physics. A lens has a very clear definition no matter how much you wish it didnt.

paulr

10-Aug-2005, 01:09

Jorge, I'll restate, word for word, the original passage where "lens-based image" was described:

"The idea of photography being defined as "lens-based images" is a casual, working definition being used by quite a few curators. Others use the even more vague qualification of "optically derrived images." Their general goal is understanding what qualities make something photographic, not trying create a rigid, narrow, or exclusive definition that is bound to become obsolete with the next discovery or artistic innovation."

If you read this for the purpose of understanding it rather than just arguing with it, you'll see that it's about describing a concept, not about strict physics

And yes, pinhole doesn't actually focus an image. Technically, contact printing doesn't focus an image either, but for practical purposes of discussion within the context of photography, it does. Perhaps "render" an image would have been a better choice of words, because an image obviously doesn't have to be focussed to be photographic.

Look guys, I'm not dumb enough to think I'm going to change your minds about this (or anything). I'd just like to point out that your quarrel is not with me or with Tim or with a handful of fauxtographer frauds who are in desperate need of your condescension lest they somehow destroy the world.

Your quarrel is with the larger institutions that name the categories and write the histories and working definitions. If you don't want to speak their language, that's great. No one's making you. But you get nowhere by repeatedly insulting those that choose to. I'm not that attached to what my medium is called, but when it comes to decide, who do you think I'm going to listen to--some guys on the net or Peter Galassi?

In the end none of this has anything to do with the worth of your work or mine. If there's one the curators do that i think we all could learn from, it's to worry about whether the work is good/meaningful/significant first, and to worry about what to call it later.

RichSBV

10-Aug-2005, 07:43

paulr, you're right about not being able to change my mind in this regard. And Jorge is right about your creative use of definitions. But that's how we all create an "arguement" (in the discussion sense).

Unfortunately in some areas, deffinitions do count for a lot. It is this creative use of deffinitions by the digi people that has created all the problems around here. As Jorge points out, when someone dumps an ink squirt print and publicly calls it a "Carbon Print" to sell it, it's fraud not creative marketing. Gilcee is more creative marketing than fraud and at least used a non-photographic term. I have no problem with 'gilcee' except forgetting how to spell or pronounce it ;-)

All change is brought about by a single person. It either catches on or not. Here we have many people upset about the hijacking of photography by digi poeple. Far too many people are apatheic about the issue. Curators and galleries have their own reasons. It takes time and money to create a new category for something. It's MUCH less work to simply dump inkjet prints in with photographs. Galleries do it to make money, same as the fauxtographers. The very term "fauxtographer" was created by digi users to differentiate their work from photography and it did have quite a bit of popularity years ago. But galleries couldn't sell the work. So fauxtographs were dump for 'photographs' and prices went back up...

So should real photographers be happy that their work is being dumped in the same category as digi stuff? Water color artists are having a similar problem now as certain digi people have discovered that they can produce digi 'water color' prints. If people don't stand up and force the issue, it will only get worse.

You say trhat you'll just go along with whatever the gallery or curator says... But why not simply make a mention to that curator "but it's a digi print, not a photograph". No need for an arguement. But if enough people take the effort, it will eventually force the digi products into their own category where they belong and then eveyone will be happy. Or yuou can stay apathetic and let other people do the work for you...

Spliiting hairs over lens-lensless is absurd. A pinhole camera is a camera by deffinition. A copy machine is a copy maching by deffinition. To argue otherwise would be for the sake of arguement alone.

As for deffinitions:

pho·to·graph (f½“t…-gr²f”) n. Abbr. photog. 1. An image, especially a positive print, recorded by a camera and reproduced on a photosensitive surface

cam·er·a (k²m“…r-…, k²m“r…) n. 1. An apparatus for taking photographs, generally consisting of a lightproof enclosure having an aperture with a shuttered lens through which the image of an object is focused and recorded on a photosensitive film or plate. 2. The part of a television transmitting apparatus that receives the primary image on a light-sensitive cathode tube and transforms it into electrical impulses. 3. Camera obscura.

I'm not going to sit around, and I mean 'around', and split hairs over deffinitons. The fact is that no digi print can be a PHOTOgraph simply because it uses NO light. It's time for digi to stand on it's own or fail. If digi users are so afraid of their own work, then they should perhaps either move into photography or leave it alltogether...

tim atherton

10-Aug-2005, 08:20

"Tim, I didn't say anything about 'price'. I said 'worth much less'. Minor difference, or major depending on the person's viewpoint ;-) "

fair enough - but my mother values the many photos my dad took of her father - and many of those were all done at the local 1hr lab "value" is pretty a pretty amorphous concept without any fixed indicator.

price is often (though not always) a good guide to the value of an object, and from the short list I gave, as far as I am aware, the work of all those photographers is valued - in broad terms - as highly (and perhaps some more highly) than the work of a contemporary who prints their own work - in the end, it's a non-issue as far as the value of a photographers work is concerned.

"would personally consider a 'photogram' a true photograph."

a view held by some institutions, but many institutions and histories consider photogram to be on a parallel sideline because they don't fit all the main criteria for being a photograph

paulr

10-Aug-2005, 09:16

"As Jorge points out, when someone dumps an ink squirt print and publicly calls it a "Carbon Print" to sell it, it's fraud not creative marketing. Gilcee is more creative marketing than fraud and at least used a non-photographic term. I have no problem with 'gilcee' except forgetting how to spell or pronounce it ;-)"

And I agree with this wholeheartedly.

"I'm not going to sit around, and I mean 'around', and split hairs over deffinitons. The fact is that no digi print can be a PHOTOgraph simply because it uses NO light."

Well, you're not splitting hairs over definitions; you're ignoring the definition that's in current use in the curatorial world. The dictionary definition you provided isn't even very well researched on what a camera is, considering that the camera predates photography by centuries, and the view camera in particular was used by artists hundreds of years before Daguerre and Fox Talbot. You haven't explained to me how a copy machine isn't a camera--and I don't mean by declaring so, or by stating what the manufacturer calls it--I mean by looking at what it fundamentally does and how it does it.

It's also not accurate that all digital printing processes work without light. Many of them print with light onto traditional photographic materials (Lamda and Lightget, for example). And this definition would logically lead you to point your ire at those working in dye transfer, photogravure, and bromoil--processes that have been considered photographic for a hundred years.

A final point I find strange is your tendency to place a hard line between "real photographers" and "digi heads" or whatever, when in fact they tend to be the same people. And when they, who actually have exprerience working with both kinds of tools, often don't find a fundamental difference in their work when using the two. I only recently started printing my work digitally. Even more recently I started using color for the first time. I can tell you, the move to color was a quantum shift for me. The move to digital black and white printing was more about details than anything fundamental.

You really should be aware that all these "THAT isn't photography" arguments almost exactly mimic historical arguments on why the following things aren't photography either: dry plates, film, roll film, 35mm, and color. Are we worse off or better off now that photography's definition expanded to included these things?

tim atherton

10-Aug-2005, 10:09

"Photography uses film.

A photograph comes from film."

So your definition of photography is the above?

If you make "film" the defining critea it becomes a convenient definition to bash digital with. But then of course it cuts out a lot of exisitng processes that have long been considered photography....

Jorge Gasteazoro

10-Aug-2005, 10:11

Well, you're not splitting hairs over definitions;

Sorry Paul, this is you, We know and have clear definitions. It is you the one who writes this kind of driblel.

The idea of photography being defined as "lens-based images" is a casual, working definition being used by quite a few curators.

Technically, contact printing doesn't focus an image either, but for practical purposes of discussion within the context of photography, it does

You will say anything to try and makes us believe you are correct. Why do you ignore the fact that there are clear definitions.? Why cant you for one say...yeah I made a mistake, a pinhole is not a lens?...This is the problems with arguing with people like you, in your quest to be right, you will say anything, and some of the things you say are just plain dumb....a contact print "focusing"...lol....

Your "for practical purposes" is just a distraction. Sorry Paul but in science we dont have "for all practical purposes".....

Paddy Quinn

10-Aug-2005, 10:14

Photography uses film.

A photograph comes from film.

Interesting. In which case, the first photographs ever made weren't photographs. Fox Talbot must have been making fauxtographs according to you?

tim atherton

10-Aug-2005, 10:16

"Your "for practical purposes" is just a distraction. Sorry Paul but in
science we dont have "for all practical purposes"....."

though photography is anything but a science - perhaps therein lies theproblem

paulr

10-Aug-2005, 10:28

Exactly, Jorge. We're not talking about science. We're talking about culturally based definitions, which in this case end up being consolidated by people with an art-historical, not a scientific perspective. Art historians and artists alike do indeed have a "practical perspectives" on how to name and think about things.

I don't care if you think I'm correct. Just pointing out tht it's a larger body of ideas out there that you're arguing against, not just me.

I'll repeat an earlier question that nobody responded to. When it comes time to decide how to categorize my work, who should I listen to-- Peter Galassi, or some guys on the net?

Paddy Quinn

10-Aug-2005, 10:35

Your "for practical purposes" is just a distraction. Sorry Paul but in science we dont have "for all practical purposes"....

Life isn't science, culture isn't science, art certainly isn't science and neither is photography.

Scientists seem to make very good clergymen, but it seems to be the exception if the make a good artist

RichSBV

10-Aug-2005, 11:14

Paulr, you supply deffinitions, I supply deffinitions. But mine are no good? From the American Heritage Dictionary.... I'll make sure to write them a letter about it ;-) The whole point was that you find and use deffinitions that you like, as do I. A dozen other people could supply different deffinitions. It's all pointless...

As to the COPY machine. First off, if the inventor wanted it to be known as a camera, they would have called it an "instant Copy Camera", but they didn't. They called it a COPY machine. Who am I to argue with the inventors?

As far as cameras, lenses and focusing. Not all equipment that uses lenses and focuses light is a camera. Since the camera obscura/copy machine idea didn't go over well, I'll offer another one. You take a telescope. It uses lenses and focuses light but is most deffinitely NOT a camera. Focus it's output onto a sheet of paper, which is done by some to view the Sun. have that paper on top of a computer's scanner and hit the scan button. The output from this is a photograph??? Obviously NOT. But according to the reasoning above, it is. Just absurd....

As far as real photographers and 'digi-heads', sure they can be the same person. I know many artists who work in ink, paint (oils, water colors, etc.), clay, marble and even carve wood. Now, just because they paint, does their wood carving automatically become a painting?? Again, absurd... If a photographer, by whatever means, produces an inkjet print, it is an injet print and nothing more. Digital art, if they're good enough ;-) To say it is a photograph because a photographer produced it is as ridiculous as the wood carving becoming a painting...

It's really amazing how the non-digi people can clearly see the distinction and the 'digi-heads' refuse to. But I suppose if I spent that amount of money on the equipment and had to amke my living by it's output, I might try stretching the truth and fooling the public too. Luckily, I have more integrity... I also firmly believe that digi-art should be able to stand on it's own without stealing from photography. Said yet again....

As far as categorizing your work. If you let someone else do it for you, you're a fool! ANd I don't mean that as an insult. It's YOUR work and only YOU can say what it is, within the boundries of truth and integrity. If you allow someone else to categorize it against your wishes, you give up your artistic integrity... You got your answer ;-)

As far as the history goes, well, it's history. Not now... I see very little difference in most of the historical processes. After all, they ALL used a light sensitive material=photon=photo=photography...

And yes I know about Lightjets and whatever. It's a grey area like many other art forms. I could honestly go either way with them but just haven't bothered putting the thought into it. It may depend on the source of the print, film or digital capture? It's really not worth my time to think about...

Tim, the 'worth' is without doubt in the eye of the beholder, or maybe hand of the beholder? I can only speak for myself. As one who greatly appreciates the handy work of past artists and woodworkers, I ahve very little interest or appreciation for the machine made garbage we get today. Luckily there's very little 'machine made' in the art world, except maybe for the digi-"art"...

The photogram is probably really another grey area. It would also depend a lot on what was 'gramed'. Towards the scientific end, it's more a photograph than an inkjet simply because it does use the light sensitive material with focused light (and light fron the Sun is focused by it's nature). Like I said, grey....

paulr

10-Aug-2005, 11:44

Rich, you're throwing a round a lot of instant conclusions like "Is this a camera? Obviously not!" without basing them on any logic that I can discern.

Your telescope example sure sounds like a camera to me. And the the copy machine still does. I'm not talking about what the inventor of something chooses to call it--I'm talking about the fundamental nature of the thing.

Why don't you start by telling me what, in your world, the definition of a camera is, and we'll see if that corresponds at all to the curatorial idea of it.

"As far as categorizing your work. If you let someone else do it for you, you're a fool! ANd I don't mean that as an insult. It's YOUR work and only YOU can say what it is, within the boundries of truth and integrity. If you allow someone else to categorize it against your wishes, you give up your artistic integrity... You got your answer ;-)"

Now you're geting confusing. You started out with a tirade against people categorizing THEIR work in ways that YOU disagree with. I see you throw in the phrase "within the bounds of truth and integrity" but that presupposes there is one idea that everyone agrees on as the truth--like one true definition of photography. This argument is evidence that there isn't one. Which suggests we need to choose one.

My question was about whose truth to choose--some opinionated guys I meet here, or the chief curator at MoMA.

" see very little difference in most of the historical processes. After all, they ALL used a light sensitive material=photon=photo=photography..."

Yes, in the image capture process. Just as digital cameras do. But not all historical processes use light lensitive material to make tha print. And some digital processes DO use light sensitive materials to make the print.

"And yes I know about Lightjets and whatever. It's a grey area like many other art forms. I could honestly go either way with them but just haven't bothered putting the thought into it. It may depend on the source of the print, film or digital capture? It's really not worth my time to think about..."

No argument there. I don't see why any of this is worth your time to think about, really, unless it somehow affects your work.

"Luckily there's very little 'machine made' in the art world, except maybe for the digi-"art"..."

Hmmm. You mean not counting Warhol's "factory" legacy, dating from the early 60s, or DuChamp's "readymades" dating from 1915. Or everything ever shot on Kodachrome.

RichSBV

10-Aug-2005, 12:25

cam·er·a (k²m“…r-…, k²m“r…) n. 1. An apparatus for taking photographs, generally consisting of a lightproof enclosure having an aperture with a shuttered lens through which the image of an object is focused and recorded on a photosensitive film or plate

As far as your categorizations, feel free to do whatever you like. My statement stands. Does your integrity???

"Hmmm. You mean not counting Warhol's "factory" legacy, dating from the early 60s, or DuChamp's "readymades" dating from 1915. Or everything ever shot on Kodachrome."

"Very little" seems to fit to me! And, ummm, Kodachrome is a FILM used in a CAMERA!

Digital "cameras" do not use a light sensitive material per say. They use a sensor array that scans a focused projection of light into digital bits. The deffinitive differences could go on for paragraphs...

I started this all out by asking Jorge why he bothered. It got worse, then better and I thought we were getting somplace. Now it's obvious...

You want to distort or throw away any deffinition you don't like. You want to distort and steal any deffinition that suits your purpose. You twist the discussion simply for the sake of arguement. There is no point to this. You hold your opinions and will not allow any others. Because some curator takes your print and plces in the photo section it all justifies you. Unfortunately, the only reason the curator does this is because he's too lazy to develope a new category for ink squirted prints. Good for you and others who want to make money. Bad for everyone else.

paulr, unless you pay attention to what is said and offer common courtesy to others, this is really all just a waste of time. Why not just grab youe Xerox camera and run out to make some fauxtos...

This was the first digi-analog thread that I actually had hopes would turn into a discussion. You just won't allow that and I tired of going around in circles... dance with someone else for a while...

Brian Ellis

10-Aug-2005, 12:42

"Pixelography is a good description of what digital is. Photography uses film. A photograph comes from film"

O.K., we're going to puzzle our way through this. You're saying that photography uses film and a photograph comes from film. So I put film in my camera, I make an image, I process the film in my fume room and I end up with a negative on film. So I was engaged in photography and I made a photograph, right? Wrong. Why wrong? Because I put my film in a scanner and I made a digital print. So you're saying I was engaged in photography and made a photograph because I used film but I wasn't engaged in photography and didn't make a photograph because I used the film in a digital process. So when all is said and done I was and I wasn't engaged in photography and I did and I didn't make a photograph. Man, that's confusing. Could you run it by me again?

paulr

10-Aug-2005, 13:10

"You want to distort or throw away any deffinition you don't like. You want to distort and steal any deffinition that suits your purpose. You twist the discussion simply for the sake of arguement. "

Couldn't be further from the truth. I've been upfront from the start about what I'm doing, where I'm coming from, and why. If my position needs clarity, here it is:

1) of the vaious possible definitions/understandings of what photgraphy is, the ones that I respect most are the ones used by the art historical/contemporary art curatorial establishments. This is partly because I respect the perspectives and intelligence of the people there doing the defining and categorizing, and partly for practical reasons: these are the channels through which I want to show my work.

2) Whether you or I agree with these definitions or not isn't important. But I think it is important that we be aware of them and that we acknowledge them.

As far as my disection of your arguments, I find two problems with most of them:

1) You don't appear to have done any investigation at all into the prevailing definitions used by the art establishments. By arguing as if these ideas are my own personal whims, you aren't even acknowledging that they are out there and well established. I'm trying to point out that these aren't my ideas at all.

Attacking my attempts at explaining them can't possibly accomplish much. I recognize that I'm not an authority on the topic, which is why i put some effort into hearing the authorities out. If you want to argue these points with someone who knows more and might be more lucid than me, I can put you in touch with some very smart people who think about this stuff for a living.

2) Your own personal definitions of what is/isn't photography, for whatever they're worth (and I acknowledge that they may be worth a lot to you personally) seem to be based on a at least a few questionable assumptions and some flawed logic.

The dictionary is a boundless source of limited and incomplete definitions. Just to look at the recent example of your dictionary defintion of a camera:

"An apparatus for taking photographs, generally consisting of a lightproof enclosure having an aperture with a shuttered lens through which the image of an object is focused and recorded on a photosensitive film or plate"

I assume you know enough but photography and art history to know that 1) not all cameras have shutters; 2) if you want to use your's and jorge's definition fo lens, then not all cameras use lenses; 3) not all cameras are used for photography .. in fact the invention of the camera predates the invention of photography by centuries.

Jorge Gasteazoro

10-Aug-2005, 13:54

art certainly isn't science and neither is photography.

Yep, this is why you got more "control" so you can fix it in PS. A great part of photography is science, and even when used for creating art it still depends on science. Elements of photography like lenses, developers, the cameras themselves are all a product of science and are in fact science at work. Physics, chemistry and engineering are what make your tools. Saying photography is not science is one of the most ignorant statements I have ever read on this forum.....

Exactly, Jorge. We're not talking about science. We're talking about culturally based definitions

LOL..there is not such thing as "culturally based" definitions. There is on the other hand definitions you make as you go along, but these are meaningless. A lens is clearly defined and a pinhole IS NOT A LENS

I find it amusing that you are insisting that I dumb down and use less accurate and precise terms in your language in an effort to prove you are right. Why dont you learn how to use your language and apply the appropriate terms. This is why curators use the term photograph for ink jet prints, they lack understanding of the terms and I guess to them the "culturally" based definition is just fine.

tim atherton

10-Aug-2005, 13:57

cam·er·a (k²m“…r-…, k²m“r…) n. 1. An apparatus for taking photographs, generally consisting of a lightproof enclosure having an aperture with a shuttered lens through which the image of an object is focused and recorded on a photosensitive film or plate

Or you could chose:

cam·era
Pronunciation: 'kam-r&, 'ka-m&r-&
Function: noun
Etymology: Late Latin, room -- more at CHAMBER
1 : the treasury department of the papal curia
2 a : CAMERA OBSCURA : a darkened enclosure having an aperture usually provided with a lens through which light from external objects enters to form an image of the objects on the opposite surface b : a device that consists of a lightproof chamber with an aperture fitted with a lens and a shutter through which the image of an object is projected onto a surface for recording (as on film) or for translation into electrical impulses (as for television broadcast) .

A little different from your pick - and of course, whichever dictionary or institution or glossary we are going to pick our definition from is going to have somethign of a differen definition. The standard wone above doesn't limit a camera to requiring plates or film - it can just be for viewing (and tracing) or can be lectronic capture. And that's fro yoru Standard Webster N American dictionary - check out the OED or Collins and you'll get different again. DIctionary definitions generally prove nothing apart from giving you the correct spelling

tim atherton

10-Aug-2005, 13:59

off course, then you need a spell checker....

Struan Gray

10-Aug-2005, 14:10

I may not know much about art. But I know what I like

/START Physics

There really is very little difference between the way a semiconductor crystal in a CCD or CMOS chip captures light and the way a dye-sensitised silver halide crystal in an emulsion captures light. Polymer-based opto-electronics are the same again. There are only so many ways that light can react with a material. Fuji funds work into solar cells and light sensors using a variety of fundamental technologies, and it's not for their chips.

Thus any definition of photography that priviledges the science of the emulsion is doomed to include today's digital.

As for "for all practical purposes", this was exactly the phrase invented and used by Bell to describe theories that were true in our Universe, but not for all possible universes. Since Bell was single handedly responsible for some of the most thought-provoking underpinnings of modern quantum mechanics, I'll take his word over some guys on the internet.

/END Physics

Jorge Gasteazoro

10-Aug-2005, 14:15

So what are the defintions of a photograph now that you have the dictionary open.

So, Struan, you are saying a pinhole is a lens? I certainly hope you are not even with the "for all practical purposes" qualifier. Besides, physics has advanced just a tad since Bell.

paulr

10-Aug-2005, 14:41

"LOL..there is not such thing as "culturally based" definitions"

Jorge, if you studied any philosophy, linguistics, art history, or cultural studies, you would not likely have uttered such a thing. I'm sure if you think about it, you can find examples of many words which have different meanings in different contexts and among different cultural groups. Here's one from your discipline: Organic. Does this word mean the same thing to a chemist, a farmer, and an art historian? Is one right and the others wrong? Or are the differences due different definitions, often practical, all defined by common usage, within different cultural or professional groups?

"This is why curators use the term photograph for ink jet prints, they lack understanding of the terms and I guess to them the "culturally" based definition is just fine."

So is your overriding thesis that you are smarter/know better than all the curators and historians?

That would at least answer my earlier question. According to you, I should take my guidance from you, and not Peter Galassi. It would be an interesting change of realities, that's for sure.

paulr

10-Aug-2005, 14:47

"So, Struan, you are saying a pinhole is a lens?"

You're still dwelling on an irrelevent footnote. If a pinhole conflicts with the idea of "lens based image" for you, then the broader definition of "optically derived image" might serve better. These are both working definitions I've seen proposed by curators.

paulr

10-Aug-2005, 14:56

If anyone is actually interested in the ways curators tend to look at the question "what is photography" (and to be interested does not mean to agree, lest you think this is a trap) here's an interesting perspective.

I've heard more than a couple of curators approach the question not with a firm definition, but with another question: "What is photographic?" This question is not about technical means of any kind. It's about the fundamental nature of an image. And about our perception of it. An image tends to strike us as photographic for varying reasons, but it tends to happen when the image was derived in some direct, optical fashion from a real scene or object. And typically from a particular place and a particular time. There tends to be a lot of gray area, but after a certain amount of hand manipulation, an image tends seem less photographic. This line of questioning would support a photogram as photographic. Moving images and three dimensional images seem less photographic. Again, this is not anyone's attempt at a hard definition ... just a clue about how some people are confronting the issue. It's hardly a scientific approach.

Paddy Quinn

10-Aug-2005, 14:56

So what are the defintions of a photograph...

photograph (n) : a picture of a person or scene in the form of a print or transparent slide; recorded by a camera on light-sensitive material (v) 1: record on photographic film; "I photographed the scene of the accident"; "She snapped a photo of the President" [syn: photo, snap, shoot] 2: undergo being photographed in a certain way; "Children photograph well"

tim atherton

10-Aug-2005, 15:06

If you read carefully what he said I don't think Struan was making reference to pinholes but rather making two seperate points:

1. In terms of physics, there is very little difference between the way sensitized silver halide crystals in film and semiconductor crystals in a chip capture light - both clearly meet the definition of capturing the "photo" part of photographs. Which I'm sure you understand

2. In certain areas of science the phrase "for all practical purposes" does indeed cut it

the comment was about the phrase itself, not about the particular point it was being used to make (ie pinholes as lenses or not)

Jorge Gasteazoro

10-Aug-2005, 15:13

Irrelevant? Just because you are wrong I guess is irrelevant huh?

I dont want you to take my guidance, but OTOH as to the answer to your question, how do you know I am not smarter? In any case this once again falls in the idea that language is motile when it suits you. Of course, I guess we should take your guidance and accept a pinhole is a lens over that of all the optics physicists that say it is not...right?

How come language changes when it suits you but then it does not when it does not suit you? As to your language idea of different meanings, it is precisely because written and spoken language is so vague that one would want to use the most accurate and precise terms to describe something. As I said, a pinhole is not a lens, no matter how much you wish it to be.

I bet that these curators and historians you are so proud about never stopped to think the consequences of their imprecise and inaccurate language. It is easy to say the piece of paper with ink on is a photograph just because it has an image on it. By this definition if I grab a piece of blank paper and draw a stick figure with an ink pen, then it is a photograph as well. This exactly once again is the problem even if you refuse to see it. Inaccurate and imprecise use of language. Am I smarter?, I dont know, I do know there are smarter people than me but you are not one of them, I am sure of that.

tim atherton

10-Aug-2005, 15:23

"I've heard more than a couple of curators approach the question not with a firm definition, but with another question: "What is photographic?" This question is not about technical means of any kind. It's about the fundamental nature of an image. And about our perception of it. An image tends to strike us as photographic for varying reasons, but it tends to happen when the image was derived in some direct, optical fashion from a real scene or object. And typically from a particular place and a particular time. There tends to be a lot of gray area, but after a certain amount of hand manipulation, an image tends seem less photographic. This line of questioning would support a photogram as photographic. Moving images and three dimensional images seem less photographic. Again, this is not anyone's attempt at a hard definition ... just a clue about how some people are confronting the issue. It's hardly a scientific approach."

which was in part what I was getting at with my post above:

"Another way of putting it is that the semiotics and the phenomenological nature of photography is very distinct... etc"

More simply put, the way a photograph "works" or functions is quite distinct and is significantly different from the way other forms of visual representation work - such as cinema/film, painting or drawing (to name a few).

In this sense, a silver gelatin photographic print, a photograph in a newspaper or book, an inkjet print from a digital camera and some photograms (for example) all work in broadly the same way - they are all photographic and viewers respond to and process them in very particular ways as photographs.

But start to move beyond that and they don't work in the same way nor is the response to them the same; Motion: cinema would seem to have many close similarities - a camera with a lens and appearances recorded on film - yet the way moving pictures work is very different from photographs, as is the way a viewer processes the information from films. Manipulation: again, photo-montages have moved far enough beyond how a photograph works to start becoming something else. 3D: Holograms - very few people would consider a hologram to be a photograph, yet it has many similarities with the way a photograph is made - but again it seems to have beyond or outside that distinctive way a photograph works - to most people a hologram is a hologram (with a very distinctive name invented for it which still holds) and not a photograph, not even a "3d photograph". Photograms: this is a type of imagery that is right in the grey area between is it or isn't it. Does it function photographically or doesn't it?

The way in which something is photographic - the way it works and functions a=is at least as important as trying to define how it was (or should be) made.

tim atherton

10-Aug-2005, 15:27

"It is easy to say the piece of paper with ink on is a photograph
just because it has an image on it. By this definition if I grab a piece
of blank paper and draw a stick figure with an ink pen, then it is a
photograph as well. "

No, it just demonstrates a failure to understand the distinctive nature of drawing and photography beyond defining the medium by the mechanics

Jorge Gasteazoro

10-Aug-2005, 16:07

No, it just demonstrates a failure to understand the distinctive nature of drawing and photography beyond defining the medium by the mechanics

No, it demonstrates the fallacy you and paul are trying to perpetuate that definitions are ever changing to be used to suit you. The purpose of definitions is to make things clearer, not to make them more vague. To announce that a pinhole is a lens just because it has a behavior that is similar to a lens is wrong. I know you dont like to read this, but there it is.

Now I will give you the perfect example of how silly trying to use these ever changing definitions is.

My eye (the lens, which they are in fact and not" for all practical purposes") project an image into my retinas (the film) this image is in turn processed by my brain (the computer) and the image is then reproduced on a piece of paper by my hand holding an ink pen (the printer). I have just made a photograph! according to the very loose definitions you and pauly are trying to make us adopt. It should not matter that this was a process carried out by an organic machine, in the end the result and the way it was captured is just like an ink jet print.

So now you want me to adhere to the definitions of drawing? what happened, isnt the language ever changing? Lets call all a photograph, paintings, sculptures, etc, etc, they are all processed by a computer, projected by a lens and captured by a film......

You see the problem with trying to adopt loose definitions to fit your needs?

QT Luong

10-Aug-2005, 16:21

tim atherton

10-Aug-2005, 16:24

"To announce that a pinhole is a lens just because it has a behavior that is
similar to a lens is wrong. I know you dont like to read this, but there
it is."

First - that is not something I've ever said, but don't let that stop you from using it to bolster your argument.

"No, it demonstrates the fallacy you and paul are trying to perpetuate that
definitions are ever changing to be used to suit you. The purpose of
definitions is to make things clearer, not to make them more vague."

Now, you seem to think these are my definitions, or pauls? and we just sort of made them up and pulled them out of a hat. These are broadly used defintions some of which have been in use for a good number of years - mostly pre-dating the recent growth of digital. These definitions aren't something newly made up for this list. On top of which, yes, definitions are oftenthings in flux and change - they often do evolve over time and are not fixed for ever.

Saying "The purpose of definitions is to make things clearer" is all very well, but many things are not so simple that nice clean cut definitions sorts everything out. The danger of a "clear" defintion is that it can be precise without being accurate.

"My eye (the lens, which they are in fact and not" for all practical
purposes") project an image into my retinas (the film) this image is in
turn processed by my brain (the computer) and the image is then reproduced
on a piece of paper by my hand holding an ink pen (the printer). I have
just made a photograph! according to the very loose definitions you and
pauly are trying to make us adopt. It should not matter that this was a
process carried out by an organic machine, in the end the result and the
way it was captured is just like an ink jet print."

Actually it doesn't fit the definition of what I have set out (not my own, mind you) as a photograph or photographic at all. So I'm not sure what the problem is? (for one thing, among several others, you are using the end result to define and justify the process, which is somewhat ass backwards)

"You see the problem with trying to adopt loose definitions to fit your
needs?"

which, of course, is precisly the same problem as adaopting narrow definitions to suit your needs...

Jorge Gasteazoro

10-Aug-2005, 16:39

Actually it doesn't fit the definition of what I have set out (not my own, mind you) as a photograph or photographic at all.
Ah really, so what was all those dictionary references you posted? In any case, you very conveniently sidestepped the question. What is so different from doing an ink jet poster and what I described.

which, of course, is precisely the same problem as adaopting narrow definitions to suit your needs...

2+2=4.... a narrow definition that is not open to misinterpretation. Sometimes, no strike that, most of the time narrow definitions are clearer.

but if they want to differentiate themselves from the digital photographers, they'll have to coin a term to designate their own craft, rather than trying to coin one such as pixelography, fauxtography, etc.., because this is a lost battle.

I disagree, pt/pd print is a term that has been around for a century platinum glicèe is not. It is not platinum and it does not have the same properties. It is time digital photographers stand on their own craft and designate their own terms, we dont have to we already have them. As long as they continue to try and scam people with "platinum toned chromira" there will be some of us around to call them fakes.

tim atherton

10-Aug-2005, 16:56

"Actually it doesn't fit the definition of what I have set out (not my
own, mind you) as a photograph or photographic at all.

Ah really, so what was all those dictionary references you posted? In any
case, you very conveniently sidestepped the question. What is so different
from doing an ink jet poster and what I described."

If you actually read what I said, you would note that my point was that dictironary definitions for many things are basically pointless - there's always one which fits a particular point of view and far from being narrow, accurate and clear, they are often misleading beyond the simplest of facts i.e. London: the capitol of England or 2+2=4 etc because by their nature they seek to narrow things down to the simplest common denominator. No profession or academic discipline lives by dictionary definitions.

Life and art (and photography) thankfully isn't as simple nor as simplisitc as 2+2=4, as much as some would perhaps like it to be

Jorge Gasteazoro

10-Aug-2005, 17:00

Life and art (and photography) thankfully isn't as simple nor as simplisitc as 2+2=4, as much as some would perhaps like it to be

You are correct, to some it is not. This is why some try to find meaning in photographs when there is none there. You make it as simple or difficult as you want. Seems you like the latter......then again with ever changing definitions I am not surprised.

tim atherton

10-Aug-2005, 17:01

Like it or not, outside of this forum, the world has largely moved on, and for the immense majority of the public as well as industry professionals, digital photography is photography. I understand the (justified) pride that the practitioners of film-based photography and darkroom printing have in their processes and the mastery of their craft, but if they want to differentiate themselves from the digital photographers, they'll have to coin a term to designate their own craft, rather than trying to coin one such as pixelography, fauxtography, etc.., because this is a lost battle.

which, like it or not, is the reality - wedding photographers make digital photographs, so to photojournalists and joe public with his cellphone or digicam and artists make them too. Museums collect them, even ad inkjet photographs. Aunt Flo sticks digital photographs of her nephew on the fridge.

The industry sells digital cameras and pritners to make digital photographs from

The vast majority of the poulation has no problem at all with this. Its certainly not going to change. It is here to stay. And no-one is concerned that it's "right or wrong", accurate or inacurate - it just is.

tim atherton

10-Aug-2005, 17:03

"This is why some try to find meaning
in photographs when there is none there."

You mean photographs are some kind of nul existential void...? That must be excessively dull.

Even the most banal of photographs has some kind of meaning.

Matt Powell

10-Aug-2005, 17:11

It seems to me that, even more than the old "CANON VS. NIKON" standbys, this argument (between Jorge and tim/paul) can never be solved because it isn't really about photography or photographic processes. What I'm seeing, repeatedly, are references to underlying assumptions that form each's personal/artistic ideology - underlying (unconscious, thankyou AO Lovejoy) assumptions that will probably never be changed.

I think Jorge's arguments are generally ill-considered and sometimes completely incoherent (the photos mean nothing/simple v. difficult dichotomy) and representative of a culturally/artistically conservative (if not outright reactionary) viewpoint that I don't understand at all. Likewise he'll probably never understand how anyone can be such relativistic scum, etc.

Jorge Gasteazoro

10-Aug-2005, 17:12

The vast majority of the poulation has no problem at all with this

Do tell, what population is this?

Even the most banal of photographs has some kind of meaning.

I rest my case......

David Luttmann

10-Aug-2005, 17:12

"As long as they continue to try and scam people with "platinum toned chromira" there will be some of us around to call them fakes."

Jorge,

Only those who are ignorant to digital printing, like you have said you are, have a problem with a terms like "platinum toned Chromira." What is wrong with that? Toning adds a color cast to a print....just like when silver printers use warmtone paper, or sepia tone their prints. Now what is warm? What is sepia? It's very easy to mimic the color cast present in a platinum print by using adjusted curves in seperate color channels. I know you don't understand this Jorge as you've already said your ignorant when it come to digital printing.

So, much like a warm-toned Chromira, or a sepia toned Chromira, one can produce a platinum toned Chromira print. There is nothing fake in that any more than fibre printers talking about warmtoned prints.....there is nothing warm about them....it's a color cast. The platinum tone is a color cast that you get when you print a pt/pd print.

Now I know you have a problem understanding all this Jorge and so I'll quote you again (although you have changed the topic and ignored all of our repeated requests for you to address your conflicting statements):

"This is what I dont get, even the most ignorant person about digital printing (like me)”

So please, take your own advice, said by you and not others, and stay away from things you know nothing about. And based on that, you should probably stay away from any thread that involves digital means.

Tim,

We'll probably see him change the topic again or come up with some other challenge to divert from his original highjacking of the thread, and to avoid answering to his conflicting statements.

I think I'll shut down the laptop now and start up the BBQ. I'm sure Jorge will divert the topic to sock clips or model train building or something else........

Jorge Gasteazoro

10-Aug-2005, 17:25

LOL...yeah yeah printing tech. Bottom line you are scamming people trying to make your brown color prints sound like they are something special. I dont need to know digital to know a scam when I see it.

Is there platinum in your prints? When you tone a silver print with platinum you in fact replace the silver with the platinum. But then again someone as ignorant as you in traditional photography would not know this. So tell me, where is the platinum coming from in your color prints?

Now I am sure it is your practice to remain ignorant, it is not mine. Just because in the past I stated I knew nothing about PS does not mean I have stayed that way.

In the end printing tech, I have seen your work......I know why you play word games.

tim atherton

10-Aug-2005, 17:31

"The vast majority of the poulation has no problem at all with this

Do tell, what population is this? "

All the ones listed - the millions of joe public who use their digicams, the tousands of professional photogorpahers who use theirs, all quite happily making photogorpahs

"Even the most banal of photographs has some kind of meaning.

I rest my case......"

Show me a photograph which has no meaning?

Jorge Gasteazoro

10-Aug-2005, 17:39

the millions of joe public who use their digicams,

There is an endorsement for you......

There you go.....

http://www.yesalbum.com/v001/jorge0658/Ebay/consc1.jpg

David Luttmann

10-Aug-2005, 17:40

Where's the Sepia coming from silver printers? I never talked about the chemical process. I talked about the color. Learn to read. There is nothing sepia in a sepia print. It's a color term. Just like Platinum TONED print. Notice the word TONE.

I doubt you've become an expert digital printer and learned PS in a couple of weeks since that quote was made. And as I said, you haven't seen my work (as much as you like to claim). I found the snapshots you referred to taken with a disposable camera from a reception table. Those are snap shots, not "work." But, I'm in no hurry to finish off a web site to impress the likes of you.

I'll leave all the snide comments to you. You love terms like fauxtograghy, printing tech, inkjet poster. The funny thing is, saying these things just makes you appear small, ignorant and petty. A bigger man could realize this. Others on these threads have pointed it out to you.

I'll leave you to making some more prints for the Ebay museum and Ebay gallery. As all us fauxtographers seem to be the one's selling work, it appears it's not us you need to convince, but the the poor ignorant masses with the open wallets.

Bye Jorge.

Jorge Gasteazoro

10-Aug-2005, 18:03

LOL.....Toned is a verb implying you actually toned the prints with platinum. Why dont you learn how to read and write?

Go ahead an doubt it. As I said what you are doing is not all that difficult, but it is fake.

As to e bay, hey at least I am honest and offering more than what people are paying for. I dont have to con and scam people telling them they have "platinum" toned color prints. What is the matter, calling them brown color prints is too real? Typical wedding photographer! If that is what you really are.

BTW you should look up David Michael Kennedy, he is doing wedding portraits with real pt/pd prints, you might learn something.

Jorge Gasteazoro

10-Aug-2005, 18:09

HIGH QUALITY LIMITED EDITION GICLEE PRINTS. All Giclee Prints (5 items) are now out-of -stock limited editions. These Paintings are printed on high quality canvas by the International Galleries Inc. of the USA. To be sold without frame and I've never displayed them. The paintings are in brand new condition, individually rolled in tubes. Paintings are as follows: An angel, An American Eagle, Yachts in the ocean, a landscape full of multiple colored flowers, and a small red bridge over a small stream surrounded by flowers and plants. Each print includes certificate of authenticity. For more details on dimensions, artist's name and price; please e-mail me at: rguerzo@yahoo.com Thank you and God Bless both viewers and buyers!

Here you go Tim, apparently ink jet posters in canvas are "paintings" too.....This is too funny! I suppose you are now going to tell me we will soon be seeing ink jet posters being exhibited right next to Van Gogh and Rembrandt, after all the definitions change right?

There you go printing tech, you can now call your prints paintings too.....

ROTFLMAO......

tim atherton

10-Aug-2005, 18:21

"ROTFLMAO......

--Jorge"

You seem to be having a little incontinence moment there you sound so excited by it?

Apart from the fact it doesn't seem to exist onthe inernet, I'm guessing you must take all those "enlarge your penis" emails equally seriously...? :-) And while your at it, I have $2,000,000 in a bank in Libya left by my uncle Col. Mboto - I only need $125,00 from you to help me get the full amount released....

Jorge Gasteazoro

10-Aug-2005, 18:32

LOL....why dont you e mail the guy rguerzo@yahoo.com?

This is just a typical example of the kind of things we can expect from ink jet printers......."platinum" toned color prints, paintings, watercolors.....lol.....

Why so upset Tim? what is the matter? real or not the message was posted and you have nothing to say about the changing definitions.....

I am done with you and your watercolor/carbon/platinum/painting, ink jet posters....this was just to funny and a prime example of what will happen when we abandon "narrow" definitions in favor of "culturally accepted" definitions..... lol....

David Luttmann

10-Aug-2005, 18:39

I guess it's liar afterall.....

tim atherton

10-Aug-2005, 18:42

Upset - not in the least - it's just patently ridiculous - sarcasm, wit and all that

Jorge Gasteazoro

10-Aug-2005, 18:43

More liar than a scammer selling "platinum" toned color prints? I might be a liar, but you are a liar and a thief....

Jorge Gasteazoro

10-Aug-2005, 18:44

it's just patently ridiculous -

Yes it is, but it is also what you can expect from ink jet printers in the future... ;-)

David Luttmann

10-Aug-2005, 18:52

"More liar than a scammer selling "platinum" toned color prints? I might be a liar, but you are a liar and a thief...."

The proof to your liar status is for all to see above in this thread. As to me being a liar or thief, it's just your minority opinion, circular logic, and avoidance.

Have fun Jorge.

Jorge Gasteazoro

10-Aug-2005, 18:58

What proof printing tech? you have no proof, but then I understand with your limited intelligence how it would be hard for you to understand that someone can learn PS in a month or two. In any case, everybody knows there are no "platinum" toned color prints, and your word game is clear proof of your dishonesty. Like I said, I might be a liar, but at least I am not a liar pretending not to be..... "platinum toned chormira"...lol....can you say brown color prints?

David Luttmann

10-Aug-2005, 19:05

Here's the proof yet again Jorge. You like to ignore it pretending it isn't there and hoping everyone forgets.

Jorge says,

"Well, see, you assume that I know nothing about ink jet printing or how to use Photoshop, as usual your assumption is wrong. "

But Paul, I think you're correct. Reading some of Jorge's other threads he has said the following:

“I can assure you it would take me a lot less time to learn and master PS and do an ink jet print…."

"This is what I dont get, even the most ignorant person about digital printing (like me)”

So, based on his own admission, he knows nothing about inkjet printing or PS.

You can't be both and expert and be ignorant.

So there it is again, for about the 3rd or 4th time on this thread. Do try to remember it this time Jorge so I don't have to repeat it for you again.

Brian C. Miller

10-Aug-2005, 19:09

Dave, while I think that a Chromira print is a wonderful thing, using the term "platinum toned" in this sense is just a wee bit misleading, isn't it? Wouldn't a better term be "platinum colored Chromira print" or more accurately, "colored Chromira print?" After all, the paper used is normal type C paper.

It is absolutely true that there is no cuttlefish ink in a sepia toned photograph. But it does mean is that a baths of potassium ferricyanide and sodium sulfide were used, or a different chemical process to give that color. In contrast, no additional chemical processing is applied using Fuji Crystal Archive in a Chromira machine.

The conventional term "toned," when applied to photographs, means that the paper was placed in a chemical bath and the silver particles were replaced by a different metal. There may be a color change, but also the color may not change at all and the print is still "toned." I recently spent some time with copper toning a print, and the color I desired took 40 minutes. (Next time I will use my Jobo instead of trays.) I also "toned" prints in selenium, and there was very little color change.

In the case of "platinum toned" I cannot find any reference to a platinum toning chemical solution. The best I can find is the process I am familiar with, platinum coated paper (http://photography.about.com/library/glossary/bldef_platinum.htm). If you would be so kind as to point me in the direction of a platinum toning bath solution for use with conventional photographic paper, I'd be awfully grateful to you. (I'd even send you home-roasted coffee beans! Tanzanian pea berry OK with you? I have other varieties!)

David Luttmann

10-Aug-2005, 19:16

Brian,

I would love some of that coffee. One gets tired of Illy daily.

But Brian, as I pointed out, I was referring to color. Color toning is an accepted term. It is common to have you photos sepia toned on RC paper. It is also common to refer to warm toned for the color cast present on RC printing. Much in the same way we refer to colors as Sky Blue and Forest Green in terms of what the color is, it is common to refer to toning of RC photos that have the same color casts as their analog counterparts. No one is calling it a Platinum Print. We call it a Platinum toned print.

That may not satisfy you, but is does satisfy the public and professional market in general.

Now on to more pressing matters.....I'd love some information about your coffees. Send me an email.

Cheers,

Jorge Gasteazoro

10-Aug-2005, 19:22

As I told you printing tech, in the past I knew very little about PS and ink jet printing. Since then and out of curiosity I asked a friend to teach me. Once I saw the result it confirmed my initial belief. Admitting to not knowing something is not a lie. On the other hand, calling something with a false name is clear proof of lack of honesty and deliberate deceit to try an enhance your meager abilities. You, bubba, are a liar and a crook, and it is here for all to see.

This is why out of all your bullshit and talk in the end you are afraid to post, let us see one of your pictures and take my challenge, you dont have what it takes. So lets add spineless to liar and a crook when we talk about you.

Jorge Gasteazoro

10-Aug-2005, 19:24

That may not satisfy you, but is does satisfy the public and professional market in general.

Yep those who have been conned into thinking an inferior process is "good" because it has the name "platinum" in it.....

David Luttmann

10-Aug-2005, 19:29

You didn't learn PS and inkjet printing in 2 weeks. Nice try though.

I do love how everything for you comes back to abuse and changing the topic. I presume when I post my website you'll list the magazines and galleries where your work is present like we've all asked and you've claimed?

Afterall, this should work both ways.

Jorge Gasteazoro

10-Aug-2005, 19:31

Brian, you can make a pt or pd 1% solution and tone your silver prints with it. The mechanism is one of replacement. IOW the pt or pd replace the silver in the print. This is a common practice for those who use POP , Kallitypes, Satista and or VDB. In other words any printing process that has silver can be toned with pt or pd.

Of course, this is not possible with color prints since the dyes are what make the final color image, but then it is easier to lie than learn how to do the real thing.

Jorge Gasteazoro

10-Aug-2005, 19:35

I will gladly post what magazine I have been published on and my gallery credits when you do so. Of course lets remember you have to do so as well not just post pictures.

BTW who said in two weeks? took me a couple of months to learn enough to make a print. I dont see what the big deal is, why you people claim is so difficult. But then again, knowing your bussiness practices I am not surprised you would try to lie here once more.

David Luttmann

10-Aug-2005, 19:48

Your quote was from a couple of weeks ago, not months.....so therefore, you said two weeks. Nice try.....again.

And I agree, you asked me to post my photos, via web site. You have said you'd post your gallery and magazine references. Of course I assume you'll now try to reneg in a panic as we all assume there are no references. But as I said, when I get back from our cottage in a few weeks, I'll be finishing off our site.

I greatly anticipate seeing your gallery postings and magazine references.

Jorge Gasteazoro

10-Aug-2005, 19:57

LOL....you keep trying but in the end I am not calling my prints "platinum" when they are not. I think it is clear who is the liar and crook.

Why should I panic? I have prints to show, you are the one who keeps coming up with excuses. I have never said I will post them, this is you once again trying to make a lie true by repeating it. Much like your prints. But then now I am saying it, I will post them when you post your credits too...not just pictures on a web site we dont know are yours, given your propensity to lie.

David Luttmann

10-Aug-2005, 20:03

Thanks for backing out like I new you would. LOL. Kind of hard to reference galleries and magazines that I guess just don't exist.

I however will finish our website so my clients can view samples without me providing CDs on a regular basis, or emailing PS Web Gallery slide shows.

Jorge Gasteazoro

10-Aug-2005, 20:11

Who is backing up? did you learn how to read? I said I will post them as soon as you post what magazines you have been published in and what solo shows you have had. Here is a preview for you liar.

Black & White Photography Issue 26, October 2003 pages 20 and 21.

How about you, do you have at least a picture to post in this forum? Or are you once again comming up with an excuse? What is it this time? last time you claim you were a photographer but when asked to prove it you had to go and "see" what you could post. Keep it up, who is the liar is starting to become more and more clear the more you keep posting.

paulr

10-Aug-2005, 20:14

I understand why "platinum-toned chromira print" could seem misleading to some people. It could imply that that platinum is used to tone the print, which is not the case. Personally, I don't begrudge ink manufacturers (or whoever) for using these terms when selling products to photographers, because the users of the product know what's going on, and terms like "platinum" and "sepia" and "selenium" are descriptive terms which tell experienced photographers what kind of color to expect. But personally, I wouldn't label my work as "platinum giclee" or whatever, becuase I don't want to mislead anyone, and I don't want to sound pompous (outside of ths forum, of course).

However, misleading terminology in photographic products is nothing new. One example I can think of is the Berg Toners. They make a "gold toner" which is just a dye coupling toner for silver prints. There's no gold involved. And the color fades if you blink at it. There are many other confusing terms, some of which have been around a long time, and many of which are associated with brand names.

Jorge Gasteazoro

10-Aug-2005, 20:25

However, misleading terminology in photographic products is nothing new. One example I can think of is the Berg Toners. They make a "gold toner" which is just a dye coupling toner for silver prints. There's no gold involved.

So two wrongs make a right paul? As a matter of fact I never saw anybody who was serious about their work use Berg gold toner or any of their toners for that matter and certainly I never saw anybody presenting an exhibition who qualified their prints as gold toned and had used Berg.

I would expect better from the people who are supposed to be in the pinnacle of ink jet printing than to use this as an excuse to scam people. Oh, ups I mispoke, certainly the printing tech is not at the pinnacle of anything.....but I guess you get my meaning.

Jeremy Moore

10-Aug-2005, 20:26

"I was referring to color. Color toning is an accepted term. It is common to have you photos sepia toned on RC paper. It is also common to refer to warm toned for the color cast present on RC printing."

Yes, it is common to tone (verb) your prints in Sepia actually changing the physical make-up of the print. Yes, this is done on both fiber and RC prints. Yes, it is also common to refer to warmtone prints on RC paper--i.e. This image printed on Ilford Warmtone Multigrade IV RC Photographic Paper. BUT, these warmtone images printed on warmtone paper are NOT called sepia-toned photographs. Color toning is not commonly accepted. Even when you blue tone a silver gelatin print you are changing the physical characteristics of the final physical construct. With inkjets you are using cartridge #3 instead of #4, this is definitely NOT the same thing. Just as a painter would not refer to their painting based on the color pallette they used I do not understand why an inkjet printer would want to do so. Do you refer to your color prints as "Polyphonic Color Chromira Prints" or "Rainbow Color Chromira Prints?" No, that would be absurd, just as saying that you toned it "platinum" is absurd. You did not tone ("tone" here implying changing the color hues on the monitor and NOT the a chemical change in the physical print, which is how it is used in analog photography) it the color of platinum, you toned it in imitation of a platinum print--this is a very different thing. This I have a problem with, now I do not have a problem with "Carbon Pigment Inkjet Print" if the actual pigments used are carbon.

Jorge Gasteazoro

10-Aug-2005, 20:29

or using these terms when selling products to photographers, because the users of the product know what's going on,

I forgot, yes the photographers might, but not the buying public. I dont want anybody who buys a "platinum glicèe" and then it fades in two years to think all platinum prints are like this. You know very well what is going to stick in their minds is "platinum print".

As to "platinum toned chromira" there is not such thing, it is a brownish color print, not even close to the tone of a pt/pd print.

Jeremy Moore

10-Aug-2005, 20:30

I apologize as I made a mistake which could be misconstrued (oh, was that so hard, to admit a mistake?) as something different than I meant.

In my first sentence I said:

Yes, it is common to tone (verb) your prints in Sepia actually changing the physical make-up of the print.

when I meant to type:

Yes, it is common to tone (verb) your prints in Sepia TONER actually changing the physical make-up of the print.

Sepia Toner, commonly accepted as a 2 bath system involving (as previously mentioned above) Kferricyanide and Nasulfide

paulr

10-Aug-2005, 20:39

"So two wrongs make a right paul? "

do you really think that was my point? I don't know if you realize you're doing this, but you treat all the people who happen to use this one process as if they hold the same beliefs, said the same things, and work the same ways.

I'm not excusing anyone for using misleading labels. But I'm also pointing out that one person using mileading labels doesn't imply that everyone else using the same process behaves the same way. Or that people printing in ink invented misleading labels.

There also seems to be an assumption that because I use a digital printing process for some of my work that I love and defend all people using digital anything, and that I resent and despise all things traditional and analog. I'll let you think about that for a minute and decide if either is likely to be true.

Jorge Gasteazoro

10-Aug-2005, 20:54

paul, what are you complaining about? I too am qualified as a digital hater when this is further from the truth.

I have no problem with people who choose to print in ink jet. As a matter of fact one of the persons I like and respect the most in this forum is Brian Ellis. But the reason I respect him is because he does not get involved in the myth making, misdirection and BS I so often see.

do you really think that was my point? I don't know if you realize you're doing this, but you treat all the people who happen to use this one process as if they hold the same beliefs, said the same things, and work the same ways.

Arent you guilty of the same thing? If you dont beleive this way why are you still here in this flame war? I would have thought that if you were indifferent then you would have just chalk it all up to silliness and would have ignore it.

David Luttmann

10-Aug-2005, 20:56

"Color toning is not commonly accepted"

Sorry Jeremy, but googling Platinum Toned Digital Prints came up with 267,000 hits. Sepia toned digital prints came up with 120,000. The few dozen pages I just looked at discussed how to achieve the sepia or platinum looks on Lightjet, Chromira, Inkjet, etc, etc, by digital means, and referred to them as Sepia toned or platinum toned.

Looks to be more common than you thought.

Jorge Gasteazoro

10-Aug-2005, 20:56

hmmm....silence form the lying printing tech...wonder why that is? What is the matter, no pictures that are yours?

Jorge Gasteazoro

10-Aug-2005, 21:00

Yep, and they are all fake.....platinum toned ink jet poster...lol.....talk about trying to ride the coat tails of an stablished process! but then the "final product is what matters"...yeah right!

paulr

10-Aug-2005, 21:01

I'm ducking out of this slugfest to work on some prints.

As a farewell, I'm going to let some curators chime in with their answers to the question of how to define photography in the digital era. I've posted a couple of these passages before, but they seem just as relevent to this thread. You can agree or disagree--either way, it's interesting to see what some of the viewpoints are up at the top.

I'm not posting these because they support MY opinion--these are simply expressions of the prevailing opinions in the curatorial world that, for whatever reason, some of us like to pretend don't exist.

Peter Galassi
Chief Curator of Photography, The Museum of Modern Art, New York City:

What does the term "photography" mean? That may be the most interesting question you've asked

When we see an image however degraded by halftone, silk-screen or xerox, when we feel it has a photographic origin, we deal with it as photography It may be that that quality is becoming dissolved. Once it becomes possible to invent images in no way distinguishable from photographs that feeling may evaporate It may be disappearing Even the sense of it as a feeling may go away

There has been a lot of moaning and groaning from the photojournalist community about the loss of truth in photography but, then the photograph has always been subject to manipulation. Look at the Stalin era photographs where unwanted people were regularly retouched out of photographs. Or, the decision of a photographer to only draw a frame around two people in a group of four when taking a picture. The photograph is an edited thing from the beginning

I'm not interested in maintaining a status for photographs that seems fictional from the first.

Merry Forresta
Senior. Curator, National Museum of American Art, Washington D.C :

Photography, as we now think of photography, is probably headed where it always was. There will always be photographic prints made with cameras and shown and used much as they are now. But I think what will happen to photography as a force is that perhaps the noun will change into an adjective. I think that we're headed much more to a world in which we will talk about the "photographic" aspects of things, the qualities that photography originally brought to the visual world: the ability to reproducce with some accuracy, some representation of truth, the flexibility of a medium that could at once hinge its information to art or science or its use as documents in history or to cvreate history. That element of the photographic will be transferred into perhaps a more electronic format.

Andy Grundberg
Director, The Friends of Photograhy, San Francisco:

I guess that the question you're asking is where do we draw the boundary line between what we know and we're comfortable with, which we call photography, and some other kind of representation which is going to look like photography but not be generated in any way that we now understand lens-based representation to be. Sure. An object like that would belong on our walls because we are particularly interested in the boundaries of photography and where it slops over and gets impinged on by things outside of the medium itself.

We're more interested in being at the boundaries of the medium than feeling safe and secure that we actually know what photography is so we don't have to ask ourselves questions about it all the time.

Personally, I feel that it's more interesting to not try draw a hard and fast boundary between photography and the rest of representation, the rest of the visual world because what's always interesting about photography -- even long before electronic imaging came along -- is that it never fit neatly into any kind of container that you could erect.

There's a whole kind of 20th Century, neo-modernist attempt to kind of define photography. I grew thinking that there was medium called photography and that there was a field called photography and there were people that that were kind of arrayed in this field. Now, I think what has happened is that the arbitrariness of that construction has been laid bare. Now, it doesn't have to do with technololgy.

Rod Slemmons
Associate Curator of Photography, Seattle Art Museum, Seattle:

Lee Friedlander just sent me some brand new pictures that he made in the desert in Mexico and the Southwest. When I first saw them I thought they were drawings . He has removed some "photographicness" (sic.) from the photographs So ,it's not sufficient to say that all photographs are photographic. There are other things that can be photographic too.

There's the "photographic" which is this big circle and then within that are photographs. But maybe photographs actually should be on the edge of that circle 'cause you can probably name some photographs, too, that have non-photographic elements to them. But photographicness is pretty interesting to think about because, actually, there was photographicness during the Renaissnce, you know ...

I think of one of Durer's pictures of a saints. In the foreground there are these dogs kind of just sitting around, looking around; nothing's happening. That seems very photographic to me because that's incidental, ancillary information that may or may not have any allegorical or analogical connection to the rest of the picture. It's just in there to fill out the experience. Rembrandt did that constantly, there's always a dog in the corner. Where other pictures are pretty much subject-oriented, photographs have in them whole areas in them that are kind of just "extra."

Sarah Greenough
Curator of Photography, National Gallery of Art, Washington D.C. :

Silver-based imagery that we've come to know and to love is probably rapidly disappearing before our very eyes. But it also reminded me too that at the 50th anniversary of the announcement of the process of photography [in 1889], the medium was alo going through another major, major, dramatic change as the dry plate era, in effect, came to an end at that time. More and more photographers stopped using wet plates and, instead, turned to the new gelatin processes. And, that had a profound impact. Certainly digitization is going to have a [similar] major impact on the field.

Paul Butzi

10-Aug-2005, 21:01

...lying printing tech...

Ah. I see that Jorge has descended to his natural level again - that is, insulting people.

Jorge Gasteazoro

10-Aug-2005, 21:08

I guess it's liar afterall.....

Ah, and I suppose this was a compliment for the lying printing tech huh Butzi? Might be my natural level but you seem to be even lower when you love to dish it out but cant take some of your own medicine.

Jeremy Moore

10-Aug-2005, 21:27

"Sorry Jeremy, but googling Platinum Toned Digital Prints came up with 267,000 hits. Sepia toned digital prints came up with 120,000. The few dozen pages I just looked at discussed how to achieve the sepia or platinum looks on Lightjet, Chromira, Inkjet, etc, etc, by digital means, and referred to them as Sepia toned or platinum toned.

Looks to be more common than you thought."

I'm curious to know what Google you are using as I just googled "Platinum Toned Digital Prints" and it came up with zero results. Then I went back and searched for "Platinum Toned" which pulled up 1,660 responses the majority being metalsmithing and analog photography--in the first 60 responses 3 had to do with digital "toning"

Here was my search:
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Platinum+Toned%22&hl=en&hs=ObN&lr=&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&start=0&sa=N

It needs to be placed in quotes otherwise you will end up pulling every page that has platinum, toned, digital, and prints in any order which is NOT what we are looking for (and most of the time not all 4).

Can you give me a link to your search? Finally, these are still just "toning" the inkjet as a pale imitation of the color of a pt/pd print. If you want it to look like a pt/pd print why not just print it in pt/pd? Finally, it was even agreed by paulr that the mislabelling needs to stop so why not call it a "platinum colorized inkjet" if need be, but I still don't know why even this needs to be done.

Brian C. Miller

10-Aug-2005, 22:33

I got 36,300 hits for Platinum Toned Digital Prints Google search (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Platinum+Toned+Digital+Prints&btnG=Google+Search). The first hit is for a Photoshop plugin to color a print to simulate toning.

Hey, the second hit is for Paul Butzi! Hey, Paul! Good show with Google! :-)

Dave, if you had spent a bit of time Googling, you could have had a pound of free coffee for finding the Bostick and Sullivan alternative process kits (http://www.bostick-sullivan.com/main/alt_kits_page.htm) page. (I used this Google search (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=Platinum+toning+solution&btnG=Search)) I don't roast coffee commercially, I do it in my kitchen with a Caffe Rosto (http://www.coffeeproject.com/roasters/cafferosto.html) roaster. I see that the Hearthware roaster is back again, and I would recommend that unit for home roasting. Don't buy the Alpenrost, it's a Frankenstein monster created from mating a Teddy Ruxpin with a toaster oven. If you want Kona beans, buy them from the Kauai Coffee Company (http://www.ecware.com/ECscripts/ECware.exe/dcp?id=021&category=Coffee+%2D+Green+Beans&type=A1QN10&lc=EN). Sweet Maria's (http://www.sweetmarias.com/) also has some good deals.

David Luttmann

10-Aug-2005, 22:38

Thanx for the coffe info Brian. I'll check the links. Been meaning to get into roasting my own beans.

Over and out.

Jorge Gasteazoro

10-Aug-2005, 22:48

Ah yes, trypical ink jet printing lying......seems to be a common ground. Here is what Cone has to say about pt/pd printing:

"Traditional platinum printing requires great skill, exposure to toxic materials, and enormous expense. To produce a traditional platinum edition is an expensive and laborious process. Also, large format traditional platinum prints are no longer being made due to the withdrawal of specially prepared large format films and papers by the specialty vendors. With DigitalPlatinum Giclée weÌre not only able to produce as beautiful a process as the traditional way, but we can print up to 35" x 47" on a wide variety of art papers, and do it on-demand. I believe that we have made a new digital medium available to a large segment of the photographic community, which was unable to take advantage of traditional platinum printing because it proved too expensive to be practical."

Yep, there are no more films, too toxic, too difficult, and of course why use skill when you can just monkey around with PS and press the button?....sounds about right.

Funny thing the inks are almost as expensive as pt/pd and of course no where near the same quality. I wonder how much platinum is mixed in his inks?

Struan Gray

11-Aug-2005, 01:32

physics has advanced just a tad since Bell.

Care to say how? I personally languish in ignorance.

Pascal Quint

11-Aug-2005, 10:06

http://www.yesalbum.com/v001/jorge0658/Ebay/consc1.jpg

a photograph that is dull, yes certainly, but not without signification or meaning.
Even its very simplistic compositions speaks of the sort of 19th century
amateur and is of the sort that is favoured by the camera club salon even
today. The setting invokes a pride in the colonial, even though decayed. The
use of light and shadow follows the rules of the academies, but without
inspiration. The frontal and symmetrical nature is an attempt to move from
those formal rules of composition but also fails from the imagination. The
meaning is in both what it plainly shows yet also what it tries to say, even
when it fails.

Even if a photograph is boring apparently, it is still saying something over
this the photographer have no control. But perhaps, like in the quantum, the
information a photograph contains can be negative information and so, after
looking at it you leave knowing less than you did before? There are many on
photo.net

Jorge Gasteazoro

11-Aug-2005, 11:08

LOL

Brian Ellis

11-Aug-2005, 11:35

Jeremy - I'm sure you realize what these guys are doing with their Google searches. Brian Miller did an "all word" search." So if you use his link you'll see that he gets a hit on anything that contains all four words without regard to subject matter. For example, his second hit is an article on traditional kallitype printing. It has nothing to do with digital prints. But he got a hit because the author also refers to making enlarged "digital" negatives. His eighth hit is to a long string of separate messages some of them dealing with "prints," some with "digital," some with "toned." I'm not sure any of them deal with making platinum toned digital prints but since the whole string taken together includes all four words he got a hit.

Dave Luttman is even worse. He doesn't provide a link to his seach so we don't know exactly how it was done but given the difference in the number of his hits compared to Brian's it looks like he just did an "any word" search, i.e. he got a hit on anything that contained any one of his words. Since all of the words are fairly common he got a lot of hits.

When I do an exact phrase search I get no hits on "platinum toned digital prints" and 3 hits on "sepia toned digital prints." So much for how common these phrases are.

I have no problem at all with calling a sepia toned ink jet print a sepia toned print. Photographers have been coloring prints with all sorts of materials - crayons, pencils, oils, chalks, you name it - since the advent of photography. The phrase "sepia toned digital print" simply says how the print was made and what its color is. The fact that the color was applied by ink rather than a wet chemical doesn't seem to me to make it any less "sepia toned." I think that calling an ink jet print a "platinum" print or a "carbon" print or anything like that is highly misleading and completely wrong because these terms have traditionally referred to entire processes, not just to the color of the print.

Brian C. Miller

11-Aug-2005, 13:26

Well, try this "platinum tone" print inkjet OR giclee OR chromira Google search (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=%22platinum+tone%22+print+inkjet+OR+giclee+OR+chromira&btnG=Search) instead. Using "platinum toned" comes up with less, but there may be one relevant hit. Fine Art Photography 4 U (http://www.fineartphotography4u.com/options.htm) doesn't say "platinum toned" but the link to it did say that. His page only says that they have a warm tone, like platinum prints.

I really miss the AltaVista advanced search with the Boolean specification.

Anyways, there's 19 hits shown, and the first two are for inkjet ink. I can't find a hit for a photographer selling his wares as "platinum tone" or "platinum toned." However if you you are looking for jewelry then there is "platinum tone" silver.

Brian C. Miller

11-Aug-2005, 13:47

Wait, Fine Art Photography 4 U has the info on a different page:

The photographs are presented here in Warm Tone Platinum, my personal favorite, but if you prefer, they are all also available in Neutral Tone as well. Please see elsewhere on this site for a comparison.

All prints are signed and produced from high resolution digital scans of camera film. Prints are produced on archival quality semi gloss paper, using the finest carbon pigment and or pigment based inks. Please see "ORDER DETAILS" for more information.

I tried a different Google search, but I'm still not getting hits for inkjet prints being platinum toned. The above site does make it known that the prints are ink, though.

Jeremy Moore

11-Aug-2005, 16:08

Wow some people really are idiots. First off, platinum the metal is not warm toned; I just did some electroplating with it today and it wasn't "warm tone" at all. So "Fine Art Photography 4 U" is only colorizing his prints as a pale imitation of an analog product and not coloring them platinum. Finally, the addition of platinum to a pt/pd print in a higher ratio than pd actually COOLS the image color. It it through a higher pd ratio and usually hot potassium oxalate developer that the image is warmed up--wow, they could at least get what they are copying correct.

Brian Ellis, I have to respectfully disagree. Calling a photographic (B&W fiber print toned in a 2-bath sepia toner) sepia toned print "Sepia Toned" denotes how the image was made (implying a physical difference in the print from an untoned print) and not the color--you can sepia tone it and the image still not be warmtone (on a cold paper for instance). "Sepia Toned Inkjet Print" is a misapplication because only Inkjet Print is needed to say what the process is--inkjet printer on paper. I have never heard a painter call his paintings for example "Cobalt Blue Oil Painting." And if you really want to say what the color is why don't you just you call it "Red (0,0); (63, 75); (127, 129); (191, 193); (255, 255) Blue (0,0); (63, 51); (127, 112); (191, 176); (255, 255) Inkjet Print" which is the curve adjustments I use for most of my warmtone prints or maybe "PANTONE Warm Gray 11 C Inkjet Print" which is one of the Photoshop duotones for warmtone. Instead these digital printers are trying to fraudulently play off of the respect and appreciation given to platinum prints while I believe that 90+% of those calling their prints "Platinum Toned" or "Sepia Toned" have never seen an actual, professionally made platinum print or sepia toned fiber print and 99.9% have never made one themselves. Finally, the cusp of this is that they are playing on the ignorance of the populace at large--I never see any of them referring to a blue toned print as "Gold Toned" as this would just fly back in their faces.

paulr

11-Aug-2005, 16:46

Jeremy, following your logic, it's actually fraudulent to call a silver print Sepia Toned, because in the strictest sense of the original definition it is not. Sepia is a melanin-based pigment prepared from cuttlefish; it was used originally to give a warm brown tint to water color paints and (ironically ...) ink. There is no sepia in a sepia toned silver print ... only siver sulfide.

Personally, I think it's fine to call the silver print sepia toned, because the word sepia became attached to the color, which was more important in people's minds than the process by which it was once created. In photography words like sepia and selenium have become descriptors of a visual effect as much as of a chemical process. In some cases the original meaning is lost completely (as with sepia) and the word becomes attributed to a new way of achieving a certain effect.

I don't think most non-photographers have any idea what sepia or selenium actually means, so I don't see how those words are going to give them false expectations. Those that do know the meanings are going to be educated enough to know that there are no selenium ions in an inkjet print ... just as i know that there is no cuttlefish melanin in a silver print.

paulr

11-Aug-2005, 17:00

I want to add an opinion ... misleading, fraudulent, or not, it's always struck me as amatuerish to use non-standard names (or brand names, unless they become nearly universal, like Polaroid) to describe your process or medium. There's a lot of confusion over inkjets because they're relatively new, and because there are so many different kinds (different types of machine, different types of paper, different types of ink, etc ...). People want to differentiate them from each other, and of course to differentiate them from the throwaway prints that come out of their mom's desktop printer.

I've had an eye on what museums are calling them, because they tend to work towards some kind of standard. I've seen Iris Print and Giclee used, but mostly for prints made a long time ago on those early machines. Newer ones I see being called Inkjet Prints or Digital Pigment Prints. I haven't yet seen any monochrome inkjet prints hanging in a museum, so I don't know what those are being called. I'm calling mine Carbon Pigment Ink Prints. Some people are calling them Piezographs, after the brand of the ink, but I think that's goofy.

Brian Ellis

11-Aug-2005, 21:26

Jeremy - I guess we'll just have to respectfully disagree. I understand that chemical changes take place with a two-bath sepia toner. Of course IIRC correctly there also are, or were, single bath sepia toners. I believe Berg's sepia toner was a single bath process for example. But apart from the method used to tone, I really think it's being hyper-technical to say a print becomes a "sepia toned" print because it's been bleached and redeveloped rather than because of its color. I think anyone who hasn't been heavily involved in darkroom work thinks of the color of the print when he or she hears it's "sepia toned," not to the bleaching and redevelopment process used to make it.

I'm sure eventually all these kinds of problems will be resolved and there will be standard terms for the various types of digital prints. I participate in a black and white digital printing group and there have been many discussions there about what to call different kinds of digital prints. I'm sure it would come as a surprise to those here who seem to think everyone printing digitally is trying to mislead people by applying traditional terms to digital prints but I don't know any digital printer who is trying to do that. Lengthy discussions among digital printers take place over terminology for just the opposite reason, i.e. most of them are looking for terms that are not misleading but that at the same time make it clear the print wasn't just run off on the office HP printer.

Jorge Gasteazoro

11-Aug-2005, 22:21

I participate in a black and white digital printing group and there have been many discussions there about what to call different kinds of digital prints.

So what do you guys settled on calling them? I am not trying to start another flame, I am just glad to see a group working towards this end and having digital stand on its own. I thought digital pigment print was a good name. It is descriptive, sounds good and you dont really need to give it a "color" .

Brian Ellis

12-Aug-2005, 09:12

Jorge - I don't think there was any common agreement except that everybody thought the term "giclee" was ridiculous. Of course even if there had been an agreement within this group it wouldn't matter too much because the group is comprised of only a small fraction of the number of people printing digitally.

I don't pay too much attention to these nomenclature arguments. I just call my prints "ink jet prints" and let it go at that. My hope (not necessarily my expectation : - )) is that the technical and aesthetic qualities of the print by themselves will be sufficient to make it clear the print wasn't just whipped out on a desktop printer. If a common understanding for the proper terminology is reached, as I think it will be some day, I'll start using that as long as it isn't misleading.

paulr

12-Aug-2005, 10:11

just curious ... does anyone know where "giclee" come from originally? was it a brand name like Iris? (and yes, I know the french slang. ha ha.)

Robert Skeoch

13-Aug-2005, 11:17

Boy, I was away working for a week and came back to find everyone having so much fun. Next time I'll have to take my notebook so I don't miss all the action.
-Rob Skeoch

Paddy Quinn

15-Aug-2005, 11:52

I wonder, how is everyone on this list communicating? Are you "typing" your messages on the list. I sincerely hope not.

What? with no typewriter, no "type" embossing a real inked image on paper? Just electrons on a screen from a keyboard. Surely that isn't typing? Why hijack a perfectly good word from an honorable and noble tradtion and use for this fauxtyping stuff (or is it fauxwriting?).

And if you aren't typing, what are you doing?

(with acknowledgements to Brooks Jensen who sounds like he has been lurking on here...)

CXC

15-Aug-2005, 14:26

Who is this "Jorge" jerk and why does anyone bother responding to him?

Jorge Gasteazoro

15-Aug-2005, 14:46

That would be me, and I guess anybody that would bother to respond to the CXC jerk would bother responding to me....

Paddy Quinn

15-Aug-2005, 14:55

Who is this "Jorge" jerk and why does anyone bother responding to him?

He has quite a reputation that extends far beyond this small list. Certain aspects of his character and mindset are subject to comment and commentary on at least half a dozen or so lists that I know of.

Jorge Gasteazoro

15-Aug-2005, 15:08

LOL...half a dozen? funny since I only frequent the LF forum and APUG, and maybe once in a while the google rec. site. But then any reputation is better than no reputation......much like you Paddy.

Paddy Quinn

15-Aug-2005, 15:36

Once again your reputation for not accurately reading a post shows itself. I did not say you were on that many lists , I said your (lets charitably say - somewhat negative) reputation is a subject of comment on that many photography lists

RichSBV

15-Aug-2005, 16:01

Hey Jorge, you're _Famous_!!! :-()

Jorge Gasteazoro

15-Aug-2005, 16:44

Yeah Rich, I am sure my reputation among digiheads is very negative, I wouldnt have it any other way... :-))

Paddy Quinn

15-Aug-2005, 16:48

none specifically digital - some very died in the wool analogue in fact - rollei users and such

Jorge Gasteazoro

15-Aug-2005, 17:44

Rollei users? that is a new one, given that I have never even been involved with rollei in any way. Dont have one of their cameras and have no opinion about them....who cares anyhow? What you and your buddies have to say about me is one of the few million things I dont give a rat's ass about.... ;-)

paulr

15-Aug-2005, 18:10

"I wonder, how is everyone on this list communicating? Are you "typing" your messages on the list. I sincerely hope not."

Type is a great example of technologies that have changed over the years while keeping much of the same terminology. When you set digital type, you refer to line spacing as "leading" (rhymes with bedding). This refers to the strips of lead that were manually placed between rows of lead type in hand-set letterpress. The term stuck around after the late 19th century when the linotype machine took over setting most of the type; it stuck around after the 1960s when type whas being set photomechanically; and it stuck around after the 80s, when most of the type started to be set digitally.

No one's actually trying to fool anyone into thinking they use strips of lead when they design a page of type. In fact, a lot of designers don't even know the origin of the word. But for whatever reason, the word has stuck around. A lot like "sepia."

Jorge Gasteazoro

15-Aug-2005, 20:18

Yep, it is also a good example of two minute sound bites that sound clever but rarely are throughly thought out.

For one the content of a novel or writing does not depend on what it was written on. As much as you would like us to believe the process does not matter, the content if a photograph is greatly affected by the process or in what was "written" on.

While I am sure yo would like photography to be replaced by digital imaging and ink jet prints asap, it has not happened yet, nor do I think it will happen in the near future, so until that happens this is a moot argument.

This type of arguments on the surface appear clever but rarely can stand to a little bit of thought. In the end this is no surprise, while Jensen pays lip service to the "art" of photography, it is clear his intent is the advancement of digital imaging over traditional photography if one is to judge by his ever increasing blogs about digital.

Thankfully there are other magazines out there which are fully impartial.

Paddy Quinn

15-Aug-2005, 21:42

Jorge Gasteazoro

15-Aug-2005, 21:58

A meaningful (or however you want to describe/define it) photograph may be affected by the process, occasionally it may be substantially affected by the process, but it almost never depends on it and the impact it has on the content is rarely so important as to make the process paramount.

This is your opinion, to which I disagree. But then if the process is not that important, why do you need more control with PS? Nobody said the process should be paramount, but it is an integral part of a good print. Clearly to you it does not matter if a painter chooses watercolor or oils, it is all the same, right?

This once more is an old topic. You posted what you thought was a clever analogy by Jensen and it is clearly not so. I know you wish ink jet posters had replaced real photographs already, but it has not happened, so the typewriter example is foolish.

I doubt digital imaging will ever replace photography, I think there will always be some people practicing the old way, I know I still have a few decades to go......so till then there will be at least one person doing the real thing.

Paddy Quinn

15-Aug-2005, 22:22

Clearly to you it does not matter if a painter chooses watercolor or oils, it is all the same, right?

simply an innacurate analogy - for one thing the painter is working on a single original piece, whereas the darkroom printer is only making a translation from the original negative

I know you wish ink jet posters had replaced real photographs

it must take quite a level of arrogance to think you know what someone wishes or thinks. All the more foolish when you are completely wrong

Jorge Gasteazoro

15-Aug-2005, 22:36

Whether it is a translation or an original piece, the process used matters, otherwise there would not be any people doing photogravures, dagerrotypes, carbon prints etc. As I asked and you ignored, if the process does not matter, why do you need the added control of PS?

All the more foolish when you are completely wrong

If I am completely wrong why did you quote Jensen's blog here if not to insinuate that the case of digital replacing photography is at hand? At least own up to your intentions.

Paddy Quinn

16-Aug-2005, 09:07

"If I am completely wrong why did you quote Jensen's blog here if not to insinuate that the case of digital replacing photography is at hand? At least own up to your intentions."

that is quite the reek of paranoia in this and your last post - and yes, you couldn't be more wrong. You apparently continually misread what you believe peoples intentions to be in this regard (I believe Paulr has also indicated this?). It is certainly so in my case. Not only do you misread my intentions or what I think about this, your assumptions are so far out that it's laughable.

Mostly, I enjoy traditional photography and I also happen to value some of the tools and approaches available in digital photography as well. But I neither feel threatened by one nor am I fearful about the loss or disappearance of the other.(and for your information, I've spent the last two weeks making darkroom contact prints - nary a touch of digital anywhere - in fact I don't even own a digital camera)

Jorge Gasteazoro

16-Aug-2005, 09:30

Mostly, I enjoy traditional photography and I also happen to value some of the tools and approaches available in digital photography as well. But I neither feel threatened by one nor am I fearful about the loss or disappearance of the other

Yeah, yeah. It is always the same response. So then, what was the purpose of quoting Jensen? Because you thought it was clever? Bceause you thought no one would have a come back so you can call your ink jet posters "carbon prints?"

As to my misreading, is it this really the case? or is it that you dont like it when I read your intentions as well as what you wrote? You and the lying printing tech have something in common. When you run out of arguments you start trying to change the subject an make it about me, I have cirular logic, I misinterpret, I am paranoid, etc, etc.

It figures......you and the lying printing tech must be neighboors, you both live in Canada dont you?

Paddy Quinn

16-Aug-2005, 09:44

sad sad ramblings from south of the border

Jorge Gasteazoro

16-Aug-2005, 09:53

pathetic ramblings from north of the border....

David Luttmann

16-Aug-2005, 10:21

Gotta love it Paddy. We all prove Jorge wasn't telling the truth by using his own quotes against him....and he calls me a liar. Hilarious. Of course, that was quite a few screens up and thus he'll probably once again claim no such quote exists and we'll have to remind him yet again. Of course he thinks calling me a printing tech upsets me when it fact it makes him look stupid. Calling them inkjet "posters" makes him look stupid. Trying to tell everyone how pigment ink fades in a couple of years ( we can show him tests proving otherwise....he can't show tests backing up his claim) makes him look stupid.

Anyway, what CXC said....

Bye for a while.

Jorge Gasteazoro

16-Aug-2005, 11:29

we can show him tests proving otherwise....he can't show tests backing up his claim

All you need to do is go back 5 years from now and ask those you conned into buying your posters how are they doing.

I am still waiting for the magazine and solo shows you promise to tell us you have been exhibited and published on. WHat is the matter? caught in the lie?

David Luttmann

17-Aug-2005, 09:54

Jorge,

I've got pigment prints that have been displayed in peoples bright living rooms for years with no fading. Numerous sites have published tests confirming longevity. You however, have an opinion and nothing more. I think I'll trust the tests completed by numerous labs over the "Opinion of Jorge."

Where exactly did I promise magazine and gallery postings? Please show me Jorge. I talked about finishing off our companies web site to display samples from new customers, services we provide, etc. Good attempt at putting words in my mouth though. That appears to be your true talent.

Bye again for today.

Jorge Gasteazoro

17-Aug-2005, 11:15

LOL....sure, sure I beleive you and I also beleive everything I read.....but you know, it is easy to prove. Put one of your ink jet posters in a window sill and let the sun shine on it for about a week and get back to me.
Yep, you talked about that but then since you wanted my gallery and publications posting I told you I would do so when you post yours. I even gave you a preview.....so let me see, you claim to be a photographer but all you can do is tell me you will "finish" a web site? That sounds like you, more scamming and conning that the real thing......

Admit it, you are a scammer, not a photographer......

paulr

17-Aug-2005, 11:33

"Put one of your ink jet posters in a window sill and let the sun shine on it for about a week and get back to me. "

I'm actually doing this now. Prints have been in the window for about 5 weeks. It's a comparitive test to satisfy my curiosity with a few materials that I had around: varnished and unvarnished carbon pigment inkjet prints, a selenium and gold toned gelatin silver print, a platinum/palladium print, and a c-print from a minilab (on kodak royal paper).

The inkjet step wedges I'm using were made with Jon Cone's portfolio black ink, which has the d-max increased by the addition of metal compounds to the darkest of the four inks. His own tests show this black to be significantly less lightfast than the pure carbon ink. The varnished one uses a UV blocking polymer acrylic. However, Cone says that the metal compounds are degraded by visible light and not UV (while the carbon is unaffected by visible light). I'd still like to see if there's any difference.

In all cases, the prints have been cut in half, and one half is sitting in a dark drawer.

This test has been purely to satisfy my own curiosity. I hesitate to post results here because I suspect anyone who's prejudices get contradicted will call me a liar.

Jorge Gasteazoro

17-Aug-2005, 13:53

If your results are showing that the ink step wedges are more light fast than a pt/pd print or a toned silver print then it should be easily reproducible. Send me a ink step wedge and I will put it against a pt/pd step wedge and a selenium toned silver step wedge. I will report reflection densities of the step wedges you send as well as those for the pt/pd and silver before the test begins and I will report reflection densities at 1 week intervals for 3 weeks. I will then send you back your step wedges along with mine. If your results are correct then they should be the same with me or anybody else.

As to the color print, I hope you are comparing a color ink jet chart to the print and not the black and white stuff.

paulr

17-Aug-2005, 15:16

"As to the color print, I hope you are comparing a color ink jet chart to the print and not the black and white stuff."

I don't have a color inkjet printer with pigment inks, so the only color print I'm looking at is the c-print. At any rate, there are so many published tests already out there comparing lightfastness of color materials. I thought it would be interesting to look at some black and white materials too (traditional and ink) since most of the studies of these seem to be about oxidation and not lightfastness.

I'm also just looking for visual changes of any kind, so I'm not too concerned about measured densities. But if you want an ink step wedge fo your own tests, I can make you one. Although right now I don't have pure carbon inks in my printer, so I'd have to send you the less archival kind.

An early conclusion (which is also supported by a conservator i spoke with, and by a certain amount of common sense): works on paper should be kept out of the sun, no matter what's on them.

Jorge Gasteazoro

17-Aug-2005, 15:32

Ok Paul, first let me say that although we might not like each other I dont think you are a dishonest person. So if your results are showing that the specific combination you are using is giving better results than a pt/pd print or a silver print, then this is something I would like to see for myself, and it is the reason I am asking for your specific combination. I could ask my friend who was showing me how to make ink jet prints to make me one, but then it would not be what you are using.

I think an experiment like this done by two people who are diametrically opposed in views would do a lot to put to rest some of the flame wars.

While I agree that works on paper should not be put on the sun, I also know that there is rare the house that is exclusively illuminated by artificial light (which is one of the many objections I have with Wilhelm studies).

I think this would be an interesting experiment, I understand you are more likely to be looking for changes in print color as well as fading and unfortunately my color densitometer is on the fritz so I could not help you with color numbers. It is up to you if you want to go ahead with this, I will gladly report the number here weekly if you want.

paulr

17-Aug-2005, 17:04

Well first let me tell you what my preliminary results look like ... and I consider these preliminary because it's been only 5 weeks in a window that gets a couple of hours of direct sun a day.

So far there are no visible changes in the silver print.

There are no visible density changes in the ink prints, although the unvarnished one is showing some scuff marks in the darkest patches (presumeably from rubbing against the window ... the ink is fragile).

There are no visible changes of any kind in the c-print (which astonishes me ... the materials must have gotten much better, because not too many years ago I saw one destroyed from a single day on a sunny window sill).

The pt/pd print is showing very interesting results. It showed changes after just a couple of days, which continued for the first three weeks. But I don't think these have anything to do with the printing process. The change is in the paper, which I believe is an Arches hot press in natural white finish. The paper seems to have been bleached white by the sun. It is now just as white as the silver print paper, and almost as white as the hahnemuhle paper. It seems to have stabilized, as I don't see any visible changes over the last 2 weeks.

While I doubt the metal image itself has been significantly effected by the sunlight, the bleaching of the paper has definitely changed the look of the print. The original image color appeared a very warm brown; now on the bleached paper it's a cooler, almost purple brown.

I suspect you'd see similar results on this and similar papers regardless of what process you used--including an ink process. So I don't think this says anything general about platinum prints other than a reminder that the paper is always something to be concerned about.

And a point my conservator friend made--that bleaching of the paper represents degradation that may well be going on in all the other papers, too, although invisibly (for now). The natural white paper might just make the degradation more obvious.

so for now, all i know for sure is not to store my prints in the window.

As far as us doing tests like these, I'm open to it, but we should get a couple of other people to participate. Right now I have a black ink that's presumed to not be lightfast (it's being used to print a book), and i don't have a color pigment printer at all. It would be nice to see pure carbon inks for b/w, and whatever is supposed to be good right now for color. It would also be interesting to see a handful of other processes, like cibachrome, carbon prints, etc.. doing something like this scientifically would be a ridiculous amount of work, but i think casual results can be interesting if you know how they were obtained.

The guy at livick.com has done a lot of these tests, in horrific full sun conditions, but he's really just done it as a resource for himself and other inkjet printers. He's not a photographer and hasn't tested any traditional photo materials as far as I know.

Paul Butzi

17-Aug-2005, 22:56

The pt/pd print is showing very interesting results. It showed changes after just a couple of days, which continued for the first three weeks. But I don't think these have anything to do with the printing process. The change is in the paper, which I believe is an Arches hot press in natural white finish. The paper seems to have been bleached white by the sun. It is now just as white as the silver print paper, and almost as white as the hahnemuhle paper. It seems to have stabilized, as I don't see any visible changes over the last 2 weeks.

Wow. Looking on the web at various places, I see that Arches Bright White is specified to be OBA free, but see nothing about plain old Arches watercolor paper. But if it were OBA's being bleached out, you'd think the paper would yellow, not get whiter. Seems strange regardless.

Last night, I spent some time looking at some pt/pd prints done by a friend of mine, on various papers. The Arches hot press and the Bergger COT 320 didn't float my boat the way the pt/pd on Fabriano Artistico did - what a lovely paper. Do the pt/pd folks obsess about paper choice the way I would if I were to print pt/pd?

Jorge Gasteazoro

18-Aug-2005, 07:31

Interesting results. I guess the greater surprise is the c print not fading.

I dont know what to tell you about the pt/pd print and paper. Given that the clearing is done many different ways it is impossible to speculate about hwat is causing this without knowign how it was processed. If it was cleared with hydrocholirc acid, chlorine, and more specifically chlorine free radicals might be the cause for bleaching the paper, since they are easily formed by the action of UV light. Who knows?

I have some carbon tissue from B&S I can make a step wedge to inlcude carbon in the test, so I guess is up to anybody else on this forum who wants to participate. I suppose we can all mail step wedges to each other so that all are processed the same way. I guess we should wait until you get the right inks in your printer, no sense on doing this with dye inks we all know are going to fade in sunlight.

Lets see if we can get this going.

tim atherton

18-Aug-2005, 08:23

Paul,

I was just reading some 600hr tests of pigment inks on a couple of papers. The baseline paper with OBA's (EEM) tended to yellow significantly somewhat. The non OBA papers obviously started off more yellow/warm and then bleached slightly before stabilising, which is a fairly standard response. The change in the non-OBA papers is to a much smaller degree than most papers with OBA's (one thing about the OBA's is there are a variety of different ways paper manufacturers do it, so it's hard to predict exactly how they are going to warm and change):

"Paper white:

In general the non-OBA papers "bleached" slightly, becoming a bit brighter
and less warm. EEM, in comparison, darkened very slightly and warmed
considerably, losing its "blueness.""

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/message/66444

these are abviously tests under artificial light:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/message/66476

paulr

18-Aug-2005, 08:47

" dont know what to tell you about the pt/pd print and paper."

I don't think there's anything to conclude from my one sample. I'm only guessing at the kind of paper .. it's a print from years ago. My guess is it will stabilize, and that over the next couple of months changes will start to become visible in the c-print and the ink print (but probably only in the darkest step on the ink step wedge). No idea if the silver print will show any changes.

You could very easily do some tests on paper stocks without wasting real prints ... just stick the paper in the sun.

"one thing about the OBA's is there are a variety of different ways paper manufacturers do it, so it's hard to predict exactly how they are going to warm and change"

It's true ... Livick got strange results in his sunlight tests. Hahnemuhle photo rag (which has OBAs) showed no yellowing after extreme amounts of exposure, while Moab Entrada (100% rag with no brightenrs) yellowed significantly. It really needs to be looked at paper by paper.

David Luttmann

18-Aug-2005, 10:26

Paulr,

The results from Hahnemuhle Photo Rag are exactly what I've obtained using carbon pigment. The C print is not a surprise.....although it was the first time I tried this. The dyes are far more stable than they used to be. Even on Fuji Crystal Archive, I've had nothing in the way of fading for many years in brightly light rooms from Lightjet 5000 output.

The pt/pd issue is a surprise. It just shows how important paper selection is, as well as learning everything about the contents and manufacture of the paper. On good paper, pt/pd should be the most stable. Carbon pigment would be the second and C prints the last. I've done this sunlight test with a carbon pigment print taped to a dining room window that receives sunlight about 6 hours a day. After one month in the summer.....there was no perceptable difference to the copy in dark storage. This just goes to show you that B&W carbon pigment tests that we read about on good paper that show results out past 100 years are probably right on the money....in spite of the howls of bias, etc, from some quarters.

Cheers,

paulr

18-Aug-2005, 11:48

Dave,

have you seen or done any lightfastness experiments with silver prints? i don't know how light would damage a silver image, but then again I don't understand how light damages carbon pigments, and yet it eventually does.

Also, silver prints give us the huge wildcard of the paper they're printed on ... whatever it is. At least with alternative processes and ink you can choose your paper. Most of my prints from the last 12 years are on Fortezo. I love that paper to death, but god only knows what those Hungarians printed it on, how long it will last in the dark, or what will happen to it in the sun.

I'm hoping to get at least some clue from the strip that's in my window now, but that's obviously only going to show so much.

"On good paper, pt/pd should be the most stable."

I would assume so too. I'm also guessing that after the paper bleaches to a certain point, there won't be further changes.

Jorge Gasteazoro

18-Aug-2005, 18:31

You could very easily do some tests on paper stocks without wasting real prints ... just stick the paper in the sun.

This would not work unless you go through the process steps. Specially with many of todays papers that have alkaline buffers. For example, the paper I use I have to first put in an acid bath to remove the sizing and be able to print, otherwise I get horrible mottling. Of course when I finish the print I before my last wash I neutralize any left over acid or clearing agent by putting it in an alkaline bath.

Struan Gray

19-Aug-2005, 00:39

A snippet: the purest paper you can buy is filter paper sold for analytical chemistry. It too goes yellow if left in sunlight - I assume the cellulose itself is breaking down in some way. That must put a limit on how long any paper will survive on display.

Parchment would be better, although it does shift to warmtone after a couple of centuries.

Oren Grad

19-Aug-2005, 06:45

Struan Gray

19-Aug-2005, 07:19

My best bet would be glasses or ceramics. They need to be protected from alkalis, but there are painted images on glass or pottery that have survived pretty well for the best part of a millenium. Pt/Pd on white celadon would have a certain cachet...

Paul Butzi

19-Aug-2005, 10:00

So if you wanted a base for monochrome imaging that was easy to handle but would survive anything short of a blowtorch, what would it be? I have a vague recollection of hearing a story, perhaps just someone's fantasy, that at some point Ilford entertained the possibility of coating a monochrome silver emulsion on the same polyester base used for Cibachrome.

I don't know anything about what Ilford's plans might have been, but Mitsubishi apparently made a B&W paper that was the same emulsion as Mitsubishi Gekko VC coated onto a voided polyester base. I was never able to get my hands on any, though.

David Luttmann

20-Aug-2005, 00:25

"I would assume so too. I'm also guessing that after the paper bleaches to a certain point, there won't be further changes."

True Paulr,

The problem that we have though in evaluating a pt/pd print is trying to judge when & if the paper has actually yellowed. That is easy in conventional silver, C or Inkjet. With prints that already exhibit a color cast, this is much more difficult. Yes, you can get out your trusty densitometer....but then again the pt/pd never had the deepest blacks to start with.

Two of the printers I use for 4x6 and proof work are the Canon i960 and Canon i9900. Even printing using these dye based printers on a paper like Ilford's RC Pearl has proven adequate for general use. 8x12 proofs that I've given people have been framed and put up in bright living rooms and kitchens, and using the same inkset as the old 9000 that I had, these have been up for in some cases nearly 4 years with no loss in density. Once again, it comes down to the papers. The RC papers for inkjet do a great job of encapsulating the inks to keep them out of harms way so to speak.

It was based on these dye ink samples that I decided to try a harsh test with pigment ink. I think there has been enough testing going on to prove pretty well that on good quality Hahnemuehle, Moab, etc, papers, and pigment color or carbon pigment for B&W, these prints will far outlast their C print counterparts and for B&W, provide generations of good viewing. Bickering over the difference of 100 years or 150 years is plain stupid.

This issue actually comes up quite often in the RAW workflow workshops I have put on. And it's not just photographers. Digital capture and image processing that I have instructed at Pearson College in Victoria mainly focussed on digital capture of astronomical targets. Yet the students were concerned that once the conventional darkroom was shut down, could they trust long term B&W archives to inkjet? It was decided that pigment ink on Moab Bright 190 paper was good to in excess of 100 years and thus fit the bill (well that & gold archival DVD for the FITs backups).

Really, this appears to be more of an issue on niche forums than it does in the real world.

Regards,