What is a Giclée print?

[Ken Grooms]

And is it any better than a Canon i9900 print with Tetenal Fine Art Glossy paper?

Edit: Also, what is the best 8x10 print from a 4x5? What type of printer?

[David A. Goldfarb]

It's vaguely vulgar in French, so whenever I see that word, I think of them as ejaculation prints.

[naturephoto1]

As David said, a vulgar French term, but it refers basically to an inkjet print.

Rich

[Brian Ellis]

From Wikipedia:

"The term—from the French verb gicler meaning "to squirt, to spray" . . . sometimes anglicized as giclee, is used to describe any high-resolution, large-format ink-jet printer output with fade-resistant dye- or pigment-based inks. . . . The word giclée was coined by Jack Duganne to represent any digital print used as fine art. Its intent was to distinguish commercial digital prints from fine art prints. . . . "

[Charles Hohenstein]

As far as I'm concerned, it's a way of deceiving people into believing that they aren't getting inkjet prints.

[tim atherton]

As far as I'm concerned, it's a way of deceiving people into believing that they aren't getting inkjet prints.

rather like a "Dye diffusion transfer print" or a "Chromogenic dye coupler print"?

[Eric_Scott]

It's vaguely vulgar in French, so whenever I see that word, I think of them as ejaculation prints.

David,

I needed a laugh this evening and you provided one for me. I'm still chuckling.:D

Eric.

[paulr]

Most of the prints you see called giclee were made in the 1990s. Back then high quality inkjet printers were very expensive and were used mostly for commercial purposes. Artists had to go to a print shop or service bureau to get inkjet prints made. Giclee became synonymous with art prints made from these expensive commercial machines. The name fell out of favor (at least in this country) when the printing technology became cheaper and more widely available.

[QT Luong]

Giclee print = Iris print. See http://www.largeformatphotography.info/digital-printing.html
Not the inkjet printer you have in your office (even if it is a 9800).

[roteague]

Giclee print = Iris print. See http://www.largeformatphotography.info/digital-printing.html
Not the inkjet printer you have in your office (even if it is a 9800).

Unfortunately, common usage now means this term applies to standard ink jet prints as well. Whether that usage is correct or not is another story.

[Bruce Watson]

And is it any better than a Canon i9900 print with Tetenal Fine Art Glossy paper?

Edit: Also, what is the best 8x10 print from a 4x5? What type of printer?

http://www.dpandi.com/DAPTTF/glossary.html#G

[Walter Calahan]

Inkjet, when someone wants to put on the airs that it is something "special".

Marketing BS.

[tim atherton]

Most of the prints you see called giclee were made in the 1990s. Back then high quality inkjet printers were very expensive and were used mostly for commercial purposes. Artists had to go to a print shop or service bureau to get inkjet prints made. Giclee became synonymous with art prints made from these expensive commercial machines. The name fell out of favor (at least in this country) when the printing technology became cheaper and more widely available.

and Giclee print = Iris print. See http://www.largeformatphotography.in...-printing.html
Not the inkjet printer you have in your office (even if it is a 9800).

that used to be the case. It's now become synonymous in a certain a type of gallery and/or print shop with (mainly) inkjet reproductions of or artists work, such as paintings - or with inkjet prints of the work or artists who work directly n digital.

The term is actually used very widely now (as humorously objectionable as the term is) - I bet if you went down to your local gallery area where the work sells in the $50 - $250 range you would see tons of giclees for sale.

I seem to recall it's main actual use in French (it's was not an everyday word) as as a veterinary term for squirt or spurt... (or ejaculate)

[robc]

What's In a Name: The Story of Giclée

One thing that became quickly apparent to the early digital pioneers was the lack of a proper name to describe the prints they were making. By the close of the 1980s, IRIS printers were installed all over the world and spinning off full-color proofs in commercial printing plants and pre-press shops. These prints were used to check color and get client approvals before starting the main print run. They definitely were not meant to last or to be displayed on anyone's walls. Most people called them "IRIS prints," or "IRIS proofs," or, more simply, "IRISes."

However, this wasn't good enough for the new digital printmakers like Maryann Doe of Harvest Productions and Jack Duganne, who was the first printmaker (after David Coons) at Nash Editions. They wanted to draw a distinction between the beautiful prints they were laboring over and the utilitarian proofs the commercial printers were cranking out. Just like artist Robert Rauschenberg did when he came up with the term "combines" for his new assemblage art, they needed a new label, or, in marketing terms, a "brand identity." The makers of digital art needed a word of their own.

And, in 1991, they got it. Duganne had to come up with a print-medium description for a mailer announcing California artist Diane Bartz' upcoming show. He wanted to stay away from words like "computer" or "digital" because of the negative connotations the art world attached to the new medium. Taking a cue from the French word for inkjet (jet d'encre), Duganne opened his pocket Larousse and searched for a word that was generic enough to cover most inkjet technologies at the time and hopefully into the future. He focused on the nozzle, which most printers used. In French, that was le gicleur. What inkjet nozzles do is spray ink, so looking up French verbs for "to spray," he found gicler, which literally means "to squirt, spurt, or spray." The feminine noun version of the verb is (la) giclée, (pronounced "zhee-clay") or "that which is sprayed or squirted." An industry moniker was born.

However, the controversy started immediately. Graham Nash and Mac Holbert had come up with "digigraph," which was close to "serigraph" and "photograph." The photographers liked that. But, the artists and printmakers doing reproductions had adopted "giclée," and the term soon became a synonym for "an art print made on an IRIS inkjet printer."

Today, "giclée" has become established with traditional media artists, and some photographers. But many photographers and other digital artists have not accepted it, using, instead, labels such as "original digital prints," "inkjet prints," "pigment prints," or "(substitute the name of your print process) prints."

For many artists, the debate over "giclée" continues. Some object to its suggestive, French slang meaning ("spurt"). Others believe it is still too closely linked to the IRIS printer or to the reproduction market. And some feel that it is just too pretentious. But, for many, the term "giclée" has become part of the printmaking landscape; a generic word, like Kleenex, that has evolved into a broader term that describes any high-quality, digitally produced, fine-art print.

One problem, of course, is that when a term becomes too broad, it loses its ability to describe a specific thing. At that point, it stops being a good marketing label and make no mistake about it, "giclée" is a marketing term. When everything is a giclée, the art world gets confused, and the process starts all over again with people coming up with new labels.

This is exactly what happened when a new group formed in 2001--the Giclée Printers Association (GPA)--and came up with its own standards and its own term: "Tru Giclée." The GPA is concerned with reproduction printing only, and its printmaker members must meet nine standards or principles in order for them (and their customers) to display the Tru Giclée logo.

In 2003, recognizing that only a small number of printmakers could meet the requirements of Tru Giclée, the GPA instituted a lower-threshold standard, "Tru Décor," which applies to the much larger decor-art market.

Others have also jumped on the giclée bandwagon with such variations as Platinum Giclée (Jonathan Penney's term for his black-and-white printmaking process), Canvas Photo Giclée (a California photo printmaking shop), and Heritage Giclée (Staples Fine Art's trademarked term for their brand of giclée printmaking).


giclée (zhee-clay) n. 1. a type of digital fine-art print. 2. Most often associated with reproductions; a giclée is a multiple print or exact copy of an original work of art that was created by conventional means (painting, drawing, etc.) and then reproduced digitally, typically via inkjet printing. First use in this context by Jack Duganne in 1991, Los Angeles, California.

[Frank Petronio]

Back in the day, you could go to Jon Cone's studio and he would make squirt prints with specially modified Iris pre-press proofers, into which he inserted a vaccum cleaner head to suck up the dust from the artist's papers. At the time Jon was a printmaker who printed editions using traditional methods. He also made a mint with a NYC gallery in the go-go 80s, so he bought this farm estate in Vermont.

Another guy, good old whats-his-name, worked with the musician Graham Nash (of Crosby, Stills and Nash), to do the same thing. I don't know who was first but the company they formed, Nash Editions, got a lot of PR from the name recogonition.

Both guys worked their asses off to perfect the process. Neither fully succeeded but I think they made some nice money. Around 97-98 there were about 100 people who started Glicee service bureaus using either Cone or Nash modified $100,000 Iris proofers and special artist's inks.

The problem was that the Iris printer was a very expensive piece of gear to maintain -- the service contract was a couple grand per month -- and folks were trying to move 300mb files around with Ethernet and Mac Quadras. It was frustrating.

I still have a Iris print from 1991 hanging in indirect light in my garage. It looks pretty damn good except for where I dinged the aluminum plate I permanently mounted it to when I slammed it into the tailgate of my car.

I also have some gliceee prints squirted onto thin rolled sheets of tin, which were then sealed and mounted onto plywood. They are 8 years old and holding up fine.

In 1995 I bought a smaller Iris that sold for $50K in 1992 for $12K. I used it for 3-4 years and then had to sell it for parts for $1500.

I don't know of anyone still running an Iris Glicee type printer except for Nash Editions. They probably have a warehouse full of parts to keep theirs going.

Even Jon Cone gave up on it. He now runs an operation called inkjetmall.com and tries to sell people expensive Epson inks for "piezography" (his branded greyscale printing process.)

[Frank Petronio]

RobC beat me -- great minds think alike ;)

[tim atherton]

I don't know of anyone still running an Iris Glicee type printer except for Nash Editions. They probably have a warehouse full of parts to keep theirs going.


I think I read an email by Nash saying they had stopped using the Iris?

[tim atherton]

http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0105/nash_interviews.htm



http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0105/nash_intro.htm

[robc]

It seems to me that in the digital age with the immeidacy of the web, anyone who tries to invent a new marketing term to try and enhance the perception of their work, is destined to failure since the derivation of the term will be `anal`ysed by all and sundry, thereby rendering it pretentious.

Just be honest and call them what they are, inkjet prints. If you try and ponce them up with pretentious names you only do yourself a diservice. (or maybe not).

[Jon Shiu]

What do you think of the term "Ultrachrome Print"? Sort of analogous to silver gelatin print, I think, but more commercial. I guess you would have to put a little trademark symbol by it.

Jon Shiu
Elk, California

[robc]

I think its a prime example of what I have just said. It's meaningless unless you are using it to specify the inkset used, which you haven't.

Photographers seem to have a problem with what they are producing and how.
Its a friggin inkjet print and the customer will understand that.
If you have a problem with the customer knowing that your image is an inkjet print then you need to ask yourself what you are about. And as long as photographers continue to dress up their work in meaningless terms their work will continue to be held in suspicion.

[tim atherton]

I think its a prime example of what I have just said. It's meaningless unless you are using it to specify the inkset used, which you haven't.

Photographers seem to have a problem with what they are producing and how.
Its a friggin inkjet print and the customer will understand that.
If you have a problem with the customer knowing that your image is an inkjet print then you need to ask yourself what you are about. And as long as photographers continue to dress up their work in meaningless terms their work will continue to be held in suspicion.

Presumably then photography will always be "under suspicion"...

what with our Daguerreotypes; Dye diffusion transfer prints, Chromogenic dye transfer prints; argyrotypes, Van Dykes, Woodburytypes, Ziatypes; oleobroms, solarplates, satistaprints and goodness knows what else

BTW - who exactly is it who regards photography as suspect?


(as I've noted elsewhere the only major problem with "inkjet" is its outdated link in too many minds with the poor and limited technology of its early days, which bear no resemblance to the products of today - rather like Ciba/Ilfochrome in reverse - where in the early days the process was established as the best thing since sliced bread - and even though it turned out not to be quite so, those early days and mythical qualities remain fixed in many minds)

Oh - and add Cibachrome/Ilfochrome to the above list. What's the difference between calling something an Ilfochrome or an Ultrachrome in terms of descriptors?

[tim atherton]

What do you think of the term "Ultrachrome Print"? Sort of analogous to silver gelatin print, I think, but more commercial. I guess you would have to put a little trademark symbol by it.

Jon Shiu
Elk, California

do people selling Ilfochrome prints put a little trademark symbol on their descriptions?

[robc]

So tell me what is the problem with calling your inkjet print an inkjet print?

What is the purpose of not calling it an inkjet print when you have pruchased an inkjet printer and printed it on that inkjet printer?

Why would you not want to call it an inkjet print?

[Sideshow Bob]

I've sold a lot of inkjet prints over the past few years and if customers ask (which is seldom), I say they are inkjet prints and explain how I print them and, IMO, the benefits of this type of print.

Gale

[roteague]

(as I've noted elsewhere the only major problem with "inkjet" is its outdated link in too many minds with the poor and limited technology of its early days,

Which is exactly the reason that people dress up their ink jet prints with a "fancy" name to disguise their origins. It isn't about the technology, how the technology has changed, or even how good the technology is. It's about motive; the motive being to convince people that a print isn't what it really is. They do this because they know that the majority of people don't consider "ink jet" to be fine art, where they do consider "silver" (or other types of prints) as fine art. Computer technology isn't considered fine art; it is something in your office or your living room - to many people.

[tim atherton]

So tell me what is the problem with calling your inkjet print an inkjet print?

What is the purpose of not calling it an inkjet print when you have pruchased an inkjet printer and printed it on that inkjet printer?

Why would you not want to call it an inkjet print?

For many, quite simply because enough people (and seen expressed more than a few times) still associate "inkjet" with the technology of 10 or so years ago - with primative machines, poor inks and poor papers - where a cheap print could indeed fade in a few weeks.

Even though the technology and materials have changed almost beyond to the point where modern colour inkjet prints, for example will probably far outlast a modern "wet" C-Print or Ilfochrome

(In addition how many mainstream photographic processes are named after the technology that produces them rather than the materials/processes used?)

Personally I'm fine with Ink Print - if it's good enough for John Szarkowski, it's good enough for me.

Finally, why don't users of Ilfochrome materials call their works Silver Dye Bleach Prints?

[roteague]

Finally, why don't users of Ilfochrome materials call their works Silver Dye Bleach Prints?

Because the term Ilfochrome has decades of history in the minds of fine art print collectors and other photography lovers. You can't say the same thing about ink jet prints.

[tim atherton]

Which is exactly the reason that people dress up their ink jet prints with a "fancy" name to disguise their origins. It isn't about the technology, how the technology has changed, or even how good the technology is. It's about motive; the motive being to convince people that a print isn't what it really is.

Simply incorrect in my experience

They do this because they know that the majority of people don't consider "ink jet" to be fine art, where they do consider "silver" (or other types of prints) as fine art. Computer technology isn't considered fine art; it is something in your office or your living room - to many people.

Again essentially incorrect ("most people" aren't usually the arbiters of what is or isn't art - in which case, Kincaid and his Giclees really are the pinnacle of fine art) - the Met, MoMA, Tate, National Gallery of Canada, SFMoMA and just about institution you can think of has no problem considering inkjet prints as fine art. And if people base their understanding of whether something is "fine art" or not based on the materials, they apparently have little understanding of art to begin with - so the point is really moot.

[tim atherton]

Because the term Ilfochrome has decades of history in the minds of fine art print collectors and other photography lovers. You can't say the same thing about ink jet prints.

So if something is newer than say - a decade - it can't be art? good argument - doh!

(BTW - lots of those Ilfochrome collectors are finding out, much to their consternation, that the materials didn't offer up all that was promised)

[roteague]

Which is exactly the reason that people dress up their ink jet prints with a "fancy" name to disguise their origins. It isn't about the technology, how the technology has changed, or even how good the technology is. It's about motive; the motive being to convince people that a print isn't what it really is.

Simply incorrect in my experience

They do this because they know that the majority of people don't consider "ink jet" to be fine art, where they do consider "silver" (or other types of prints) as fine art. Computer technology isn't considered fine art; it is something in your office or your living room - to many people.

Again essentially incorrect ("most people" aren't usually the arbiters of what is or isn't art - in which case, Kincaid and his Giclees really are the pinnacle of fine art) - the Met, MoMA, Tate, National Gallery of Canada, SFMoMA and just about institution you can think of has no problem considering inkjet prints as fine art. And if people base their understanding of whether something is "fine art" or not based on the materials, they apparently have little understanding of art to begin with - so the point is really moot.


Quite obviously, you haven't been to many local art shows or local galleries.

[robc]

Finally, why don't users of Ilfochrome materials call their works Silver Dye Bleach Prints?

because everyone who is interested enough, knows what ilfochrome or cibachrome is.

They don't know what ultrachrome is because the inks change so frequently they could be looking anything. If you are going to say ultrachrome you should say `Epson ultrachrome K3 inks 2006` so at least people know. But that begs the question whether they are really that interested in the specific inkset. Do painters label their work with the make of the oils they use? No they they just the generic term for the medium, i.e. `Oil painting`. But photographers seem to be unhappy about using the generic `inkjet print`. Why?

[tim atherton]

because everyone who is interested enough, knows what ilfochrome or cibachrome is.

But did people know what they were when they had only been out for 3 or 5 years? I've seen enough photographers blurbs about "Cibachrome prints are the most archival colour process... etc etc" over the years because they had to describe the process

So Ultrachromes have been out for a bout 4 or 5 years. Therefore if users keep calling their work Ultrachromes for say another 5, presumably enough people will know by then what an Ultrachrome is and it will be just fine as a term. Logically, if you use a term for long enough it becomes acceptable?


Do painters label their work with the make of the oils they use? No they they just the generic term for the medium, i.e. `Oil painting`. But photographers seem to be unhappy about using the generic `inkjet print`. Why?

But most photographers (or painters) don't in general (there are exceptions) use terms which describe the process, but rather the materials.

They don't say "brush or palette-knife painted oil paining" or "Chinese Brush painted watercolor" or "enlarger/light projected C-Print"

so why not Pigment Ink Print for example? - describes everything quite clearly? As clearly as Silver Gelatin or Platinum Print say. And nowhere near as disingenuous as say "Chromogenic Dye Coupler Print"

Or as I mentioned, just plain Ink Print - your can't get more simply descriptive than that

[tim atherton]

"Quite obviously, you haven't been to many local art shows or local galleries."

what's referred to as the "fine art" market - no, not that much apart from the odd wander through. Different market. Specialised art/photography galleries, and institutional and corporate art sales. (none of which have had a problem with ink or digital pints ime)

[tim atherton]

I'm not so sure. Just the other day I came across a fellow who makes "ink prints" using a process very simlar to bromoil. He claims it's a historical process. I haven't had time to check out that claim.

Eric.

As far as I am aware, Ink Print was not a term commonly or normally used for prints from the Bromoil process ("ink print" no caps was sometimes used in describing the procedure for making the print itself, but not for the final print)

I have come across someone making modern prints using a variation of the procedure and calling them Ink Prints, but it's not really a traditional term. and there a lot more people making Epson (or such) Ink Prints...

[Greg Lockrey]

We just call them "Ink jet prints" or "Ink jet on Rag" here since those who do know (most don't) realize that the Iris Giclée's are now known for fading in the yellow in a relatively short time. But then we aren't pretentious since all we do is "grunt" work and don't need a lot of fancy names. We let our artist clients BS their market.

[Eric_Scott]

As far as I am aware, Ink Print was not a term commonly or normally used for prints from the Bromoil process ("ink print" no caps was sometimes used in describing the procedure for making the print itself, but not for the final print)

I have come across someone making modern prints using a variation of the procedure and calling them Ink Prints, but it's not really a traditional term. and there a lot more people making Epson (or such) Ink Prints...

I deleted my message because I believe I was mistaken. I think he calls them "oil prints". In any event, I looked at a list of photographic processes, and it appears that "ink print" is up for grabs.

Eric.

[Frank Petronio]

See what you did Ken -- starting a Canandian-Mexican war -- on Christmas Eve no less -- don't ask about Glicee prints again!

[naturephoto1]

See what you did Ken -- starting a Canandian-Mexican war -- on Christmas Eve no less -- don't ask about Glicee prints again!

And the missles are flying across with the US in between. :eek: :(

Rich

[Dave Parker]

And the missles are flying across with the US in between. :eek: :(

Rich

Yipes!

And I live high in the Mountains, only about 60 miles from Canada, hope they aim better than the Military!:eek:

LOL

Merry Christmas to all!

:p

Dave

[Mike Lopez]

Jeez, I haven't visited this here APUG site in awhile, and...oh, wait. Never mind.

[Ken Grooms]

Thanks Paulr et al. What printer lab do you guys use for your best shots...or are all prints are basically equal? I have a nice Canon printer, but I was just wondering if there was some pro printer out there that was really special for if and when I get a really nice shot.

[Paul Coppin]

Well, ok, I'll wade in too... I see that the original question got answered, and the discussion has moved, as it usually does, to the MEANING of it all :). I have used the term as an adverb: printed "Giclee", as a means to distinguish the production method. There's a gross mechanical connotation to "ink-jet" that to me is offensive in the context of the precise technology that is going on at the print head. Sort of like "spray-painted", but smaller. Technically correct, but philosophically crude.
I agree that "ultrachrome print" is a fine descriptor of inkjet printing using Epson K series inks. Its directly analogous to Cibachrome, in that it is a colour print by a specific, somewhat proprietary process. The nomenclature is valid - there are technical limitations to inkjet, and specifically K ink pigments (and other "squirtable" products), which in part define the art, just as there is with Cibachrome or any other proprietary printing method.

When I first saw "silver gelatin", I was taken aback - for the longest time didn't make the connection between it and a good ol' B&W print. I still think its hugely preposterous, truly dressing a pig, much more so that referring to inkjets as "giclees". As the methods of producing a print increase, I think its valid to identify it by type. Artists do it with media, no reason why photographers shouldn't.

The inkjet method has evolved to a level of respectibility, that its not so important, by that I mean expressing a print as an "inkjet" really doesn't tell you much. That's why I favour terms like "ultrachrome". Telling me a print is an inkjet tells me nothing about its physical character, other than it not a wet process photoprint. Calling a print an "Ultrachrome" tells me that it is an inkjet print made using Epson K series pigments, which tells me much more about its physical properties, just as Cibachrome does, or dye-sub.

[roteague]

When I first saw "silver gelatin", I was taken aback - for the longest time didn't make the connection between it and a good ol' B&W print.

I think it came about as a means of distinguishing between a traditionally print and one done on an ink jet.

As a subject, this is one that there will never be consensus on. Some photographers find applying the term "fine art" to an ink jet print to be objectionable; even more so when a term like "Giclée" is used to "elevate" its status. Some photographers see no problems with using an ink jet print, and see it as a viable alternative to traditional darkroom printing.

[tim atherton]

--Quote (Originally by Paul Coppin)---
When I first saw "silver gelatin", I was taken aback - for the longest time didn't make the connection between it and a good ol' B&W print.
---End Quote---
I think it came about as a means of distinguishing between a traditionally print and one done on an ink jet.

Oh not at all - it far predates that by a long way- probably 40+ years ago or so . It was, among other things, a part of the process of fancifying photography once it had started moving into museums . A straight forward black and white photo became a "silver gelatin print" (as later a straight forward colour lab print became a "Chromogenic Print" or even better a "Chromogenic Dye Coupler Print")

Some photographers find applying the term "fine art" to an ink jet print to be objectionable; even more so when a term like "Giclée" is used "elevating" its status. Some photographers see no problems with using an ink jet print, and see it as a viable alternative to traditional darkroom printing.

in part, the term "silver gelatin print" was exactly this - part of the process of elevating the status of an ordinary black and white photo by using a fancy name so it was good enough to sit on a museum wall.

Some photographers find applying the term "fine art" to an ink jet print to be objectionable

On that note, the Metropolitan Museum of Art has been collecting inkjet/iris prints since 1984 - they just refer to them as "art" or "photographs" (aside from "fine art" being a term the some are advising photographers not to use outside of certain markets)

[roteague]

On that note, the Metropolitan Museum of Art has been collecting inkjet/iris prints since 1984 - they just refer to them as "art" or "photographs" (aside from "fine art" being a term the some are advising photographers not to use outside of certain markets)

While the MET is an influential gallery, it is still only one of many. The Etherton Gallery for example, lists an Ansel Adams print as thus: Materials: gelatin silver print. Galleries are as individualistic as photographers.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

While ink jet print might be considered art, museums got caught with their pants down an in a quandry about what to name ink jet prints. Ink jet prints have more in common with posters than they do with traditional photographs, e.i the laying down of ink on paper.

[Maris Rusis]

Using the French form giclee teds to add "class" to the print just as having a menu in French adds class to a restaurant's line of food.

For those who are not francophiles a good Yiddish style alternative to giclee is schputz; again meaning that which is squirted or spurted. Giclee-print or Schputz-print are both delightfully evocative alternatives for an article that remains tediously drab if referred to only as an inkjet print.

[Jim Noel]

Charles has absolutely the best answer!

[sanking]

Using the French form giclee teds to add "class" to the print just as having a menu in French adds class to a restaurant's line of food.

For those who are not francophiles a good Yiddish style alternative to giclee is schputz; again meaning that which is squirted or spurted. Giclee-print or Schputz-print are both delightfully evocative alternatives for an article that remains tediously drab if referred to only as an inkjet print.

If Giclee does it for you, great. I consider myself a francophile and find the term a ridiculous affectation. The only thing more ridicuous would an attempt to distinuish between "giclee" and "tru giclee".

The following from a previous message hits the nail right on the head as far as I am concerned. "If you have a problem with the customer knowing that your image is an inkjet print then you need to ask yourself what you are about. And as long as photographers continue to dress up their work in meaningless terms their work will continue to be held in suspicion."


Sandy King

[Marko]

If Giclee does it for you, great. I consider myself a francophile and find the term a ridiculous affectation.

Absolutely.

It is on the same level as that horrible fake british accent in all those upper-class car commercials (in the US), although Chrysler's been trying really hard with that German dude lately.

Which all makes me wonder: what could possibly the French, the Brits and the Germans use in the same context? Assuming, of course, that they also suffer from the same inferiority complex, which is an open question.

And I'm not sure I'd even want to know the context in which they might be using the American accent these days...

[sanking]

[I]--Quote
Oh not at all - it far predates that by a long way- probably 40+ years ago or so . It was, among other things, a part of the process of fancifying photography once it had started moving into museums . A straight forward black and white photo became a "silver gelatin print" (as later a straight forward colour lab print became a "Chromogenic Print" or even better a "Chromogenic Dye Coupler Print")



There is nothing at all "fancifying" in my opinion in the use of thee term "gelatin silver" or "silver gelatin" print. I find it nothing more than a logical and rational attempt to label different kinds of photographs by process. Who would object to the use of daguerreotype, calotype, salted paper, albumen, etc? What is the alternative, just calling everything a photograph, or a picture? In the same vein, when I view flat art work in museums it is nearly always labeled by type, as for example oil painting, tempera, water-color, acryllic, etc. I am personally pleased to see this level of detail in description and don't find it in any way pretentious.


Sandy King

[tim atherton]

There is nothing at all "fancifying" in my opinion in the use of thee term "gelatin silver" or "silver gelatin" print. I find it nothing more than a logical and rational attempt to label different kinds of photographs by process. Who would object to the use of daguerreotype, calotype, salted paper, albumen, etc? What is the alternative, just calling everything a photograph, or a picture? In the same vein, when I view flat art work in museums it is nearly always labeled by type, as for example oil painting, tempera, water-color, acryllic, etc. I am personally pleased to see this level of detail in description and don't find it in any way pretentious.


Sandy King

the point is, those terms really began to be used widely only once photography began to be put on museum and gallery walls more widely to do just that - be an alternative to the simple "black and white" photograph.

I don't think I recall seeing the contemporary descriptions of Weston's work - for example - being along the line of "silver gelatin contact print on chloride paper" etc?

In addition, if you go back to the photo press of the day (when photography was starting to be collected in galleries and museums seriously) there were plenty of little articles and editorials about (and making fun of) the "high falutin" names these photographers were starting to use for their photographs. I have one I cut out from one of my Father's late 60's photo magazines somewhere - it's tone entirely reflects to tone of this thread.

Just because you/we are so used to the terms today, doesnt mean they weren't regarded as fancy and high falutin when they first began to be used more widely - they were

(though as I have pointed out - I'm certainly against giclee - always have been. But "pigment ink print" and such along side "silver gelatin" print is absolutely fine.)

[tim atherton]

Absolutely.

It is on the same level as that horrible fake british accent in all those upper-class car commercials (in the US), although Chrysler's been trying really hard with that German dude lately.

Which all makes me wonder: what could possibly the French, the Brits and the Germans use in the same context? Assuming, of course, that they also suffer from the same inferiority complex, which is an open question.

And I'm not sure I'd even want to know the context in which they might be using the American accent these days...


my favourite would be "atramentum aspergo print"

[paulr]

Personally, I don't care much for the term giclee. I just think it's dated. The handful of things getting called giclee now aren't even made with the same machines as they were back when the term was coined.

It doesn't strike me as a misleading term (everyone who cares seems to know they're some kind of inkjet). But it does seem too vague to be useful. There are lots of kinds of inkjet prints, and giclee, as a generiic term, doesn't tell you enough. i don't mind seeing things labeled giclee when they're from ten years or more ago, but i think people can come up with better names for contemporary prints.

[sanking]

the point is, those terms really began to be used widely only once photography began to be put on museum and gallery walls more widely to do just that - be an alternative to the simple "black and white" photograph.



From a historical perspective that is far from accurate. Throughout the 19the century and well into the 20th century photographs were almost always labeled by process, and often by the type of toning as well, and there was abolustley nothing "high falutin" about the practice. It was only the the 20th century, when most of the other processes fell out of favor and silver gelatin photography became the only process in common use, that people quit paying attention to process. There is no question but that most photographers today are far more ignorant of the materials they use than was the case ini earlier times.

The current practice of identifying prints by process is as much as part of the revival of alternative printing processes, thate began in the 1970s, as it is of photographs being exhiibited in museums. However, there is no question but that museums have a legitimate interest in identifying art work as descriptively as possible.

Sandy King

[tim atherton]

One point that interests me is why are so many of those who generally don't use these particular materials and processes (and some who openly despise them) so keen to try and tell those who do what they should be calling their work?

Indeed it would be interesting to see the response if inkjet users started telling say - alt process photographers what they thought they should be calling their work...?

[tim atherton]

From a historical perspective that is far from accurate. Throughout the 19the century and well into the 20th century photographs were almost always labeled by process, and often by the type of toning as well, and there was abolustley nothing "high falutin" about the practice.

Sandy King

quite right - I was really referring more to my list of "silver gelatin", Dye Coupler Print, Cibiachrome etc not your list of the older historical processes.

My point however still stands - through the 60's and 70's the use of "silver gelatin" etc by certain photographers whose work was going into museums and high end galleries was most certainly seen "fancifying" by the wider photographic community - in a way that very much reflects this "digital process terminology" debate...

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

One point that interests me is why are so many of those who generally don't use these particular materials and processes (and some who openly despise them) so keen to try and tell those who do what they should be calling their work?

Indeed it would be interesting to see the response if inkjet users started telling say - alt process photographers what they thought they should be calling their work...?

Because those who use it besides calling them silly names like glicèe, also call them carbon prints, digital platinum, which as with glicèe it is only a way to try and make ink jet prints look a little respectable on the back of accepted processes which are far, far superior to ink jet prints, I have been on an ink jet print buying spree on e bay looking for one, and I mean one print that would even come close to a mediocre silver print and so far nothing, prints which are also being used for fading test (results comming to my web site soon) so, to answer your question, we dont want to tell people what to call them, we want them stop trying to decive people....but then in the end you might be right and it does not matter, as one person pm me a week or so ago and told me..."I saw an exhibition today, they put ink jet next to real prints... big mistake!"

[tim atherton]

Lets take an example - how about those who use traditional contact processes like platinum or such, but use digitally enlarged negatives of one sort or another

In many cases, surely they really should be describing their work as - say - "inkjet enlarged platinum contact prints" or "inkjet negative platinum prints" - rather than just "digital negative"? what do you think?

I've personally used the "digital negative" process, - but surely "inkjet negatives" is much more accurate in most of the PDN process for example, in order to differentiate them from image-setter negatives?

That would surely be the most accurate way to describe the process? Why fudge it with "digital" negative when "Inkjet Negative/Platinum Print" would be much more accurate?

[sanking]

One point that interests me is why are so many of those who generally don't use these particular materials and processes (and some who openly despise them) so keen to try and tell those who do what they should be calling their work?

Indeed it would be interesting to see the response if inkjet users started telling say - alt process photographers what they thought they should be calling their work...?

One of the reasons is that many, if not most, alt process photograhers also have considerable knowledge about inkjet printing and other forms of digital work. We were in fact some of the first users of this technology and many of us use our inkjet printers on a daily basis, both for making inkjet prints and for making digital negatives.

Sandy King

[tim atherton]

One of the reasons is that many, if not most, alt process photograhers also have considerable knowledge about inkjet printing and other forms of digital work. We were in fact some of the first users of this technology and many of us use our inkjet printers on a daily basis, both for making inkjet prints and for making digital negatives.

Sandy King

Sandy, I was thinking much more of those who post along the lines of "inkjet prints aren't photographs/are the work of the devil/are fake photographs/will never be "real" art etc etc" who claim they would never ever go near them (and of whom there are more than a few here) - but who then proceed to say what they think those who utilise such processes should call their work.

Your posts by contrast are always informed and reasonable

[Frank Petronio]

Somehow an egg-mucus-dirt-salt print just doesn't have the ring.

[sanking]

Lets take an example - how about those who use traditional contact processes like platinum or such, but use digitally enlarged negatives of one sort or another

In many cases, surely they really should be describing their work as - say - "inkjet enlarged platinum contact prints" or "inkjet negative platinum prints" - rather than just "digital negative"? what do you think?

I've personally used the "digital negative" process, - but surely "inkjet negatives" is much more accurate in most of the PDN process for example, in order to differentiate them from image-setter negatives?

That would surely be the most accurate way to describe the process? Why fudge it with "digital" negative when "Inkjet Negative/Platinum Print" would be much more accurate?

Physically there is no difference between a platinum print made with an in-camera negative or with a digital negative. And in most cases there is no qualitative difference in a platinum print made from in-camera negatives as opposed to one made with different kinds of digital negatives. If there is something visually that can be identified as a digital artifact, then the type of negative should be identified IMO. Otherwise, the issue is irrelevant as far as I am concerned. However, just to be on the safe side of maximum information I always identify my prints on the back as to process (say DOP or POP Pt./Pd, carbon transfer, etc) and as to type of negative used in printing. In-camera or digital. And if the type of digital negative used shows a particular type of digital artifact, I would be more descriptive as to type. That is rarely the case with Pt./Pd. and most other alternative printing, though it would be when printing silver gelatin with digital negatives.

Sandy King

[roteague]

One point that interests me is why are so many of those who generally don't use these particular materials and processes (and some who openly despise them) so keen to try and tell those who do what they should be calling their work?

One of the problems I see with the term "Giclée" is that the term leaves no way to differentiate between prints made on an Epson R220 and an Epson Pro 9800. I'm sure that the high end galleries and top professional photographers would not use a low end printer for their work, but that doesn't stop someone at the local art show using an low end ink jet printer, like the R220, and calling it "Giclée" and then comparing it with a silver print.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Platinum prints have been known as platinum prints for more than 70 years, equally long for most alternative processes and their designation, if you want greater description lets apply that to ink jets as well, how about "computer generated, ink on paper photograph"? That oughta sit well with those making glicèes....lol...

[tim atherton]

how about "computer generated, ink on paper photograph"?

not bad at all, no real problem with that (although you would probably encounter some complaints from the computer/digital artists types who create their work completely within the computer and consider "computer generated" a point of pride in their work. They would probably consider digital photographs - whether scanned or digital capture - to be too indexical in nature to be considered purely or truly "computer generated" unless they went through manipulation beyond the basic corrections of colour and contrast etc)

So "computer generated" might need to be tweaked a bit - either just "digital" or digital/analogue hybrid" depending on the process of capture/exposure.

but just "ink on paper photograph" or "digital ink on paper photograph" or "digital/analogue ink on paper photograph" or some similar variation would be no problem for most I know using these processes.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

but just "ink on paper photograph" or "digital ink on paper photograph" or "digital/analogue ink on paper photograph" or some similar variation would be no problem for most I know using these processes.

I have to disagree with you here, the drive seems to be to separate as much as possible the idea that the images are made digitally and are not traditionally made, if this is not so why then the creation of papers that attempt to be as close as possible to silver paper? Until that time that I see anyone using the simple terms ink jet, ink on paper, and let their photography stand on its own and not worry about trying to deceive the buyer I will continue to speak against the cutsy names.

I do platinum not because I think it is the best process, I use it because it best fits my style, those doing ink jet prints should learn to do the same. The only whom I know is very straight forward in his designation is Brian Ellis, I have always admired him for this and respected him for saying "digital and ink jet printing fits me better, I feel my photographs are better since I converted so it is why I use it". This is all people need to know, instead this is the kind of BS you see

Print Quality
Our prints are premium grade archival photographic prints of superior quality. This print is a Giclee (jhee-clay) a process using individually produced high fidelity, high resolution reproduction done on a special large format giclee printer using archival materials. The giclee printing process typically connotes a certain elevation in print making technology. Giclee prints look and feel like original art. Prints are made on real artist materials such as Photography paper and canvas. Image permanence is a concern to artists and collectors. We use only the finest materials available and the greatest care when producing your print to guarantee a lifetime of enjoyment. Our prints are custom-prepared to order in a white gloved environment and shipped ready for framing and matting. These stunning photos would beautifully decorate any room in your home or office.

Unfortunatelly for this guy I bought his print and it is as we speak fading on a window....

[tim atherton]

Unfortunatelly for this guy I bought his print and it is as we speak fading on a window....

presumably next to a platinum print? (btw - do you know what process he actually used?)

if this is not so why then the creation of papers that attempt to be as close as possible to silver paper?

I always thought the reason was to produce papers which on which the prints surpassed silver paper in as many of the areas as possible - e.g. tonal range and D-Max just for two? And so arrive at something different

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Unfortunatelly for this guy I bought his print and it is as we speak fading on a window....

presumably next to a platinum print? (btw - do you know what process he actually used?)

if this is not so why then the creation of papers that attempt to be as close as possible to silver paper?

I always thought the reason was to produce papers which on which the prints surpassed silver paper in as many of the areas as possible - e.g. tonal range and D-Max just for two? And so arrive at something different

Yep next to a silver print, a pt/pd print. I have 3 different ink jet prints, one is from a guy who used ultrachrome inks an Epson 7600 printer and Epson luster paper, the other one used a Canon printer and inks on Ilford gallerie classic gloss (I hate Ilford for calling it this) The last one seems to be on rag paper, but the guy did not write back with print specifications, that should tell me something.

The initial reflection density results before being put to the window showed that the Ilford paper had the blackest D max (2.06) Epson luster was 1.85 and the rag paper had the worst with 1.21 and blocked shadows. The pt/pd print had 1.42 and the silver print on Oriental seagull after selenium toning had 1.95

The guy using the ultrachrome inks is a LF photographer, the one using canon is a small format and the other one I dont know since again he did not respond.

I will write about the results and my impressions about these papers in my web site, off hand it seems to me there is a lot of wishful "seeing" and not really results from what I have seen so far.

PS. the measurements were taken with a Heiland T/R densitometer calibrated with the Heiland supplied tablets.

[Bruce Watson]

What is a giglee print?

It's a thing that one group of photographers uses to beat another group of photographers. The beatings go back and forth between groups and seem to serve little purpose other than to distract the participants. As these endless threads well demonstrate.

[Sheldon N]

Given that I have a three year old son running around the house with plenty of time on his hands, I've decided that all my future fine art reproductions are going to be placed under his supervision.

Crayola on Charmin, anyone?

:)

[David Luttmann]

Yep next to a silver print, a pt/pd print. I have 3 different ink jet prints, one is from a guy who used ultrachrome inks an Epson 7600 printer and Epson luster paper, the other one used a Canon printer and inks on Ilford gallerie classic gloss (I hate Ilford for calling it this) The last one seems to be on rag paper, but the guy did not write back with print specifications, that should tell me something.

The initial reflection density results before being put to the window showed that the Ilford paper had the blackest D max (2.06) Epson luster was 1.85 and the rag paper had the worst with 1.21 and blocked shadows. The pt/pd print had 1.42 and the silver print on Oriental seagull after selenium toning had 1.95

The guy using the ultrachrome inks is a LF photographer, the one using canon is a small format and the other one I dont know since again he did not respond.

I will write about the results and my impressions about these papers in my web site, off hand it seems to me there is a lot of wishful "seeing" and not really results from what I have seen so far.

PS. the measurements were taken with a Heiland T/R densitometer calibrated with the Heiland supplied tablets.


Odd,

I've had an Ultrachrome print on HM photorag 308, sprayed with HM spray in a decent looking glass frame.....receiving sun about 4-6 hours a day.....printed 4 years ago with no fading whatsoever. Pretty bizarre to have fading with Ultrachrome. However, most people don't mount their photographs in a window. I have seen examples of pt/pd prints and silver prints left out in the sun that don't look particularly great after time as well. Depends on the situation.

However, under standard lighting and display situations (not torture tests), K3 & Ultrachrome prints will be around a lot longer than any of us....or our kids.

[roteague]

However, under standard lighting and display situations (not torture tests), K3 & Ultrachrome prints will be around a lot longer than any of us....or our kids.

I assume your observation is made using real-life examples.

[Brian Ellis]

"One of the problems I see with the term "Giclée" is that the term leaves no way to differentiate between prints made on an Epson R220 and an Epson Pro 9800."

So do you think the term "gelatin silver print" is misleading or inadequate because it leaves no way to differentiate between prints made with a Durst Laborator as opposed to a Beseler M?

[David Luttmann]

I assume your observation is made using real-life examples.

4 years of constant sunlight would equate to many, many decades under normal display in a bright room....and well in excess of a century in dark storage.

There are plenty of test results available for people to review showing pigment inkjet lasting nearly triple that of Fuji Crystal archive for color....or about 150 to 200 years.

That said, I have plenty of silver gel prints held in dark storage that are only between 50 and 75 years old that are faded and yellowed. Is that the real world example to which you are referring? ;-)

[roteague]

"One of the problems I see with the term "Giclée" is that the term leaves no way to differentiate between prints made on an Epson R220 and an Epson Pro 9800."

So do you think the term "gelatin silver print" is misleading or inadequate because it leaves no way to differentiate between prints made with a Durst Laborator as opposed to a Beseler M?

Not in the least.

[roteague]

4 years of constant sunlight would equate to many, many decades under normal display in a bright room....and well in excess of a century in dark storage.

There are plenty of test results available for people to review showing pigment inkjet lasting nearly triple that of Fuji Crystal archive for color....or about 150 to 200 years.

That said, I have plenty of silver gel prints held in dark storage that are only between 50 and 75 years old that are faded and yellowed. Is that the real world example to which you are referring? ;-)

Then I guess you won't mind sending us some of your 50 year old ink jet prints as proof.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Pay attention David... :) I do not have the fading results yet, the Dmax numbers I posted are from the prints received and kept in dark storage until I was ready to put them under the sun behind window glass. I just put them under the sun 2 days ago an plan to leave them there for 30 days. Even so, it seems I am starting to see some of the wild claims like "Dmax of 2.4" not being really true since from 3 different processes with 3 different papers and 3 different printers none reached 2.0

Also, you have your prints sprayed, supposedly with an UV blocker, which I think is the deciding factor here, I expect to see those prints from pigments compounds fade.

In the end at least I am trying to do a controlled experiment, not a "I have a print which I have had for years and it is still fine" kind of thing, we all have heard these claims....

Unless you have done the same kind of testing your statement that these inks will be around longer than any of us without fading is only a supository and not borne out of facts, please show me your data, experiment design, variables, and results before I beleive what you say. I will do this in my web site.


Odd,

I've had an Ultrachrome print on HM photorag 308, sprayed with HM spray in a decent looking glass frame.....receiving sun about 4-6 hours a day.....printed 4 years ago with no fading whatsoever. Pretty bizarre to have fading with Ultrachrome. However, most people don't mount their photographs in a window. I have seen examples of pt/pd prints and silver prints left out in the sun that don't look particularly great after time as well. Depends on the situation.

However, under standard lighting and display situations (not torture tests), K3 & Ultrachrome prints will be around a lot longer than any of us....or our kids.

[David Luttmann]

Pay attention David... :) I do not have the fading results yet, the Dmax numbers I posted are from the prints received and kept in dark storage until I was ready to put them under the sun behind window glass. I just put them under the sun 2 days ago an plan to leave them there for 30 days. Even so, it seems I am starting to see some of the wild claims like "Dmax of 2.4" not being really true since from 3 different processes with 3 different papers and 3 different printers none reached 2.0

Also, you have your prints sprayed, supposedly with an UV blocker, which I think is the deciding factor here, I expect to see those prints from pigments compounds fade.

In the end at least I am trying to do a controlled experiment, not a "I have a print which I have had for years and it is still fine" kind of thing, we all have heard these claims....

Unless you have done the same kind of testing your statement that these inks will be around longer than any of us without fading is only a supository and not borne out of facts, please show me your data, experiment design, variables, and results before I beleive what you say. I will do this in my web site.

Shall I point out the many, many articles confirming Dmax in excess of 2.3? The most recent being publsihed in Phototechniques comparing HM and Crane papers. Or maybe the densitometer tests done by Charlie Cramer or George Dewolfe.

Not really the point. There has been enough testing the world over to confirm longevity of inkjet prints. Even my simple testing....comparing the print in the sun for four years vs the same print in dark storage. No difference after approx 6 hours a day to direct sunlight vs the dark stored image. That would make about 800 hours of direct sunlight. Let's see how a normal color print holds up to that!

Finally, it doesn't matter. Galleries and museums around the world are happily accepting pigment and K3 inkjet prints as being archival. It does appear however, that you seem to be in the extreme minority having Ultrachrome and K3 prints fade in weeks or months. I have not been able to replicate this either myself, my associates, or when reviewing countless test sites.

Are is it possible that your home is on a planet revolving around a blue supergiant....

Happy New Year.....

[David Luttmann]

Then I guess you won't mind sending us some of your 50 year old ink jet prints as proof.

I can send you samples that have been exposed to in excess of 6 hours of daily sunlight over 4 years. As I said, that equates into over a century of lumens in normal display. Or shall I post links to some of the many tests confirming longevity results.

Probably a waste as you've more than likely never tested yourself.....nor do you care.

Best regards,

[David Luttmann]

Then I guess you won't mind sending us some of your 50 year old ink jet prints as proof.

Oh, and by the way Robert....

You'll forgive me if I don't take you too seriously. Anyone promoting Fuji Crystal Archive as being archival with a 60 to 70 year lifespan isn't really too concerned with longevity.

Do you by the way, have any 70 year old Fuji Crystal Archive prints available to back up your claim? It is always amusing to find people who claim test results for inkjet are flawed and inaccurate, yet have no problem believing and promoting test results on other media.

LOL.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Sure point them out, do they have their methodology, type of densitometer, calibration, or is it just a "we used our densitometer to see what came out"?

As to the studies, and your test, like I said, please post your density measurements, what type of densitometer, how did you calibrated it and made sure it was precise and accurate, how did you make sure you measured the same area? Many articles were written about the longevity of rc paper, and we all know how that ended up, I dont beleive all the claims you and some of the other ink jet printers say, and since nobody here wanted to take up my challange without conditions and how I was supposed to make the test I decided to do my own with what is available in the market place.

As to my being in the extreme minority, sorry, I have heard claims of ink jet and specifically Ultrachrome ink fading, but instead of relying on anecdotal claims like you do I decided to make my own test, as I keep saying, show me your data, and I will show you mine! At least in the future when an issue like this comes up I will have numbers to back up my claims, will you?

BTW, I dont care what museums do, they are not always the last or the best source of knowledge.



Shall I point out the many, many articles confirming Dmax in excess of 2.3? The most recent being publsihed in Phototechniques comparing HM and Crane papers. Or maybe the densitometer tests done by Charlie Cramer or George Dewolfe.

Not really the point. There has been enough testing the world over to confirm longevity of inkjet prints. Even my simple testing....comparing the print in the sun for four years vs the same print in dark storage. No difference after approx 6 hours a day to direct sunlight vs the dark stored image. That would make about 800 hours of direct sunlight. Let's see how a normal color print holds up to that!

Finally, it doesn't matter. Galleries and museums around the world are happily accepting pigment and K3 inkjet prints as being archival. It does appear however, that you seem to be in the extreme minority having Ultrachrome and K3 prints fade in weeks or months. I have not been able to replicate this either myself, my associates, or when reviewing countless test sites.

Are is it possible that your home is on a planet revolving around a blue supergiant....

Happy New Year.....

[David Luttmann]

Sure point them out, do they have their methodology, type of densitometer, calibration, or is it just a "we used our densitometer to see what came out"?

As to the studies, and your test, like I said, please post your density measurements, what type of densitometer, how did you calibrated it and made sure it was precise and accurate, how did you make sure you measured the same area? Many articles were written about the longevity of rc paper, and we all know how that ended up, I dont beleive all the claims you and some of the other ink jet printers say, and since nobody here wanted to take up my challange without conditions and how I was supposed to make the test I decided to do my own with what is available in the market place.

As to my being in the extreme minority, sorry, I have heard claims of ink jet and specifically Ultrachrome ink fading, but instead of relying on anecdotal claims like you do I decided to make my own test, as I keep saying, show me your data, and I will show you mine! At least in the future when an issue like this comes up I will have numbers to back up my claims, will you?

BTW, I dont care what museums do, they are not always the last or the best source of knowledge.



Sure,

How about Mark Dubovoy's recent test in Dmax between numerous papers. Color gamut was measured using Gamutvision from Imatest. Densitometry readings were done using a freshly calibrated Macbeth TD 1224 transmission/reflection densitometer. He generated 3D color plots using Adobe RGB 1998 color space and acheived a high of 2.43 in Dmax with custom settings.

Mark holds his Ph.D and has his work displayed in numerous galleries around the world. I would say that based upon his testing procedure, we can see clearly that either there is a problem with the papers YOU used, or there is a problem with your testing methods and knowledge of inkjet printing.

You can review his Dmax test in the latest Phototechniques. I won't bother posting any other information as there are plenty to see with a google search....and no matter how many you see Jorge, you'll always just claim they are all mistaken and you alone hold the secret to the truth.

Thanks again for your contribution....no matter how biased and uninformed it may be.

All the best.

[tim atherton]

Oh, and by the way Robert....

You'll forgive me if I don't take you too seriously. Anyone promoting Fuji Crystal Archive as being archival with a 60 to 70 year lifespan isn't really too concerned with longevity.

Do you by the way, have any 70 year old Fuji Crystal Archive prints available to back up your claim? It is always amusing to find people who claim test results for inkjet are flawed and inaccurate, yet have no problem believing and promoting test results on other media.

Independent tests suggest that Fuji Crystal Archive prints, in normal display conditions, will last 60 to 70 years before noticeable fade sets in.

LOL.

Independent tests suggest that Fuji Crystal Archive prints, in normal display conditions, will last 60 to 70 years before noticeable fade sets in.


I thought the current independent testing only gave Fuji Crystal Archive 40 years display life and 60 years max for a combination of display and dark storage?

[tim atherton]

I presume Jorge is fade testing identical prints of the same subject/test image? and that the D-Max he was measuring was indeed printed as a true black - and not just very dark grey? It might look black, but it isn't. (I've looked at dozens of files where you think it is probably printing black, with when you check the actual file and see what the colour measurement is - a deep shadow, what you assumed was a black door frame or whatever - it's not actually black. So of course if you are measuring that for D-Max it's not actually the max - you would need an actual black patch to check)

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

See, it is easy for you to discount what I have because it does not conform to what you beleive, even when I do not even have the results. Now as to the dubovoy guy, he is one of the ones calling his ink jet prints, "carbon" prints, so right off the bat I am going question his veracity.

Unless you are saying that the people from whom I bought the prints are lying I dont see how you can make a statement that there is something wrong with the papers, my testing and let me tell you I might not know a lot about ink jet PRINTING but I do know a hell of a lot more about chemistry and inks than you will ever know.

Seems to me that while I am willing design an experiment and prove one way or the other some of the claims, you are the one that without the smallest data, knowledge of experiment design or chemistry are holding the one and only secret to the holy grail. As always you ignore what you dont like....as I said, show me your numbers, experiment design and data...otherwise, your statements are nothing more than beleif held by you which are meaningless....


Sure,

How about Mark Dubovoy's recent test in Dmax between numerous papers. Color gamut was measured using Gamutvision from Imatest. Densitometry readings were done using a freshly calibrated Macbeth TD 1224 transmission/reflection densitometer. He generated 3D color plots using Adobe RGB 1998 color space and acheived a high of 2.43 in Dmax with custom settings.

Mark holds his Ph.D and has his work displayed in numerous galleries around the world. I would say that based upon his testing procedure, we can see clearly that either there is a problem with the papers YOU used, or there is a problem with your testing methods and knowledge of inkjet printing.

You can review his Dmax test in the latest Phototechniques. I won't bother posting any other information as there are plenty to see with a google search....and no matter how many you see Jorge, you'll always just claim they are all mistaken and you alone hold the secret to the truth.

Thanks again for your contribution....no matter how biased and uninformed it may be.

All the best.

[roteague]

Oh, and by the way Robert....

You'll forgive me if I don't take you too seriously. Anyone promoting Fuji Crystal Archive as being archival with a 60 to 70 year lifespan isn't really too concerned with longevity.

Do you by the way, have any 70 year old Fuji Crystal Archive prints available to back up your claim? It is always amusing to find people who claim test results for inkjet are flawed and inaccurate, yet have no problem believing and promoting test results on other media.

LOL.

I haven't made any claims about Fuji Crystal Archive one way or another. You are making assumptions about things that weren't said.

[roteague]

Mark holds his Ph.D

In what field of expertise?

[tim atherton]

I believe it's part of your marketing spiel?:

Crystal Archive prints offer the ultimate fidelity in color, sharpness, and tonal range available on any photographic paper. Independent tests suggest that Fuji Crystal Archive® prints, in normal display conditions, will last 60 to 70 years before noticeable fade sets in. This is four times longer than conventional prints made on traditional photo paper. This paper has been accepted by the photographic community as truly archival.

Which doesn't quite appear to be correct...

(BTW - I believe the independent tests you allude to are the self same tests that give the likes of Ultrachrome Inkjet prints their longevity ratings - which in most cases exceed those of Crystal Archive. )

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

I presume Jorge is fade testing identical prints of the same subject/test image? and that the D-Max he was measuring was indeed printed as a true black - and not just very dark grey? It might look black, but it isn't. (I've looked at dozens of files where you think it is probably printing black, with when you check the actual file and see what the colour measurement is - a deep shadow, what you assumed was a black door frame or whatever - it's not actually black. So of course if you are measuring that for D-Max it's not actually the max - you would need an actual black patch to check)

You are welcome to read my methodology when I am finished. BTW, nope they are not of the same subject, how could they be? See, once again the moment those who feel threatened see something they dont like they come up with these excuses, it does not require to be of the same subject, all I need to do is have two samples one from the sun and one kept in storage, I can do that fomr the same print.

[tim atherton]

You are welcome to read my methodology when I am finished. BTW, nope they are not of the same subject, how could they be? See, once again the moment those who feel threatened see something they dont like they come up with these excuses, it does not require to be of the same subject, all I need to do is have two samples one from the sun and one kept in storage, I can do that fomr the same print.

However, having the same image with the same ranges of densities etc makes certain types of comparisons much easier and clearer.

I'll look forward to reading your methodology, but so far it doesnt sound exactly rigorous despite all the claims about scientific method etc.

But as you have already made claims about the D-Max of the prints, I would have to assume each print does include a patch of 100% black/K?

[roteague]

I believe it's part of your marketing spiel?:

Crystal Archive prints offer the ultimate fidelity in color, sharpness, and tonal range available on any photographic paper. Independent tests suggest that Fuji Crystal Archive® prints, in normal display conditions, will last 60 to 70 years before noticeable fade sets in. This is four times longer than conventional prints made on traditional photo paper. This paper has been accepted by the photographic community as truly archival.

Which doesn't quite appear to be correct...

(BTW - I believe the independent tests you allude to are the self same tests that give the likes of Ultrachrome Inkjet prints their longevity ratings - which in most cases exceed those of Crystal Archive. )

Marketing speak...

Now, go back and read my previous post: "I haven't made any claims about Fuji Crystal Archive one way or another. You are making assumptions about things that weren't said."

I also haven't made any claims about the longevity of ink jet prints - my concerns are about using "fancy" names to elevate a computer technology.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

You are welcome to read my methodology when I am finished. BTW, nope they are not of the same subject, how could they be? See, once again the moment those who feel threatened see something they dont like they come up with these excuses, it does not require to be of the same subject, all I need to do is have two samples one from the sun and one kept in storage, I can do that fomr the same print.

However, having the same image with the same ranges of densities etc makes certain types of comparisons much easier and clearer.

I'll look forward to reading your methodology, but so far it doesnt sound exactly rigorous despite all the claims about scientific method etc.

But as you have already made claims about the D-Max of the prints, I would have to assume each print does include a patch of 100% black/K?

No, the problem with your statement is that apparently you did no pay attention to what I wrote (typical of you). I am not making visual judgements, I am reading the darkest part of a print with a densitometer. This, going by the mantra you and many claim on this forum that "the final print is what matters" is how it should be done. A patch is meaningless, the final fade tests should come from a print not a set of patches or printed step tablets.

You know this is why we get the dmax of 2.4 and the 200 years ink jet prints, you get a guy making patches, he has 3 or 4 variables going at the time and then automagically we get these results. The test is very simple,and I will not give it away here for you to try and shoot down in advance, all I will tell you is what I told David, I know far more about experiment design than you will ever know.

[QT Luong]

In what field of expertise?

It doesn't really matter that much. Once you have been trained to understand scientific methodologies, you can apply them to any field that does not require very specific advanced knowledge, like photography.

[roteague]

It doesn't really matter that much. Once you have been trained to understand scientific methodologies, you can apply them to any field that does not require very specific advanced knowledge, like photography.

Not true, it does matter. I'm trained as an electical engineer, I wouldn't begin to know how to test a chemical process.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

It doesn't really matter that much. Once you have been trained to understand scientific methodologies, you can apply them to any field that does not require very specific advanced knowledge, like photography.

I disagree, if you are talking about testing methodolgies that require knowledge of chemistry and physics I would trust more the results from a PhD in chemistry/physics than one in English lit. OTOH I do agree with you that for at least these tests there is no need for great knowledge, designing an experiment with one variable is relatively simple and it is what I did.

[QT Luong]

Jorge, what is being questionned is the fact that you assert:

"Even so, it seems I am starting to see some of the wild claims like "Dmax of 2.4" not being really true since from 3 different processes with 3 different papers and 3 different printers none reached 2.0"

while you do not know if the black that you measure is indeed the darkest black that can be produced by the process.

In my experience, it does take a deliberate action to create pure black areas in digital prints. Charlie Crammer in VC explained the benefit of doing so, but I suspect most photographers do not take that step. Many photographers use monitors that do not allow them to differentiate visually between very dark levels.

Also, didn't I write "to any field that does not require very specific advanced knowledge ?" :-)

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

QT, if I measure the blackest black on a print I do this from I print I can produce in a normal setting, not from one that I have coated and exposed 10 times. As you say it takes deliberate steps to produce the blackest black on ink jet, but is that relevant or important? I can make a pt/pd step tablet that exhibits a Dmax of 2.0 but I cannot do that on a print, unless I make 3 or 4 passes. So once again, I have been told numerosus times by many here that the "final print is what matters" well then since we cannot measure aesthetics and taste, we can measure what we comes out of the machine and has measurable variables.

IMO this is once more part of the hype and falsehoods that abound with digital. Why would I want to say that pt/pd is capable of a Dmax of 2.0 when it is possible only by using extreme measures and are not ever present in any prints?

This is exactly the kind of crap I will be talking about and that annoys so many here.



Jorge, what is being questionned is the fact that you assert:

"Even so, it seems I am starting to see some of the wild claims like "Dmax of 2.4" not being really true since from 3 different processes with 3 different papers and 3 different printers none reached 2.0"

while you do not know if the black that you measure is indeed the darkest black that can be produced by the process.

In my experience, it does take a deliberate action to create pure black areas in digital prints. Charlie Crammer in VC explained the benefit of doing so, but I suspect most photographers do not take that step. Many photographers use monitors that do not allow them to differentiate visually between very dark levels.

Also, didn't I write "to any field that does not require very specific advanced knowledge ?" :-)

[tim atherton]

QT, if I measure the blackest black on a print I do this from I print I can produce in a notmal setting, not from one that I have coated and exposed 10 times. As you say it takes deliberate steps to produce the blackest black on ink jet, but is that relevant or important? I can make a pt/pd step tablet that exhibits a Dmax of 2.0 but I cannot do that on a print, unless I make 3 or 4 passes. So once again, I have been told numerosus times by many here that the "final print is what matters" well then since we cannot measure aesthetics and taste, we can measure what we comes out of the machine and has measurable variables.

IMO this is once more part of the hype and falsehoods that abound with digital. Why would I want to say that pt/pd is capable of a Dmax of 2.0 when it is possible only by using extreme measures and are not ever present in any prints?

because in an inkjet print you don't have to take "extraordinary" steps to achieve this. I do get prints which have some areas of 100% black in them - it's just that not every area in a final print that looks like it is 100% necessarily is - especially if that particular print doesnt have a particular area that is to 100% contrast it with.

But I certainly have plenty of prints with areas of 100% black in them - as a normal course of the printmaking process - nothing complicated or extraordinary about it.

[David Luttmann]

I haven't made any claims about Fuji Crystal Archive one way or another. You are making assumptions about things that weren't said.

Your web site quotes 60 to 70 years with Crystal Archive....thus, you have made claims one way or another. How quickly some people forget!

[QT Luong]

With your process, it might take multiple exposures/passes/coatings to produce the maximum black, so that the effort would be unusual or extreme. In digital, all it takes is a curve that can be applied with a couple of clicks. However one still has to know why, when, and how to apply such a curve. If such curve (or similar adjustment) was not applied, more likely than not, there would not be pure black on the print, which would explain very well why your measurements are below that claimed by other people.

[roteague]

Your web site quotes 60 to 70 years with Crystal Archive....thus, you have made claims one way or another. How quickly some people forget!

My website is also two years old, and undergoing a major revision as we speak.

I haven't made any claims about either Fuji Crystal Archive or an ink jet print on this thread. Don't take things out of context.

[David Luttmann]

My website is also two years old, and undergoing a major revision as we speak.

I haven't made any claims about either Fuji Crystal Archive or an ink jet print on this thread. Don't take things out of context.

You have made claims of such to people who you try to sell your prints to. The fact that you haven't mentioned it in this thread is not relevant. I presume you have some 70 year old Fuji prints to share as you have asked me for inkjet prints for the same reason.

You might wish to change your tone a bit as it appears you no longer have leg to stand on.

[sanking]

With your process, it might take multiple exposures/passes/coatings to produce the maximum black, so that the effort would be unusual or extreme. In digital, all it takes is a curve that can be applied with a couple of clicks. However one still has to know why, when, and how to apply such a curve. If such curve (or similar adjustment) was not applied, more likely than not, there would not be pure black on the print, which would explain very well why your measurements are below that claimed by other people.

Actually, it is not "entirely" the process that requires multiple exposures/passes/coatings to produce maximum black. This is the result of working with traditional in-camera negatives that have curves that prevent one from utilizing the full Dmax of the process.

The ability to control the curve and get maximum Dmax from the process is one of the wonderful things about working with digital negatives with alternative processes. Even with carbon printing, which is a very straight line linear process, it is very difficult to extract the maximum Dmax of the process because of the limitation of in-camera negatives. You can get the Dmax, but at the expense of highlight density. However, with a digital negative you can adjust the curve in such a way to exploit the entire tonal range of the process.

Sandy King

[David Luttmann]

Exactly Sandy,

That is the beauty of having control digitally over the process. The curve can be minutely adjusted to maintain all the detail over the midtones, highlights and shadows in such a way as to maximize Dmax while enhancing all the other properties of the final print.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Irrelevant, once again you and many here have told me the final print is what matter, then I buy the prints and measure the black that is clearly blocked off, in other words it has no detail whatsoever and it is only accent black and you imply this is not right? That I have to have special knowldge of curves? That I have to make special patches?...LOL...no wonder there is so much BS in the digital field.

You dont like this and come up with the patches thing and how there must be a black reference because not everybody can get a black.... This is stupid! Even the most inept person printing in silver can get a max black without having to resort to special knowledge and settings, now you guys tell me that for anybody to get the wild claims of 2.4 the person doing the printing has to have special knowledge? This is typical of digital users! Tell me, what happened with the final product is what matters? Are you guys the only ones holding the secret to the holy grail and nobody else out there doing ink jet prints is privy to this special knowledge? Rememeber, I did not make these prints, these are mady by people selling them. Of course, you are welcome to send me one of your super duper 2.4 Dmax prints to prove your point, other wise, please give me numbers from prints you have purchased. As they say put up or shut up!




QT, if I measure the blackest black on a print I do this from I print I can produce in a notmal setting, not from one that I have coated and exposed 10 times. As you say it takes deliberate steps to produce the blackest black on ink jet, but is that relevant or important? I can make a pt/pd step tablet that exhibits a Dmax of 2.0 but I cannot do that on a print, unless I make 3 or 4 passes. So once again, I have been told numerosus times by many here that the "final print is what matters" well then since we cannot measure aesthetics and taste, we can measure what we comes out of the machine and has measurable variables.

IMO this is once more part of the hype and falsehoods that abound with digital. Why would I want to say that pt/pd is capable of a Dmax of 2.0 when it is possible only by using extreme measures and are not ever present in any prints?

because in an inkjet print you don't have to take "extraordinary" steps to achieve this. I do get prints which have some areas of 100% black in them - it's just that not every area in a final print that looks like it is 100% necessarily is - especially if that particular print doesnt have a particular area that is to 100% contrast it with.

But I certainly have plenty of prints with areas of 100% black in them - as a normal course of the printmaking process - nothing complicated or extraordinary about it.

[David Luttmann]

Irrelevant, once again you and many here have told me the final print is what matter, then I buy the prints and measure the black that is clearly blocked off, in other words it has no detail whatsoever and it is only accent black and you imply this is not right? That I have to have special knowldge of curves? That I have to make special patches?...LOL...no wonder there is so much BS in the digital field.

You dont like this and come up with the patches thing and how there must be a black reference because not everybody can get a black.... This is stupid! Even the most inept person printing in silver can get a max black without having to resort to special knowledge and settings, now you guys tell me that for anybody to get the wild claims of 2.4 the person doing the printing has to have special knowledge? This is typical of digital users! Tell me, what happened with the final product is what matters? Are you guys the only ones holding the secret to the holy grail and nobody else out there doing ink jet prints is privy to this special knowledge? Rememeber, I did not make these prints, these are mady by people selling them. Of course, you are welcome to send me one of your super duper 2.4 Dmax prints to prove your point, other wise, please give me numbers from prints you have purchased. As they say put up or shut up!


This test has already been covered Jorge. It appears the problem is in your testing methods and not having control over the output. As it is not you making the print, and as you appear to not understand the measurement technicalities, the shutting up best come from you. Many who have more knowledge of test methods and of inkjet printing than you, disagree with you. It appears you have no interest in the true outcome....you just have a burning desire to think you are right....no matter what evidence is apparent to the contrary.

The best and most well known printers don't agree with you....nuff said!

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

I have to disagree with this, I doubt you are getting a Dmax of 1.8 from your digital negatives in pt/pd. The only way I have seen high Dmax reflection densities is from multiple passes, digital or traditional. I think this is another of the myths, I asked Dan Burkholder this question, I asked "since you can control your curves I guess you only need one contrast grade for your pt/pd printing?"... his answer.. "In theory".....

So making beleive that PS is the one solution for all that ails photography is IMO bs...


Actually, it is not "entirely" the process that requires multiple exposures/passes/coatings to produce maximum black. This is the result of working with traditional in-camera negatives that have curves that prevent one from utilizing the full Dmax of the process.

The ability to control the curve and get maximum Dmax from the process is one of the wonderful things about working with digital negatives with alternative processes. Even with carbon printing, which is a very straight line linear process, it is very difficult to extract the maximum Dmax of the process because of the limitation of in-camera negatives. You can get the Dmax, but at the expense of highlight density. However, with a digital negative you can adjust the curve in such a way to exploit the entire tonal range of the process.

Sandy King

[Eric_Scott]

Actually, it is not "entirely" the process that requires multiple exposures/passes/coatings to produce maximum black. This is the result of working with traditional in-camera negatives that have curves that prevent one from utilizing the full Dmax of the process.

The ability to control the curve and get maximum Dmax from the process is one of the wonderful things about working with digital negatives with alternative processes. Even with carbon printing, which is a very straight line linear process, it is very difficult to extract the maximum Dmax of the process because of the limitation of in-camera negatives. You can get the Dmax, but at the expense of highlight density. However, with a digital negative you can adjust the curve in such a way to exploit the entire tonal range of the process.

Sandy King

Sandy,

With respect to carbon, do I understand you to mean that if I have a traditional negative with a DR that matches the exposure scale of my sensitized tissue, that it will be difficult to make a full scale print with *maximum* black? I think I'm making full scale prints with a *convincing* black, but I honestly can't say that I know how close to maximum black it is. I just recieved Mark Nelson's CD today, so I'm looking forward to learning how to make digital negatives for carbon printing.

Eric.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

This test has already been covered Jorge. It appears the problem is in your testing methods and not having control over the output. As it is not you making the print, and as you appear to not understand the measurement technicalities, the shutting up best come from you. Many who have more knowledge of test methods and of inkjet printing than you, disagree with you. It appears you have no interest in the true outcome....you just have a burning desire to think you are right....no matter what evidence is apparent to the contrary.

The best and most well known printers don't agree with you....nuff said!

LOL...trust me David, it is you who does not understand the measurements necessary, and the reason why you cannot come up with a test yourself and have to trust what you read even if it is wrong. Of all here, it is you the one who really should shut up since you are the one who seems to lack even the smallest understanding of what is going on. I keep saying, show me your work, show me your results, I am at least willing to design an experiment and then publish the results whatever they are, you in your great open mindedness have dismissed what I am doing without even seeing the methodology and the results, who has the "burning desire to be right" now, huh? I am producing facts, you are only spouting bullshit you read somehwere...way to go! I am astounded at your scientific knowledge.... LOL.

As to the best and well known printers.....lol...do you really think I care? Of course they wont like it, it will expose their bs...

[sanking]

I have to disagree with this, I doubt you are getting a Dmax of 1.8 from your digital negatives in pt/pd. The only way I have seen high Dmax reflection densities is from multiple passes, digital or traditional. I think this is another of the myths, I asked Dan Burkholder this question, I asked "since you can control your curves I guess you only need one contrast grade for your pt/pd printing?"... his answer.. "In theory".....

So making beleive that PS is the one solution for all that ails photography is IMO bs...

It was never suggested that I get a Dmax of 1.8 from Pt/Pd. About the most I can get with single coating and one pass is 1.6, and that is with the best of conditions. But, I believe that is about the most the process allows with one pass, and that was my point about the use of curves. The curve allows you to get the maximum possible Dmax out of any process, be it Pt/Pd, kallitype or carbon, while still keeping a fun range of tones. That is true with in-camera negatives and digital negatives, but with digital negatives you have the capability to adjust the curve at both ends to optimize potential.

I think of maximum Dmax in terms of what the process gives with one printing, not in terms of multiple passes. And to get maximum Dmax, you have to know how to optimize the process itself. In other words, you may have the best digital negative in the world but if you don't know how to optimize results with paper, sensitizer mix, coating, humidity, etc. it will not be possible to get the most from the process.

Sandy King

[sanking]

Sandy,

With respect to carbon, do I understand you to mean that if I have a traditional negative with a DR that matches the exposure scale of my sensitized tissue, that it will be difficult to make a full scale print with *maximum* black? I think I'm making full scale prints with a *convincing* black, but I honestly can't say that I know how close to maximum black it is. I just recieved Mark Nelson's CD today, so I'm looking forward to learning how to make digital negatives for carbon printing.

Eric.

Eric,

Yes, that is correct, because the negative has a toe and shoulder that makes it impossible to use 100% of the curve. You can get the maximum Dmax by cheating the highlights, or you can cheat the shadows to favor the highlights, but you can not get an optimum tonal scale and maximum Dmax at the same time. What the digital negative will do, with the *correct* adjustment curve, is allow you to use every single bit of the tonal values of the process.

Sandy King

[tim atherton]

You dont like this and come up with the patches thing and how there must be a black reference because not everybody can get a black.... This is stupid! Even the most inept person printing in silver can get a max black without having to resort to special knowledge and settings, now you guys tell me that for anybody to get the wild claims of 2.4 the person doing the printing has to have special knowledge? This is typical of digital users! Tell me, what happened with the final product is what matters? Are you guys the only ones holding the secret to the holy grail and nobody else out there doing ink jet prints is privy to this special knowledge? Rememeber, I did not make these prints, these are mady by people selling them. Of course, you are welcome to send me one of your super duper 2.4 Dmax prints to prove your point, other wise, please give me numbers from prints you have purchased. As they say put up or shut up!

you do however seem to miss the point. In order to ensure that any areas in your final print really are true "max" backs (if that is what you want) all it takes is one or two simple clicks (and you may not even need to do that) - just a normal part of the editing process. No special arcane knowledge, no unused steps, no extraordinary multiple additions to the process. It's simple and straightforward

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

It was never suggested that I get a Dmax of 1.8 from Pt/Pd. About the most I can get with single coating and one pass is 1.6, and that is with the best of conditions. But, I believe that is about the most the process allows with one pass, and that was my point about the use of curves. The curve allows you to get the maximum possible Dmax out of any process, be it Pt/Pd, kallitype or carbon, while still keeping a fun range of tones. That is true with in-camera negatives and digital negatives, but with digital negatives you have the capability to adjust the curve at both ends to optimize potential.

I think of maximum Dmax in terms of what the process gives with one printing, not in terms of multiple passes. And to get maximum Dmax, you have to know how to optimize the process itself. In other words, you may have the best digital negative in the world but if you don't know how to optimize results with paper, sensitizer mix, coating, humidity, etc. it will not be possible to get the most from the process.

Sandy King

It seemed to me you implied that by manipulating the curves and making your digital negatives that you can get better results than an optimized traditional work method assuming that the rest of the variables in the procedure are contast, to which David rapidly chimed in that it was true.

This is wht you said:

Actually, it is not "entirely" the process that requires multiple exposures/passes/coatings to produce maximum black. This is the result of working with traditional in-camera negatives that have curves that prevent one from utilizing the full Dmax of the process.

This, to me, implies that the reason we cannot get a higher Dmax is because of the negative, and this IMO is absurd.

[Eric_Scott]

Eric,

Yes, that is correct, because the negative has a toe and shoulder that makes it impossible to use 100% of the curve. You can get the maximum Dmax by cheating the highlights, or you can cheat the shadows to favor the highlights, but you can not get an optimum tonal scale and maximum Dmax at the same time. What the digital negative will do, with the *correct* adjustment curve, is allow you to use every single bit of the tonal values of the process.

Sandy King

Sandy,

What if you use a film like Tmax400 and expose so that everything is on the straight line portion of the curve?

Eric.