PDA

View Full Version : Anybody else getting heartburn with the new 'Carbon Print' ?



clay harmon
30-Oct-2003, 06:57
I ran across this link on another site, and I posted my rant. But am I just being a curmudgeon for thinking that calling an inkjet print a 'carbon print' is just a little disingenuous? There is a 100+ years of a traditionally accepted meaning of the phrase 'carbon print', and to have this term co-opted in the interest of avoiding 'calling a spade a spade' just seems shameful.

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

Any thoughts?

[ Please note that Clyde Butcher has amended his website to remove the term "carbon print",
apparently in response to comments made by participants to this thread, therefore acknowledging
the concern. QTL ]

Jim Galli
30-Oct-2003, 07:19
Yes! My first thoughts exactly. If Cone or someone else trademarked the name Platinum for their ink-jet inks would that make it a Platinum print? It confuses the issue.

David A. Goldfarb
30-Oct-2003, 07:24
You can file that one along with "Selenium" inks and "Digital Platinum Prints."

I've read that Clyde Butcher used to print murals on RC paper and replaced them with fiber prints at his own expense when they started to deteriorate. He is a great photographer, but maybe inclined to look for shortcuts at the printing stage it would seem.

If Ultrachrome is such a great medium, and for certain things I believe it is, why not call it by its name?

Chad Jarvis
30-Oct-2003, 07:24
Yes, I find it irritating as Hell, especially since I am one of those masochists who actually spends time mixing gelatin and sumi ink only to have my tissue not release from the base after exposure!

clay harmon
30-Oct-2003, 07:35
As I posted in that other rant, I suspect that if the prints were actually MORE difficult to produce than a real carbon print, there would be no question but that a new name would have been created to differentiate the process and add cachet to the resulting print. But as I see it, this just co-opts the association with real skill and craft involved in the traditional method. It seems as if people are trying to piggy back on the hard work of all those who have gooey colored gelatin oozing all over their workrooms.

John Kasaian
30-Oct-2003, 07:48
Sounds sort of like Yoghurt. Whatever the heck they put in those plastic cups you get at the market sure ain't Yoghurt, but they call it Yoghurt anyway.

Don Bryant
30-Oct-2003, 07:53
Clay,

I posted a rant about this well over a year ago on the B&S web forum and Dick copied it to the Carbon mail list; look for the subject line "Will the Real Carbon Print Please Stand Up?". If you are interested, research the archives to read the real carbon printers take on this.

Trying to challenge the knuckle heads that call digital B&W prints, "hand pulled carbon prints" is a waste of time IMO. Using their logic one could call a photogravure a carbon print and so on.

I know I'm preaching to the choir here, but visual comparisons of the same image printed as a real carbon print and an inkjet print will dispell the confusion. Unfortunately many people consider inkjet prints a form of alternative processes, including Christopher James.

Huib
30-Oct-2003, 07:58
Clay,

Yes, carbonprint is ill choosen for what is a plain inkjet print.

I'm not shocked by the fact that yet another name is introduced for inkjet (more will follow for shure), it is who does. I expected that an established photographer like Mr. Butscher would not need to do this.

Huib

Bill_1856
30-Oct-2003, 08:30
Sour Grapes. If the image is printed by laying down carbon particles on the substrate surface (whether by drawing with India Ink or a computer programed inkjet printer), then it's a carbon print.

David A. Goldfarb
30-Oct-2003, 08:43
So is an airbrush painting an "inkjet"? If a work that has carbon in the form of India ink placed on a substrate with a pen is a "carbon print" then why not call Clyde's inkjet prints "pen and ink drawings"?

John Kasaian
30-Oct-2003, 08:50
Bill,

I have to disagree. Ground up onion gunk squirted so that it makes a circle and then battered and deep fried is not an onion ring, even if its onion-oid and shaped like a ring. Drawing a picture with a pencil then, would also be a carbon print if that were the case(got to get my mind off of food!)---Cheers

clay harmon
30-Oct-2003, 09:29
"Sour Grapes. If the image is printed by laying down carbon particles on the substrate surface (whether by drawing with India Ink or a computer programed inkjet printer), then it's a carbon print."

Hey Bill. Thanks! Your logic is irrefutable.

From now on I am going to start marketing my gum prints as 'Watercolor Paintings' since they contain watercolor pigment on watercolor paper and the pigment has been applied with a brush. Heck, who would be able to tell the difference between a gum print and a painting anyway. I mean, they are EXACTLY the same thing. Cool. Thanks again.

sanking
30-Oct-2003, 10:08
"Sour Grapes. If the image is printed by laying down carbon particles on the substrate surface (whether by drawing with India Ink or a computer programed inkjet printer), then it's a carbon print."

Believe me, people who make real carbon prints do not have sour grapes because the ink-jet crowd has misappropriated the term carbon, which has a history of use that goes back to the earliest period of photography. The fact that anybody would call an inket print a carbon results from either envy (they know that carbon printing is special and quite complex and want to associate their facile output with it, or ignorance (they think that an inkjet print made from carbon pigments is phyisically like a real carbon print, and by extension has both the same appearance and permanence.

I won't comment further about the envy component, but I can say for certain that an inkjet print made with carbon pigments is not the physical equivalent of a real carbon print. The major difference is that a real carbon print comprises pigment suspended in a layer of gelatin, the archival properties of which are well know from historical record. An inkjet print comprises pigment in another medium, about which we know virtually nothing in terms of long-term permanency except for the information provided by accelerated aging testing. Moreover, inkjet prints have an entirely different look than real carbons, immediately obvious to anyone who has seen both types of prints.

Jorge Gasteazoro
30-Oct-2003, 10:29
Well Clay, I actually had this discssion with some of the members of this and the pn forum and my conclusion was that they know that saying " I want to sell you an ink jet print" does not work so they have come up with a misleading name for their ink jet prints.

I dont let it bother me anymore, I just hope that some of those people who bought a "carbon pigment print" one day see a REAL carbon print and that they demmand a refund or a real carbon print in replacement, or that they sue the gallery or photographer for misrepresentation.

In the end I think in a way it is better for those of us using alt methods to see these descriptions used. Place a real carbon print next to an ink jet print using pigmented inks, or a "digital platinum glicèe" next to a real platinum print and the difference is painfully obvious.

clay harmon
30-Oct-2003, 10:45
I have actually seen some of these prints referred to as "hand pulled" carbon prints. Hmmmmmm....

Hand pulled.

Giclee. (btw, is french for spurt)

Is there a subtext here that I have been missing?

mark_3658
30-Oct-2003, 11:20
For all of you who complain about this issue with black and white, it gets even worse with color. Making a Carbon Pigment print in color is extraordinarily difficult and time consuming. In this day and age, you also have to mix your own color pigment emulsions from scratch. The cost of separations and materials alone is about $750 to $1,000 for a 16x20 print. You can add to this 30 hours of work in Photoshop if you do digital separations and 20-40 hours of darkroom work per print. Add to this the time and effort to mix the emulsions... and this does not even include mistakes!

For those of you who are interested in a compilation of the history of the process, as well as the methodology, I refer you to two articles I wrote for PHOTO Techniques last year (July-August and November-December issues).

My son has a small plastic toy shaped somewhat like a rocket. If you take it in your hand and move it a few inches, it moves through space. Calling an inkjet print a "Carbon Pigment" print is equivalent to calling my son's toy an advanced interplanetary spacecraft (it moves through space, right?). I think the term Giclee is perfect. It is a French word typically used to refer to a cat spraying, although it is also (rarely) used for other things that spray.

Now, I am not knocking inkjets. I can make color prints with pigmented inks that look better and last longer than Lightjets or conventional prints. The problem is that there are a bunch of disingenious and dishonest people out there, as well as a bunch of ignorant clueless folks. I guess all we can do is spread the word to educate the photographic community and pounce on those who misrepresent the facts.

Brian Ellis
30-Oct-2003, 11:30
Clyde is a very nice man and a good photographer but he is first and foremost a great salesman and promoter. I don't mean that disparagingly, it's a quality many of us could use more of, but that's what he is. So if calling his ink jet prints carbon prints will help sell them that's what he'll call them every time he makes a bank deposit. I print digitally but even I'm amused at the lengths some people go to in an effort to avoid using the term "ink jet." Giclee anyone?

sanking
30-Oct-2003, 11:36
Don Bryant wrote:

"I know I'm preaching to the choir here, but visual comparisons of the same image printed as a real carbon print and an inkjet print will dispell the confusion. Unfortunately many people consider inkjet prints a form of alternative processes, including Christopher James."

To be fair Mr. James did the greater part of his research and writing at a time when inkjet printing could reasonably have been called an alternative process. I myself considered it as such at one time. However, inkjet printing has rapidly become the norm and is today more ubiquitious than silver gelatin printing, which is for all practical purposes dead in the sense that we have known it for the past hundred years.

j.e.simmons
30-Oct-2003, 11:37
You goobers are just not sufficiently post-modernist. Remember, one creates his own reality. If I feel that the print I create on my 1983 Vic-20 computer with Commodore Star Gemini 2 dot matrix printer is a "Hand-Pulled, Gold-Toned, Platinum Carbon Print" that's what it is. Ha.

OTOH, I kind of like Giclee. It's sufficiently pretentious for the nouveau riche, and it's not stolen from anything else that I know of. Besides, I can always work in that it's french for "to spit."

David A. Goldfarb
30-Oct-2003, 11:50
I sent an e-mail to Clyde Butcher inviting to participate in the discussion. I hope he does:

Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 13:41:03 -0500 (EST) From: David Goldfarb <dgoldfar@barnard.edu> To: info@clydebutcher.com Subject: Digital "Carbon Prints"

Dear Mr. Butcher,

Two lively discussions are going on about your use of the term "Carbon Print" to describe the digital prints you are marketing through your website. Most of the participants, I would say, are admirers of your work and have no objection per se to the process itself, but find the endorsement of terms like this which have traditionally referred to older processes (other examples being "Digital Platinum Giclee" and "Selenium Ink Prints") by someone of your stature to be disturbing. While it is clear from your website that these are not traditional carbon prints, the terminology suggests that they are in some way a substitute for a traditional process that is much more laborious and costly.

I would like to invite you to participate in these discussions at the following two sites:

http://www.apug.org/site/main/viewtopic.php?t=2251&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

and

http://largeformatphotography.info/lfforum/thread.php?topic=496940

Sincerely,

David Goldfarb

David A. Goldfarb
30-Oct-2003, 11:53
Well, I got a very quick acknowledgment:

David, Thank you for letting us know. We are aware of the situation and trying to correct the situation. We do not want to be known for false info. We strive so hard to be honest and true. Thank you for taking the time to communicate. Any questions or concerns please let me know. Denise

lee\c
30-Oct-2003, 11:59
If Giclee is French for "to squirt" what is the French for "to suck"?

leec

D. Kevin Gibson
30-Oct-2003, 12:00
what a sad and sorry little thread. It really doesn't matter what you call your photographs, or what they are made of (nor how much time and money it cost to make them).

The uses and meanings of things constantly change over time (as much as many would wish otherwise). There is absolutley no reason at all why Clyde shouldn't call his prints Carbon Pigment Prints. He's selling photogorpahs, not artefacts or handicrafts. It is the image that counts; everything else is absolutley secondary.

clay harmon
30-Oct-2003, 12:21
"what a sad and sorry little thread. It really doesn't matter what you call your photographs, or what they are made of (nor how much time and money it cost to make them).

The uses and meanings of things constantly change over time (as much as many would wish otherwise). There is absolutley no reason at all why Clyde shouldn't call his prints Carbon Pigment Prints. He's selling photogorpahs, not artefacts or handicrafts. It is the image that counts; everything else is absolutley secondary."

Interesting theory. But wrong. If someone tries to sell an inkjet copy of a Van Gogh at an auction and call it an original, they will go to jail. So yeah, the copy might bring some of the same satisfaction to the viewer, but representing one kind of 'artifact' as something it is not IS deceptive. People cannot just take home "the image". They have to take home the physical instantiation of the image, in other words, what you scornfully refer to as 'artifact'. When I buy a car, I am not buying the 'idea of a car', I am buying a chunk of metal. If someone tells me that I have bought a Ferrari, and I end up with a Yugo, then telling me to 'imagine' that I am driving a Ferrari is a little unsatisfying.

Furthermore, you imply there is no real difference between viewing a real carbon print and and inkjet print, as long as 'the image' satisifies. You only have to look at examples of each side-by-side to see that couldn't be further than reality. The emperor here is buck naked.

Jorge Gasteazoro
30-Oct-2003, 12:34
The uses and meanings of things constantly change over time (as much as many would wish otherwise). There is absolutely no reason at all why Clyde shouldn't call his prints Carbon Pigment Prints. He's selling photographs, not artefacts or handicrafts. It is the image that counts; everything else is absolutley secondary.



As I told you before, if you are so sure of this, why not call the prints what they are? namely ink jet prints. If the image is all that is important in a photograph then there should not be any problem calling the prints what they are, no?



Nobody here is saying that ink jet prints are "bad", it is precisely because they can be very good that people making them should not be ashamed of calling them what they are. If otoh the term "carbon print" is used to elevate their status, well then, that is dishonest no matter how much you claim the "content" is all that matters.

GG
30-Oct-2003, 12:43
This is funny. It feels as if some one started discussing ready-mix, microwaveable brownies in a French culinary forum. The way I see it, what ever term used (Giclee, Carbon Print, Piezography, etc.) are all ways to try to hide the actual process used. There is a huge taboo against digital methods and this is a reaction to that.

Tom Baker
30-Oct-2003, 13:07
Folks, the world is changing. I know that, at least some of the folks using the term 'carbon' in relationship to their ink jet prints are not trying to pull the wool over anyone's eyes. Most of you don't seem to recognize the fact that all ink jet ink is not 'carbon'. Therefore, there is a need in the evolving medium/process of ink jet printing to differentiate between the carbon inksets and others. Perhaps you could have some real constructive suggestions about what terminology should be used.

I can image what some of you would have said to the first caveman(or cavewoman) to suggest that the rock etchings should be colored with some 'stuff' they found.

BTW, I don't like the term giclee because I do believe that it was an attempt to hide the fact that it was an inkjet process. After all, 'inkjet' does sound sort of 'officeish'. People are now making serious prints/images with the inkjet process. We don't have to try and hide anything. It's great fun being involved a real evolutionary, if not revolutionary, process.

Tom Baker

j.e.simmons
30-Oct-2003, 13:11
If Ultrachrome ink is, indeed, something special, call it that.

Tom Baker
30-Oct-2003, 13:14
BTW, I do use Ultrachrome, and I state on each print the inkset used.

Tom Baker

clay harmon
30-Oct-2003, 13:24
Tom,

I don't think anyone here is necessarily looking down their noses at inkjet prints. The issue is really that there historically has been a very specific meaning to the term 'carbon print', which is nowhere close to the same visual or tactile experience as a digital 'carbon print' . So why not call your print an archival ink print? or some new term, I dunno, maybe archival sputterotype or something.

Tom Baker
30-Oct-2003, 13:35
Maybe. But, the reality is that these inks are carbon based, and the word carbon belongs in the description somewhere. The folks using carbon based inks don't want it confused with other inkjet inks either. Paul Roak, for instance, refers to his work as 'carbon pigment'. This is not an attempt to steal the term 'carbon print'. But, that still doesn't address the issue of somehow saying 'how' the 'carbon pigment' is applied to the paper.

Tom Baker

David A. Goldfarb
30-Oct-2003, 13:40
You could call them, for instance, "Fine Art Ink Jet Prints," as Clyde Butcher seems to be doing on his newly revised page. Go back to that original link, and things look a bit different than they did when I first saw it.

Andrew Ito
30-Oct-2003, 13:44
I make inkjet prints using the Piezography software using carbon based inksets. And I agree that perhaps "carbon print" wasn't the best term used for the process, although the print is actually using carbon pigments. It's just so funny how people get so worked up and offended at someone else's interpretation of how to name the process. It's not like someone called your mom ugly or something. People will do things without thinking all the time. What's the sense of getting into a flame war over it. Just my $.02... Enjoy your printmaking no matter what process you use!

D. Kevin Gibson
30-Oct-2003, 13:45
"Nobody here is saying that ink jet prints are "bad", it is precisely because they can be very good that people making them should not be ashamed of calling them what they are. If otoh the term "carbon print" is used to elevate their status, well then, that is dishonest no matter how much you claim the "content" is all that matters."

"Interesting theory. But wrong. If someone tries to sell an inkjet copy of a Van Gogh at an auction and call it an original, they will go to jail. So yeah, the copy might bring some of the same satisfaction to the viewer, but representing one kind of 'artifact' as something it is not IS deceptive. People cannot just take home "the image". They have to take home the physical instantiation of the image, in other words, what you scornfully refer to as 'artifact'. When I buy a car, I am not buying the 'idea of a car', I am buying a chunk of metal. If someone tells me that I have bought a Ferrari, and I end up with a Yugo, then telling me to 'imagine' that I am driving a Ferrari is a little unsatisfying." -

Not so - describng such prints as "carbon pigment prints" is completely accurate. They are prints made with carbon pigmets, plain and simple. In fact it is probably more accurate (and truthful) than the term "carbon prints" for the historic process which often doesn't even use carbon black, even in its "B&W" process but rather "permanent" watercolor pigments - along with gelatin etc.

Carbon pigment print is an entirely accurate and truthful description of the process. And considering he has a whole paage of detailed explanation, it's pretty hard to see how Clyde Butcher could be accused of trying fool or "defraud" people with regard to his prints.

Julian_3496
30-Oct-2003, 13:45
I've used Piezo since it came out and there has been a lot of thought about what to call the darn things. 'Inkjet prints' don't do it any more than 'enlarger prints' would do it for silver. Inks come in many forms, dyes, pigments, hybrids, and inkjet printers come in many shapes or forms. Inkjet printing isn't easy, you need to be able to use a densitometer same as in wet printing - its just taken me three days of solid work to get a print the way i wanted it. The concensus on the piezo list was to call them 'carbon pigment inkjet' prints so as to avoid the confusion with carbon prints. Cone preferred 'piezo prints' but piezo is the name of the head technology in certain inkjet printers so yet another problem. Also there are lots of different inks out there now so some sort of name is needed to differentiate between the plug n play auto printers and those of us who are using serioius technology.

Tom Baker
30-Oct-2003, 13:47
I'm happy just saying that mine are Epson Ultrachome Inkjet prints. I think it's even a little presumptuous to call anything 'fine art'. I think that's in the eye of the beholder. That's the problem I have with the term 'giclee'.

Tom Baker

David A. Goldfarb
30-Oct-2003, 13:52
Giclee implies Iris to me, and I don't mind seeing it that way. When Ultrachrome prints are called "giclee," that seems pretentious to me (aside from the fact that many consider Ultrachrome to be superior to Iris).

Julian_3496
30-Oct-2003, 14:08
"Giclee implies Iris to me, and I don't mind seeing it that way. When Ultrachrome prints are called "giclee," that seems pretentious to me (aside from the fact that many consider Ultrachrome to be superior to Iris)."

Most inkjet printers despise the use of the word giclee. YOu are right in thinking it emerged as a name for iris prints. iris prints have a poorer life-span and poorer colour gamut than UltraC inks. But there again UltraC prints are epsons trademark for archival highload pigment colour inks. If I use MIS hi load carbon pigs, what do I call it?

Jay DeFehr
30-Oct-2003, 14:12
"Does a rose by any other name smell as sweet?"

If those of you who have defended the use of these deceptively named processes don't believe that the name is important, you are either ignorant, naive, disingenuous, or some combination of the above. Mr. Butcher is not naive, and is fully aware of the carbon pigment process, its history and cachet.Lets be clear, these digital innovations are not trying to compete with their modern chemical counterparts, but with the very pioneers of the photographic process. If an "artefact", or photograph could be produced digitally today that could in any qualitative way compare to those created by the legitimate carbon pigment printers of 100 years ago, the digital movement would declare victory and, you can be sure, come up with a new name to describe their superior process. This issue is really one of honor. The appropriation of this process' name dishonors those who, through ingenuity, dedication perseverance and inspiration perfected a very unique and painstaking process to create what are arguably the highest quality images ever created by mankind. It is dishonorable because the purveyors of these false processes introduce them to the same market with the legitimate processes, and thereby devalue the efforts of their fellow and historical artists. It has been suggested that these legitimate practitioners have been too sensitive regarding the names of these processes, and that suggestions should be made for acceptable names. My suggestion is that these digital pioneers use the same ethics and practices of their traditional predecessors and name thier processes in the most straightforward and descriptive ways possible. A carbon pigment print is so named to describe the materials used that differentiate it from other contemporary processes, as do the names platinum print, albumen print, etc. Alternatively, they could follow the examples of the early entrepreneurs who sought recognition and remuneration by naming their processes for themselves, in which case the name Butchertype might be considered. As it stands, these cleverly contrived names only bring discredit to those who pioneer them, and I can't imagine any short term financial gain being worth the diminished respect that they guarantee. So Mr. Butcher et al, please have some pride in your own process, and some respect for those upon which yours depends.

tim atherton
30-Oct-2003, 14:16
"Giclee implies Iris to me, and I don't mind seeing it that way. When Ultrachrome prints are called "giclee," that seems pretentious to me (aside from the fact that many consider Ultrachrome to be superior to Iris)."

That is part of the point - if you talk to some of the IRIS pioneers - Jon Cone or Graham Nash you will find they say exactly that about the superiority of Ultrachrome inks and systems with regard IRIS, and they are heavily into the Ultrachrome systems

"If I use MIS hi load carbon pigs, what do I call it?" Ultratones... (though I guess they are only calling the quadtones inks that)

Bill_1856
30-Oct-2003, 14:19
I quit making Carbon prints over 50 years ago, when Carbo pigments became virtually impossible to obtain because they were often replaced with Dyes for Kodak's Dye Transfer process (which I also gave up 50 years ago when I started college). How many of you indignent purists have ever actually made a "real, old fashioned Carbon Print?" I'm not aware of any requirement that a carbon print be transfered to a gelatin coated paper.

sanking
30-Oct-2003, 14:22
"Carbon pigment print is an entirely accurate and truthful description of the process."

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

D. Kevin Gibson
30-Oct-2003, 14:23
Oh Jay, give it a break, "ignorant, naive, disingenuous, honour, deception" These are photographs we are talking about, snapshots, things to put on your wall for decoration - not the cure for cancer or the League of Nations. Such hyperbole does nothing but highlight the silliness of it.

Tom Baker
30-Oct-2003, 14:26
Ain't that the truth.

Tom Baker

Jay DeFehr
30-Oct-2003, 14:28
Then we know where you stand.

David A. Goldfarb
30-Oct-2003, 14:37
Maybe my post a few back is a little too cryptic. Check the link that started this discussion:

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

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

Nick_3536
30-Oct-2003, 15:28
Nothing new. You can buy a six pack of champange cans to.

John D Gerndt
30-Oct-2003, 15:28
I am a little late getting my post in but for anyone still listening I'll say that it is out of respect for those persons who DID master the technique and explore(d) its values that the original term "Carbon Print" be spared. Everyone knows what a Kodachrome is. Let Ultrachrome take its place in history (or not).

John D Gerndt

Jorge Gasteazoro
30-Oct-2003, 15:32
They are prints made with carbon pigmets, plain and simple. In fact it is probably more accurate (and truthful) than the term "carbon prints" for the historic process which often doesn't even use carbon black



You are displaying your ignorance, what do you think is used to make watercolor pigments? If you guessed carbon black for black color you would be correct. Depending on the color not only is carbon black used, but also chromates, cadmiun and many other metals which impart the particular color to the pigment.
In addition real carbon prints are not made only of water color pigments, there are other pigments used as well. Many of which are carbon or carbon in combination with metals.



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



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



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



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

Bruce Watson
30-Oct-2003, 16:08
Wow. Must be a slow news day. Hard to believe that y'all are arguing so vehemently over something as arcane as a naming convention. Y'all are taking this extremely personally, like the name of the process somehow validates your life, and forms your identity. It doesn't, BTW.

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

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

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

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

D. Kevin Gibson
30-Oct-2003, 16:19
"They are prints made with carbon pigmets, plain and simple. In fact it is probably more accurate (and truthful) than the term "carbon prints" for the historic process which often doesn't even use carbon black

You are displaying your ignorance, what do you think is used to make watercolor pigments? If you guessed carbon black for black color you would be correct. Depending on the color not only is carbon black used, but also chromates, cadmiun and many other metals which impart the particular color to the pigment. In addition real carbon prints are not made only of water color pigments, there are other pigments used as well. Many of which are carbon or carbon in combination with metals."

Au contraire - I don't believe it is my ignorance that is on display.

Fron "Making the Pigment (Carbon) Print"

"The "Carbon" in the term "Carbon process" is really a misnomer nowadays, since the colorant now used is a mixture of permanent watercolor pigments. However, Carbon Black was originally used and the name remains. The popularity of these beautiful prints has suffered in the past because many people think that Carbon granules are somehow incorporated into the final image."

The point being that many "Carbon" prints - monochrome ones - don't actually incorporate any carbon/carbo black pigment at all - but rather pigments of different sorts.

So now, who exactly is being "ignorant, naive, disingenuous, or some combination of the above" I wonder? "Carbon" print makers perhaps?

BTW, having dealt with a good number of "carbon prints" in collections I can say that their longevity can be somewhat overstated - poor storage leads to serious deterioaration, and while the pigment may be fine and last for aeons, many were and are made on substrates that can display serious deterioration long before that even when stored in ideal conditions.

Now I had better go and make some Gelatin Silver Fibre Based Enlarger prints

Andre_3662
30-Oct-2003, 16:32
I now print on 100% cotton, acid free, lignin free, OBA free, 2% buffered fine art paper using carbon pigment inks. I call my prints carbon pigments prints. And I know that my carbon pigments prints will outlast anything I've made in the darkroom.

I will not use the word inkjet for the same reason I was not using the term "enlarger made silver print" or "chemically processed silver print" when I had the darkroom.

If any darkroom workers sees a problem with this, that's their problem not mine. If and when they start using the term "enlarger made chemically processed silver print" then I will consider using the term inkjet.

Michael Chmilar
30-Oct-2003, 16:55
co-opts the association with real skill and craft involved in the traditional method.

Yup! That computer-y stuff requires no skill whatsoever. Darn machine does everything for you.

Jorge Gasteazoro
30-Oct-2003, 17:01
Au contraire - I don't believe it is my ignorance that is on display.

Fron "Making the Pigment (Carbon) Print"

"The "Carbon" in the term "Carbon process" is really a misnomer nowadays, since the colorant now used is a mixture of permanent watercolor pigments. However, Carbon Black was originally used and the name remains. The popularity of these beautiful prints has suffered in the past because many people think that Carbon granules are somehow incorporated into the final image."



LOL...I see you beleive everything you read and is obvious you and the person who wrote this "Making the Pigment (Carbon) Print" is as ignorant of the fact that watercolor is but ONE of the many pigments available for Carbon prints.



But if you want to play the quoting game, let me quote the instructions for making carbon tissue from Luis Nadeau's book, "Modern Carbon Printing". Who BTW is a true and recognized authority in this area.



Glycerin......4 ml
CARBON BLACK....1 gr
Gelatin.........50 gr
Water.....500 ml.

So you see, yes your ignoarnce is in display, as a matter of fact, since water color pigments are so expensive and so much is used in making the tissue rarely any real carbon printer uses them to make tissue.



BTW I see you still refuse to answer, if content is so important, why not name them ink jet prints?



As to your comment on durability, at least there are Carbon prints which are 100 years old and more. The accelerated tests you are so proud to quote do not take into account air pollution, common atmospheric contaminants, the effect of variable humidity and temperature, etc. I have read the testing methods used by Wilhelm, RIT and others and at best they are an indication that the ink jet prints could last this long, but by no means are they the final proof that they will.



so to use your question:



So now, who exactly is being "ignorant, naive, disingenuous, or some combination of the above" I wonder? Ink jet printers perhaps?

Clayton Jones
30-Oct-2003, 17:03
Hello All,

There have been numerous threads on the subject of "what to call them" in the digital BW printing community, and I'd like to share a few things from that perspective:

1) There is general dislike for "Giclee" for being too pretentious, the French meanings, etc., same as here.

2) There is general unwillingness for calling them "inkjet prints" because of the reputation that term has earned by the poor performance of the early dye-based inks, and a great many people simply don't know the difference. There _are_ many different technologies these days under the umbrella of "inkjet", and those who spend long hours and considerable expense struggling to get good and long lasting results want some way to differentiate what they are doing from what the uneducated masses think of when they hear "inkjet".

3) As for what term to use, several things have been debated, but "carbon pigment" seems to be the one that is winning (I once put forth the term "carbon ink", but it didn't get many takers). I remember a discussion about whether this was coopting the early process, but the general consensus was that the early process was always called "carbon print", and that "carbon pigment print" was sufficiently different as to not be infringing. I have looked in two books on photo history and did not see "carbon pigment" used. I think that this term is the one that caught on because it most accurately describes the process the serious practitioners use. The use of "carbon pigment" seems to be so widespread today (just spend an evening surfing photo web sites) that I would submit that at this point nobody thinks that "carbon prints" are being advertised. I seriously doubt that the term is causing any confusion of the two processes, or that anyone thinks a photographer is trying to trick someone into thinking they are buying a "carbon print".

I think it is disengenuous to accuse digi practitioners of maliciously stealing an honored name for nefarious purposes. From _experience_ participating in the forums (not a fantasy imagination of what these folks are all about) I submit that digital practitioners are as sensitive to, and care as much about, this issue as those alt process folks who are hurling the accusations. The digi printing cummunity is made of of some very fine photographers who love photography and its history as much as anyone.

Regards, Clayton Jones

Tom Baker
30-Oct-2003, 17:16
I have been doing large format photography for many years. I'm extremely please to be involved in the evolution of the digital medium. Based on the way some on this forum react to the changing world, I see that large format photography may die a natural death...from boredom, and/or boordom.

Tom Baker

Jorge Gasteazoro
30-Oct-2003, 17:45
As for what term to use, several things have been debated, but "carbon pigment" seems to be the one that is winning (I once put forth the term "carbon ink", but it didn't get many takers). I remember a discussion about whether this was coopting the early process, but the general consensus was that the early process was always called "carbon print", and that "carbon pigment print" was sufficiently different as to not be infringing



I suppose this "conclusion" was reached solely by ink jet printers, I doubt you asked any real carbon printer.



Since Gibson started the quoting game, let me provide you one. "Traitè gèneràl de photographie" published in 1880 and dealing with Carbon printing and naming it as such. This is only one of the many references in the literature that go this far back, so they are out there, if you know where to look.



SO this "general consensus" sounds highly suspect to me.....

Crispin Agnew
30-Oct-2003, 18:07
"I suppose this "conclusion" was reached solely by ink jet printers, I doubt you asked any real carbon printer. Since Gibson started the quoting game, let me provide you one. "Traitè gèneràl de photographie" published in 1880 and dealing with Carbon printing and naming it as such. This is only one of the many references in the literature that go this far back, so they are out there, if you know where to look. SO this "general consensus" sounds highly suspect to me....."

Can't you see it doesn't matter? (nor does anyone need the "permission" of the small band of carbon printers, the "keepers" of the historical process to use a similar name for a new or current process).

Language and usage (like photography) changes and evolves over time. If the alt/carbon printing crowd don't like it - well that's really their problem and no one else's - they need to learn to cope with change. Things will just go rolling along quite happily without them.

As well, I don't think anyone says - "I just made a gelatin silver enlarger print" or "I just made an Azo bare bulb contact print" or an Ultra Violet Light Bank Platinum print" do they? So why you stubborn and obdurate insistence on "inkjet"? We usually just refer to the paper type or brand (gelatin silver, azo, Ilfochrome) or the chemical process (dye transfer, dye coupler) or whatever. We don't generally refer to the machine used to make the print. How do you describe you platinum prints Jorge? Do you describe the light source used?

A process that uses carbon pigments should have no qualms about saying so.

Sergio Caetano
30-Oct-2003, 19:45
And he (Clyde) says he prints on a archival LexJet paper. Something printed with ink/dyes can be considered archival ?

Crispin Agnew
30-Oct-2003, 19:52
"And he (Clyde) says he prints on a archival LexJet paper. Something printed with ink/dyes can be considered archival ?"

Please - at least read the posts or do a bit of research - he's using pigment inks not dye based inks. So yes

Brian Ellis
30-Oct-2003, 20:03
Not that anyone probably cares but I'd like to correct an unintended implication of my message about Clyde Butcher. I said that if calling the prints "carbon" prints would help sell them then that's what he'd call them. The unintended implication was that he would call them anything, honest or dishonest, to sell a print. That isn't what I meant. I meant only that he is aware of the marketing value of a name. There obviously is at least some basis for his calling his prints "carbon," it isn't as though he was just pulling the name out of the air, so while I understand the concern of some that it might be misleading (and don't want to get into that debate since I know nothing about traditional carbon printing), I don't see it as being dishonest and I certainly didn't mean to imply that he was dishonest.

Kaatharine Thayer
30-Oct-2003, 20:03
"We usually just refer to the paper type or brand (gelatin silver, azo, Ilfochrome) or the chemical process (dye transfer, dye coupler) or whatever. We don't generally refer to the machine used to make the print. How do you describe you platinum prints Jorge? Do you describe the light source used?"

"Platinum print" has a specific meaning; everyone knows what a platinum print is. And by the same token, "Carbon print" has a specific time-honored meaning. A machine-made print is something else, and yes, should be called by a name that identifies it as a machine-made print. People who are interested in buying handmade prints will never be interested in buying machine-made prints, and using a label that tries to obscure its nature isn't going to make a machine-made print any more palatable to collectors of traditional prints. The idea that people buy the image and don't care how the print is made is simply not consistent with what I know about collectors of photographic prints.

I suppose I'm lucky, in that the name of my process (gum bichromate) isn't likely to be co-opted by digital printers, since there's nothing in the name that has any relation to the materials used in inkjet printing. While I can appreciate that digital printers might want to make distinctions between different types of inks etc, all are still digital prints and should be labeled as such, one way or another. I'm surprised there's so little enthusiasm for the term "giclee" however, because it's the word that is used everywhere in the gallery world to designate inkjet prints. Everyone understands what it means; there's no confusion about what it is, as there could be when a digital print is labeled "photograph" or "carbon print." Make no mistake, buyers do want to know what they're buying, and don't like being fooled.

Crispin Agnew
30-Oct-2003, 20:08
"As to your comment on durability, at least there are Carbon prints which are 100 years old and more. The accelerated tests you are so proud to quote do not take into account air pollution, common atmospheric contaminants, the effect of variable humidity and temperature, etc. I have read the testing methods used by Wilhelm, RIT and others and at best they are an indication that the ink jet prints could last this long, but by no means are they the final proof that they will."

This isn't correct - the testing does take those things into account (which is why, for example, Wilhelm's results give different ratings for different storage conditions [which, of course, is also the case for traditional photogorpahic materials as well]), It is also, for example, part of the reasoning behind the micro encapsulating of Epson Ultrachrome pigment inks (I'm also well aware of Barb Vogt's paper - first, there are some serious problems with her methodology, which she has admitted. Secondly she picked papers to test which were never designed for longevity, so she got what she was looking for. Thirdly, in the rapid evoltuion of inket inks and substrates, her research is already dated very dated. Some of the questions she raised were already being addressed by ink and paper manufacturers at the time and are no longer serious issues. Some other issues she raised with regard to testing methodology were also in the process of being addressed by the testing facilities at RIT, Wilhelm, CCI etc and have since been incorporated into their proceedures and results. As a result, most of the points she raised were already non-issues by the time she published her paper. They a certainly non issues now. The paper doesn't have much credibility in conservation circles.)

David A. Goldfarb
30-Oct-2003, 21:22
To be fair to Clyde Butcher in all this, based on his pricing structure, I don't think he was really trying to pass his carbon pigment inkjet prints off as fine prints. His handmade silver prints start around $250, while the inkjets are around $45. He also sells posters, books and notecards. For most potential purchasers, the inkjets offer an affordable way to own a framable print that's nicer than a poster or a reproduction in a book.

David F. Stein
30-Oct-2003, 21:23
I may have missed it in this long thread, but some of the pretentiousness started with calling photographs "Silver Gelatin Prints." ??? Somewhere along the line, the customer should know what process he or she is actually buying. Artists of all ilks are doing hybrids-original pastel prints scanned and printed out on giclee, oops, I mean inkjet paper; people who do computer drawings and print them out on inkjet. One of the problems is that the inkjet printer is being used as a printing press used to-when an original painting or photograph was reproduced by fine art lithography the distinction was perhaps more clear. But it's been many years now that laser scanned and digitally printed "photos" in books have had comparable tonality and presence to an original, one-off fiber base photograph. What I would call reproductions are being sold—to a good extent—as if they were originals-hand color one photograph, then scan and inkjet priint. With the demise of fine art lithography, we will see more and more of this. Difficult but important discussion.

Jorge Gasteazoro
30-Oct-2003, 21:53
As well, I don't think anyone says - "I just made a gelatin silver enlarger print" or "I just made an Azo bare bulb contact print" or an Ultra Violet Light Bank Platinum print" do they? So why you stubborn and obdurate insistence on "inkjet"? We usually just refer to the paper type or brand (gelatin silver, azo, Ilfochrome) or the chemical process (dye transfer, dye coupler) or whatever. We don't generally refer to the machine used to make the print. How do you describe you platinum prints Jorge? Do you describe the light source used?

A process that uses carbon pigments should have no qualms about saying so.



Katharine responded to that very well and there is little I could add to her excellent response, but the term platinum print did not appropriate or tried to mislead a previous process, your name does. BTW I noticed you glossed over her response....nice deflect



Now, you obviously did not read all my responses, the name carbon pigment print denotes a totally different methodology than an ink jet print, and the people using this term are relying on this to sell their prints. As I said, the proposed name by Julian, "Carbon pigment inkjet" does describe perfectly the material and the methodology.



Perhaps it is you the one who is obstinate and obdurate in trying to name your prints something they are not so you can deceive people, and apparently upsets you when people like me oppose the name.



This isn't correct - the testing does take those things into account (which is why, for example, Wilhelm's results give different ratings for different storage conditions



Again you want to read what you hope will give you reason, if you re read my post you will see I stated that the tests are not conducted under variable conditions at the time the test is made they do not include pollutants, variable humidity and temperature at the time the test is made. Varying humidity in storage conditions is silly...who cares? and yet it is not the same to vary the humidity at discrete intervals and record the changes than it is to to record the changes day to day under varying conditions of humidity and temperature as well as the presence of environmental and household pollutants, so no, you are the one who is incorrect.

Jorge Gasteazoro
30-Oct-2003, 22:10
I may have missed it in this long thread, but some of the pretentiousness started with calling photographs "Silver Gelatin Prints." ??? Somewhere along the line, the customer should know what process he or she is actually buying



Now I am in agreement with your first sentence, it is pretentious and I think there was no need to do so, but yet, the term silver gelatin print is not a misleading one as it is carbon pigment print.



How is the customer supposed to know if the print is being misrepresented? Galleries are under obligation to present the print as the artist names it, if the artists named it carbon pigment print, then the customer might think, specially if he is an uninformed one that he has a "carbon print" since, as Agnew and other ink jet printers are fond to point out the language changes, pretty soon what was a "carbon pigment print" will become a "carbon print" since to most people the pigment part would seem to be irrelevant, specially if they are not photographers. And there you have it, eventually the name will be shortened to "carbon print" and once it is done by one, the herd will follow.

Jorge Gasteazoro
30-Oct-2003, 22:58
There are times when a person`s honesty restores your faith. All this started because Clyde Butcher was marketing his ink jets as "carbon pigment prints". Some of us wrote to him and explained our reasons as to why we thought this was a misleading name. It took him and his wife less than a day to ammend the entire web site, he changed the name from "carbon pigment print" to digital prints in his sales part, and to "fine art ink jet prints" in his explanation part.

Now here is an artists who is honest, not ashamed of his methods and lets the content of his prints speak for them (does this sound familiar?), not the name.....As far as I am concerned I am done with this thread, if someone like Butcher can understand the arguments and agree with them there is really no need for me to elabor these points...good luck to all of you ink jet printers.

Jon_2416
30-Oct-2003, 23:18
A machine-made print is something else, and yes, should be called by a name that identifies it as a machine-made print. People who are interested in buying handmade prints will never be interested in buying machine-made prints, and using a label that tries to obscure its nature isn't going to make a machine-made print any more palatable to collectors of traditional prints. The idea that people buy the image and don't care how the print is made is simply not consistent with what I know about collectors of photographic prints.

Ok Katharine, I'll use your argument: an enlarger is a 'machine'. You must start calling your work 'silver gelatin enlarger prints'. Your implication that people that use the digital process are trying to 'fool' buyers is plain ignorant and insulting.

And Jorge, I do think the name should be different--a variation on carbon print. But I don't need to put the term 'inkjet' in the description any more than you need to put in 'enlarger'. That is a pretty clear analogy. I get really tired of the analog fanatics that think that digital practitioners are below them--and carry on as if they were god's gift to the photographic world. They are just as bad as the fanatical 'film is dead' clowns.

Julian_3496
31-Oct-2003, 02:27
The other name being used a lot is 'archival pigment quadtones' which is what I use for BW. I resent using a trade name as a descriptor, so for colour I use 'archival high-load pigments'. There is something something almost fascistic (in the philosophical sense) about arguments put forward to freeze the meaning of a particular word and not allow it into other combinations. I find the atmosphere in art, as opposed to photo, galleries much more refreshing, much less fightingover processes and more interest in images.

John D Gerndt
31-Oct-2003, 07:07
One more lick to the dead horse: Give the process a trade name and let people viewing the art/output, figure out if the process is improtant to THEM. A significantly NEW process needs a NEW name.

Jan Pietrzak
31-Oct-2003, 08:28
I am going to start with this summer, and APIS and the presentation made by the Getty. After APIS Terry King and I were guests of the Getty to see some of the research that they are doing. One of the tools that they have can scan and readout all the componant parts of any art work. Carbon prints by Getty defination are prints made using a dichromate/bichromate process. This is the standard for the process used for cataloging work.

Any artist/photographer can call their work what they want but in the end reachers and catalogers will set you right. Do ink jet output print need a name yes, but they need a new name.

Julian_3496
31-Oct-2003, 08:34
i agree whole heartedly Jan. We need to find a description that identifies as clearly as possible what goes down on the paper. Unfortunately 'carbon pigment' is the main component of high quality inkjet prints and differentiates it from low quality output. I alo agree that people calling quad prints 'carbon pigment prints' is confusing to say the least. This is why you see so many variations - but I will still describe my prints on statements as 'carbon pigment quadtone inks on heavyweight archival paper'

sanking
31-Oct-2003, 09:47
I would like to add a bit of information to this discussion because I think it is an important one. Proper identification as to process is in fact a very important issue for artists who sell their work through galleries and anyone who claims that it is not is pretty naive.

Let me begin this discussion by noting that I am a carbon printer. I am also a photo historian and have done quite a bit of research on carbon processes, of which there are really two important types. I have also been involved for over a year in testing the carbon tissue that B&S plans to market beginning in early 2004 and am preparing at this moment a review article on these materials for a national magazine.

The carbon process as I practice it was introduced more or less in its present form in 1864 by the Englishman Joseph W. Swan and the term thus has a history of use of almost 150 years. Swan used a paper support, coated on one side with a pigmented-gelatin solution, known as carbon tissue. After sensitization with dichromate and exposure to UV light this tissue was transferred to a temporary support for development. When dry the resulting pigment image was transferred to its final paper support. Swan began marketing carbon materials in 1866. The carbon process introduced by Swann has been historically called either carbon or carbon transfer. Other names have been used from time to time but this can be confusing. For example, the gallery that markets Joseph Sudek’s carbon and/or carbro prints refers to them as “pigment prints.” In the 1880s and 1890s a process that we call today direct carbon was introduced. In direct carbon the image is developed directly without transfer. However, the people who produced materials for this process did not call it direct carbon. Rather, they used proprietary names such as Artigue, Fresson, etc. Quadrichromie Fresson as practiced by the Fresson family in France today is a form of direct carbon.

Although there are some significant differences in image appearance between carbon transfer prints and direct carbons they share some important qualities: both comprise pigments suspended in gelatin, which has been hardened by exposure to UV light.

What we know for a fact about carbon, based on surviving carbon prints from the 19th century, is that it is the most permanent of all photographic processes. In fact, the permanence of the image itself is limited only by the support on which it is placed.

I have absolutely nothing against pigmented prints made with inkjet printers. In fact, I own an Epson printer that makes pigment prints and there is no doubt in my mind but these prints are much more permanent than prints made with inks. However, they are different both in physical composition and in appearance from real carbon prints, and I very much doubt that they are as permanent. For those reasons I would expect that serious artists and gallery owners would chose a name for this type of print that does not confuse it with traditional carbon. I really don’t know what that name should be but I don’t think it should contain the word carbon.

Quite frankly I must admit that my feelings are somewhat conflicted by this controversy because it has had the beneficial result of bringing some attention to a process which very few photographers, even advanced ones, knew anything about.

And let me add that it was very gratifying to note that Clyde Butcher made a change in his website to eliminate any possibility of misrepresentation. We should expect and demand the same from all serious artists and gallery owners.

Kaatharine Thayer
31-Oct-2003, 09:57
Ok Katharine, I'll use your argument: an enlarger is a 'machine'. You must start calling your work 'silver gelatin enlarger prints'. Your implication that people that use the digital process are trying to 'fool' buyers is plain ignorant and insulting.

This response shows that my post wasn't even read, as it uses the argument that my post responded to and continues to to ignore the distinction between a handcoated process and a machine-printed process, which is the important distinction that is being elided in this discussion. Furthermore, it assumes that I use an enlarger and make traditional black and white prints, which I don't and which he would know had he read my post.

I don't think people making prints are fooling buyers, as long as they are honest about what they are offering buyers. If there is something in the label that identifies it to buyers as a digital print, then it is not misleading; if there's not, then it is.

sanking
31-Oct-2003, 10:02
Just for the record, and to avoid offending any of my gum bichromate friends with the comment that carbon is the most permanent of all photographic processes, I need to add that I consider gum bichromate to be a form of direct carbon printing. And I gather that Nadeau does as well because his book on gum dichromate is called Gum Dichromate and othe Direct Carbon Processes, From Artigue to Zimmerman.

D. Kevin Gibson
31-Oct-2003, 10:21
unfortunately Sandy Quadtone inkjet printing (as well as other forms) turned to both pigment inks and carbon in part for the very reasons you outline with regard to tradtitional carbon printing - their longevity and stability

That is one of the major points (possibly the major point, along with the obvious ability of carbon pigments to produce greyscale prints) of using these inks. As such I think the two terms do have to be used in describing the prints. In actual practice I think they will increasingly be used to describe this form of printing. It is very very hard (despite your clear arguents and reservations) to argue that a process that uses carbon pigments (or other pigments) as an essential part of that process should not use those terms in describing or labelling the process itself and the resulting prints. I really don't think it will happen, nor do I think it is going to happen.

I think the general public, never mind institutions and galleries, are certainly sophisticted enough to understand the difference - there are plenty of other similarly worded yet different processes in all sorts of different areas that people have no trouble with. I think that can be the case here too.

The short answer is that, as much as they would perhaps like it, tradtional carbon printers don't have a monopoly on the terms "carbon" and "pigment"

sanking
31-Oct-2003, 10:35
The short answer is that, as much as they would perhaps like it, tradtional carbon printers don't have a monopoly on the terms "carbon" and "pigment"

Kevin,

I have no problem at all with the use of the term pigment as part of a description of pigmented prints made with inkjet printers. It is the use of carbon to which I oject.

BTW, in an earlier message you wrote:

"The point being that many "Carbon" prints - monochrome ones - don't actually incorporate any carbon/carbo black pigment at all - but rather pigments of different sorts. "

This is not correct, Virtually all formulas for monochrome carbon tissue consisted of a fairly high percentage of carbon black as the basic pigment. There were a few special colors that did not contain any carbon black at all but this was the exception, not the rule.

D. Kevin Gibson
31-Oct-2003, 10:44
Sandy, early on there was talk of "calling a spade a spade" - if the process uses carbon pigments (as opposed to the colour inks use of colour pigments) why not call it carbon pigment? Or do you prefer to call a spade an earth moving implement?

"This is not correct, Virtually all formulas for monochrome carbon tissue consisted of a fairly high percentage of carbon black as the basic pigment. There were a few special colors that did not contain any carbon black at all but this was the exception, not the rule."

There are those who prefer to use Mars Black

Chris Partti
31-Oct-2003, 10:59
Sandy King's description of the traditional carbon printing as a "a process which very few photographers, even advanced ones, knew anything about" pretty much debunks the notion that by calling their work "carbon pigment prints" inkjet printers are somehow attempting to trade on confusion with the older carbon print process. As Sandy's post implies, the buying public simply has no knowledge of what a traditional carbon print is, and association with carbon printing is unlikely to add any "value" to inkjet prints. Furthermore, anyone sufficiently knowledgeable about alternative printing processes to understand the value of a carbon print is just not going to be confused. Is there any evidence that any purchaser of an inkjet print labelled "carbon pigment" has ever thought he or she was buying a traditional carbon print?

Notwithstanding the extreme unlikelihood of confusion, as Clayton Jones's post points out, inkjet printers have gone through quite a lot of soul-searching and debate to arrive at some common terminology that describes their process positively and accurately while avoiding confusion with the traditional carbon process. To my mind, "carbon pigment print" is a reasonable compromise: that label is (despite Jorge's reference to a Nineteenth Century French source which, in his quotation of it at any rate, does not appear to contradict the point) distinct from the terminology of "carbon print" or "carbon process" usually used to refer to the traditional method. I, personally, feel no dishonesty in using it (although I might have preferred "Carbon ink"). I think Sandy is the only one who has explicitly stated that inkjet printers should not use the word "carbon," but many of the other comments imply this. It seems to me that it goes too far to say that users of a material should not say what that material is only because it is also associated with another, older process.

Finally, on Katherine Thayer's point about the distinction between hand and machine-made processes: While she may have no need to identify the machines used in her own printing (I'm assuming, of course, that she exposes by sunlight and does not use a UV light producing "machine"), that does not answer the point that it has not been traditional for photographers to identify the machines they use (enlargers, UV light banks, timers, etc.) in labeling their prints, and it seems a double standard to demand that inkjet printers do so. Of course, the term "inkjet" is (erroneously, I believe) associated in the public mind with cheap, non-stable, "snapshot" prints and long-obsolescent document printing technology. Digital printers understandably want to avoid that erroneous association. It seems that some non-digital printers are just as eager to saddle digital printing with those negative associations, for reasons I don't quite understand.

Crispin Agnew
31-Oct-2003, 11:01
actually, I thought it was rather sad to see Clyde Butcher apparently publically bullied by what is probably a rather vocal minority.

Chris Partti
31-Oct-2003, 11:06
Katharine, sorry for the misspelling.

sanking
31-Oct-2003, 11:33
Kevin, As I mentioned before, when direct carbon processes were introduced people used proprietary names to label the processes to differentiate them from carbon transfer printing. Thus we had a form of carbon printing that was by such names as Artigue, Fresson, Zimmerman, etc. I think a name that clearly indicates the proprietary nature of the pigmented inks would be appropriate for labeling pigment prints made with inkjet printers, for two reasons: 1) not all pigmented inks are alike and it is likely that some systems will prove much more permanent than others, and 2) a proprietary name would establish that we are dealing with a machine print, and not one made by hand.

I certainly don’t agree with you that the general public is sophisticated enough to understand the difference between these processes, though I don't imagine there will be much of an issue at the gallery level. I may be wrong about this but my belief is that in the long run most artists care too much about their reputation to risk creating the impression that they are misrepresenting it as something it is not. And I think we have already seen an example of this in the actions taken by Clyde Butcher.

I really don't have much more to add to this discussion. I respect your opinion, and you make some good points, but if you really believe, as you stated in a previous post "It is the image that counts; everything else is absolutely secondary," it is highly unlikely that we could ever agree on this particular issue.

D. Kevin Gibson
31-Oct-2003, 11:45
Sure Sandy, agree to differ to a slight degree.

"I really don't have much more to add to this discussion. I respect your opinion, and you make some good points, but if you really believe, as you stated in a previous post "It is the image that counts; everything else is absolutely secondary," it is highly unlikely that we could ever agree on this particular issue."

I think a very good example of this is my colleague and very successful photographer Paul Graham. He currently has a show up at MOMA's PS1 (very big prints diasec face mounted on plexi and printed, incidentally, via Lightjet, though if Epson would have given him one of their beta ulstrawide printers, he would have used that and ultrachrome pigment inks by preference). I remember some of his first shows in London and Newcastle twenty or more years ago. The work was still often quite big, but it was just ordinary C-Prints done at his local 1hr hight street type lab. But it didn't matter - it was the content that counted, and that has been proven over time as far as his work is concerned.

David A. Goldfarb
31-Oct-2003, 12:15
Here we are again at the question: Is the medium part of the content?

I believe that it is. The medium sets physical limitations and creates expressive possibilities, and artists who choose their medium carefully usually do so because the possibilities of that specific medium speaks to them in some way.

Kaatharine Thayer
31-Oct-2003, 12:29
Look. I was making digital prints when some of you were probably in grade school. This isn't about Neanderthals refusing to admit that the world is changing, it's simply about calling things by their right names.

The digital prints that I made were very interesting, at least I thought so at the time, (they looked like watercolor paintings) but the only people who were interested in them were other photographers, who thought they were incredibly cool and wanted to know how to make them. I made a modest living for a time running around demonstrating digital methods in little workshops sponsored by photo supply stores, at a time when Photoshop was used exclusively by prepress workers, not by photographers. So it makes no sense to say that I have something against digital prints as a process. I only object to the practice of trying to pretend that digital prints are something other than what they are.

The argument that "inkjet" can't be used because people will think it means a primitive business machine seems odd to me when everyone and his brother in law has a photo quality inkjet printer on his desk, but at any rate, I haven't argued that the word "inkjet" has to be used; I've advocated for "giclee" which is already a well-accepted word in the standard lexicon of artists and galleries to designate inkjet prints. You could even say "carbon pigment giclee" to distinguish it from iris or from other inkjet inksets; unlike Sandy, I have no objection to the word "carbon" as long as it's attached to a word that buyers will understand to mean a digital print.

All the obfuscations about enlargers and UV printers being machines in the same way that inkjet printers are machines are simply disingenuous and unproductive. Everyone understands the distinction between a handmade print and a machine-made print; that's why Clyde Butcher's handmade silver prints sell for $250 and his inkjets sell for $45; that's why many painters offer giclee reproductions of their paintings at a fraction of the price of the original painting. Digital workers may be able to convince each other that carbon is carbon and it doesn't matter how it got onto the paper, but that argument simply won't fly out in the real world where people buy art and where there is a real distinction between handmade art and machine-printed art.

Crispin Agnew
31-Oct-2003, 12:33
"I believe that it is. The medium sets physical limitations and creates expressive possibilities, and artists who choose their medium carefully usually do so because the possibilities of that specific medium speaks to them in some way."

Equally there are those, probably greater in number, who take up a more esoteric or less common process in order to compensate for a lack of creativity or vision thereby hoping that the unusual nature of the process will carry them further in the eye of the viewer than if they worked in a more common or mainstream medium where the content itself is more plainly and openly exposed to view.

In such cases the process itself more often becomes the focus of the work rather than the content - which is of course entirely valid - the crafting of beautiful objects. For example, much of platinum work one sees more often appears to have been done for the sake of the process itself rather than the resulting image.

Those who manage to combine the two are very rare indeed (for example, Michael Smith).

D. Kevin Gibson
31-Oct-2003, 12:42
"Everyone understands the distinction between a handmade print and a machine-made print; that's why Clyde Butcher's handmade silver prints sell for $250 and his inkjets sell for $45; that's why many painters offer giclee reproductions of their paintings at a fraction of the price of the original painting. Digital workers may be able to convince each other that carbon is carbon and it doesn't matter how it got onto the paper, but that argument simply won't fly out in the real world where people buy art and where there is a real distinction between handmade art and machine-printed art."

A rather large and inorrect assumption. Not everyone cares about the sublte hand-made/machine-made distinction in photography, especially many artists and buyers and institutions.

"that's why Clyde Butcher's handmade silver prints sell for $250 and his inkjets sell for $45;"

And yet fails to explain why machine made digital prints by Andreas Gursky (among others) sell for $650,000 +

clay harmon
31-Oct-2003, 13:03
"And yet fails to explain why machine made digital prints by Andreas Gursky (among others) sell for $650,000 +"

I think this may be very much the exception. Can you name another photographer who can sell digital prints for this sort of price time and time again? I think the earlier comment about Clyde Butcher's pricing structure is certainly more the rule than the exception you noted.

" "A rather large and inorrect assumption. Not everyone cares about the sublte hand-made/machine-made distinction in photography, especially many artists and buyers and institutions. "

We must be going to a very different set of auctions and galleries. I think it might be more accurate to say that 'Those making digital prints don't care about the sublte hand-made/machine-made distinction in photography'. I think it is still far from decided as to what collectors prefer.

Over time, preferences and attitudes will surely change. But right now, I think only a nouveau collector at a local craft fair may be the only photographic print consumer who doesn't at least give consideration to process as a factor in deciding what something is worth or not worth.

sanking
31-Oct-2003, 13:04
Katharine Thayer wrote:

"You could even say "carbon pigment giclee" to distinguish it from iris or from other inkjet inksets; unlike Sandy, I have no objection to the word "carbon" as long as it's attached to a word that buyers will understand to mean a digital print. "

I should amend my earlier statement because I overstated the case. I have no objection to the use of the word carbon to describe an inkjet print made with pigmented inks so long as the buyer understands it to be a digital print made that comes from a machine, not a hand-made one that has been wet processed. Digital carbon seems perfetly ok to me.

D. Kevin Gibson
31-Oct-2003, 13:28
"And yet fails to explain why machine made digital prints by Andreas Gursky (among others) sell for $650,000 +" I think this may be very much the exception. Can you name another photographer who can sell digital prints for this sort of price time and time again? I think the earlier comment about Clyde Butcher's pricing structure is certainly more the rule than the exception you noted."

Given that Gursky may be the exception for photogorpahy full stop! However, "machine made" (as you like to call them) digital prints by the likes of Thomas Struth, Paul Graham, Martin Parr, Thomas Ruff, Jeff Wall, Eggleston (now that dye transfer is all but gone); later work by Richard Misrach and Joel Meyerowitz and plenty of others frequently sells for over $10,000

clay harmon
31-Oct-2003, 13:55
"iven that Gursky may be the exception for photogorpahy full stop! However, "machine made" (as you like to call them) digital prints by the likes of Thomas Struth, Paul Graham, Martin Parr, Thomas Ruff, Jeff Wall, Eggleston (now that dye transfer is all but gone); later work by Richard Misrach and Joel Meyerowitz and plenty of others frequently sells for over $10,000"

Okay, thanks. Is Misrach really selling digital prints? All of his work that I have seen have been C prints. And are you including Lightjet prints as well as giclee (or whatever) prints? If so, I'll add David Fokos to the list as someone who sells very nice monochrome Fuji lightjet prints for respectable prices.

Also, aren't all the photographers you mentioned color shooters? What I am getting at is this may be some of the disconnect here in this discussion. I don't know anyone who would seriously claim that traditional C prints are in some way more archival or inherently superior to digital prints (I am lumping Lightjet prints in with this description). I think just the opposite personally. But many of the people who are weighing in here are referring to some traditional processes which are usually monochrome (not always of course - there are plenty of full color carbons and gums around). My point is that there is certainly a very noticeable and tangible difference in appearance between a traditional carbon print and a carbon pigment giclee print. Many collectors still seem to value that difference - in monochrome. Although, as I will be the first to admit, we are beginning to see some monochrome photographers such as Fokos and David J Osborn who are doing very good work - on Fuji lightjet output. And neither of these notable and admirable examples have any problem at all telling a potential print buyer exactly what they are getting.

Kaatharine Thayer
31-Oct-2003, 13:57
Huge names sell digital prints for big prices, but that fact has little impact in the markets where most of us are destined to sell our work. I can only speak to the art world that I am familiar with, where names are not international icons and prints sell for $1500 or less. In this market, it makes a big difference how a print is made. The people who buy my prints wouldn't be interested in the same image printed as a digital print; what they appreciate is the synergy between the image and the process.

Kaatharine Thayer
31-Oct-2003, 14:07
"And neither of these notable and admirable examples have any problem at all telling a potential print buyer exactly what they are getting."

This is the crux of the issue, thanks Clay. My point throughout, in case it's gotten lost in all the smoke, is that I don't care whether people make digital prints, I don't even care if they get tons of money for them, all I care is that digital prints be called what they are. The only reason you know that these huge names get big money for digital prints is that the prints have been presented as exactly what they are. Let's keep it that way, is my whole point.

Jorge Gasteazoro
31-Oct-2003, 14:17
And Jorge, I do think the name should be different--a variation on carbon print. But I don't need to put the term 'inkjet' in the description any more than you need to put in 'enlarger'. That is a pretty clear analogy. I get really tired of the analog fanatics that think that digital practitioners are below them--and carry on as if they were god's gift to the photographic world. They are just as bad as the fanatical 'film is dead' clowns



Jon, if you dont want to use "inkjet" due to a perceived negative connotation, that is fine, but, dont you think that those of you who are doing inkjet prints are the best people to demonstrate to the public that there is actually nothing wrong with ink jet prints and that the quality is nothing like those earlier prints?
Why appropriate or use a misleading name when you can educate the consumer and at the same time remove the stigma associated with "ink jet".



Given that Gursky may be the exception for photogorpahy full stop! However, "machine made" (as you like to call them) digital prints by the likes of Thomas Struth, Paul Graham, Martin Parr, Thomas Ruff, Jeff Wall, Eggleston (now that dye transfer is all but gone); later work by Richard Misrach and Joel Meyerowitz and plenty of others frequently sells for over $10,000



Ah yes, every time this argument surfaces this handful of photographers are presented as the holy grail of ink jet prints. But if we are going to drop names I am sure the rest of us can come up with hundreds of names of traditonal printers whose work sell for similar amounts.



actually, I thought it was rather sad to see Clyde Butcher apparently publically bullied by what is probably a rather vocal minority.



Judging from the amount of responses in this thread, you are in the minority, even Jon and Julian who are using digital means can see the conflict here. Who then is the obstinate and obdurate one?



Butcher did not have to change a thing, nor was he "bullied" into making these changes. He was simply presented with the arguments and HE made the desicion. He could have certainly said "I beleive this is correct" and leave it the way it was, but he is an honest person who lets the content of his images speak for them, as you and Gibson tirelessly keep telling us, so he does not mind what they are called. I asure you, I think there are few people who can "bully" Butcher into anything.

D. Kevin Gibson
31-Oct-2003, 14:21
"And neither of these notable and admirable examples have any problem at all telling a potential print buyer exactly what they are getting." This is the crux of the issue, thanks Clay. My point throughout, in case it's gotten lost in all the smoke, is that I don't care whether people make digital prints, I don't even care if they get tons of money for them, all I care is that digital prints be called what they are. The only reason you know that these huge names get big money for digital prints is that the prints have been presented as exactly what they are. Let's keep it that way, is my whole point."

In at least two of those cases that I know of first hand, the exhibition prints are just labelled as Chromogenic Prints or Dye Coupler prints in the same way as they were when they had a printer do them in a darkroom. It's only by reading subsequent articles or in personal conversation that you find out that a lightjet rather than an enlarger was used. Of course they will tell you if you ask, it isn't as if something is being hidden. It's simply that it is of no consequence to their work whether their printer used an enlarger or a lightjet.

As for color or black and white - it doesn't really matter.

Jorge Gasteazoro
31-Oct-2003, 14:30
The funny thing is that if we are to follow the "content is everything" digital mantra, Gursky and Struth are not the best examples for this. Huge boring prints..IMO.

D. Kevin Gibson
31-Oct-2003, 14:33
"Ah yes, every time this argument surfaces this handful of photographers are presented as the holy grail of ink jet prints. But if we are going to drop names I am sure the rest of us can come up with hundreds of names of traditonal printers whose work sell for similar amounts"

Actually i think there are rather few? - at least live ones - Sally Mann? Cindy Sherman? Bresson?

Jorge Gasteazoro
31-Oct-2003, 14:42
Actually i think there are rather few? - at least live ones - Sally Mann? Cindy Sherman? Bresson?



Paul Caponigro, Jock Sturgee, Michael Kenna, Bruce Barbaum, John Sexton, Flor Garduño, Anne Leibowitz and there are many others that escape my mind.

D. Kevin Gibson
31-Oct-2003, 14:50
"Paul Caponigro, Jock Sturgee, Michael Kenna, Bruce Barbaum, John Sexton, Flor Garduño, Anne Leibowitz and there are many others that escape my mind."

True, probably close to 50/50 - though Leibowitz is much more color than B&W these days. Sexton's work rarely goes to double digits I think? Possibly the same for Kenna's. And pornographers don't count... that's easy money!

sanking
31-Oct-2003, 15:04
The reputation of the artist is clearly the most important factor in the selling price of objects of art.

But craftmanship and process often makes a big difference as well. Consider, for example, the significant difference in asking prices for Joseph Sudek's pigment (carbro) prints versus his silver prints.

Paul Kierstead
31-Oct-2003, 15:16
Ok, this thread is insane, but the discussion seems to have me confused on two points:

"machine made" -- inkjet. Sorry, I don't get this. There are more then a few chemical prints where you insert neg/tranny, press colour correction buttons, press print. How is this different from inkjet in terms of craftsmanship? Which brings us to...

"craftsmanship" -- Perhaps many of you print your own stuff, but this is hardly necessary. In fact, in conjunction with a great lab, you need no printing skill whatsoever. Sure SOMEONE has to have craftsmanship, but not necessarily the photographer of record.

When print prices get high, people are paying for exclusivity and other factors, not the amount of labour that went into it.

sanking
31-Oct-2003, 15:33
"machine made" -- inkjet. Sorry, I don't get this. There are more then a few chemical prints where you insert neg/tranny, press colour correction buttons, press print. How is this different from inkjet in terms of craftsmanship? Which brings us to...

"craftsmanship" -- Perhaps many of you print your own stuff, but this is hardly necessary. In fact, in conjunction with a great lab, you need no printing skill whatsoever. Sure SOMEONE has to have craftsmanship, but not necessarily the photographer of record.

OK, follks, I meant to be gone earlier but I am definitely out of here now. As I alluded to earlier in an exchange with Kevin, what point is there in having a discussion of this type with people who could care less whether a print is a hand made platinum or carbon print, or one that comes out of the printer. Really pointless. Just call your work what you want to call it, and rots of luck.

tim atherton
31-Oct-2003, 16:47
""machine made" -- inkjet. Sorry, I don't get this. There are more then a few chemical prints where you insert neg/tranny, press colour correction buttons, press print. How is this different from inkjet in terms of craftsmanship? Which brings us to... "craftsmanship" -- Perhaps many of you print your own stuff, but this is hardly necessary. In fact, in conjunction with a great lab, you need no printing skill whatsoever. Sure SOMEONE has to have craftsmanship, but not necessarily the photographer of record.

OK, follks, I meant to be gone earlier but I am definitely out of here now. As I alluded to earlier in an exchange with Kevin, what point is there in having a discussion of this type with people who could care less whether a print is a hand made platinum or carbon print, or one that comes out of the printer. Really pointless. Just call your work what you want to call it, and rots of luck."

There is no requirement that a photographer print their own work, surely? And for lots of colour work, yes, a custom lab usually does a good, but also for colour, there just usually aren't the same options for "hand crafting" as there are in monochrome. Quite often it's a technician in a lab doing it for you. Or should we consider colour somehow inferior because of this?

Even some of the best known B&W photographers don't print their own work

It is certainly one of the reasons there is already a greater acceptance of colour digital than for black and white - good, excellent, even great colour photogoraphy has often been done in a lab by a printer for the photographer - the fact the lab has switched from some massive enlarger on rails to a lightjet or a wide format inkjet really doesn't make much difference (apart from the fact that the materials these days generally have a greater projected longevity than most of the old processes).

Jorge Gasteazoro
31-Oct-2003, 17:10
And pornographers don't count... that's easy money!



Oh c`mon! Jock Sturges is no more a pornographer than Gursky or Struth are great photographers. His subjects are always photographed with the parents permission and many times even with the parents helping in the process. Struth and Gursky only have going for them the fact they make huge prints, but most are boring as hell. Certainly it requires more senstivity and artistic talent to do what Sturges does than what Gursky or Struth do....

Paul Kierstead
31-Oct-2003, 19:18
Me:

"machine made" -- inkjet. Sorry, I don't get this. There are more then a few chemical prints where you insert neg/tranny, press colour correction buttons, press print. How is this different from inkjet in terms of craftsmanship?



tim atherton:

There is no requirement that a photographer print their own work, surely? And for lots of colour work, yes, a custom lab usually does a good, but also for colour, there just usually aren't the same options for "hand crafting" as there are in monochrome. Quite often it's a technician in a lab doing it for you. Or should we consider colour somehow inferior because of this?



Just to clarify what I was trying to say....I was not passing judgment on "machine made", just trying to point out that the distinction, which some were trying to make, of ink jet as "machine made" and other processes -- by omission of the phrase -- were somehow guaranteed to not be machine made was a false distinction.

I -- generally speaking -- firmly fall into the content is king category. A bad "carbon print" is still bad, no matter the effort that went into it, the longevity, or whether it was done by pygmies. Of course archival counts from a commercial perspective (or even hanging in our home perspective). Now that is my belief on my work vrs. the world. For my own satisfaction, I enjoy craftsmanship very much. For example, I do woodworking. I enjoy making a mortise and tenon joint, even if a plate joiner may be able to do just as good a job much quicker. And the end result looks no different and is no different really to anybody but me. I don't assume the increased value is transferrable.

Of course there are people who are addicted to a medium, let us say platinum prints. But do these people want to buy bad prints? Probably not.

Personally, I find the "handmade" thing a bit of a scam. Either the work stands on its own or it does not. Not to mention when someone tells us it is handmade, what does this mean? Did they load the paper into the machine themselves? Did they tray process themselves? Did they manufacture the paper? We don't know. Check out Dali sometime. And above all that, is the handmade print intrinsically better? No.

And on the original topic; Misleading the buyer is unethical among other things. So, if "carbon print" misleads them, an error has been made. Beyond that, I don't see what it matters what they are called, if they are called anything at all.

John D Gerndt
31-Oct-2003, 20:22
Some people put their heart and soul into their work. They see the differences that effort, timing materials and skill make in the output and strive for control of those factors. They make their art with their own two hands! There is something quite basic and human about this.

Think of how the painters felt when photographs knocked them out of the water. How could they beat the "pencil of nature"? At least for them (painters, not those who used only a pencil) there was color to consider and they scratched too for prominence in those areas where a painter could present what a camera could not.

Now we have computers with infinitesimal perfection and “correction” that we chemical kids can’t really do. YES some of the emotion is sour grapes but give us our due for what we can achieve! Don’t tread on the little that is left for us as our livelihood drains away. Materials disappear, skills are lost, and audiences dwindle as understanding fades. Leave the names alone. Have the good manners to name a new process with a new name!

I will go to my grave a traditional photographer but I will probably end up making some money from the digital end of things because that is how money is made. Money does not equate with beauty, personal worth or personal growth; money is rarely conjoined to these things. I resent when my personal craft and art is trampled. If it is to die as did so many others before it then speak not ill of the dead and leave them their names!

Sadly,

Isaac Crawford
31-Oct-2003, 21:55
Re: Mechanical prints. As a collector, I go out of my way to avoid mechinized prints. I lump inkjets, offset presses, and lightjets together. All of those processes are capable of very nice results, heck, I make my own prints with some of those! If I am going to spend some real money on a print, I gravitate to ones that directly involve the photographer. If in no other sense, the limited supply of the prints has an appeal. I'm not talking an arbitrary decision on how many times to click the mouse, I'm talking about there being too much labor involved to produce many prints at all. I find myself gravitating more and more to processes like real carbon printing, gum bichromate, and even cyanotype because of their realitive uniqeness, and I'm willing to spend more for that. Don't get me wrong, I don't mind buying nice images regardless of how they were produced, but I won't spend much on an inkjet, or any other mechanized printing process. My gut feeling is that the ability to make high quality prints realitively easily has really devalued the market for images in general. As to the subject of the thread, I do get rather exasperated when I respond to an ad or auction claiming to have a carbon print only to find that they have a limited edition of 50 (or 500) of an inkjet print. To be fair, most of the people I have talked to have no idea what a real carbon print is, they call theirs carbon prints because that's what everyone else is doing.

Isaac

William Blunt
1-Nov-2003, 09:40
How many drops of NA2 do I need to use per 8x10 palladium print to call it a platinum/palladium print?

Jorge Gasteazoro
1-Nov-2003, 10:07
How many drops of NA2 do I need to use per 8x10 palladium print to call it a platinum/palladium print?



In my case I only use pt to prevent solarization. I use a 1:8 proportion. So I call my prints palladium prints, since the pt content is negligible.
You would be surprised how many alt printers are very careful in the naming of their process. We certainly want to be as accurate as possible.



Some anectdotal iformation tell us that the minimum pt that can possibly be used to produce the same look for a pt/pd print is about 25% or a 1:3 ratio. GIven that this is a lot of pt it is not innacurate to call them pt/pd prints. Most pt/pd printers use a 1:1 ratio of pt and pd.



Depending on how many drops of pd you use, ths should give you and indication.

Jan Pietrzak
1-Nov-2003, 10:12
William,

1, just don't call it a PLATINUM print, the thing that I was trying to say is to call your art what it is. If people like it, they will like it. And 50 years from now people will know what it is. The presentation at the Getty was very impressive. They have been building a data base of images/processes so that they can tell you that you are holding an 'AA' as aposed to an 'EW'.

Jan Pietrzak

tim atherton
1-Nov-2003, 11:08
because of the very early use of carbon in image making, pre-dating photographic carbon prints:

Quote: "Just to add a little perspective to the "carbon print" issue, the first carbon-based inks appear to have been used with reeds and brushes in Egypt and China about 45 or 50 centuries ago. These early inks were probably mainly carbon in the form of soot or lamp black, suspended in vegetable oils or animal glue. (See http://www.io.com/~tyrbiter/ink.html)

This ink's endurance through 30 centuries is attributed to carbon's resistance to light and moisture. (See http://www.wmich.edu/ppse/pekarovicova/290999.html)

Carbon's use in imaging slightly pre-dates this. Carbon black is the primary pigment in the Paleolithic horses from the Chauvet-Pont-d'Arc cave in southeast France (over 30,000 years old). (See http://webexhibits.org/pigments/intro/early.html)

So, the next time someone asks you about the archival life of your carbon pigment prints ... " end quote

Some in the digital B&W community are considering "paleo-tone carbon" as the name for their prints :-)

William Blunt
1-Nov-2003, 12:15
Sorry that question was just me being an idiot. I really can't make a pure palladium print because I use the same bottle of developer for both type of prints so a bit of platinum is there anyway. Guess we can call them platinum family of metal prints. I just call them palladium prints, who's to know unless Dr. Studick checks it out with that high dollar machine he has at the Getty. What's the chance of that?

Jan Pietrzak
1-Nov-2003, 15:23
William,

The point I was going after was that I know of some p/p printers that call their prints platinum because thay added a drop of platinum to the mix. Platinum was much more impresive to the buyer than a platinum/palladium print. And I hope, that some of your work will end up at tha Getty.

Jan

Jon_2416
6-Nov-2003, 22:37
Katharine,

>This response shows that my post wasn't even read, as it uses the argument that >my post responded to and continues to to ignore the distinction between a >handcoated process and a machine-printed process, which is the important >distinction that is being elided in this discussion. Furthermore, it assumes that >I use an enlarger and make traditional black and white prints, which I don't and >which he would know had he read my post. Oh, I read your post. I just don't agree with it. As Chris Patti pointed out there is no tradition of using the name of the device used to make the photograph... You can make up all the distinctions you want in your world.

You said this:

>I don't think people making prints are fooling buyers, as long as they are honest >about what they are offering buyers. If there is something in the label that >identifies it to buyers as a digital print, then it is not misleading; if there's >not, then it is.

But before you said:

"People who are interested in buying handmade prints will never be interested in buying machine-made prints, and using a label that tries to obscure its nature isn't going to make a machine-made print any more palatable to collectors of traditional prints."

So you ARE saying digital printers are 'obscuring' intentionally.

Or:

"Make no mistake, buyers do want to know what they're buying, and don't like being fooled."

Who is fooling them?

Jon_2416
6-Nov-2003, 22:52
Some great info at this link:

http://webexhibits.org/pigments/intro/early.htm

From which comes this:

"Historians hypothesize that paint was applied by brushing, smearing, dabbing and spraying techniques. Large areas were covered with fingertips or pads of lichen or moss. Twigs produced drawn or linear marks, while feathers blended areas of color. Brushes made from horse hair were used for paint application and outlining. Paint spraying, accomplished by blowing paint through hollow bones, yielded a finely grained distribution of pigment, like airbrush."

Hmmm, it DOES appear that the Giclee was around earlier than 'carbon printing'... oh, about 30,000 years earlier. Guess Katherine will have to come up with some more 'distinctions'!

>Look. I was making digital prints when some of you were probably in grade >school. This isn't about Neanderthals refusing to admit that the world is >changing, it's simply about calling things by their right names.

Guess you better get to work--maybe on some 'post-paleolithic-carbon-UV-frame-prints'. You wouldn't want your buyers to feel as if you were 'obscuring' names in order to 'fool' them.