What is unfair about my comment? I do not use and am not advocating the use of "archival" for any kind of print identification so it not as if I am trying to set up unique barriers for inkjet print. As I stated, I consider the use of the term nothing more than a pretentious marketing word that has different meaning for different people.
Sandy King
Originally Posted by Paul Kierstead
In the preservation field maybe there is such a standard that makes "archival inkjet print" a valid status. See this 2005 policy statement from the National Parks Service/National Register and National Historic Landmark (NR-NHL) programs. In the "preservation" business, these NR-NHL standards are generally seen as the current archival photo "standard". HABS is considering similar changes but as The Library of Congress is the final destination for HABS submitals, that will be the final word?It might be useful in identification if there were some industry standard that sets standards for processing to "archival inkjet print" status, but so far as I know there is no such thing.
Sandy King
Photographs submitted as official documentation to the National Register and National Historic Landmark (NR-NHL) programs are expected to last 75 years or longer before showing significant signs of fading, deterioration, or discoloration. Black-and-white prints have been required since the inception of both programs because of their superior permanence. This policy significantly expands the range of photographic media that may be submitted as official documentation. While we continue to accept conventional black and white photographs, digital images produced by methods demonstrated to meet the 75-year permanence standard are also now acceptable.See whole article here for recommendations on media, traditional b&w vs. inkjet vs. C-41 etc.:No firm, universally acceptable definition of archival exists, and many manufacturers now use the term for marketing purposes. In some instances, products labeled archival will last considerably longer than non-archival products but may not meet the NR-NHL standards. Independent testing has shown that some popular photographic papers marketed as archival, for example, will begin deteriorating in far less than 75 years and therefore cannot be accepted as official documentation. Therefore, archival products should not be accepted at face value but only if they meet the NR-NHL documentation standards.
http://www.nps.gov/history/nr/policy...on.htm#digital
Thanks,
Kirk
at age 73:
"The woods are lovely, dark and deep,
But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep,
And miles to go before I sleep"
Kirk,
I had already seen this document. From my perpective it makes the exact point I was trying to make, i.e. that the term "archival" does not have any universal meaning?
The standards given in the NR-NHL documen are for processing to specific permanence standards. The document specifically notes that the use of the term "archival" is confusing, and my point is, by logical extension, that it has no place in process identification.
Sandy King
I understand your point. While avoiding the word "archival" the NR-NHL has defined for their purposes what permanence values are suitable for archiving in their collections. A confusing disassociation of terminology at best.
"Archival Processing" has always been a marketing point for silver prints as long as I can remember, and there were ways to test this to a standard on every print (residual silver). I can remember early on labeling prints as "archivally processed gelatin silver prints". HABS could and did test b&w film and silver contacts submitted to them. But was there ever a universal standard or meaning for archival outside of silver prints?
Last edited by Kirk Gittings; 6-Dec-2008 at 17:53.
Thanks,
Kirk
at age 73:
"The woods are lovely, dark and deep,
But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep,
And miles to go before I sleep"
Here you go...the real story of giclee...
The True Story of Giclee
By Harald Johnson
Get Your Digital Wagons in a Circle, Here Comes Giclée
One thing that became quickly apparent to the digital pioneers was the lack of a proper name to describe the prints they were making. By the close of the 1980's, IRIS printers were installed all over the world and spinning off full-color proofs in commercial printing plants and pre-press shops. These prints were used to check color and get client approvals before starting the main print run. They definitely were not meant to last or to be displayed on anyone's walls. Most people called them "IRIS prints," or "IRIS proofs," or, more simply, "IRISes."
However, this wasn't good enough for the new digital fine-art printmakers like Maryann Doe of Harvest Productions and Jack Duganne, who was the first printmaker (after David Coons) at Nash Editions. They wanted to draw a distinction between the beautiful prints they were laboring over and the quickie proofs the commercial printers were cranking out. Just like artist Robert Rauschenberg did when he came up with the term "combines" for his new assemblage art, they needed a new label, or, in marketing terms, a "brand identity." The makers of digital art needed a word of their own.
Little Squirt
And, they got it. In 1991, Duganne had to come up with a print-medium description for a mailer announcing California artist Diane Bartz' upcoming show. He wanted to stay away from words like "computer" or "digital" because of the negative connotations the art world attached to the new medium. Taking a cue from the French word for inkjet (jet d'encre), Duganne opened his pocket Larousse and searched for a word that was generic enough to cover most inkjet technologies at the time and hopefully for some time into the future. He focused on the nozzle which most inkjet printers used. In French, that was le gicleur. What nozzles do is spray ink, so looking up French verbs for "to spray," he found gicler, which literally means "to squirt, spurt, or spray." The feminine noun version of the verb is (la) giclée, (pronounced "zhee-clay") or "that which is sprayed or squirted." An industry moniker was born.
Controversy Rides in on an IRIS Inkjet Printer
However, the controversy started immediately. Graham Nash and Mac Holbert had come up with "digigraph," which was close to "serigraph" and "photograph." The photographers liked that. But, the artists and printmakers doing reproductions had adopted "giclée," and the term soon became a synonym for "an art print made on an IRIS inkjet printer."
Today, "giclée" has become established with traditional media artists, and some photographers. But, many photographers and other digital artists have not accepted it, using, instead, labels such as "original digital prints," "inkjet prints," "pigment prints," or "(substitute the name of your print process) prints."
Passing into the Generic Landscape
For many artists, the debate over "giclée" continues. Some object to its suggestive, French slang meaning ("spurt"). Others believe it is still too closely linked to the IRIS printer or to the reproduction market. And some feel that it is just too pretentious. But, for many, the term "giclée" has become part of the printmaking landscape; a generic word, like Kleenex, that has evolved into a broader term that describes any high-quality, digitally produced, fine-art print or reproduction.
One problem, of course, is that when a term becomes too broad, it loses its ability to describe a specific thing. At that point, it stops being a good marketing label--and make no mistake about it, "giclée" is a marketing term. When everything is a giclée, the art world gets confused, and the process starts all over again with people coming up with new labels.
Just so there is no misunderstanding, I am not using "unfair" in any kind of moral sense. Your point that you don't advocate it for other print types is a good point and does seem to level the playing field. However, if the term has different meanings for different people, this would imply that it has no universal meaning so you don't really mislead people by using it; no one expects it to mean something firm.
It is fair to try to differentiate the dye-based from the pigment based printers, and particularly those who have at least tried to improve archival properties by using archival friendly inks and papers. They should get some credit for that, at least IMO, especially considering that some of the dye prints won't even last the "fashion cycle" in a well lit room; they aren't even good for over the couch for a few years, really. If they can't actually say it is archival, what would be the way to put it?
Well done Steve, that article does a great job of summing things up.
The article still leaves the original question open, what do we as professional digital printers call our prints to differentiate them from the average lesser quality home desk top print. And yes there is a difference.
Some have weighed in that all ink jet is the same. To me thats kind of like saying that a formula one race car and a Chrysler K car are both cars and there should be no distinction. It appears that the folks that dislike the idea of a separate distinction the most are the silver print folks, almost as though we are somehow trying to diminish the quality of their work.
I love silver prints and have great respect for those who produce quality ones. I think there is room for both of us to produce quality work that is similar yet different.
A universally accepted name that doesn't confuse the public yet explains the exceptional quality difference over desk top home printers would be great.
www.timeandlight.com
If a museum has reason to exhibit a drugstore color print from the 1970s, they'll call it a "chromogenic print" just like they would designate a handmade C-print, and if it's B&W, they'll call it a "silver gelatin print," just like a print that was handmade by Ansel Adams.
What is more important: That the print is hand made or that the print most closely resembles the artists vision?
In a hand-made print (assuming that the printer has consistency or repeatability as a goal), any difference from print to print would indicate that the printer varied from the artist's vision. Is that really desirable?
What I have suggested is either "pigment inkjet print" or "carbon pigment inkjet print" whichever may be more appropriate. That seem to me to clearly differentiate prints made on the higher quality printers from prints made with dye based printers.
I have no problem with the use of "archival" as a marketing tool, but I do object to it for the purpose of print identification.
My own work is carbon transfer, usually with carbon base pigments. For print identification I simply call my prints "carbon transfer prints" or "carbon prints." Both terms have a long history of use but I prefer "carbon transfer" because there was another fairly popular historical processes that was known as "direct carbon." I would not call them "archival carbon transfer prints" for identification purposes, though I might mention in a description of the process that it is considered very archival, and with pt./pd the most permanent of all photographic processes.
Sandy King
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks