Digital BW, The Print

>> >... What should we call our archival quadtone/hextone
>> >prints that use the third party carbon pigment inks?  ...
>>           Carbon pigment print on paper ...

Don Bryant wrote:

>I would like to respectfully but strongly suggest that inkjet papers,
>quad tone or whatever be labeled as Inkjet prints. Calling these
>prints as Carbon pigment or Carbon print on paper is misleading.

>A real carbon process print should be identified as a carbon
>pigmented print. Calling inkjet prints carbon prints is in my mind a
>misrepresentation.

But if "inkjet" has come to mean short-lived, color-changing print made from
OEM dyes, wouldn't that also mis-characterize what we are doing?

I just pulled out my book on "Historic Photographic Processes" by Richard
Farber.  He has a section in that book on carbon printing.  There are a
number of different processes, but, of interest, many may be using a carbon
that is similar to what we are using.  "Many pigments can be used, although
it is easier to use a tube watercolor or ink, such as sumi ink. ... Sumi ink
gives a warm black to brown-black color with excellent permanence.  the
Winsor & Newton nonpermanent liquid Indian ink will also work well. ..."

I didn't find any hard permanence numbers that would tell us whether the old
"carbon" print process is more durable than what we are making.  However, if
many used a nonpermanent Indian ink, our prints might be more permanent.

The "giclee" term is sounding better all the time (even if a few French
speakers find it offensive).  It does convey the method by which the carbon
pigments are applied.  Perhaps in combination with some reference to the
carbon pigments -- which are, in fact, what the image is composed of -- it
would separate the process from the others in a way that would not
misrepresent the process.

Paul
http://www.PaulRoark.com