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
>
Paul,

I am concerned with the idea of defining our "inkjet prints" using 
any term that refers to a process as opposed to terms that refer to 
the end product. This has led me to prefer expressions such as Carbon 
pigment print on paper, Dye ink on paper, etc. I would also resist 
the temptation to use the term "archival" to qualify the base media 
not only because the term has been abused to death recently, but also 
because it is unnecessary and might even raise the spectre of a 
potential short life for the work. If an artist wishes, a description 
of the process can be provided with extensive and pompously crafted 
descriptions regarding the quality of  materials and the complexity 
of the process etc. ... that's marketing and wisely taking care of 
the buyers' potential negative dissonance.

In my view, "Inkjet" and "Giclee" are both terms that refer to the 
process, and both generally carry a negative (no pun intended) 
impression in the mind of most people involved in the "art sector" of 
photography, notably the well established (entrenched) photographers, 
gallery owners, art critics, etc. Another reason to avoid these and 
similar "process" terms is the fact that in the art world, various 
works are traditionally described by simple reference to what they 
are: oil on canvas -- acrylic on metal, glass, canvas, etc. -- 
watercolor (on paper is implied) -- cave painting (on rock is 
implied) -- lithograph -- charcoal on paper -- silverprint -- etc.

It would be interesting if you could find counter examples in your 
book "Historic Photographic Processes" and other art books to fuel 
this discussion.

My opinion is simply that we should define  our works by simple terms 
that conform to the pattern traditionally used in the art world.

Jean-Michel Paris
-- 
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Jean-Michel Paris 
<jmparis@...>
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =