Digital BW, The Print

Jean-Michel,

You wrote:

>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 agree.  I favored the simple description that covered the substance
(carbon pigments) and the substrate (paper type).

>...
> "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" ...

True, and I admit that is one reason I don't like to call the prints
"inkjet" prints.  In talking to some gallery owners about "giclees," some
volunteered that the Iris prints didn't last -- they faded.  So, I had the
distinct impression that the Iris, and giclee in general, had a bad
reputation that was based at least in part on the inks used, not (just) the
fact that they were digital in nature.

>...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.

This is true of most of the photographic processes also, as far as I know.
In addition to the silverprint, the old ones like "salted paper," "albumen,"
etc, are generally based on what the sensitive substance was or the material
that made the image.  Most of the old forms, in fact, had various processes
that used the materials, yet they are lumped together -- even though the
permanence of the prints may vary substantially based on which of the
processes was used.

I might add that Farber's book on "Historic Photographic Processes" starts
at page 1 with the issue of permanence.   The very first sentence of chapter
1 is, "Probably the most asked question about the processes described in
this book, and related processes, concerns the permanence of the image."

(I might add that Farber cites Crawford, "The Keeper of Light," (apparently
a well-known, respected work) for the proposition that, with careful
processing, it is possible to make a wood-pulp paper with archival
properties.)

Paul
http://www.PaulRoark.com

_____________________________



>  >> >... 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
>