Digital BW, The Print

At 09:23 PM 4/29/03 -0500, you wrote:
>Alan, wouldn't that work only if you used Cone's inks?  How about us MIS
>users?
>
>Jerry
>
>Its not so much the photographer who doesn't like inkjet print, its his
>customers! It does sound a bit tacky.
>










>Alan Zinn wrote:
> > At 02:32 PM 4/29/03 +0000, you wrote:
> >
> >
> >>>>We are going to be having a student exhibit at a local gallery and
> >>>
> >>I need
> >>
> >>>>to know what
> >>>>to call my prints.  I'm going to be printing my B&Ws with
> >>>
> >>ImagePrint on
> >>
> >>>>the 2200
> >>>>using Hanhamule PhotoRag 308.
> >>>>
> >>>>Ink jet print just sounds so cheap... can I get away with IRIS or
> >>>
> >>Giclee?
> >>
> >>What about Beaux-Arts carbon inks on Fine Art paper. That should be
> >>pedantic enough to blow Giglee and Iris!!! BTW, Beaux-Arts and Fine
> >>Art are the same in different languages.
> >>Cheers,
> >>Andre
> >
> >
> > Andre,
> >
> > I think Cone Editions might like Piezography to become an almost-generic
> > term like Iris.  I was skeptical about that before but now maybe us users
> > should give it a chance to catch on.  Continuous tone printing is a term
> > used for specialized litho and Iris.
> >
> > "Continuous tone carbon print on archival paper"  could work.  Check 
> this out:
> >
> > 
> http://www.archiveimages.com/Publishing/Prints/Process/AdvContinuousTone.html
> >
>

>Jerry,

I think of the name applying only to the piezo technique - but Cone may 
feel differently.

BTW regarding  the original question.  I have another line I've started 
using on my "medium" description:  "Unaltered photographs."   Does that 
seem the correct way to assure that it is clear that nothing in the picture 
differs from the original scene?  Or, will someone quibble?

AZ



Build a Lookaround!
The Lookaround Book.
http://www.panoramacamera.us