Digital BW, The Print

Alan Zinn wrote:

>  
>
>>I symphathise with your struggle to get just the right tone to your medium 
>>description.  I am still tweaking the way I discribe prints too. I keep 
>>waffeling with the word "ink."   Pigment sounds better to me than ink. 
>>There can't be just one solution. I think it depends on how and where the 
>>photographs are displayed or sold.  "Serious" art buyers know conventional 
>>terms for variious media. The average person does not. I would avoid 
>>inventing a new or too similar to old process nomenclature.  I'm preparing 
>>an edition of small prints that will be gifts (premium items).  They will 
>>be labeled: Continuous tone black and white photograph made with archival 
>>materials. Good enough for most.  To those who can't see why photographers 
>>need to be so fussy about this when a watercolor is just a watercolor, 
>>etc., it has to do with marketing and acceptance (as art) as much as anything.
>>    
>>
>
>
>
>  
>
Regarding your attempt to demonstrate the fact that your imagery is 
"unaltered," or "unadulterated"  I think that is best handled by 
identifying your imagery as falling in a genre that would be defined by 
the bounds you set out..  While the description of materials etc. might 
be affixed to some label, if people know that your imagery falls into 
said genre, such an indidvidual genre label for the individual prints 
would be redundant, while a show or installation could still identify 
the genre you work in in it's materials or introduction..  Instead of 
"found images" you could use something like "objective 
representationalism" as the term du jour..
Keith

 

"Just some guy," and caretaker of the Multiverse's largest EPSON printer 
User Community (highly recommended by Vogon Poets and MegaDodo 
Publications), at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EPSONx7x_Printers/
 
"For the rest of you out there, the secret is to bang the rocks together 
guys"

 




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]