Digital BW, The Print

Tyler Boley wrote:

> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., SKID Photography <skid@b...> wrote:
> > Again, The reason for labeling is not to promote one brand over another, it is to give basic information.
> > Museums, which I would consider 'the last word' on this sort of thing (Museums being the most branding
> > neutral, and academically oriented) calls them 'inkjet prints' (first), and then other information
> *follows*
> > that.  The point is clear information, not branding or any other commercial promotion.
> >
> > By going down the 'branding' road, we put ourselves in the same position of that group that trademarked
> the
> > name 'Giclee', this clearly has *nothing* to do with art, and is totally a commerce issue.
> >
> > Harvey Ferdschneider
> > partner, SKID Photography, NYC
>
> Harvey, I guess I'm not understanding you reference to branding. Aren't carbon pigments simply the material
> making up
> the image, like platinum, or toned gelatin silver?

Tyler,
By 'branding' I was referring to the 'Giclee', or calling the prints peizography prints' (Which for all
intents and purposes is a brand name).  Also, calling an inkjet print made with carbon pigment inks, a 'Carbon
Pigment Print', is reducing the description of the process and materials to a brand: 'Carbon Pigment Print'.

The proper way (in my opinion) to get the 'type' of ink in the description, would be to call the print:
'Carbon Pigment Inkjet Print' (like a 'selenium toned silver gelatin print').  To call it simply a 'Carbon
Pigment Print' does not tell you the process; it could just as easily been done via an etching, serigraph,
photo gravure...Whatever.  It only tells you the ink, not the process.

Harvey Ferdschneider
partner, SKID Photography, NYC



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