Digital BW, The Print

On 10/30/03 12:05 PM, "Paul Roark" <paul.roark@...> wrote:

> Just for the record, I call what I do "carbon pigment" printing, and then
> usually tell what printer I've used.  If I'm using cotton-base paper, I say
> so.  I think it is accurate and true.  Moreover, I suspect the archival
> (dark storage) life of these prints may be longer than the old "carbon"
> prints due to the buffering in the paper.  I have no idea about
> lightfastness comparisons.
> 
> I don't really like the "selenium" description and typically put it in
> quotes.
> 
> I really think the carbon pigs on cotton are so good they can stand on their
> own now.
> Generally, the traditional Carbon printing is not done on buffered paper,
> probably because of the pigmnet suspended in a rather thick coat of gelatin.
> It is generally felt to be the most archival of all photographic printing
> methods but the studies suggesting centuries are, to be honest, old now.  As I
> understand it, the 3 or 4 color Carbon process is the ONLY truly archival
> color process.  J Vee
> 
> Paul
> http://www.PaulRoark.com
> ___________________________________
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tim Atherton [mailto:timatherton@...]
> Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2003 10:44 AM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Digital BW] Digital B&W dissing
> 
> 
> an amusing if somewhat sad thread here:
> 
> "Anybody else getting heartburn with the new 'Carbon Print' ?
> 
> But am I just being a curmudgeon for thinking that calling an inkjet print a
> 'carbon print' is just a little disingenuous? There is a 100+ years of a
> traditionally accepted meaning of the phrase 'carbon print', and to have
> this term co-opted in the interest of avoiding 'calling a spade a spade'
> just seems shameful...."
> 
> more:
> 
> http://www.largeformatphotography.info/lfforum/thread.php?topic=496940



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