Digital BW, The Print

I think the problem is that, ever since the first Iris print, people 
have been searching for a term that would add an air of validity to a 
new process.  Certainly, even if they no longer apply, there are lots 
of prejudices against inkjet prints floating around among the print-
buying public.  Even the term Giclee was simply a word Jack Duganne 
picked out of his French dictionary in an attempt to add an air of 
sophistication to the process.  Understandably, people try to find a 
substitute for the term 'inkjet' because it's a term that can be 
associated with $59 desktop printers as well as fine art.  It's 
actually kind of ludicrous if you think of all the terms that have 
been used for fine digital prints since the first Iris prints.  Yet, 
when you get right down to it, even a vastly expensive Iris printer 
is just an inkjet printer.  Also, I think it's kind of ironic that 
some of the print-buying public would still more readily part with a 
fair sum of money for something termed 'giclee', even those this 
often denotes Iris dye-based prints that don't have the longevity of 
prints done with pigment-based prints on, for example, a $700 Epson 
2200.  It's human nature, I suppose, to feel that somehow a print 
done on an $80,000 piece of equipment is better than once done on a 
$700 piece of equipment, even if it's not.  But I digress.  The 
problem, basically, is public perception of inkjet prints, combined 
with the somewhat unrealistic hope that a choice of terminolgy that 
conveys an air of sophistication will overcome any prejudices that 
linger.  Now, I admit that the modern art of marketing has proven 
that this can sometimes be a big part of the equation, yet I 
nonetheless think that time and education are what will really do the 
trick.  Nonetheless, the problem remains that an inkjet print can be 
something that fades in weeks, or can be something that won't fade 
for generations.  I think that the apparant validity or lack of 
validity of a certain term is not so important as coming up with a 
term or terms that simply indicate to print purchasers that they are 
receiving an archival product.  As for the whole 'carbon' print 
debacle, I think the important thing to stress is that pigments are 
in fact being used, thus providing a fundamental basis for 
longevity.  Beyond that, I think the motivation for labelling such 
prints with the pigment source is the simple fact that it sounds sort 
of sophisticated.  As I said earlier, it's an attempt, on a 
simplistic level, to suggest a sophisticated, archival product to the 
public.  Ultimately, I think it kind of works on that level, though I 
think perhaps an attempt to use the term 'carbon pigment print', 
instead of 'carbon print' would be most appropriate.  That way, 
there's at least a distinction between inkjet prints done with carbon 
black pigments and traditional carbon prints.  Other than that, 
there's certainly no inaccuracy in calling such prints 'carbon 
pigment prints', since they're indeed prints, indeed pigment-based, 
and the pigment is indeed pigment black.  In fact, I think that what 
I'll call my prints... archival carbon pigment prints.  Unless, of 
course, someone decides to produce a black ink based on another black 
pigment, such as black spinel (pigment black 28, the only truly 
neutral black pigment, though much more costly than dirt-cheap bone-
black based carbon pigments).  Then I'll have to call my prints 
archival copper chromite black spinel pigment prints, lol.  I don't 
know, maybe we're just too hung up on names.  Part of the 
modern 'name brand' era, I suppose.  Actually, though, I really like 
how many B&W pigment printers (the people, not the equipment) offer 
information about their printing process on their websites.  
Partially, I'm sure this is due to a perceived need to assure 
potential buyers about the soundness of the medium, but the fact is 
that the end result is education.  Which is always the best solution.

Sorry for the stream-of-thought, lol.  As someone getting into 
digital printing, I guess this is just something I had to ponder and 
reconcile myslef with, at least partially.

Mike


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark" 
<paul.roark@v...> 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.
> 
> Paul
> http://www.PaulRoark.com
> ___________________________________
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tim Atherton [mailto:timatherton@t...]
> 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