Digital BW, The Print

Very interesting, and a good point.  My own experience over 30 + years as
(also) a Carbon printer is that the name is not a good for marketing prints.
For many years, I have marketed my traditional Carbon prints as ³Pigment
Prints on Watercolor Paper².  I generally use no Carbon Black when I make up
my emulsion, preferring Mars black plus other pigment colors for a ³Black
and White² image.  And yes, metamerism  can be a problem, although usually
minor.  From my experience, I don¹t think there is much likelihood of a more
sophisticated buyer emerging to solve our problem.   J Vee


On 10/30/03 9:14 PM, "sandersm@..." <sandersm@...> wrote:

> Some wise person wrote:
> 
> "That was my original thought some months ago.  But, the inksets that Paul is
> working toward are certainly different enough from other 'ink jet' inksets,
> that they need some differentiation in terminology.  "Carbon" seems to be
> descriptive, and sets these inksets apart from other inkjet inksets.  Got a
> better 
> idea?"
> 
> I attended the Affordable Art Fair opening here in Manhattan Wednesday, and a
> Manhattan B+W photo dealer, Laurence Miller, had two handsome B+W prints,
> 13x40 each, on display described as "pigment prints."   When I asked Miller if
> that meant "inkjet," he claimed not to know the exact technology but said it
> was 
> a "new process" and that the artist was working exclusively in the medium.
> Read:   It's inkjet.   Anyone want to follow Miller's lead and call them
> pigment prints?
> 
> Sanders McNew
> www.mcnew.net



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