Digital BW, The Print

Some random thoughts.

One thing that occurs to me about naming this new medium is that the 
artists probably will not be a big part of the decision process. I 
think that it is likely to be named by museum directors, art 
conservationists, art critics, gallery owners or common usage.

Things like glicee are ludicrous (I seem to recall reading that in 
French it means to spray or spurt but has a crude connotation that I 
will leave to your imaginations.)

As Cleavis pointed out it will be something practical like "Inkjet 
Print" maybe with some sub classifications such as "Monochrome" 
or "Photographic" tacked on.

This is fine by me. They are ink jet prints and if they are good 
prints then there is no reason to be ashamed of them. People simply 
have no idea how difficult it is to make a quality print in any 
medium unless they have attempted it themselves. People still think 
silver printing is easy.

Hopefully if someone buys a print of any kind it is because they like 
the image. If they really want that piece of art and it is an inkjet 
print they will buy it. It is not like they can go to the next 
gallery and buy the same image in a different medium. You have a 
unique product.

To give some additional perspective. In the Sept/Oct 2001 issue of 
View Camera is an article/portfolio by Joseph Kayne a large format 
color photographer. Early on he says, "The fine art color landscape 
print has recently made significant gains in recognition and 
appreciation throughout the photography world..." Now by my count 
fine art color printing goes back to the 60's with Eliot Porter and 
his dye-transfer prints. Yet the color fine art photographers are 
just now beginning to feel accepted. Inkjet prints are likely to make 
it more quickly than that, but in the art world this medium is only 
an eye blink old.

Joseph ends his piece with:

"With regard to the prints, after the initial large format 
transparencies are exposed, I have them professionally drum scanned 
by Photocraft Labs...at a very high resolution (260MB). The scanned 
images are then cleaned and adjusted via computer using Adobe 
Photoshop. In this program I have the ability, and greater 
flexibility, to make subtle adjustments to contrast and color 
balance, as well as burning and dodging, similar to the methods used 
by black-and-white master printers. I remain faithful to the 
landscape and the original transparency by using only traditional 
darkroom modifications. Once the adjustments are finalized, the image 
is transferred to traditional Fuji archival photographic paper by the 
use of a LightJet 5000 digital enlarger, which applies color lasers. 
The process is done at very high resolution and renders prints in the 
sharpest and finest form, as the final image does not have to pass 
through the lens of an optical enlarger. This process gives me the 
greatest control over the printing process and renders archival 
prints that last for more than 70 years."

Well aside from the fact that he manages to scan his film without 
developing it, this is a straight forward process. The thing that 
strikes me about his statement is that he stands strong behind his 
technology; then hangs his head, shuffles his feet and assures us he 
isn't doing anything that couldn't be done in a traditional darkroom 
(probably in reaction to Christopher Burkett's anti-digital stand); 
then switches back making a strong closing statement about the 
quality of the prints as a product of the process. So I offer this up 
as an example of how you might approach the inkjet print issue. Call 
them something simple like "Carbon Inkjet" and then talk about its 
strength. When the archival question comes up, be very prepared to 
make an honest statement that you feel comfortable with. That is 
about all you can do. I think that if the art is there it will sell.

One last thought on the "hand pulled" issue. Everyone should remember 
that there have been, and are, many great and successful 
photographers who never develop their own film much less get their 
fingers wet making a print. I have read plenty of articles about 
photographers having their shows printed for them. The concept of 
hand made and photography have never been associated. This was one of 
the big painting vs. photography debates 100 years ago and is still 
going on. I think we need to leave these concepts and conceits 
behind, go forward knowing how much time and care we have put into 
our prints regardless of what the uninformed might think.

Martin