Digital BW, The Print

davidhatton@... wrote:

> Artists oil paint does not contain 100% pigment, watercolour paint
> does not contain 100% pigment either. They both contain 'carriers'
> and or preservatives.

Yes, but upon drying most of the 'carrier' parts vaporize, and the preservatives are (assumingly) tested for
their stability and inertness to the pigments.

> Yet the fact that they are reliable for the
> production of paintings is beyond doubt. Manufacturers of such
> materials publish longevity details in their catalogues and they do
> vary. I don't see the problem. Providing you are using the best
> available products no-one can accuse an artist of being dishonest. We
> have to remember that we are not merely selling ink on paper but that
> we are selling something with an aesthetic unique to that piece. No
> two prints will ever be the same. However minute the differance, be
> it paper grain, direction, ink density variation etc. Providing it
> meets the artists requirements for being saleable and the consumers
> requirements as a piece of art , nothing else matters.

The above is true, but within the short history of inkjet technology, we have seen some absolutely,
ridiculously short lived inkjet prints.  There is nothing in the history of painting that can quite match the
sorry state of affairs that we have seen with instability issues of *some* inkjet prints....where there is
that history, there will be questions.

That said, I remember an artist friend of mine who did a beautiful edition of chine colle etchings.  I don't
know what he charged for the prints, but I know that his small acrylic paintings went in the $10,000 range.
Anyway, after selling out the edition, there was a problem with the 'red' images.  It seems that the red ink
he used was not stable, and they *all* faded.  He had to reprint each and every one of them, using a
different, and more stable red ink....So it just goes to show you, it's not just us.  But it *is* us who has
the bad history attached to our system.

> Diamonds aren't 100% carbon but they're still diamonds..

But the higher the carbon level the higher the quality of said diamonds.  The higher the level of impurity,
the lower the quality, and the lower the price.

Harvey Ferdschneider
partner, SKID Photography, NYC








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