Digital BW, The Print

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Clayton Jones" 
<cj@c...> wrote:

Hi, Clayton,

I am not sure this going to get anywhere in consensus terms, but I 
feel I owe you my further thoughts.  I am in the process of starting 
from zero knowledge base to build a website and explaining that I use 
pigments, as against dyes.  I work in colour and black and white, BO, 
UT2 including 'toned' (for want of a better word} prints, MIS FS and, 
maybe soon, Roy's QTR.  For me 'Pigment Print' fits all.  'Carbon Ink 
Print' is, I understand, only strictly applicable to BO printing  
Cone's piezotones, and maybe Sundance but not, for example, UT2 or 
Roy's QTR, or Image Print RIP.  I am prepared to stand corrected on 
this because I am not fully conversant with the technologies.

In my view it is not necessary to say how the pigment gets to the 
paper.  While in painting the terms oil painting and watercolour are 
everyday parlance, a silver print is a silver print without the need 
to refer to the developer or fixer, although 'selenium toned' is used 
to indicate hue and 'archival' properties.


Regards,

Colin
> Hello Colin,
> 
> >I presume and hope that, after awhile, there is no 'ink' or glycol 
> >in my prints.  
> 
> Well, hmmm...how can we get away from the fact that we are putting 
ink
> on paper?  I suppose we could call it "paint", since oil and
> watercolor paints use pigments, but I don't think anyone would go 
for
> that.  Seems to me that if we are putting colored liquid onto paper
> we're using an ink process, regardless of how it gets there.
> 
> >I don't like using the word 'inkjet' either as it is 
> >a process not an attribute of the print.
> 
> Yes, and too broad a term.  Since it covers dye as well as color 
pigs
> and BO, it's similar to "painting", which includes watercolors,
> acrylic and oils.  Not specific enough to describe what we're doing.
> 
> 
> >'Pigment print' seems accurate to me if no dyes are involved 
> 
> Yes, except it's sort of ambiguous for someone who doesn't know
> anything about it - it will require some explaining.  Pigment Print
> could also include color inkjet prints.  We need something that says
> "Black and White", without any ambiguity.
> 
> 
> >'archival pigment print' may be OK for some, if the purchaser 
> >and seller equally understand what 'archival' means.
> 
> Agreed, and even more esoteric than the above, to the uninitiated. 
> Too awkward and artificial sounding as well - sounds contrived or
> something...and still could include color prints.
> 
> I still think Carbon Ink Print has fewer negatives and more 
positives
> than all the others.  But there seems to be some resistance to using
> the word "ink", as if somehow that lessens its stature.  To me it's
> just the oposite - it describes accurately what we're doing and adds
> an aura of distinction.  I think that's an important element in
> whatever name is ultimately used.  Our prints need a unique, 
distinct
> and elegant identity, one that implies as much respect and prestige 
as
> "platinum" does.  Imagine a prestigious gallery advertisement:
> 
> Platinum prints
> Carbon Ink prints
> Silver-Gelatin Prints
> Gum Bichromate prints
> Carbon Prints
> Salt prints
> Albumen prints
> Photogravures
> Tintypes
> Daguerreotypes
> Calotypes
> 
> Do any of the other terms fit here as well as Carbon Ink?  We need a
> term that carries its own weight in this line up.  It needs to:
> 
> - accurately describe what it is to a layperson
> - be easy to remember and say, to "roll off the tongue easily"
> - not sound contrived, too mechanical or technical 
> - not seem to be defensive (the term "archival" seems that way)
> - not be confused with anything else ("Ink" takes care of this)
> - imply longevity ("Carbon" is an already established term which 
does
> this)
> - fit, in an emotional or romantic sense, with the others 
> in the list.  Somehow to me, anything with "pig" in it doesn't quite
> make it - it simply lacks elegance.
> 
> Please understand that I'm not arguing for this because I made it 
up,
> I didn't.  It's just one of many that I've seen used (forums, web
> sites, books, magazines, gallery ads).  It just dawned on me one day
> that there was no agreement and that it's hurting acceptance, so I
> made a list of all the terms I knew of.  Carbon Ink Print is simply
> the one that seemed to best fit the requirements, and after a lot of
> thought it became apparent that someone needed to make an effort to
> get some agreement and get it moving along.  So I wrote the two
> articles on my web site in hopes that something will happen.
> 
> IMO, quite a few years will have to pass before Carbon Ink Prints 
(or
> whatever we call them) gain the stature of the others in the mass
> mind.  Not because they are inferior, but simply because anything 
new
> has to take time to seep in and find its place, plus it is still an
> emerging technology.  I believe the term we use will play an 
important
> role in the length of time and degree to which this happens.  It
> partly a PR challenge.  Remember the story about how diamonds 
weren't
> a viable world-wide commodity until the "A Diamond Is Forever"
> campaign made them desireable in the mass market?
> 
> It's not too late, but I think we need to get on with it.  I think 
we
> need to agree on something and begin using it and getting others on
> board.  Those of us who show, in galleries or any other venue, 
should
> insist that this term be used in the promotions.  Don't let the
> gallery owners decide for us.  
> 
> Regards,
> Clayton
> 
> 
> Info on black and white digital printing at    
> http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm