I've really tried to resist getting into this discussion, but just for the fun of it, I have to wonder if we are truly justified in calling these objects photographs at all since they are not created from a light sensitive material? It's probably more of a philosophical or intellectual discussion signifying little, but it's sort of fun to think about. Jim --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Peter Gorwin <pshelleyg@c...> wrote: > No, but traditional wet dark room prints are referred to as "Silver > Gelatin," > whether they've been printed on fibre base or rc paper. > I like "Pigment Print." This sort of lets everyone know that the image > hasn't been printed with dye-based ink, and that they are getting > something that's > not supposed to fade the day after tomorrow. Peter G. > > On Mar 3, 2005, at 8:12 AM, Steve Kale wrote: > > > > > Do prints produced in the dark room have to come with a tag that > > describes > > the solutions used and type of paper? Surely they don't expect all > > that > > info in a "label". No. > > > >
Message
[Digital BW] Re: naming these things revived
2005-03-03 by jamesdsteele2001
Attachments
- No local attachments were found for this message.