Digital BW, The Print

Hi Frank,

You wrote:

>...

>2.  ...I told Photo Eye
>I'd sell 13X19 inch carbon pigment piezo (no TM because I'm using MIS
>variable tone inks) prints for $375.

I wonder if the PiezographyBW folks think they have any rights in the
"piezo" term?
...

>3.  I noticed that Ray Meeks has his digital prints called "carbon
>pigment" on the Photographer's Showcase.  No "piezo" mentioned.  Mark
>seems disinterested in describing his prints any more specifically.
>Maybe I'll drop the "piezo" also.

I think "piezo" does not have the greatest sound to it.  So, I avoid it.
Actually, I stress "photograph" now.  The latest one I sold said just
that -- no more.  I guess that raises the question of whether I have an
affirmative duty to say any more if not asked.  If asked I say, "carbon
pigments" and the paper type (the substance and the substrate).

>5.  I think two dates is the honest way to go, but is it too much
>information?  ...

On my shots I'm not sure dates are relevant at all.  So I omit them now.

>6.  I hate attaching too much information to a print.
>... A signature should be sufficient ...

That and a name that lets people know where the shot was taken, if relevant,
is what I now use.

>7.  I like to give art buyers archival quality.

Whatever that means.  Some say long dark storage, so maybe these are
archival by that standard.

>I'm using Legion Photo Matte.
>Does anyone think that paper has longevity problems?

In my fader it yellows about 50% more than EAM.  So, it goes to about
neutral.  Of course that is with fluorescent lights on it.  With less UV it
might not yellow for a long time.

Paul
http://www.PaulRoark.com