Digital BW, The Print

Jerry,
But you have admit, 'Silver Gelatin Print' *is* descriptive of the type of
photograph, as compared to Platinum, or Palladium, or Bromoil etc.

The point of the labels are to describe and inform, and you must agree that
Silver Gelatin Print is informative...What would you have them call
them.....'pictures'?  ;-D  <vbg>

Harvey Ferdschneider
partner, SKID Photography, NYC



>  Ah Yes, New York City. Land of the Museums. I imagine they started
> calling them silver gelatin 20 years before it got to North Dakota.
> We're usually about 10 years behind the rest of the country for a lot of
> things up here.
>
> Jerry
>
>
>
> SKID Photography wrote:
> >
> > Jerry, Todd, everyone,
> >
> > I guess my point is that we don't get to set the labels, the academics do,
> those
> > people are the ones that archive, and write the history.  The reasoning is
> that
> > they have no prejudices (like 'this name sounds cool") and just want to be
> > exacting and informative.
> >
> > A simple example is Man Ray.  He called those cameraless images that he made
>
> > 'Rayograms' (or something like that) and the historians label them in
> museums as
> > 'Photograms'.
> >
> > Why fight what apparently has been set in place already? (Brooklyn Museum
> etc.)
> >
> > Again, call your prints what you will, it is certainly your right as the
> > creator.  But if one wants to be 'neutral' (without any hype, marketing, or
> > artistic flourish), what we all make here are 'INKJET PRINTS' using various
> > different inks on various substrates..
> >
> > Harvey Ferdschneider
> > partner, SKID Photography, NYC
> >
> > >  I recognize the difference Harvey.
> > >
> > > But the term "Inkjet print" does have an inferior connotation to most
> > > ears. Sort of like 90 minute photo versus Custom photography.
> > >
> > > And it doesn't sound nearly as pretentious as "Giclée".
> > >
> > > Jerry
> > >
> > > SKID Photography wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Jerry,
> > > > I beg to differ.
> > > >
> > > > To be academically correct (like from a museum and informative
> standpoint)
> > > they
> > > > are inkjet prints using 'carbon pigment' (or whatever) inks.
> > > >
> > > > To use any other term is a marketing ploy.  And that's ok if you
> recognize
> > > the
> > > > difference. :-)
> > > >
> > > > Harvey Ferdschneider
> > > > partner, SKID Photography, NYC
> > > >
> > > > Jerry Olson wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >  Why not just call them what they are? Carbon Pigment Prints.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > antonisphoto wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Daniel,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > must've  felt nice to discover you couldn't tell a digital
> > > black-and-white
> > > > > from a
> > > > > > darkroom print. I had the same experience several times, and at
> least
> > > once
> > > > > in
> > > > > > the Museum of Photographic Arts in San Diego where a few piezoBW
> prints
> > > > > > were thrown in with wet prints.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > However, we are still in the era of seeking legitimacy for our
> prints in
> > > the
> > > > > world
> > > > > > of collectors, museums and galleries. Inkjet prints - especially if
> you
> > > call
> > > > > them
> > > > > > that and don't use French names for them - don't have the cache of
> > > "toned
> > > > > > silver prints". Yet.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Antonis
> > > > > >





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