Digital BW, The Print

We have run around the ring quite a few times on this one.  You can check
the archive... everyone labels them differently.

The point was made that it would be incorrect to call them Carbon Pigment
Prints since there was a process called 'Carbon Prints' that dates back to
the start of printing and we wouldn't want the process to be confused with
that.

I have been labeling them - 'Carbon Pigment Piezograph'  since I use the IJM
inks and software to make them.

- Jennifer Drucker
http://www.jdrucker.com
jdrucker@...

----- Original Message -----
From: "Doug Fisher" <dougfisher@...>
To: "Digital B/W Printing List"
<DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, May 25, 2002 7:10 PM
Subject: [Digital BW] Quadtone Print Labeling


> How are people labeling their prints that they exhibit in shows, in
> galleries, and that get sold?  Traditional black and white images have
been
> labeled as GSP or gelatin silver prints for years which helps explain the
> underlying process.  What should we call our archival quadtone/hextone
> prints that use the third party carbon pigment inks?  "Carbon pigment
> prints" or what?  I believe our efforts deserve distinction from run of
the
> mill un-archival inkjet prints.  Ideas?
>
> Doug
>
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
"flames."
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
resources on the homepage.

>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

Carbon pigment print sounds good to me. It's what I use.

Jerry

Doug Fisher wrote:

> 
> How are people labeling their prints that they exhibit in shows, in
> galleries, and that get sold?  Traditional black and white images have been
> labeled as GSP or gelatin silver prints for years which helps explain the
> underlying process.  What should we call our archival quadtone/hextone
> prints that use the third party carbon pigment inks?  "Carbon pigment
> prints" or what?  I believe our efforts deserve distinction from run of the
> mill un-archival inkjet prints.  Ideas?
> 
> Doug
> 
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various resources on the homepage.
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Sunday, May 26, 2002, 5:44:47 PM, Jerry Olson wrote:

JO> Carbon pigment print sounds good to me. It's what I use.

JO> Jerry


Bill Agee calls them  "carbon based pigment prints, archival grade".

I think it may be important to get the "archival" in there somewhere.

Best regards,
 Richard  

mailto:richard@...

>
> Bill Agee calls them  "carbon based pigment prints, archival grade".
>
> I think it may be important to get the "archival" in there somewhere.
>
> Best regards,

Especially as the term "archival can and is used to mean anything you want!
So many manufacturers stick "archival" on their products just to sell
stuff... there is no real definition of archival, so I don't really see the
point of including it. (conservators don't use the term in this way)

carbon pigment prints is nice and descriptive as well as succinct. "Dye
Coupler Prints" is the current in description for standard C prints - it's
all about marketing.

tim

Sunday, May 26, 2002, 7:55:09 PM, Tim Atherton wrote:

>>
>> Bill Agee calls them\ufffd "carbon based pigment prints, archival grade".
>>
>> I think it may be important to get the "archival" in there somewhere.
>>
>> Best regards,

TA> Especially as the term "archival can and is used to mean anything you want!
TA> So many manufacturers stick "archival" on their products just to sell
TA> stuff...

They would not do so if it did not work.  It's obviously a buzz word
that means something to the buyer. Because as a term it may be abused by
others we should avoid it?

TA> there is no real definition of archival, so I don't really see the
TA> point of including it. (conservators don't use the term in this way)

TA> carbon pigment prints is nice and descriptive as well as succinct. "Dye
TA> Coupler Prints" is the current in description for standard C prints

TA> - it's
TA> all about marketing.

EXACTLY! And by including something that says "archival" it might beg
the question, "and this means...?" and you then answer as to the exact
standard of the archival inks and papers you used and their longevity
status---even going so far as to compare it to familiar processes the
buyer might already know (standard silver-based papers, C prints,
etc.). A wonderful selling point! And this could go a long way towards
spreading the gospel and educating the masses.

Carbon pigment print might mean something to you and others who are
enthusiasts of this process but to a typical buyer be it at a gallery,
street art fair, or perhaps selling online, they may not know. I have
not been into this too long, just getting started actually, but from
what I've read of the quadtone inks and the papers people are using
with them any excuse to discuss the superior archival qualities I
would think would be an opportunity well taken advantage of.


Best regards,
 Richard  

mailto:richard@...

Carbon Ink Print

In a message dated 5/26/2002 10:55:56 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
tim@... writes:


> carbon pigment prints is nice and descriptive as well as succinct. "Dye
> Coupler Prints" is the current in description for standard C prints - it's
> all about marketing.
> 

If you are going to use the new Epsons, "Ultrachromes" sounds good.
And it is what it is.
Just like carbon pigment.
George J Kunze


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

At 06:07 PM 5/28/02 +0000, you wrote:
>I would like to respectfully but strongly suggest that inkjet papers,
>quad tone or whatever be labeled as Inkjet prints. Calling these
>prints as Carbon pigment or Carbon print on paper is misleading.
>
>Don Bryant


I respectfully disagree.  My prints are made with carbon pigments and they 
are printed on paper.  It is not misleading to call them carbon pigment 
prints on paper.  That's what they are.

Tina


Tina Manley, ASMP
http://www.tinamanley.com

images available from:
http://www.pdiphotos.com
http://www.mira.com
http://www.agpix.com
http://www.newscom.com

>> >... What should we call our archival quadtone/hextone
>> >prints that use the third party carbon pigment inks?  ...
>>           Carbon pigment print on paper ...

Don Bryant wrote:

>I would like to respectfully but strongly suggest that inkjet papers,
>quad tone or whatever be labeled as Inkjet prints. Calling these
>prints as Carbon pigment or Carbon print on paper is misleading.

>A real carbon process print should be identified as a carbon
>pigmented print. Calling inkjet prints carbon prints is in my mind a
>misrepresentation.

But if "inkjet" has come to mean short-lived, color-changing print made from
OEM dyes, wouldn't that also mis-characterize what we are doing?

I just pulled out my book on "Historic Photographic Processes" by Richard
Farber.  He has a section in that book on carbon printing.  There are a
number of different processes, but, of interest, many may be using a carbon
that is similar to what we are using.  "Many pigments can be used, although
it is easier to use a tube watercolor or ink, such as sumi ink. ... Sumi ink
gives a warm black to brown-black color with excellent permanence.  the
Winsor & Newton nonpermanent liquid Indian ink will also work well. ..."

I didn't find any hard permanence numbers that would tell us whether the old
"carbon" print process is more durable than what we are making.  However, if
many used a nonpermanent Indian ink, our prints might be more permanent.

The "giclee" term is sounding better all the time (even if a few French
speakers find it offensive).  It does convey the method by which the carbon
pigments are applied.  Perhaps in combination with some reference to the
carbon pigments -- which are, in fact, what the image is composed of -- it
would separate the process from the others in a way that would not
misrepresent the process.

Paul
http://www.PaulRoark.com

Paul Roark wrote:

>
>The "giclee" term is sounding better all the time (even if a few French
>speakers find it offensive).
>
I'm not going to worry TOO much about a group that thinks Jerry Lewis is 
the funniest thing ever and worthy of medals..

>  It does convey the method by which the carbon
>pigments are applied.  Perhaps in combination with some reference to the
>carbon pigments -- which are, in fact, what the image is composed of -- it
>would separate the process from the others in a way that would not
>misrepresent the process.
>

Carbon Pigment Giclee (can be shortened to "CPG Print" -- although 
"print" is a tad redundant) -- Simple and Informative, while still 
retaining some panache..

OOOps, hope the French speakers and Francophones aren't disturbed 
umbrage by my use of "panache."

For those to whom Giclee only refers to a specific process, I would note 
that "Xerox" is not the specific term it once was either..


[Keith]


****************************************************************
CONFIDENTIALITY & COPYRIGHT NOTICE:
This e-mail message, including attachments and contents, is (c) 
Copyright, Keith Krebs, 2001-2002, All Rights Reserved. It is expressly 
for the sole use of the intended recipient and may contain confidential 
and privileged information. Absent the express written authorization of 
the author, any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, transfer, or 
distribution is explicitly prohibited and taken at your own risk. If you 
are not, or are unsure whether you are, the intended recipient, please 
contact the sender immediately and destroy all copies of the original 
message. Violations will be prosecuted to the FULL extent allowed under 
applicable civil and criminal law. Imagery published or distributed in 
violation of these conditions shall be subject to a $1500/image 
liquidated damages charge, in addition to any applicable Copyright 
violation penalties.

[POV IMage Service Banner]
****************************************************************
{ The P.O.V. Image Service Website is still at http://www.p-o-v-image.com/ }





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

>  >> >... What should we call our archival quadtone/hextone
>>>  >prints that use the third party carbon pigment inks?  ...
>>>            Carbon pigment print on paper ...
>
>Don Bryant wrote:
>
>>I would like to respectfully but strongly suggest that inkjet papers,
>>quad tone or whatever be labeled as Inkjet prints. Calling these
>>prints as Carbon pigment or Carbon print on paper is misleading.
>
>>A real carbon process print should be identified as a carbon
>>pigmented print. Calling inkjet prints carbon prints is in my mind a
>>misrepresentation.
>
>But if "inkjet" has come to mean short-lived, color-changing print made from
>OEM dyes, wouldn't that also mis-characterize what we are doing?
>
>I just pulled out my book on "Historic Photographic Processes" by Richard
>Farber.  He has a section in that book on carbon printing.  There are a
>number of different processes, but, of interest, many may be using a carbon
>that is similar to what we are using.  "Many pigments can be used, although
>it is easier to use a tube watercolor or ink, such as sumi ink. ... Sumi ink
>gives a warm black to brown-black color with excellent permanence.  the
>Winsor & Newton nonpermanent liquid Indian ink will also work well. ..."
>
>I didn't find any hard permanence numbers that would tell us whether the old
>"carbon" print process is more durable than what we are making.  However, if
>many used a nonpermanent Indian ink, our prints might be more permanent.
>
>The "giclee" term is sounding better all the time (even if a few French
>speakers find it offensive).  It does convey the method by which the carbon
>pigments are applied.  Perhaps in combination with some reference to the
>carbon pigments -- which are, in fact, what the image is composed of -- it
>would separate the process from the others in a way that would not
>misrepresent the process.
>
>Paul
>http://www.PaulRoark.com
>
Paul,

I am concerned with the idea of defining our "inkjet prints" using 
any term that refers to a process as opposed to terms that refer to 
the end product. This has led me to prefer expressions such as Carbon 
pigment print on paper, Dye ink on paper, etc. I would also resist 
the temptation to use the term "archival" to qualify the base media 
not only because the term has been abused to death recently, but also 
because it is unnecessary and might even raise the spectre of a 
potential short life for the work. If an artist wishes, a description 
of the process can be provided with extensive and pompously crafted 
descriptions regarding the quality of  materials and the complexity 
of the process etc. ... that's marketing and wisely taking care of 
the buyers' potential negative dissonance.

In my view, "Inkjet" and "Giclee" are both terms that refer to the 
process, and both generally carry a negative (no pun intended) 
impression in the mind of most people involved in the "art sector" of 
photography, notably the well established (entrenched) photographers, 
gallery owners, art critics, etc. Another reason to avoid these and 
similar "process" terms is the fact that in the art world, various 
works are traditionally described by simple reference to what they 
are: oil on canvas -- acrylic on metal, glass, canvas, etc. -- 
watercolor (on paper is implied) -- cave painting (on rock is 
implied) -- lithograph -- charcoal on paper -- silverprint -- etc.

It would be interesting if you could find counter examples in your 
book "Historic Photographic Processes" and other art books to fuel 
this discussion.

My opinion is simply that we should define  our works by simple terms 
that conform to the pattern traditionally used in the art world.

Jean-Michel Paris
-- 
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Jean-Michel Paris 
<jmparis@...>
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Jean-Michel,

You wrote:

>I am concerned with the idea of defining our "inkjet prints" using
>any term that refers to a process as opposed to terms that refer to
>the end product. This has led me to prefer expressions such as Carbon
>pigment print on paper, Dye ink on paper, etc. ...

I agree.  I favored the simple description that covered the substance
(carbon pigments) and the substrate (paper type).

>...
> "Inkjet" and "Giclee" are both terms that refer to the
>process, and both generally carry a negative (no pun intended)
>impression in the mind of most people involved in the
>"art sector" ...

True, and I admit that is one reason I don't like to call the prints
"inkjet" prints.  In talking to some gallery owners about "giclees," some
volunteered that the Iris prints didn't last -- they faded.  So, I had the
distinct impression that the Iris, and giclee in general, had a bad
reputation that was based at least in part on the inks used, not (just) the
fact that they were digital in nature.

>...works are traditionally described by simple reference to what they
>are: oil on canvas -- acrylic on metal, glass, canvas, etc. --
>watercolor (on paper is implied) -- cave painting (on rock is
>implied) -- lithograph -- charcoal on paper -- silverprint -- etc.

This is true of most of the photographic processes also, as far as I know.
In addition to the silverprint, the old ones like "salted paper," "albumen,"
etc, are generally based on what the sensitive substance was or the material
that made the image.  Most of the old forms, in fact, had various processes
that used the materials, yet they are lumped together -- even though the
permanence of the prints may vary substantially based on which of the
processes was used.

I might add that Farber's book on "Historic Photographic Processes" starts
at page 1 with the issue of permanence.   The very first sentence of chapter
1 is, "Probably the most asked question about the processes described in
this book, and related processes, concerns the permanence of the image."

(I might add that Farber cites Crawford, "The Keeper of Light," (apparently
a well-known, respected work) for the proposition that, with careful
processing, it is possible to make a wood-pulp paper with archival
properties.)

Paul
http://www.PaulRoark.com

_____________________________



>  >> >... What should we call our archival quadtone/hextone
>>>  >prints that use the third party carbon pigment inks?  ...
>>>            Carbon pigment print on paper ...
>
>Don Bryant wrote:
>
>>I would like to respectfully but strongly suggest that inkjet papers,
>>quad tone or whatever be labeled as Inkjet prints. Calling these
>>prints as Carbon pigment or Carbon print on paper is misleading.
>
>>A real carbon process print should be identified as a carbon
>>pigmented print. Calling inkjet prints carbon prints is in my mind a
>>misrepresentation.
>
>But if "inkjet" has come to mean short-lived, color-changing print made
from
>OEM dyes, wouldn't that also mis-characterize what we are doing?
>
>I just pulled out my book on "Historic Photographic Processes" by Richard
>Farber.  He has a section in that book on carbon printing.  There are a
>number of different processes, but, of interest, many may be using a carbon
>that is similar to what we are using.  "Many pigments can be used, although
>it is easier to use a tube watercolor or ink, such as sumi ink. ... Sumi
ink
>gives a warm black to brown-black color with excellent permanence.  the
>Winsor & Newton nonpermanent liquid Indian ink will also work well. ..."
>
>I didn't find any hard permanence numbers that would tell us whether the
old
>"carbon" print process is more durable than what we are making.  However,
if

>many used a nonpermanent Indian ink, our prints might be more permanent.
>
>The "giclee" term is sounding better all the time (even if a few French
>speakers find it offensive).  It does convey the method by which the carbon
>pigments are applied.  Perhaps in combination with some reference to the
>carbon pigments -- which are, in fact, what the image is composed of -- it
>would separate the process from the others in a way that would not
>misrepresent the process.
>
>Paul
>http://www.PaulRoark.com
>