Digital BW, The Print

I found a Shutterbug article with ralph gibson and he mentions Jon Cone's 
piezography. His comments I quote as follows: "Chris/Larry: Have you tried 
printing with the quad tone inks, like the ones from MIS 
(www.InkSupply.com).

Ralph: I have. And I\ufffdve gone to InkjetMall.com (Cone Editions). I\ufffdm pretty 
much abreast of what\ufffds going on. And I have used those inks, and they\ufffdre 
great. It\ufffds just that they\ufffdre not better or worse than photographs. They 
coexist. They\ufffdre not photographs. They\ufffdre another kind of very beautiful 
print."

I find it interesting that a renown artist firmly believes that the results 
of piezography/inkjet printing cannot be photographs but prints. I would 
tend to disagree to be honest. Photographs not in the traditional sense but 
a pictoral representation using a camera should be considered a print I 
would think...?

Any comments about Gibson's take on this?

sincerely, Alfie



_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com

Wednesday, September 11, 2002, 12:13:02 PM, Albert Wang wrote:

AW> I found a Shutterbug article with ralph gibson and he mentions Jon Cone's 
AW> piezography. His comments I quote as follows: "Chris/Larry: Have you tried 
AW> printing with the quad tone inks, like the ones from MIS 
AW> (www.InkSupply.com).

AW> Ralph: I have. And I\ufffdve gone to InkjetMall.com (Cone Editions). I\ufffdm pretty 
AW> much abreast of what\ufffds going on. And I have used those inks, and they\ufffdre 
AW> great. It\ufffds just that they\ufffdre not better or worse than photographs. They 
AW> coexist. They\ufffdre not photographs. They\ufffdre another kind of very beautiful 
AW> print."

AW> I find it interesting that a renown artist firmly believes that the results 
AW> of piezography/inkjet printing cannot be photographs but prints. I would 
AW> tend to disagree to be honest. Photographs not in the traditional sense but 
AW> a pictoral representation using a camera should be considered a print I 
AW> would think...?

AW> Any comments about Gibson's take on this?

AW> sincerely, Alfie


Sounds to me like he is implying that to be a "print" to him means to
PRINT on silver-based traditional paper. I guess to him then
digital inkjet output of any sort are not prints.   A little narrow in his
viewpoint but he's entitled to it no matter how archaic others may
think it is.

Best regards,
 Richard  

mailto:richard@...

Wednesday, September 11, 2002, 12:27:33 PM, Richard Sintchak wrote:




RS> Sounds to me like he is implying that to be a "print" to him means to
RS> PRINT on silver-based traditional paper. I guess to him then
RS> digital inkjet output of any sort are not prints.   A little narrow in his
RS> viewpoint but he's entitled to it no matter how archaic others may
RS> think it is.

RS> Best regards,
RS>  Richard  

RS> mailto:richard@...


CORRECTION:  The above paragraphs should red as follows instead (I'm
confusing myself!):

Sounds to me like he is implying that to be a "photograph" to him
means to produce it on silver-based traditional paper. I guess to him
then digital inkjet output of any sort are not photographs but prints.
A little narrow in his viewpoint but he's entitled to it no matter how
archaic others may think it is.

Best regards,
 Richard  

mailto:richard@...

> 
> Sounds to me like he is implying that to be a "print" to him means 
to
> PRINT on silver-based traditional paper. I guess to him then
> digital inkjet output of any sort are not prints.   A little narrow 
in his
> viewpoint but he's entitled to it no matter how archaic others may
> think it is.
> 
> Best regards,
>  Richard  

I agree. I think this is the same article I read a couple of months 
ago. He actually takes the other side later in the article and says 
he is surprised at how good some digital work it and he intends to 
learn more about it and work with it.

However, to even imply that digital work is not photography is just 
plainly wrong, IMHO... It isn't FILM PHOTOGRAPHY, it isn't WET 
DARKROOM SILVER PRINT PHOTOGRAPHY, but where do the film users get 
off claiming that their work is "photography"...if it isn't a wet 
plate, it's not photography, it's only something to do with some 
silly gelatin sheet...

Tom O'Connell

And yes, of course they are "Prints". 

Jerry

Tom O'Connell wrote:

> 
> >
> > Sounds to me like he is implying that to be a "print" to him means
> to
> > PRINT on silver-based traditional paper. I guess to him then
> > digital inkjet output of any sort are not prints.   A little narrow
> in his
> > viewpoint but he's entitled to it no matter how archaic others may
> > think it is.
> >
> > Best regards,
> >  Richard
> 
> I agree. I think this is the same article I read a couple of months
> ago. He actually takes the other side later in the article and says
> he is surprised at how good some digital work it and he intends to
> learn more about it and work with it.
> 
> However, to even imply that digital work is not photography is just
> plainly wrong, IMHO... It isn't FILM PHOTOGRAPHY, it isn't WET
> DARKROOM SILVER PRINT PHOTOGRAPHY, but where do the film users get
> off claiming that their work is "photography"...if it isn't a wet
> plate, it's not photography, it's only something to do with some
> silly gelatin sheet...
> 
> Tom O'Connell
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page.
> 
> 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/

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Richard Sintchak 
<richard@c...> wrote:
> Wednesday, September 11, 2002, 12:13:02 PM, Albert Wang wrote:
> 
> AW> I found a Shutterbug article with ralph gibson and he mentions 
Jon Cone's 
> AW> piezography. His comments I quote as follows: "Chris/Larry: 
Have you tried 
> AW> printing with the quad tone inks, like the ones from MIS 
> AW> (www.InkSupply.com).
> 
> AW> Ralph: I have. And I've gone to InkjetMall.com (Cone Editions). 
I'm pretty 
> AW> much abreast of what's going on. And I have used those inks, 
and they're 
> AW> great. It's just that they're not better or worse than 
photographs. They 
> AW> coexist. They're not photographs. They're another kind of very 
beautiful 
> AW> print."
> 
> AW> I find it interesting that a renown artist firmly believes that 
the results 
> AW> of piezography/inkjet printing cannot be photographs but 
prints. I would 
> AW> tend to disagree to be honest. Photographs not in the 
traditional sense but 
> AW> a pictoral representation using a camera should be considered a 
print I 
> AW> would think...?
> 
> AW> Any comments about Gibson's take on this?
> 
> AW> sincerely, Alfie
> 
> 
> Sounds to me like he is implying that to be a "print" to him means 
to
> PRINT on silver-based traditional paper. I guess to him then
> digital inkjet output of any sort are not prints.   A little narrow 
in his

> viewpoint but he's entitled to it no matter how archaic others may
> think it is.
> 
> Best regards,
>  Richard  
> 
> mailto:richard@c...

Seems to me that he's acknowledging that inkjet prints are prints --
 "They're another kind of very beautiful print -- and only making the 
distinction between them and photographs (silver). I don't see where 
his view is archaic.

Chris Hargens


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "bellis33624" 
<bellis60@e...> wrote:
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Richard Sintchak 
> <richard@c...> wrote:
> > Wednesday, September 11, 2002, 12:13:02 PM, Albert Wang wrote:
> > 
> > AW> I found a Shutterbug article with ralph gibson and he 
mentions 
> Jon Cone's 
> > AW> piezography. His comments I quote as follows: "Chris/Larry: 
> Have you tried 
> > AW> printing with the quad tone inks, like the ones from MIS 
> > AW> (www.InkSupply.com).
> > 
> > AW> Ralph: I have. And I've gone to InkjetMall.com (Cone 
Editions). 
> I'm pretty 
> > AW> much abreast of what's going on. And I have used those inks, 
> and they're 
> > AW> great. It's just that they're not better or worse than 
> photographs. They 
> > AW> coexist. They're not photographs. They're another kind of 
very 
> beautiful 
> > AW> print."
> > 
> > AW> I find it interesting that a renown artist firmly believes 
that 
> the results 
> > AW> of piezography/inkjet printing cannot be photographs but 
> prints. I would 
> > AW> tend to disagree to be honest. Photographs not in the 
> traditional sense but 
> > AW> a pictoral representation using a camera should be considered 
a 
> print I 
> > AW> would think...?
> > 
> > AW> Any comments about Gibson's take on this?
> > 
> > AW> sincerely, Alfie
> > 
> > 
> > Sounds to me like he is implying that to be a "print" to him 
means 
> to
> > PRINT on silver-based traditional paper. I guess to him then
> > digital inkjet output of any sort are not prints.   A little 
narrow 

> in his
> > viewpoint but he's entitled to it no matter how archaic others may
> > think it is.
> > 
> > Best regards,
> >  Richard  
> > 
> > mailto:richard@c...