Digital BW, The Print

Re: limited Editions

A few thoughts on your recent posts Mark. First, I believe that a small
watermark in a relatively obscure part of a print, one that doesn't destroy
the "integrity" of the image, will more than suffice to establish the end of
a limited edition. You don't have to destroy the file and I would suggest
that for those in the future, it might be an injustice to do so. I would
also suggest that it is no crime to keep an intact copy of the file with no
watermark in archival storage. Watermark or not, any limited edition run is
only as limited as the integrity of the artists allows. Thus, I would also
submit a certificate of authenticity with any limited edition print stating
its number and the total number of that run. It should also specify if
additional quantities might be made available at a different size or in
sepia instead of cool black, etc., and, if possible, how many. This is your
"contract" with the buyer and will assure the buyer that you will stick to
what you've stated.

In terms of this whole silver vs. inkjet mess, a few more things to
consider. First, there are tons of photographers at crafts fairs and the
like selling die ink prints that will fade God knows when... probably
between a week and a year. This is becoming the popular conception of
inkjet. That's why some idiot coined the term Giclee - to differentiate (and
to disguise) the inkjet roots of the print. (Of course the name was
misguided as Giclee means "to ejaculate" in colloquial French). The
beautiful stuff you're producing and that many of us are trying to produce
is very different from this "stock" inkjet so some form of differentiator is
probably useful and I tend to agree with the carbon pigment print
descriptor. The fact that it's made on an inkjet printer is irrelevant.
(Anyone who thinks that you can make a masterful carbon print on an inkjet
printer - repeatedly - without extensive modifications to the "normal"
inkjet process, is ignorant). I always tell people who ask that my carbon
prints are from a "modified" inkjet system including profiling, color
management, specially formulated carbon-based inks, continuous ink supplies,
custom software, etc.

Last, in regards to B&W magazine - the publishing world is very tough and it
eats small circulation magazines like this for lunch. No magazine this size
can afford to turn away legitimate advertising. It's simply not possible to
do so and survive. (I'll bet that we would all be surprised to know how
little the publisher makes on this pub.)

Oh, one more thought Mark. I grew up in a conventional darkroom. I went to
RIT and learned how to make a great silver print and I appreciate how
difficult it is to do so. I used to make commercial murals as a kid and can
tell anyone who doesn't know that the difficulty in making a fine silver
print escalates in direct proportion to the size of the print. It seems to
me that this is one area in which inkjet technology has a great advantage
(at least up to maximum inkjet sizes). I'm beginning to think about
concentrating on larger prints for sale as a further way of differentiating
from silver. Now all I need is the budget for a 9600...

With the greatest appreciation for your work, Mark,

Rick Colson

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Rick Colson 
<colson@i...> wrote:
 Thus, I would also
> submit a certificate of authenticity with any limited edition print 
stating
> its number and the total number of that run. It should also 
specify if
> additional quantities might be made available at a different 
size or in
> sepia instead of cool black, etc., and, if possible, how many. 
This is your
> "contract" with the buyer and will assure the buyer that you will 
stick to
> what you've stated.

------------

There are buyers of photographs who base their decision to 
purchase on the "investment factor", ie. what will this $500 print 
be worth in ten years.

Your "contract" as you say above, is not worth the paper it's 
written on if you can arbitrarily decide in three years to introduce 
yet another edition of that same image.

When that buyer is standing there with checkbook in hand, 
pondering the purchase, the buyer thinks at that point that only 
30, or 50 of these prints will ever be in circulation. How fair is it of 
you to then decide later on, (after the image becomes popular), 
that you're going to come out with a new 50-count Sepia Edition 
in a smaller size? I say, quite unfair, and borderline sleazy.

Again, folks, you can't have it both ways. If you want respect, 
you've gotta bring respect to the table. In the form of appropriate 
and forthright business practices.

Just my opinion,

MT

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Rick Colson 
<colson@i...> wrote:
> Last, in regards to B&W magazine - the publishing world is 
very tough and it
> eats small circulation magazines like this for lunch. No 
magazine this size
> can afford to turn away legitimate advertising. It's simply not 
possible to
> do so and survive.

---------

Then, in that case, if the guy had one ounce of sincerety in him, 
he'd just STATE THAT in his Publisher's Column. There is 
absolutely nothing wrong with just telling the truth. I think people 
respect you more for it. But instead, he's broadcasting this 
pompous, holier-than-thou approach that only alienates so many 
of us digital guys who also respect fine prints. 

He's divided the congregation, rather than bringing it together as 
one. That's my point.

I maintain that he could come up with a Mission Statement that's 
large enough, and inclusive enough, to emcompass both 
traditional silver printmaking AND digital newly-emerging 
technologies. It's just too short-sighted to banish digital 
printmaking, because the QUALITY IS THERE ON PAPER. There 
are no needs to make excuses any more for digital printmaking. 
(Except with the 9600 with matte black. Sorry, couldn't resist).

The guy published a long article in the current issue on The 
ABC's of Photo Collecting. If he simply took that mindset, then 
everyone could be accomodated under his one roof. As it is now, 
he's bunkled under to the silver guys (who are under their beds, 
living in fear).

I got a kick out of one article in there, I think sponsored in some 
way by Durst. It had some cute little line-art icon of an enlarger, 
this implying the guy's "old world values" or some other 
horseshit. It would be interesting to know about how Durst 
actually makes their money now; if you saw their spreadsheets, 
do you think it's digital workflow, or old-school enlargers? I'll give 
you five seconds to answer that question.

And while I'm preaching (sitting here in my underwear, hair 
sticking up at all angles, and mainlining coffee) , I personally 
invite anyone to put a bullet in my head if you EVER see an Artist 
Statement issued by me that has ANY word with over three 
syllables. Please, put a second bullet right between my eyes if 
you come across any of these words also: beauty, paradox, 
visual imagery, auto-didactic, abstract, discovery, poetry.

Jesus, am I the only guy who sees the utter transparency of this 
hokey marketing approach, or what? Or, does everybody just get 
sucked into it slowly, thinking that that's the way the game is 
played, and then you look up one day, you look up and read your 
Bio/AtristStatement, and then vomit?

Disgusted,

-MT

Mark,

>>>>>>>>>>>>>
am I the only guy who sees the utter transparency of this 
hokey marketing approach, or what? Or, does everybody just get 
sucked into it slowly, thinking that that's the way the game is 
played, and then you look up one day, you look up and read your 
Bio/AtristStatement, and then vomit?

Artistic gobbledygook.


>>>>>
if you come across any of these words also: beauty, paradox, 
 visual imagery, auto-didactic, abstract, discovery, poetry.

How about 

 "Exploring the transcendental symbolization of sufficiency"

or 

 "Discovering the tension between antithetic forces in nature"


Regards, - cj

You just need to go hang around outside Mark's studio. I think there's
going to be one flying out the window any day now...

-Jason

-----Original Message-----
From: Rick Colson [mailto:colson@...] 

Now all I need is the budget for a 9600...

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Jason DeFontes" 
<jason@d...> wrote:
> You just need to go hang around outside Mark's studio. I think 
there's
> going to be one flying out the window any day now...
> -Jason

--------------------------

You might be right. Unless I have the patience to wait until after 
PMA in March, when you might see some third-party offerings 
from people who've busted the chip.

Unless Epson sits up and recognizes some of the limitations of 
the Matte Black Ultrachrome, they're gonna have two or three 
smaller companies nipping at their heels.

Until then, check out:

http://www.qb7.com/

After all my bellyaching, I might still actually consider a dye 
version of the 9600. I'm back to that age old question: is it better 
to have a print that looks great today, but that might fade in time, 
or one that's unexciting now, but you know that it'll remain 
consistently unexciting for decades to come?

I come back to two visions:
Dyes: Charcoal Blacks
Pigments: Veiled Blacks

MT

At 03:13 PM 11/18/02 +0000, you wrote:
>M
>How about
>
>"Exploring the transcendental symbolization of sufficiency"
>
>or
>
>"Discovering the tension between antithetic forces in nature"
>
>
>Regards, - cj


My all-time favorite Calvin and Hobbes cartoon:

Calvin: "People always make the mistake of thinking art is created for 
them. But really, art is a private language for sophisticates to 
congratulate themselves on their superiority to the rest of the world. As 
my artist's statement explains, my work is utterly incomprehensible and is 
therefore full of deep significance."

Hobbes: "You misspelled 'weltanschauung'."

Calvin: "A good artist's statement says more than his art ever does."


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

In a message dated 11/18/2002 8:18:23 AM Pacific Standard Time, 
mark@... writes:

> After all my bellyaching, I might still actually consider a dye 
> version of the 9600. I'm back to that age old question: is it better 
> to have a print that looks great today, but that might fade in time, 
> or one that's unexciting now, but you know that it'll remain 
> consistently unexciting for decades to come?
> 
> I come back to two visions:
> Dyes: Charcoal Blacks
> Pigments: Veiled Blacks
> 
> MT
> 
Mark, with integegrity, and the utmost in high standards being at the heart 
of your work, How can you risk your reputation and consider a dye based 
printer?
One premature fade episode and your screwed! Better off going to lightjet?
I think a gallery rep or curator should decide for you, or at least give an 
opinion. Maybe your too close to the forest to see the trees? Your stress is 
even giving me chest pain 3000 miles away. Your the only one I can think of 
that is very unhappy with the ultrachrome blacks, but if Mark Tucker isn't 
happy with the look, then I have to look at my own standards and raise the 
bar if I can. 
Any idea if image print delivers a better black with the matt black inks?
No 9600! still on the fence.
Steve M.


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

I hate to keep saying this but SOME pigs are worse archivally than SOME
dyes. HP pigs are easily beaten by Ilford dyes on the right paper. Why are
we being suckered into 100 year archivability? Should watercolour artists
not use watercolours because they are not 100yr - or sculptures not use iron
because the blacks go brown? How long should a photo last? Everyone was
happy with C-type, Ilfochrome, Iris etc which many dye based inksets now
match or surpass. Mark - if you want the image to be right why not just
accept what has become the norm for colourprints if you can find a dye/paper
combo you like??

Julian
----- Original Message -----
From: <sdmey4@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, November 18, 2002 5:58 PM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] 9600, chip resetters


> In a message dated 11/18/2002 8:18:23 AM Pacific Standard Time,
> mark@... writes:
>
> > After all my bellyaching, I might still actually consider a dye
> > version of the 9600. I'm back to that age old question: is it better
> > to have a print that looks great today, but that might fade in time,
> > or one that's unexciting now, but you know that it'll remain
> > consistently unexciting for decades to come?
> >
> > I come back to two visions:
> > Dyes: Charcoal Blacks
> > Pigments: Veiled Blacks
> >
> > MT
> >
> Mark, with integegrity, and the utmost in high standards being at the
heart
> of your work, How can you risk your reputation and consider a dye based
> printer?
> One premature fade episode and your screwed! Better off going to lightjet?
> I think a gallery rep or curator should decide for you, or at least give
an
> opinion. Maybe your too close to the forest to see the trees? Your stress
is
> even giving me chest pain 3000 miles away. Your the only one I can think
of
> that is very unhappy with the ultrachrome blacks, but if Mark Tucker isn't
> happy with the look, then I have to look at my own standards and raise the
> bar if I can.
> Any idea if image print delivers a better black with the matt black inks?
> No 9600! still on the fence.
> Steve M.
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
> 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
&amp;amp;quot;flames.&amp;amp;quot;
> - 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/
>
>
>

> even giving me chest pain 3000 miles away. Your the only one I
> can think of
> that is very unhappy with the ultrachrome blacks, but if Mark

I'm pretty sure the issue of weak photo/matt blacks on the 2200 etc, when
used on EAM and so on has been discussed here

you might want to contact Norm Levy at Media Street and see how their chip
setter is coming along. All the standard printers are done - I think they
are working on large format printers?

http://www.mediastreet.com/cgi-bin/tame/mediastreet/ucr.tam?anchor=#top

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Tucker [mailto:mark@...]
> Sent: Monday, November 18, 2002 9:16 AM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] 9600, chip resetters
>
>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Jason DeFontes"
> <jason@d...> wrote:
> > You just need to go hang around outside Mark's studio. I think
> there's
> > going to be one flying out the window any day now...
> > -Jason
>
> --------------------------
>
> You might be right. Unless I have the patience to wait until after
> PMA in March, when you might see some third-party offerings
> from people who've busted the chip.
>
> Unless Epson sits up and recognizes some of the limitations of
> the Matte Black Ultrachrome, they're gonna have two or three
> smaller companies nipping at their heels.
>
> Until then, check out:
>
> http://www.qb7.com/
>
> After all my bellyaching, I might still actually consider a dye
> version of the 9600. I'm back to that age old question: is it better
> to have a print that looks great today, but that might fade in time,
> or one that's unexciting now, but you know that it'll remain
> consistently unexciting for decades to come?
>
> I come back to two visions:
> Dyes: Charcoal Blacks
> Pigments: Veiled Blacks
>
> MT
>
>
>
> 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
> &amp;amp;quot;flames.&amp;amp;quot;
> - 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/
>
>
>

mine is (re tina manley's "calvin and hobbes"):

calvin: there! i made a tiger.
hobbes:THAT'S no good! who's going to buy something like that?!
	it's subtle! it's boring! it's incomprehensible! how will this ever
	appeal to the lowest common denominator?! it's completely
	unadaptable to merchandising tie-ins!
c: who cares? i just wanted to make it.
h:WHAT?! IS THIS SOME SNOBBY, ELITIST, AESTHETIC THING?!?

Julian Thomas <julianthomas@...> writes on 18 November 2002 at 18:23:13 +0100
 > I hate to keep saying this but SOME pigs are worse archivally than SOME
 > dyes. HP pigs are easily beaten by Ilford dyes on the right paper. Why are
 > we being suckered into 100 year archivability? Should watercolour artists
 > not use watercolours because they are not 100yr - or sculptures not use iron
 > because the blacks go brown? How long should a photo last? Everyone was
 > happy with C-type, Ilfochrome, Iris etc which many dye based inksets now
 > match or surpass. Mark - if you want the image to be right why not just
 > accept what has become the norm for colourprints if you can find a dye/paper
 > combo you like??

Sorry, but everybody was *not* happy with c-type, in particular.  One
of the reasons that color photos lagged in collectibility was concerns
about the permanence of chromagenic prints.  That's also a factor in
why dye-transfer was for a while much more acceptable. 

A photo should last forever, of course, just like everything else.
What I'm willing to trade off to achieve that, or exactly where it
ranks in the priorities, is a large, muddy, open issue of course. 
-- 
David Dyer-Bennet, dd-b@...  /  http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/
 John Dyer-Bennet 1915-2002 Memorial Site http://john.dyer-bennet.net
	   Dragaera mailing lists, see http://dragaera.info

Hi Mark,

I agree.  Once you set an edition number it should apply to all prints in all 
sizes made of that image.  I have been paying attention to this in galleries 
and shows for some time and have seen edition sizes from 10 to 950.  
Printing them all at once would obviously be ideal, as would a low numbered 
edition, from an art quality/collector point of view.  

As to galleries versus art fairs, well it depends.  Some galleries carry a lot of 
crap and some of the best high end art fairs have quite fine art.  In many of 
these art fairs there is a requirement that work be in limited editions, and 
some art fairs actually set a number (seems to be 250) limit on the editions.  I  
am going to try the high end art fair route this year (assuming I can get into a 
few of them).  This is driven partly by a need and desire to sell my work 
sooner rather than later, and a somewhat democratic desire to keep my 
prices low enough to sell to friends, colleagues and acquaintances (my 
current growing market), which I couldn't do if I were pricing to give 40-50% 
commission to a gallery.  I know you aspire to the high end of the art market 
and, judging by your work, you will probably find a good home there 
eventually.  My own landscape work may never find a similar home; it just 
doesn't fit into the contemporary urban art market anymore.  Only a few 
artists I know, such as Christopher Burkett and Robert Glenn Ketchum, have 
managed this with landscape photography that aspires something other than 
the conceptual.  My apologies for referring to color work on this forum!

Any way, to ramble on, the limited edition seems to be part of the art world 
as it is currently operating.  Your intellectual probes into these matters are 
quite stimulating.  It is fun to see you thrash all this (and your search for 
deep black) out in public and to read all the commentary that follows.  Peace.
And yes Frida was excellent.

Tom Andrews
http://www.wildlandart.com

> 
> There are buyers of photographs who base their decision to 
> purchase on the "investment factor", ie. what will this $500 print 
> be worth in ten years.
> 
> Your "contract" as you say above, is not worth the paper it's 
> written on if you can arbitrarily decide in three years to introduce 
> yet another edition of that same image.
> 
> When that buyer is standing there with checkbook in hand, 
> pondering the purchase, the buyer thinks at that point that only 
> 30, or 50 of these prints will ever be in circulation. How fair is it of 
> you to then decide later on, (after the image becomes popular), 
> that you're going to come out with a new 50-count Sepia Edition 
> in a smaller size? I say, quite unfair, and borderline sleazy.
> 
> Again, folks, you can't have it both ways. If you want respect, 
> you've gotta bring respect to the table. In the form of appropriate 
> and forthright business practices.
> 
> Just my opinion,
> 
> MT

In a message dated 11/18/2002 9:33:12 AM Pacific Standard Time, 
tim@... writes:

> I'm pretty sure the issue of weak photo/matt blacks on the 2200 etc, when
> used on EAM and so on has been discussed here
> 
Yes, they were, And Paul's Fade tests said they performed as well as any 
other black available. Including MIS   FS black with fade characteristics 
equal to or better the any ink tested. Photo black does have a diminished 
d-max on matt papers vs. the Matte black ink.
Did I read it wrong?
Steve M.


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

>--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., sdmey4@a... wrote:
> Mark, with integegrity, and the utmost in high standards being 
at the heart 
> of your work, How can you risk your reputation and consider a 
dye based 
> printer?
> One premature fade episode and your screwed! 
_______________

I'm considering a Dye 7600 only for my commercial portfolio 
prints. They get beaten up so badly by FedEx and art directors 
that the expected life of those prints is only a year or so.

I will say that I have a whole bunch of 24x30s here that we made 
on ESFA with MIS dyes, in a 7000, and they are just as bold and 
stable and neutral as they were the day that they popped out of 
that printer, two years ago. I know in theory that dyes are less 
stable, but wouldn't it be a drag if, in twenty years, they turned out 
to be just as stable as pigments? I would kick myself for settling 
on the quality of pigments.

___________________
>Your the only one I can think of 
> that is very unhappy with the ultrachrome blacks,


That's not true. There has been much said about this on the 
9000 list. I can't speak much about the 2200 but I've heard that 
spoken of too. And also, I find that people don't seem to notice it 
unless they've had extensive experience with a good dye printer 
with a good profile (like I have). You don't miss it if you've never 
had it (that could apply to more things than the 7000).

________________

> Any idea if image print delivers a better black with the matt 
>black inks?

I saw those Gorman prints and Caponigro prints in NYC in the 
Epson booth. They were OK; not great by any means. The black 
was definitely lacking. That's the trouble with subjective 
interpretations; everyone has different standards; you gotta be 
careful what you take to heart that someone else has reported 
(that includes from me).

All I'm saying is just spend some time with a dye set like MIS 
1270-type dyes, and really work it, and you'll get prints that'll 
make your jaw drop. Blacks that look like they're a quarter inch 
deep. Once you've seen that, it's hard to go back.

_______________

I'm sorry if I came off as pretty "wound tight" today; maybe I was. 
Maybe I still am. But I'm just determined to "have it all"; I want 
charcoal blacks and trustable longevity, (and I wouldn't mind 
selling some prints too!)

-MT, http://marktucker.com/

Mark,

Even though I definitely agree with your sentiments (in spirit if not in
tone) I have two words of advice for you: ³Less coffee²

haney


> 
> 
> And while I'm preaching (sitting here in my underwear, hair
> sticking up at all angles, and mainlining coffee) , I personally
> invite anyone to put a bullet in my head if you EVER see an Artist
> Statement issued by me that has ANY word with over three
> syllables. Please, put a second bullet right between my eyes if
> you come across any of these words also: beauty, paradox,
> visual imagery, auto-didactic, abstract, discovery, poetry.
> 
> Jesus, am I the only guy who sees the utter transparency of this
> hokey marketing approach, or what? Or, does everybody just get
> sucked into it slowly, thinking that that's the way the game is
> played, and then you look up one day, you look up and read your
> Bio/AtristStatement, and then vomit?
> 
> Disgusted,
> 



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