Digital BW, The Print

Message-ID: <b8jqth+9sqt@...>
User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Length: 327
X-Mailer: Yahoo Groups Message Poster
X-Yahoo-GPoster: d3odfjCp6qdxHcT_

We are going to be having a student exhibit at a local gallery and I need to know what 
to call my prints.  I'm going to be printing my B&Ws with ImagePrint on the 2200 
using Hanhamule PhotoRag 308.

Ink jet print just sounds so cheap... can I get away with IRIS or Giclee?

Thanks,
Jeff
http://www.jeffsingerphotography.com

> Ink jet print just sounds so cheap... can I get away with IRIS or Giclee?

Jeff,

definitely not IRIS!  : - )   It refers to IRIS printers, which Epsons are not. 
As for Giclee, that's been controversial for a long time. Some dislike its 
pretentiousness (and unsavory connotations in French), others find it a 
legitimate term to dignify "inkjet prints" to gallery buyers. It's your call...


Naming these things has been a problem for a while. Piezography has been 
used by Cone Editions and implies use of their inks;  "carbon pigment"  
implies pigmented bw inksets, not color ones or dye-based inks. 

So, in the end, I don't know, maybe you can come up with something new and 
help us all out!

Antonis

I call mine Rag Prints, I print on cotton though, not that plastic 
crap.

Garry Sarre

www.sarre.com.au

>what to call the prints...

I'm leaning more toward "Carbon Ink Photographs"  because "carbon"
harkens to the early carbon process which is synonymous with longevity
(and I like the implied link to an "ancient" process), and "ink" is
simply what it is.  In addition, working in ink implies something of
an artistic nature, such as pen/brush drawing, lithographs,
photogravure, etc.  

So Carbon Ink is not only an accurate description of what it actually
is (like "silver gelatin"), but in its current context also implies a
modern fusion of ancient and new technologies, something new and
special.  "Carbon Pigment" to me seems a bit too technical and
emotionally cold.  Carbon Ink seems more warm and personal, and
perhaps even carries a hint of mystery and romance.  Imagine a
layperson admiring a print in an art show and reading the label

         Half Dome At Winter Dawn
              by Ima Shooter
          Carbon Ink Photograph

Which will trigger the imagination more and make him/her want to
possess it, Carbon Ink or Carbon Pigment?

(waxing philosophical this evening <g>)

Regards, - cj

Alan Zinn wrote:

>  
>
>>I symphathise with your struggle to get just the right tone to your medium 
>>description.  I am still tweaking the way I discribe prints too. I keep 
>>waffeling with the word "ink."   Pigment sounds better to me than ink. 
>>There can't be just one solution. I think it depends on how and where the 
>>photographs are displayed or sold.  "Serious" art buyers know conventional 
>>terms for variious media. The average person does not. I would avoid 
>>inventing a new or too similar to old process nomenclature.  I'm preparing 
>>an edition of small prints that will be gifts (premium items).  They will 
>>be labeled: Continuous tone black and white photograph made with archival 
>>materials. Good enough for most.  To those who can't see why photographers 
>>need to be so fussy about this when a watercolor is just a watercolor, 
>>etc., it has to do with marketing and acceptance (as art) as much as anything.
>>    
>>
>
>
>
>  
>
Regarding your attempt to demonstrate the fact that your imagery is 
"unaltered," or "unadulterated"  I think that is best handled by 
identifying your imagery as falling in a genre that would be defined by 
the bounds you set out..  While the description of materials etc. might 
be affixed to some label, if people know that your imagery falls into 
said genre, such an indidvidual genre label for the individual prints 
would be redundant, while a show or installation could still identify 
the genre you work in in it's materials or introduction..  Instead of 
"found images" you could use something like "objective 
representationalism" as the term du jour..
Keith

 

"Just some guy," and caretaker of the Multiverse's largest EPSON printer 
User Community (highly recommended by Vogon Poets and MegaDodo 
Publications), at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EPSONx7x_Printers/
 
"For the rest of you out there, the secret is to bang the rocks together 
guys"

 




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

At 03:27 AM 5/2/03 +0000, you wrote:
> >what to call the prints...
>
>I'm leaning more toward "Carbon Ink Photographs"  because "carbon"
>harkens to the early carbon process which is synonymous with longevity
>(and I like the implied link to an "ancient" process), and "ink" is
>simply what it is.  In addition, working in ink implies something of
>an artistic nature, such as pen/brush drawing, lithographs,
>photogravure, etc.
>
>So Carbon Ink is not only an accurate description of what it actually
>is (like "silver gelatin"), but in its current context also implies a
>modern fusion of ancient and new technologies, something new and
>special.  "Carbon Pigment" to me seems a bit too technical and
>emotionally cold.  Carbon Ink seems more warm and personal, and
>perhaps even carries a hint of mystery and romance.  Imagine a
>layperson admiring a print in an art show and reading the label
>
>          Half Dome At Winter Dawn
>               by Ima Shooter
>           Carbon Ink Photograph
>
>Which will trigger the imagination more and make him/her want to
>possess it, Carbon Ink or Carbon Pigment?
>
>(waxing philosophical this evening <g>)
>
>Regards, - cj
>
>C,

>I symphathise with your struggle to get just the right tone to your medium 
>description.  I am still tweaking the way I discribe prints too. I keep 
>waffeling with the word "ink."   Pigment sounds better to me than ink. 
>There can't be just one solution. I think it depends on how and where the 
>photographs are displayed or sold.  "Serious" art buyers know conventional 
>terms for variious media. The average person does not. I would avoid 
>inventing a new or too similar to old process nomenclature.  I'm preparing 
>an edition of small prints that will be gifts (premium items).  They will 
>be labeled: Continuous tone black and white photograph made with archival 
>materials. Good enough for most.  To those who can't see why photographers 
>need to be so fussy about this when a watercolor is just a watercolor, 
>etc., it has to do with marketing and acceptance (as art) as much as anything.


AZ




Build a Lookaround!
The Lookaround Book.
http://www.panoramacamera.us

At 10:32 AM 5/2/03 -0400, you wrote:


>Alan Zinn wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >>I symphathise with your struggle to get just the right tone to your medium
> >>description.  I am still tweaking the way I discribe prints too. I keep
> >>waffeling with the word "ink."   Pigment sounds better to me than ink.
> >>There can't be just one solution. I think it depends on how and where the
> >>photographs are displayed or sold.  "Serious" art buyers know conventional
> >>terms for variious media. The average person does not. I would avoid
> >>inventing a new or too similar to old process nomenclature.  I'm preparing
> >>an edition of small prints that will be gifts (premium items).  They will
> >>be labeled: Continuous tone black and white photograph made with archival
> >>materials. Good enough for most.  To those who can't see why photographers
> >>need to be so fussy about this when a watercolor is just a watercolor,
> >>etc., it has to do with marketing and acceptance (as art) as much as 
> anything.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>Regarding your attempt to demonstrate the fact that your imagery is
>"unaltered," or "unadulterated"  I think that is best handled by
>identifying your imagery as falling in a genre that would be defined by
>the bounds you set out..  While the description of materials etc. might
>be affixed to some label, if people know that your imagery falls into
>said genre, such an indidvidual genre label for the individual prints
>would be redundant, while a show or installation could still identify
>the genre you work in in it's materials or introduction..  Instead of
>"found images" you could use something like "objective
>representationalism" as the term du jour..
>Keith
>
>
>
>"Just some guy," and caretaker of the Multiverse's largest EPSON printer
>User Community (highly recommended by Vogon Poets and MegaDodo
>Publications), at:
>
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EPSONx7x_Printers/
>
>"For the rest of you out there, the secret is to bang the rocks together
>guys"
>
>

You have conflated the two issues.  Medium data isn't about aesthetic or 
philosophical issues.  Exhibitors customarily indicate the medium of the 
work in some way consistent with the venue.  I have seen many print shows 
with art that used a slew of techniques and appreciated the more complete 
(and conventional) descriptions of media.  Not having that information 
indicates a lack of professionalism by the gallery and the artist.  I'm not 
being a tight-ass about it - it's just a long standing professional practice.

Consciously dealing with the photographic idea may seem academic, esoteric, 
or strange to some but to me it is essential dimension of every picture I 
see or make. As for my interest in having the viewer understand I haven't 
messed with the image that the camera made in any non-printcraft way,  it 
IS about the viewer's perception (baggage) of objectivity truth, reality, 
optical verity, whatever.  In other words, the historical, cultural, and 
phenomenological idea that is a photograph. (Including, BTW, collage, 
montage, re-touched, etc. images.) I don't tell the viewer what to think or 
what I think about the work  (or anything else). The statement simply gives 
the viewer the starting point that the pictures operate from.  Once again - 
I have no ethical or dogmatic positions to defend :-)

AZ

Build a Lookaround!
The Lookaround Book.
http://www.panoramacamera.us

Alan Zinn wrote:

>At 10:32 AM 5/2/03 -0400, you wrote:
>  
>
>You have conflated the two issues. 
>
Nope I haven't

> Medium data isn't about aesthetic or 
>philosophical issues. 
>
Agreed.. And that's why your "unadulterated images" are NOT a question 
of media...

The medium might be "continuous tone carbon pigment on 100% archival rag"...

I CLEARLY stated that your "unadulterated image" appellation is "genre" 
and not medium..

That is NOT conflating.. It is exactly the opposite..

> Exhibitors customarily indicate the medium of the 
>work in some way consistent with the venue.  I have seen many print shows 
>with art that used a slew of techniques and appreciated the more complete 
>(and conventional) descriptions of media.  Not having that information 
>indicates a lack of professionalism by the gallery and the artist.  I'm not 
>being a tight-ass about it - it's just a long standing professional practice.
>  
>
No argument there at all..  I wasn't conflating, I simply LATER returned 
to the other issue, that of  "unadulterated images." and personally I 
think it is Sophomoric, at best, to put a genre label on a individual 
piece in a gallery..  That stuff belongs in show descriptions or 
concordia.. (Unless of course, some of your imagery IS NOT adulterated.. 
If like Picasso you worked and displayed in multiple genre, the genre 
might be germane in a collection/show that presents an overview of your 
work as a whole.)

>Consciously dealing with the photographic idea may seem academic, esoteric, 
>or strange to some but to me it is essential dimension of every picture I 
>see or make.
>
I have no problem there..  But, it also implies in the obverse that 
other images which are manipulate are less faithful in their 
representation,...  When in fact they could actually be more so..

> As for my interest in having the viewer understand I haven't 
>messed with the image that the camera made in any non-printcraft way,  it 
>IS about the viewer's perception (baggage) of objectivity truth, reality, 
>optical verity, whatever. 
>
sounds more like marketing to me...

> In other words, the historical, cultural, and 
>phenomenological idea that is a photograph. (Including, BTW, collage, 
>montage, re-touched, etc. images.) 
>
So, are you saying that all the preceding would qualify as 
"unadulterated images"?  But if the same were done in photoshop they 
aren't... ?  (if that's the case, call them "un-Photoshopped")

>I don't tell the viewer what to think or 
>what I think about the work  (or anything else). The statement simply gives 
>the viewer the starting point that the pictures operate from.  Once again - 
>I have no ethical or dogmatic positions to defend :-)
>
>  
>
LOL... You are kidding..?   No ethical or dogmatic positions to defend, 
yet so passionate about how your images are described? I could see 
worrying passionately about them being attributed to someone else, but 
worrying about finding an appropriate genre description, again, that's 
for critics and agents, not practicing artists)
Keith

 

"Just some guy," and caretaker of the Multiverse's largest EPSON printer 
User Community (highly recommended by Vogon Poets and MegaDodo 
Publications), at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EPSONx7x_Printers/
 
"For the rest of you out there, the secret is to bang the rocks together 
guys"

 




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

Clayton, it wouldn't be a "Carbon ink Photograph".  The photo is not
carbon ink, the print is.  So you could call
it a Carbon ink print, which it is.

Jerry