Digital BW, The Print

> I say real men do ink jet.
> 
> AZ


amen to that...

a-men?

; - )


Antonis

Alan wrote:

>> ...I need to know what to call my prints. ...
>>Ink jet print just sounds so cheap...

>...  Giclee seems to have caught on most places -
>I hate it myself but don't get me started.

I was in a gallery with some "Giclees" and there was a French woman in there
who knew the gallery owner.  We started talking about this issue, including
the alleged slang meaning of the term "giclee."  This woman, who had lived
in Paris for years, had never heard of the slang meaning.

>  NOBODY uses "ink jet" in the fancy sales galleries.

Last week at the Smithsonian, I noticed that a number of displays with color
images identified the images as ink jet prints.  Still, however, most will
think of the OEM dye inks and fast fading/color shifting.

>I call my stuff carbon pigment ink jet on archival paper. ...

I also like the "carbon pigment" and "archival paper" (as opposed to
"Archival Matte") labels.  ("Cotton" or "rag" paper would also be fine.)

But, "ink jet" ...?  I may not be ready to label my prints with that term
yet.

Paul
http://www.PaulRoark.com

At 06:12 PM 4/28/03 +0000, you wrote:
>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

Jeff,
Better not call them Iris!!!!  Giclee seems to have caught on most places - 
I hate it myself but don't get me started.  NOBODY uses "ink jet" in the 
fancy sales galleries.  I call my stuff carbon pigment ink jet on archival 
paper. Nobody wants to own up to the real printing technique because, as 
you say, it sounds cheap.

I say real men do ink jet.

AZ




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

Jeff- 

Alan is right.  And, I agree about the Giclee, but for a show it a
commonly known term.

This has been battered ad nauseum at DigitalFineArt and other sites.

I am with Alan for call it what it is: Pigment on Fine Art Paper, or any
combination. 
If there will be a lot of "culturets" there, the snootier sounding the
better.

Ain't marketing grand?

Seth


=>to call my prints.  I'm going to be printing my B&Ws with 
=ImagePrint on 
=>the 2200
=>using Hanhamule PhotoRag 308.
=>

=Better not call them Iris!!!!  Giclee seems to have caught on 
=most places - 
=I hate it myself but don't get me started.  NOBODY uses "ink 
=jet" in the 
=fancy sales galleries.  I call my stuff carbon pigment ink jet 
=on archival 
=paper. Nobody wants to own up to the real printing technique

You Yanks are such a bunch of bloody snobs, it's unbelievable. Ink jet remains ink jet, like it or not. Anybody with 20x magnifying glass can immediately see the difference. If you are so ashamed by using new technology, have your precious pieces printed the "silver" way.
I think that "archival quality ink jet" should be acceptable to anybody.
Hans

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Paul Roark 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2003 8:29 AM
  Subject: RE: [Digital BW] OT: What to call the prints...


  Alan wrote:

  >> ...I need to know what to call my prints. ...
  >>Ink jet print just sounds so cheap...

  >...  Giclee seems to have caught on most places -
  >I hate it myself but don't get me started.

  I was in a gallery with some "Giclees" and there was a French woman in there
  who knew the gallery owner.  We started talking about this issue, including
  the alleged slang meaning of the term "giclee."  This woman, who had lived
  in Paris for years, had never heard of the slang meaning.

  >  NOBODY uses "ink jet" in the fancy sales galleries.

  Last week at the Smithsonian, I noticed that a number of displays with color
  images identified the images as ink jet prints.  Still, however, most will
  think of the OEM dye inks and fast fading/color shifting.

  >I call my stuff carbon pigment ink jet on archival paper. ...

  I also like the "carbon pigment" and "archival paper" (as opposed to
  "Archival Matte") labels.  ("Cotton" or "rag" paper would also be fine.)

  But, "ink jet" ...?  I may not be ready to label my prints with that term
  yet.

  Paul
  http://www.PaulRoark.com



        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor 
       
       

  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 the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 


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

I call mine archival digital images.


FWIW,  Capuozzo

  -----Original Message-----
  From: jsinger986 [mailto:jhsinger@...]
  Sent: Monday, April 28, 2003 2:12 PM
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
  Subject: [Digital BW] OT: What to call the prints...


  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



        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor



  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 the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


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

saw your web site. i like your fine art work. you interpretation of beauty.
is differnt. sort of raw beauty. i'm going to be purchasing a new 2200.
how do you like yours?.    alex

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: jsinger986 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Monday, April 28, 2003 11:12 AM
  Subject: [Digital BW] OT: What to call the prints...


  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



        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor 
       
       

  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 the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 


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

Then I guess I should call my silver prints  archival quality enlarger
prints?  It seems that naming the art object by the medium is as common as
naming by the method...thus if you like archival quality ink jet that's fine
but it is no correct than carbon pigment on paper.

Robert

On 4/28/03 4:10 PM, "Hans Fiala" <hbdm@...> wrote:

> You Yanks are such a bunch of bloody snobs, it's unbelievable. Ink jet remains
> ink jet, like it or not. Anybody with 20x magnifying glass can immediately see
> the difference. If you are so ashamed by using new technology, have your
> precious pieces printed the "silver" way.
> I think that "archival quality ink jet" should be acceptable to anybody.
> Hans
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Paul Roark 
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2003 8:29 AM
> Subject: RE: [Digital BW] OT: What to call the prints...
> 
> 
> Alan wrote:
> 
>>> ...I need to know what to call my prints. ...
>>> Ink jet print just sounds so cheap...
> 
>> ...  Giclee seems to have caught on most places -
>> I hate it myself but don't get me started.
> 
> I was in a gallery with some "Giclees" and there was a French woman in there
> who knew the gallery owner.  We started talking about this issue, including
> the alleged slang meaning of the term "giclee."  This woman, who had lived
> in Paris for years, had never heard of the slang meaning.
> 
>>  NOBODY uses "ink jet" in the fancy sales galleries.
> 
> Last week at the Smithsonian, I noticed that a number of displays with color
> images identified the images as ink jet prints.  Still, however, most will
> think of the OEM dye inks and fast fading/color shifting.
> 
>> I call my stuff carbon pigment ink jet on archival paper. ...
> 
> I also like the "carbon pigment" and "archival paper" (as opposed to
> "Archival Matte") labels.  ("Cotton" or "rag" paper would also be fine.)
> 
> But, "ink jet" ...?  I may not be ready to label my prints with that term
> yet.
> 
> Paul
> http://www.PaulRoark.com
> 
> 
> 
>       Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>      
>      
> 
> 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 the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
> 
> 
> [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/
> 
> 
>

> >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?

What about Beaux-Arts carbon inks on Fine Art paper. That should be 
pedantic enough to blow Giglee and Iris!!! BTW, Beaux-Arts and Fine 
Art are the same in different languages.
Cheers,
Andre

Carbon Pigment Prints.

Jerry






capuozzo wrote:

> 
> I call mine archival digital images.
> 
> FWIW,  Capuozzo
>   -----Original Message-----
>   From: jsinger986 [mailto:jhsinger@...]
>   Sent: Monday, April 28, 2003 2:12 PM
>   To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
>   Subject: [Digital BW] OT: What to call the prints...
> 
>   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
> 
>         Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> 
>   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 the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
> 
> [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/

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jerry Olson [mailto:jerryolson@...]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2003 9:44 AM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] OT: What to call the prints...
>
>
> Carbon Pigment Prints.
>
> Jerry

which can be a bit of a problem because there is already a (historic) carbon
pigment print process for photographs - also practiced by some
photographers/printers today

tim

> We are going to be having a student exhibit at a local gallery and I need
to know what
> to call my prints.

Photographs?

Nice pics BTW.

Regards,

  --Ken Carney
    www.kencarney.com

At 02:32 PM 4/29/03 +0000, you wrote:

> > >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?
>
>What about Beaux-Arts carbon inks on Fine Art paper. That should be
>pedantic enough to blow Giglee and Iris!!! BTW, Beaux-Arts and Fine
>Art are the same in different languages.
>Cheers,
>Andre

Andre,

I think Cone Editions might like Piezography to become an almost-generic 
term like Iris.  I was skeptical about that before but now maybe us users 
should give it a chance to catch on.  Continuous tone printing is a term 
used for specialized litho and Iris.

"Continuous tone carbon print on archival paper"  could work.  Check this out:

http://www.archiveimages.com/Publishing/Prints/Process/AdvContinuousTone.html

btw what's today's soup de jour?

AZ



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

In the spirit of calling prints by what's on the paper (e.g. silver,
albumen, etc), how about "ink prints"? Or if that's ambiguous, how about

- digital ink
- ink-dot
- ink raster

Harry

But it's still carbon pigment. And isn't the other process color? Or did 
they do black and white also?

Jerry




Tim Atherton wrote:

> 
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Jerry Olson [mailto:jerryolson@...]
>>Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2003 9:44 AM
>>To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
>>Subject: Re: [Digital BW] OT: What to call the prints...
>>
>>
>>Carbon Pigment Prints.
>>
>>Jerry
> 
> 
> which can be a bit of a problem because there is already a (historic) carbon
> pigment print process for photographs - also practiced by some
> photographers/printers today
> 
> tim
> 
> 
> 
> 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/ 
> 
> 
>

Alan, wouldn't that work only if you used Cone's inks?  How about us MIS 
users?

Jerry

Its not so much the photographer who doesn't like inkjet print, its his 
customers! It does sound a bit tacky.







Alan Zinn wrote:

> At 02:32 PM 4/29/03 +0000, you wrote:
> 
> 
>>>>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?
>>
>>What about Beaux-Arts carbon inks on Fine Art paper. That should be
>>pedantic enough to blow Giglee and Iris!!! BTW, Beaux-Arts and Fine
>>Art are the same in different languages.
>>Cheers,
>>Andre
> 
> 
> Andre,
> 
> I think Cone Editions might like Piezography to become an almost-generic 
> term like Iris.  I was skeptical about that before but now maybe us users 
> should give it a chance to catch on.  Continuous tone printing is a term 
> used for specialized litho and Iris.
> 
> "Continuous tone carbon print on archival paper"  could work.  Check this out:
> 
> http://www.archiveimages.com/Publishing/Prints/Process/AdvContinuousTone.html
> 
> btw what's today's soup de jour?
> 
> AZ
> 
> 
> 
> Build a Lookaround!
> The Lookaround Book.
> http://www.panoramacamera.us
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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/ 
> 
> 
>

Alan,
I've heard that Adobe doesn't likes terms such as Photoshopping or 
Photoshoppers and that Googles is not too keen on "googling".
Maybe Cone Editions should take notice.

Soupe du jour you ask, well let's see...sorry just had the last 
bowl...
Cheers,
Andre

> 
> I think Cone Editions might like Piezography to become an almost-
generic 
> term like Iris.  I was skeptical about that before but now maybe us 
users 
> should give it a chance to catch on.  Continuous tone printing is a 
term 
> used for specialized litho and Iris.
> 
> "Continuous tone carbon print on archival paper"  could work.  
Check this out:
> 
> 
http://www.archiveimages.com/Publishing/Prints/Process/AdvContinuousTo
ne.html

> 
> btw what's today's soup de jour?
> 
> AZ
> 
> 
> 
> Build a Lookaround!
> The Lookaround Book.
> http://www.panoramacamera.us

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "sceptre12345" 
<am1000@v...> wrote:
> Alan,
> I've heard that Adobe doesn't likes terms such as Photoshopping or 
> Photoshoppers and that Googles is not too keen on "googling".
> Maybe Cone Editions should take notice.
> 
> Soupe du jour you ask, well let's see...sorry just had the last 
> bowl...
> Cheers,
> Andre
> 
> > 
> > I think Cone Editions might like Piezography to become an almost-
> generic 
> > term like Iris.  I was skeptical about that before but now maybe 
us 
> users 
> > should give it a chance to catch on.  Continuous tone printing is 
a 
> term 
> > used for specialized litho and Iris.
> > 
> > "Continuous tone carbon print on archival paper"  could work.  
> Check this out:
> > 
> > 
> 
http://www.archiveimages.com/Publishing/Prints/Process/AdvContinuousTo
> ne.html
> > 
> > btw what's today's soup de jour?
> > 
> > AZ
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Build a Lookaround!
> > The Lookaround Book.
> > http://www.panoramacamera.us

I don't want to lower the tone but every time I say Piezography it 
sound, to my uncultured ear like - piss-off graphy. It may catch on.
John

jerry-

the carbon pigment prints i have seen are black and
white. the national gallery had one of steiglitz's
carbon prints up last summer and it was amazing. and,
truth be told, looks a bit like an inkjet print in the
way the pigment sits on the paper. maybe it is just my
eye, flame away. 

and to keep my post to the topic at hand, i would
label my prints carbon pigment prints also. it
references the older technique and its connotations of
art worthiness. if they're color, just shorten it to
pigment print. carbon pigment print or carbon ink
print are what i have been planning to label the
prints in a show i have been trying to get together. 

-m

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com

pictures of things. I've put photos in shows and I just call them
photographs because that's what they are. I guess I have no sense of
morality but I can't understand what everybody is worried about. The great
Charlie Parker played a jazz concert with a plastic saxophone and I never
heard it referred to as music played on a plastic saxophone. Who cares? BTW,
the concert is generally referred to as the "greatest jazz concert ever".

Barry S.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ken Carney" <kcarney1@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2003 8:02 PM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] OT: What to call the prints...


>
> > We are going to be having a student exhibit at a local gallery and I
need
> to know what
> > to call my prints.
>
> Photographs?
>
> Nice pics BTW.
>
> Regards,
>
>   --Ken Carney
>     www.kencarney.com
>
>
>
> 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/
>
>
>

I call my images "Digital Archival Photographs" because it is a selling
point. Most patrons are surprised at the quality and the reference increases
their interest.
I really don't find the need to be any more specific with carbon-based life
forms.

  -----Original Message-----
  From: bgs [mailto:bgs@...]
  Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2003 10:59 AM
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
  Subject: Re: [Digital BW] OT: What to call the prints...


  pictures of things. I've put photos in shows and I just call them
  photographs because that's what they are. I guess I have no sense of
  morality but I can't understand what everybody is worried about. The great
  Charlie Parker played a jazz concert with a plastic saxophone and I never
  heard it referred to as music played on a plastic saxophone. Who cares?
BTW,
  the concert is generally referred to as the "greatest jazz concert ever".

  Barry S.
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: "Ken Carney" <kcarney1@...>
  To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
  Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2003 8:02 PM
  Subject: Re: [Digital BW] OT: What to call the prints...


  >
  > > We are going to be having a student exhibit at a local gallery and I
  need
  > to know what
  > > to call my prints.
  >
  > Photographs?
  >
  > Nice pics BTW.
  >
  > Regards,
  >
  >   --Ken Carney
  >     www.kencarney.com
  >
  >
  >
  > 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/
  >
  >
  >


        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor





  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 the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


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

Alan wrote:

>... I've started using on my "medium" description:
>"Unaltered photographs."

>Does that seem the correct way to assure that it is clear
>that nothing in the picture differs from the original scene?

I also try to do this.  I call my prints, first and foremost, just "Black
and white photographs."

It's only in the description of my work that I go further to describe the
printing process and to emphasize that I consider my images to be "straight"
photos -- not digital composites.  I generally only use the digital
analogues to dodging, burning, etc.  True, the digital unsharp-masking,
local contrast controls, etc., are so much easier and better that they are
almost qualitatively different.  However, the image is, in my view, true to
the lens-formed image (on the negative in my case).

I had thought that the "straight" photography description was one that had
been used in the past to convey this concept.  Admittedly, the "straight v.
gay" use of the term may have become so engrained in the culture now that
"straight" may not be the best way to convey what I want to.

(On another point, I think "Piezograph" or any use of the "piezo" term
really sounds bad.  I have always thought Cone ripped-off Epson on this term
anyway.  Last I heard, Epson holds the patents for the piezo printing heads
that most of us use.  At any rate, who would want to promote a proprietary
name?  I don't want to be attached to any company -- Cone's or Epson.  If
Canon makes a better (non-piezo) printer, I'll use it.)

Paul
http://www.PaulRoark.com

At 09:23 PM 4/29/03 -0500, you wrote:
>Alan, wouldn't that work only if you used Cone's inks?  How about us MIS
>users?
>
>Jerry
>
>Its not so much the photographer who doesn't like inkjet print, its his
>customers! It does sound a bit tacky.
>










>Alan Zinn wrote:
> > At 02:32 PM 4/29/03 +0000, you wrote:
> >
> >
> >>>>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?
> >>
> >>What about Beaux-Arts carbon inks on Fine Art paper. That should be
> >>pedantic enough to blow Giglee and Iris!!! BTW, Beaux-Arts and Fine
> >>Art are the same in different languages.
> >>Cheers,
> >>Andre
> >
> >
> > Andre,
> >
> > I think Cone Editions might like Piezography to become an almost-generic
> > term like Iris.  I was skeptical about that before but now maybe us users
> > should give it a chance to catch on.  Continuous tone printing is a term
> > used for specialized litho and Iris.
> >
> > "Continuous tone carbon print on archival paper"  could work.  Check 
> this out:
> >
> > 
> http://www.archiveimages.com/Publishing/Prints/Process/AdvContinuousTone.html
> >
>

>Jerry,

I think of the name applying only to the piezo technique - but Cone may 
feel differently.

BTW regarding  the original question.  I have another line I've started 
using on my "medium" description:  "Unaltered photographs."   Does that 
seem the correct way to assure that it is clear that nothing in the picture 
differs from the original scene?  Or, will someone quibble?

AZ



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

Wow, I didn't know I'd start such a heated topic!

Well, I think I'm going to go with "Carbon pigment on archival cotton rag"... sounds 
mysterious to those that don't know about such things.

I realize that many think coming up with some pretty name for your prints is silly, but 
this will be in a gallery and as required by them I need to label the type of print it is.  I 
can't honestly believe anybody trying to appear professional would say "ink jet print 
on Epson paper"

But, I agree that its the end result that matters... just as if you used a Holga to take a 
great picture... that doesn't make the picture any less great.

Thanks again, all the replies helped a lot!

Jeff
http://www.jeffsingerphotography.com



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "bgs" <bgs@b...> wrote:

> pictures of things. I've put photos in shows and I just call them
> photographs because that's what they are. I guess I have no sense of
> morality but I can't understand what everybody is worried about. The great
> Charlie Parker played a jazz concert with a plastic saxophone and I never
> heard it referred to as music played on a plastic saxophone. Who cares? BTW,
> the concert is generally referred to as the "greatest jazz concert ever".
> 
> Barry S.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ken Carney" <kcarney1@c...>
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2003 8:02 PM
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] OT: What to call the prints...
> 
> 
> >
> > > We are going to be having a student exhibit at a local gallery and I
> need
> > to know what
> > > to call my prints.
> >
> > Photographs?
> >
> > Nice pics BTW.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> >   --Ken Carney
> >     www.kencarney.com
> >
> >
> >
> > 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/
> >
> >
> >

Alan, you never dodge, burn, remove dirt or anything? If it's black and
white, its already "altered". You never
over or underdevelop your negative? You've altered it if you have. These
things are just silly. I do whatever it needs to be what I want it to
be. I sell my works as fine art images, made using photography as my
tools. Anything goes.  If I were to sell journalism photos, that would
be an entirely different matter.



Jerry

> BTW regarding  the original question.  I have another line I've started
> using on my "medium" description:  "Unaltered photographs."   Does that
> seem the correct way to assure that it is clear that nothing in the picture
> differs from the original scene?  Or, will someone quibble?
>

I call my prints photographs and then enclose this with each print which sh=
ould give 
the purchaser the idea that this is a quality product:

Bill Strong's Coastal Images

Premium Acid-free 100% Cotton Rag Watercolor Paper

Hahnemuhle Photo Rag Paper 13? by 19?

Archival Quality Pigmented Inks

Epson Ultrachrome Color Pigments and MIS VM Carbon Pigments

Handling And Display Recommendations

This is a fine art print and should be handled as such. Great care has been=
 taken in its 
production. Only the finest materials have been utilized in a digital workf=
low.

This print is delivered in an archival quality polypropylene bag with an ac=
id-free 
backing board. Shipped prints arrive in a sturdy 4? mailing tube.

The print surface should not the handled. Touching can leave permanent fing=
erprints.

The print should be mounted and matted using archival methods. The print sh=
ould be 
framed behind glass or plexiglass so that the print surface does not touch =
the 
overlying glass. The print should be displayed out of direct sunlight.

www.phototour.com

On 5/1/03 10:02 AM, "Alan Zinn" <AZinn@...> wrote:

> Many people are aware of
> specific instances of falsity in magazine photos. There was a neat segment
> on PhotoShopped images last night - 48hrs, CBS.
> 
> I'd love to see a useful, short statement that addresses print v. original
> film image honesty.  Something like:  "Un-altered camera image."

I understand that changing image composition in Photoshop is a major problem
if your are a photojournalist...but if you are an artist...what difference
could that possibly make?  Art is about the final image and message that it
conveys and it seems to me irrelevant how you created that image.  Many of
my favorite "old" photographs by Man Ray were created with multiple
exposures in the darkroom.  How is this different from merging images in
Photoshop?  Perhaps this attitude is a holdover from photography as
documentation, which I don't do...but I really resent the idea that someone
who is masterful in Photoshop at composing an image is any less of an
authentic artist than someone who manages to capture the image on a single
negative...this just seems unnecessarily elitist and hopelessly conservative
to me...but I was trained as an artist, not a photographer.

If you are a photojournalist, forgive my diatribe...I think we all want to
know that the news that we see and hear was true to what happened...but for
art...at least I want to know that the art was true to what was imagined.

Robert

At 04:43 PM 4/30/03 -0500, you wrote:
>Alan, you never dodge, burn, remove dirt or anything? If it's black and
>white, its already "altered". You never
>over or underdevelop your negative? You've altered it if you have. These
>things are just silly. I do whatever it needs to be what I want it to
>be. I sell my works as fine art images, made using photography as my
>tools. Anything goes.  If I were to sell journalism photos, that would
>be an entirely different matter.
>
>
>
>Jerry
>
>
>
> > BTW regarding  the original question.  I have another line I've started
> > using on my "medium" description:  "Unaltered photographs."   Does that
> > seem the correct way to assure that it is clear that nothing in the picture
> > differs from the original scene?  Or, will someone quibble?
> >




Jery,

That's the problem with my statement, as I feared!   I had to assume 
that  darkroom practices such as you describe would not be considered 
"manipulating" the image.  I think conventional wisdom is that digital 
images are freely transformable. Most people are not aware of the methods 
used for darkroom-made prints. I want the viewer to know that nothing in 
the printed image is altered from the film image.  Many people are aware of 
specific instances of falsity in magazine photos. There was a neat segment 
on PhotoShopped images last night - 48hrs, CBS.

I'd love to see a useful, short statement that addresses print v. original 
film image honesty.  Something like:  "Un-altered camera image."

AZ

I'm having serious trouble getting the ultratones to work properly on
glossy papers with my 2100. I'm not 100% sure, but it seems to be the
light black ink interfering, making it impossible to cool down the
shadow areas to anything less than a really brownish gray. The problem
is also there to a much lesser extent on matte papers, but the prints I
get still appear totally neutral to my eyes at least, so there it's not
a problem.

Here's a scan of a 21+100 step wedge on both matte and glossy papers
where I toned the image with an extreme amount of magenta, which in
theory should make the entire curve blue, but you'll see that from about
85% the curve starts turning brown. 

http://daniel.staver.no/img/ultratones2100.jpg

Any suggestions on what I could do to solve this problem? I don't think
any kind of curve adjustment will solve this, so I think the solution
must be in changing the light black or one of the other inks somehow.
I've been wondering whether I could mix a more neutral light black and
keep a cartridge of that available. It's not a big deal to change
cartridges on the 2100 so I would consider that a practical solution to
the problem. What would be the best way to mix a neutral ink? I've never
mixed my own inks before, so I'm not really sure where to start. Would a
combination of MIS Light Black and some UT Cyan position ink work?

--
Daniel Staver
http://daniel.staver.no

Daniel,

What inkset are you using?  Is it the B&W Ultra Tone variable-tone "quad,"
the Epson UltraChrome color inkset, or the MIS 7600/9600/2200 color inkset?

Paul
http://www.PaulRoark.com
________________________________________

-----Original Message-----
From: Daniel Staver [mailto:daniel@...]
Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2003 10:37 AM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] Getting ultratones with the 2100 to work on glossy


I'm having serious trouble getting the ultratones to work properly on
glossy papers with my 2100. I'm not 100% sure, but it seems to be the
light black ink interfering, making it impossible to cool down the
shadow areas to anything less than a really brownish gray. The problem
is also there to a much lesser extent on matte papers, but the prints I
get still appear totally neutral to my eyes at least, so there it's not
a problem.

Here's a scan of a 21+100 step wedge on both matte and glossy papers
where I toned the image with an extreme amount of magenta, which in
theory should make the entire curve blue, but you'll see that from about
85% the curve starts turning brown.

http://daniel.staver.no/img/ultratones2100.jpg

Any suggestions on what I could do to solve this problem? I don't think
any kind of curve adjustment will solve this, so I think the solution
must be in changing the light black or one of the other inks somehow.
I've been wondering whether I could mix a more neutral light black and
keep a cartridge of that available. It's not a big deal to change
cartridges on the 2100 so I would consider that a practical solution to
the problem. What would be the best way to mix a neutral ink? I've never
mixed my own inks before, so I'm not really sure where to start. Would a
combination of MIS Light Black and some UT Cyan position ink work?

--
Daniel Staver
http://daniel.staver.no




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/

On 5/1/03 Alan Zinn wrote:

> ...

> I'd love to see a useful, short statement that addresses print v. original
> film image honesty.  Something like:  "Un-altered camera image."

On 5/1/03 Robert Morrison wrote:

>...but if you are an artist...what difference could that possibly make?

>Art is about the final image and message that it
>conveys and it seems to me irrelevant how you created that image. ...

>If you are a photojournalist, ...I think we all want to
>know that the news that we see and hear was true to what happened...but for
>art...at least I want to know that the art was true to what was imagined.

Well, I love many art and photographic forms & categories (sub-markets?).  I
have no idea how one defines "art," but I see or feel it in the very best
performances of many communication forms, as well as jobs that are just so
well done that they demonstrate a deep understanding of the "medium" in
which the person participates.

Some photojournalism rises to the level of "art," in my view.

Being a fan of landscape photography, I also love the wild, fantastic
computer landscapes. However, for my photography, I prefer a subcategory
that is, perhaps, most influenced by the f64 group's approach.

When a person sees -- and even walks up close to -- one of my display
prints, I want that viewer to feel that they are, in effect, looking through
a window to a slice of reality.  I guess part of what I want the viewer to
feel is what Alan refers to as "original film image honesty."

I do "alter" the image in the sense that I emphasize certain patterns more
than others.  One photography writer once said that the making of the final
image was a progression of tonal compressions and expansions.  I think the
eye & brain do this in the real world, and I feel much of my printing is
simply replicating this process on paper.  I, of course, have to fit the
dynamic range of the scene onto a low-dynamic-range piece of paper with
appropriate local contrasts, but I also guide the eye in a pattern that
shows the viewer what I saw at the scene.

The abstractions and non-literal interpretations that one might see in my
work, however, are the person's own.  All I've done is emphasize the aspects
of the scene that made me smile.  (Of course, the B&W image is, by its
nature, more abstract than a straight color photo and, in my view, helps
free our minds to enjoy the patterns of nature.)

I consider my self a "photographer," but I seem to be doing well in my
Artist Guild competitions.

Paul
http://www.PaulRoark.com

I'm using the B&W Ultra Tone inkset with MIS 7600 Archival Pigment Light
Black in the light black position (since there's no Ultra Tone ink for
that) on an Epson Stylus Photo 2100.

--
Daniel Staver
Petraflux Web-design | http://www.petraflux.com
Tel +47 22 35 44 57 | +47 Fax 22 35 40 66

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Roark [mailto:paul.roark@...] 
> Sent: 1. mai 2003 21:16
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Getting ultratones with the 2100 to 
> work on glossy
> 
> 
> Daniel,
> 
> What inkset are you using?  Is it the B&W Ultra Tone 
> variable-tone "quad," the Epson UltraChrome color inkset, or 
> the MIS 7600/9600/2200 color inkset?
> 
> Paul
> http://www.PaulRoark.com ________________________________________
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Daniel Staver [mailto:daniel@...]
> Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2003 10:37 AM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Digital BW] Getting ultratones with the 2100 to 
> work on glossy
> 
> 
> I'm having serious trouble getting the ultratones to work 
> properly on glossy papers with my 2100. I'm not 100% sure, 
> but it seems to be the light black ink interfering, making it 
> impossible to cool down the shadow areas to anything less 
> than a really brownish gray. The problem is also there to a 
> much lesser extent on matte papers, but the prints I get 
> still appear totally neutral to my eyes at least, so there 
> it's not a problem.
> 
> Here's a scan of a 21+100 step wedge on both matte and glossy 
> papers where I toned the image with an extreme amount of 
> magenta, which in theory should make the entire curve blue, 
> but you'll see that from about 85% the curve starts turning brown.
> 
> http://daniel.staver.no/img/ultratones2100.jpg
> 
> Any suggestions on what I could do to solve this problem? I 
> don't think any kind of curve adjustment will solve this, so 
> I think the solution must be in changing the light black or 
> one of the other inks somehow. I've been wondering whether I 
> could mix a more neutral light black and keep a cartridge of 
> that available. It's not a big deal to change cartridges on 
> the 2100 so I would consider that a practical solution to the 
> problem. What would be the best way to mix a neutral ink? 
> I've never mixed my own inks before, so I'm not really sure 
> where to start. Would a combination of MIS Light Black and 
> some UT Cyan position ink work?
> 
> --
> Daniel Staver
> http://daniel.staver.no

On 5/1/03 12:16 PM, "Paul Roark" <paul.roark@...> wrote:

> On 5/1/03 Alan Zinn wrote:
> 
>> ...
> 
>> I'd love to see a useful, short statement that addresses print v. original
>> film image honesty.  Something like:  "Un-altered camera image."
> 
> On 5/1/03 Robert Morrison wrote:
> 
>> ...but if you are an artist...what difference could that possibly make?
> 
>> Art is about the final image and message that it
>> conveys and it seems to me irrelevant how you created that image. ...
> 
>> If you are a photojournalist, ...I think we all want to
>> know that the news that we see and hear was true to what happened...but for
>> art...at least I want to know that the art was true to what was imagined.
> 
> Well, I love many art and photographic forms & categories (sub-markets?).  I
> have no idea how one defines "art," but I see or feel it in the very best
> performances of many communication forms,  as well as jobs that are just so
> well done that they demonstrate a deep understanding of the "medium" in
> which the person participates.

To me this is not art...but rather technical mastery.  For me visual art is
an attempt to use a visual form to communicate.  Art can show technical
mastery or not...it can be judged to be good or bad by a viewer/critic.  It
can have lousy technical mastery but still be great art because of its
message or intent, while it could be technically masterful and lack any
depth of communication.
 
> Some photojournalism rises to the level of "art," in my view.

I didn't mean to suggest that a photojournalist couldn't be an artist.
Rather the function of photojournalism puts an additional constraint on
their output...requiring image fidelity...a requirement that doesn't seem to
be a necessary constraint for other art forms...which seem to be to be about
the artist's message and their ability to communicate that message.
  

Robert

> I didn't mean to suggest that a photojournalist couldn't be an 
artist.
> Rather the function of photojournalism puts an additional 
constraint on
> their output...requiring image fidelity...a requirement that 
doesn't seem to
> be a necessary constraint for other art forms...which seem to be 
to be about
> the artist's message and their ability to communicate that message.
>   
> 
> Robert

If I may add my two-cents worth: IMO not only is 'camera image 
fidelity' not relevant if you are offering your work as art, one 
could argue that it is actualy detrimental in terms of our 
acceptance among other artists, dealers, and the public. I once had 
an interesting exchange with a painter who opened my eyes to this 
attitude. I asked if she thought it appropriate that photography was 
still struggling for recognition and value as an art form; her 
answer was, in short, yes; because for the most part photographers 
don't 'create' their images, they walk around until they find 
something interesting, and then record it. So to the extent that we 
insist on 'camera image fidelity' we are doing ourselves a 
disservice-the faster we can achieve a disconnect between reality 
and our finished art, the better of we are. The more imagination and 
creativity we excercise along the way, the better of we are. From 
that point of view digital imaging is the best thing that could have 
happened to us. Perhaps soon the viewers will stop asking things 
like 'Where was that' and 'Is that for real?' and simply consider an 
image on its own merits.  

 Of course, accepting this viewpoint depends to a great extent on 
having the sheer gall to call yourself an artist. I've noticed that 
most photographers are quite uncomfortable with that, they seem to 
feel it's pretentious and egotistical. But that's a whole 'nother 
discussion, yes?

Steve Karafyllakis

Steven Karafyllakis wrote:

>If I may add my two-cents worth: IMO not only is 'camera image 
>fidelity' not relevant if you are offering your work as art, one 
>could argue that it is actualy detrimental in terms of our 
>acceptance among other artists, dealers, and the public. I once had 
>an interesting exchange with a painter who opened my eyes to this 
>attitude. I asked if she thought it appropriate that photography was 
>still struggling for recognition and value as an art form; her 
>answer was, in short, yes; because for the most part photographers 
>don't 'create' their images, they walk around until they find 
>something interesting, and then record it. 
>
To some extend a painter will create his/her image through the use of 
models seting up the subject for the painting, etc. So in reality there 
is very little difference.

Some of the photography with the greatest impact came about during the 
heyday of the photojournalism, Smith, Cartier-Bresson, etc.  Also to 
suggest Weston walked around until an image bit him in the butt to get 
his attention is an insult to the talent of the man. Anyone that says 
Weston or Minor White didn't create their images shows very little 
knowledge nor understanding for photography in specific or art in general.

Truman

>  Of course, accepting this viewpoint depends to a great extent on
> having the sheer gall to call yourself an artist. I've noticed that
> most photographers are quite uncomfortable with that, they seem to
> feel it's pretentious and egotistical. But that's a whole 'nother
> discussion, yes?
>
> Steve Karafyllakis

Ted Orland, one of AA's first assistants, or possibly the first assistant,
and a fine photographer, has an excellent book: "Art and Fear".  Highly
recommended, especially for those of us who are concerned that someone might
think our photograph is not as worthy as another's, for this or that reason.

Regards,

  --Ken Carney
    www.kencarney.com

I forgot to mention:  Here is where you can order a copy of Art and Fear,
autographed yet:
http://members.cruzio.com/~tno/index.html

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ken Carney" <kcarney1@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2003 6:51 PM
Subject: Re: Un-altered camera image was Re: [Digital BW] OT: What to call
the prints...


> >  Of course, accepting this viewpoint depends to a great extent on
> > having the sheer gall to call yourself an artist. I've noticed that
> > most photographers are quite uncomfortable with that, they seem to
> > feel it's pretentious and egotistical. But that's a whole 'nother
> > discussion, yes?
> >
> > Steve Karafyllakis
>
> Ted Orland, one of AA's first assistants, or possibly the first assistant,
> and a fine photographer, has an excellent book: "Art and Fear".  Highly
> recommended, especially for those of us who are concerned that someone
might
> think our photograph is not as worthy as another's, for this or that
reason.
>
> Regards,
>
>   --Ken Carney
>     www.kencarney.com
>
>
>
>
> 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/
>
>

At 08:35 AM 5/1/03 -0700, you wrote:
>On 5/1/03 10:02 AM, "Alan Zinn" <AZinn@...> wrote:
>
> > Many people are aware of
> > specific instances of falsity in magazine photos. There was a neat segment
> > on PhotoShopped images last night - 48hrs, CBS.
> >
> > I'd love to see a useful, short statement that addresses print v. original
> > film image honesty.  Something like:  "Un-altered camera image."
>
>I understand that changing image composition in Photoshop is a major problem
>if your are a photojournalist...but if you are an artist...what difference
>could that possibly make?  Art is about the final image and message that it
>conveys and it seems to me irrelevant how you created that image.  Many of
>my favorite "old" photographs by Man Ray were created with multiple
>exposures in the darkroom.  How is this different from merging images in
>Photoshop?  Perhaps this attitude is a holdover from photography as
>documentation, which I don't do...but I really resent the idea that someone
>who is masterful in Photoshop at composing an image is any less of an
>authentic artist than someone who manages to capture the image on a single
>negative...this just seems unnecessarily elitist and hopelessly conservative
>to me...but I was trained as an artist, not a photographer.
>
>If you are a photojournalist, forgive my diatribe...I think we all want to
>know that the news that we see and hear was true to what happened...but for
>art...at least I want to know that the art was true to what was imagined.
>
>Robert

Robert,

I am not suggesting that some sort of disclaimer attached to the picture is 
an ethical choice.  I want MY images to be understood to be the same as 
what the camera recorded, excepting the customary adjustments of tone, 
etc.  That is a substantial part of what they are about - the photographic 
idea, if you like.  I have no beef with what others do with their pictures 
- even journalists.  Journalism photos are illustrations and are no more or 
less credible to me than text.

AZ



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

Daniel,

You wrote:

>I'm using the B&W Ultra Tone inkset with MIS 7600 Archival Pigment Light
>Black in the light black position (since there's no Ultra Tone ink for
>that) on an Epson Stylus Photo 2100.

> ...
>
> I'm having serious trouble getting the ultratones to work
> properly on glossy papers with my 2100. ...
> it seems to be the light black ink interfering, making it
> impossible to cool down the shadow areas to anything less
> than a really brownish gray. The problem is also there to a
> much lesser extent on matte papers, but the prints I get
> still appear totally neutral to my eyes at least, so there
> it's not a problem.
>
> Here's a scan of a 21+100 step wedge on both matte and glossy
> papers where I toned the image with an extreme amount of
> magenta, which in theory should make the entire curve blue,
> but you'll see that from about 85% the curve starts turning brown.
>
> http://daniel.staver.no/img/ultratones2100.jpg
>
> Any suggestions on what I could do to solve this problem? I
> don't think any kind of curve adjustment will solve this,


I agree that simple curves are not likely to cure your problem.

You may have noticed that once the 7600 was out I purchased a 7500.  I don't
think the 2100/2200/7600/9600 driver is going to lend itself to the standard
variable-tone inkset arrangement.

To control the tones in the shadows you need to be able to have the toner
full-on as far down in the shadows as possible.  Usually you're just
fighting the black ink, which is warm.  As the black is fed in, the color
inks are cut back to stop over-loading the paper.  Part of the original VM
toner design was to get the gamut of the toner to just enough to give a
neutral 90% patch with the 1160 workflow that I was using.

With the 2100 starting to feed the light (warm) black in earlier, this is
going to be a problem.  Also, the cyan tone of the standard variable-tone,
vm inksets is slightly darker than the light black.  This is might make
shadow contrast hard to maintain with some tones.  Bottom line -- the inkset
is probably going to have to be modified to work with the UltraChrome
drivers.


> I think the solution must be in changing the light black or
> one of the other inks somehow.

Yes, I agree.

> I've been wondering whether I
> could mix a more neutral light black ...

I think a more neutral light black would help.  There may still be density
anomalies, however.

To be frank, I'm not sure the 2100, et al., will really be that useful until
a good RIP is out that can control each cart individually.  If we get such a
product and it's reasonably priced, I might just go that route with the UC
printers.  On the other hand, I may just skip the 7-ink printer generation
entirely.  The 8-inkers may be out soon enough.


>What would be the best way to mix a neutral ink?

Try throwing cyan and magenta MIS 7600 color pigments into Photo K.  Expect
to put a little more magenta than cyan into the mix.  You can add one-drop
amounts (I use a flat screw-driver to get good, consistent drops) into a
bottle cap to mix small samples and then spread them on a piece of EEM with
to Q-tip.  When the tone looks right, just scale it up.  You can get fairly
close this way.  I'd take a wild guess that close to 20% color pigs might be
what you'd need.  These will make the Photo K lighter.  You may want to end
up with a mix that is darker than the cyan UT ink.  (All the crossovers in
that driver could continue to make things difficult.)

Good luck.  Let us know how it goes.

Paul
http://www.PaulRoark.com

> Some of the photography with the greatest impact came about during the
> heyday of the photojournalism, Smith, Cartier-Bresson, etc.

HCB has never really been a photojournalist - Capa told him to call himself
one because no one would buy his stuff if he kept calling himself a
surrealist. (BTW - there is a new Capa documentary on PBS at the end of the
month)

That's the problem trying to pegion hole artist into categroies. Both 
Smith and Cartier-Bression were artist.

Truman

Tim Atherton wrote:

>>Some of the photography with the greatest impact came about during the
>>heyday of the photojournalism, Smith, Cartier-Bresson, etc.
>>    
>>
>
>HCB has never really been a photojournalist - Capa told him to call himself
>one because no one would buy his stuff if he kept calling himself a
>surrealist. (BTW - there is a new Capa documentary on PBS at the end of the
>month)
>  
>



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

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Truman Prevatt 
<tprevatt@m...> wrote:
> 
> 
> Steven Karafyllakis wrote:
> 
> >If I may add my two-cents worth: IMO not only is 'camera image 
> >fidelity' not relevant if you are offering your work as art, one 
> >could argue that it is actualy detrimental in terms of our 
> >acceptance among other artists, dealers, and the public. I once 
had 
> >an interesting exchange with a painter who opened my eyes to this 
> >attitude. I asked if she thought it appropriate that photography 
was 
> >still struggling for recognition and value as an art form; her 
> >answer was, in short, yes; because for the most part 
photographers 
> >don't 'create' their images, they walk around until they find 
> >something interesting, and then record it. 
> >

> To some extend a painter will create his/her image through the use 
of 
> models seting up the subject for the painting, etc. So in reality 
there 
> is very little difference.
> 

Truman, you're being too kind-many 'artists' copy photographs, and 
change them very little, aside from applying their 'style-du-jour'. 
I don't know how many times I've had painters ask (or sometimes 
not!) if they could use an image of mine as subject matter. My usual 
response is "oh, you mean make it 'real art?' How flattering!"

> Some of the photography with the greatest impact came about during 
the 
> heyday of the photojournalism, Smith, Cartier-Bresson, etc.  Also 
to 
> suggest Weston walked around until an image bit him in the butt to 
get 
> his attention is an insult to the talent of the man. Anyone that 
says 
> Weston or Minor White didn't create their images shows very little 
> knowledge nor understanding for photography in specific or art in 
general.
> 
> Truman

Obviously a lot of ignorance and misperception still going around. 
IMO the camera is a tool of exploration-a very versatile and 
powerful tool when coupled with all the new tech available to us. 
Why should we limit the possibilities (and therefore allow and 
encourage others to do likewise) by sticking to some antiquated 
standard based on old technologies?

Steve K

> You may have noticed that once the 7600 was out I purchased a 
> 7500.  I don't think the 2100/2200/7600/9600 driver is going 
> to lend itself to the standard variable-tone inkset arrangement.

I agree. On the other hand it lends itself extremely well to changing
between different carts. So keeping carts with different tones would not
be a big problem. Another great thing about the printer is that it never
clogs, even with all the refilling and changing of inks I've done lately
I still haven't had a single clog. At most I have to run an occasional
extra cleaning cycle when I change a cartdrige to get a prefect nozzle
check. 

> To control the tones in the shadows you need to be able to 
> have the toner full-on as far down in the shadows as 
> possible.  Usually you're just fighting the black ink, which 
> is warm.  As the black is fed in, the color inks are cut back 
> to stop over-loading the paper.  Part of the original VM 
> toner design was to get the gamut of the toner to just enough 
> to give a neutral 90% patch with the 1160 workflow that I was using.

I think a variable tone inkset where you have to change between warm and
neutral black and light black cartridges is the way to go for this
printer. Personally I hardly ever make warm prints, and I really like
the selenium tone piezo inkset, so I would probably go for some black
tones to match that and use them permanently, except for the occasional
warm print.
 
> With the 2100 starting to feed the light (warm) black in 
> earlier, this is going to be a problem.  Also, the cyan tone 
> of the standard variable-tone, vm inksets is slightly darker 
> than the light black.  This is might make shadow contrast 
> hard to maintain with some tones.  Bottom line -- the inkset 
> is probably going to have to be modified to work with the 
> UltraChrome drivers.

Would it make more sense to use gray inks that matched the densities of
the cyan and photo cyan positions in this case? 

> > I've been wondering whether I
> > could mix a more neutral light black ...
> I think a more neutral light black would help.  There may 
> still be density anomalies, however.

I tried mixing one last night but it did little to affect the warm
shadow areas although the ink itself looked much cooler. In fact, after
that I tried a light black cartridge filled with pure UT magenta toner
ink, and still the darkest shadow areas looked brown, although the rest
of the curve was dramatically cooler. Could this be interference from
the dark cyan? Or would I need to mix a cooler Photo Black as well?

> To be frank, I'm not sure the 2100, et al., will really be 
> that useful until a good RIP is out that can control each 
> cart individually.  If we get such a product and it's 
> reasonably priced, I might just go that route with the UC 
> printers.  On the other hand, I may just skip the 7-ink 
> printer generation entirely.  The 8-inkers may be out soon enough.

I'm eagerly awaiting IJC for windows... I suspect it might take time
though, so in the meantime I'm going to continue my experiments to see
if I can find a working solution.

> >What would be the best way to mix a neutral ink?
> Try throwing cyan and magenta MIS 7600 color pigments into 
> Photo K.  Expect to put a little more magenta than cyan into 
> the mix.  You can add one-drop amounts (I use a flat 
> screw-driver to get good, consistent drops) into a bottle cap 
> to mix small samples and then spread them on a piece of EEM 
> with to Q-tip.  When the tone looks right, just scale it up.  
> You can get fairly close this way.  I'd take a wild guess 
> that close to 20% color pigs might be what you'd need.  These 
> will make the Photo K lighter.  You may want to end up with a 
> mix that is darker than the cyan UT ink.  (All the crossovers 
> in that driver could continue to make things difficult.)

My first try wasn't that successful, but I'll keep experimenting. 

> Good luck.  Let us know how it goes.

Thanks! I will.

--
Daniel Staver
Petraflux Web-design | http://www.petraflux.com
Tel +47 22 35 44 57 | +47 Fax 22 35 40 66

Alan Zinn wrote:

>>
>>
>>
>>You have taken this way over the top, 
>>

It's a common rhetorical and debate technique to demonstrate the logical 
inadequacy of a rigid, "supposedly objective" standard, that is in fact 
inherently subjective..

>>and made a lot of silly assumptions 
>>about my point of view (that I've said or implied that photographs are 
>>verifiable, optical, reality or some sort of truth, for example.)
>>
And you haven't answered my questions... nor addressed  my third point..


2)    We already know that B&W imagery is automatically an abstraction...

If I use a red, orange, green or yellow,  filter etc. when shooting I am
altering the image "unnaturally."  The image recorded is NOT accurate in
accord with the film's inherent recording abilities..

So, does your standard NOT allow such filtration.. If it does, how can
you hope to justify it?


3)     You cannot reliably represent a transmissive image (a negative)
as a reflective one (print).  Add in dodging and burning to compress or
accentuate tonalities and you are not rendering faithfully your
in-camera image.. Instead, you are altering that image to be more
aesthetically pleasing (hopefully).



>>  Keeping 
>>the viewer aware of the essential photographic idea is far more than some 
>>stubborn concete.  It is an aspect of the photographic aesthetic just as 
>>paint is an aspect of painting.
>>    
>>
It is not axiomatically an aspect.  Photograms that can only be 
identified as abstractions, not as real particular objects would be a 
simple example that breaks your conundrum.

In an earlier post, you said:

"I am not suggesting that some sort of disclaimer attached to the 
picture is an ethical choice. I want MY images to be understood to be 
the same as what the camera recorded, excepting the customary 
adjustments of tone, etc. That is a substantial part of what they are 
about - the photographic idea, if you like."

In another post you say:

"I had to assume that darkroom practices such as you describe would not 
be considered manipulating" the image. I think conventional wisdom is 
that digital images are freely transformable. Most people are not aware 
of the methods used for darkroom-made prints."

That's a major assumption..   and as I tried to point our, it's an 
assumption based upon your own subjective definition of what might be 
"traditional darkroom tools.":  Eugene Smith added shadows of another 
image to a welder's goggles...  He did that with traditional darkroom 
tools..  By your standard, that would seem unacceptable, yet it used 
traditional tools and methods..

What I'm pointing out is BIGGER than it seems.. Photography, as does any 
art, sits astride a continuum from very close to a projection or 
representation of objective reality at one end to complete abstraction 
at the other.. MY point is painting and photography BOTH cover broad 
swaths and there is not "photographic idea" that predisposes photography 
to a more objective rendering of reality anymore than "painting" is 
predisposed to being a two dimensional process..  

What I'm sensing here as the dividing line for you (and please correct 
me if I'm wrong) are two things:  tradition (which is usually the 
fantasy of of what the past look like when viewed through particular 
glasses) and how hard something would be to do with traditional wet 
darkroom processes...  The harder it would have been, the less it is 
part of  this "more representative reality" of photos..

Your position inherently seems to turn on a belief (again correct me if 
I am wrong) that some label designating imagery as "what my camera 
recorded"  should make such images preferred, more desirable, etc..  But 
that simply isn't how art is judged..  It's judged on its effectiveness 
in conveying emotion and feeling, not some arbitrary rule on technique.. 
 Reactionaries bridled at pointillism, fauvism, dada-ism, cubism, 
surrealism, abstraction, etc.. as not adhering to the ideal of 
painting...  I'm sorry, but even in representational landscape painting 
artists traditionally moved objects (either in real life or  on canvas) 
to create a greater aesthetic effect..

If you go out and change a landscape by moving a cow's skull to improve 
the aesthetic, and then photograph it, would your  desired label still 
be applicable to the image?

If not, I might suggest you simply call your images "found images" - 
implying that no movement of  objects or post imaging manipulation was 
done...

However, if you use any filtration on your lens, the whole mix becomes 
muddled again..  As I've tried to point out, this is a continuum and 
objective reality is NOT part of that continuum.. IT's like a curve in 
math  that continues to approach a vector coordinate without ever 
reaching it.. You get infinitely close, but part of the artist is always 
there..

>>Photography can be about photography - as I'm sure you are aware. 
>>
And what does that mean?

That photography is some type of  objective technical skill?

>> There 
>>are those who examine this idea with engaging and fresh points of view 
>>using primitive or antique methods as well as modern digital means. It's 
>>not an either/or issue as you seem to insist but one part of a broader 
>>aesthetic.
>>    
>>
>
>  
>
I never suggested an either / or, what I did was demonstrate the logical 
inconsistencies inherent in a position through expounding upon clear 
extremes..

As for the "unaltered photographs" moniker...  You need something more 
accurate... If that's the case you should be exhibiting unaltered 
chromes and shooting just transparency material.. Then, display them "as 
is"..

You might call them something like "prints of the found"... That would 
convey the sense that nothing had been consciously added or removed 
from  the image captured.
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]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alan Zinn [mailto:AZinn@...] 
> Sent: Friday, May 02, 2003 7:13 PM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: Un-altered camera image was Re: [Digital BW] OT: 
> What to call the prints...
> 
> 
> >Do you really think photographers should strive to measure up to the
> >public perception of the medium and art?  Do you  really believe 
> >imagination and creativity in any medium, not just photography, is 
> >somehow  measured by the extent that an artist alters 
> conventional sensory 
> >perceptions?  I should just grab my Holga camera, get some 
> IR film, a 
> >hand-full of PS plug-ins, rough watercolor paper, and by god 
> I'm doing 
> >art!  Oh yea, need to hire a nude model - that's Real Art.
> 

Creativity and art is certainly not "just being able to use the medium
in order to transfer conventional sensory perceptions". See PSA's
(Photographic Society of America) Consolidated Exhibition Standads as of
Jan 1, 2003: 14.d. ...Creative photograhy is defined as "altered
reality".

To me, making a statements like "unaltered camera image" or "unaltered
photograph" and such is completely dumb (sorry, but there's not another
word that I can describe it better - please do not take it as a personal
insult). I would never buy a print from someone making such a statement
- because it would indicate me that the photographer is more interested
in the technique and formalism than communicating his/her feelings,
worries, thoughts, message in a personal/special way. But that's me,
perhaps the average American photography consumer/collectioner is in
pursuit of way different concepts that me...

At 10:05 PM 5/1/03 +0000, you wrote:

> > I didn't mean to suggest that a photojournalist couldn't be an
>artist.
> > Rather the function of photojournalism puts an additional
>constraint on
> > their output...requiring image fidelity...a requirement that
>doesn't seem to
> > be a necessary constraint for other art forms...which seem to be
>to be about
> > the artist's message and their ability to communicate that message.
> >
> >
> > Robert
>
>If I may add my two-cents worth: IMO not only is 'camera image
>fidelity' not relevant if you are offering your work as art, one
>could argue that it is actualy detrimental in terms of our
>acceptance among other artists, dealers, and the public. I once had
>an interesting exchange with a painter who opened my eyes to this
>attitude. I asked if she thought it appropriate that photography was
>still struggling for recognition and value as an art form; her
>answer was, in short, yes; because for the most part photographers
>don't 'create' their images, they walk around until they find
>something interesting, and then record it. So to the extent that we
>insist on 'camera image fidelity' we are doing ourselves a
>disservice-the faster we can achieve a disconnect between reality
>and our finished art, the better of we are. The more imagination and
>creativity we excercise along the way, the better of we are. From
>that point of view digital imaging is the best thing that could have
>happened to us. Perhaps soon the viewers will stop asking things
>like 'Where was that' and 'Is that for real?' and simply consider an
>image on its own merits.
>
>  Of course, accepting this viewpoint depends to a great extent on
>having the sheer gall to call yourself an artist. I've noticed that
>most photographers are quite uncomfortable with that, they seem to
>feel it's pretentious and egotistical. But that's a whole 'nother
>discussion, yes?
>
>Steve Karafyllakis
>
>Steve,

>Do you really think photographers should strive to measure up to the 
>public perception of the medium and art?  Do you  really believe 
>imagination and creativity in any medium, not just photography, is 
>somehow  measured by the extent that an artist alters conventional sensory 
>perceptions?  I should just grab my Holga camera, get some IR film, a 
>hand-full of PS plug-ins, rough watercolor paper, and by god I'm doing 
>art!  Oh yea, need to hire a nude model - that's Real Art.


AZ









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

At 10:17 AM 5/2/03 -0400, you wrote:


>Alan Zinn wrote:
>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>You have taken this way over the top,
> >>
>
>It's a common rhetorical and debate technique to demonstrate the logical
>inadequacy of a rigid, "supposedly objective" standard, that is in fact
>inherently subjective..
>
> >>and made a lot of silly assumptions
> >>about my point of view (that I've said or implied that photographs are
> >>verifiable, optical, reality or some sort of truth, for example.)
> >>
>And you haven't answered my questions... nor addressed  my third point..
>
>
>2)    We already know that B&W imagery is automatically an abstraction...
>
>If I use a red, orange, green or yellow,  filter etc. when shooting I am
>altering the image "unnaturally."  The image recorded is NOT accurate in
>accord with the film's inherent recording abilities..
>
>So, does your standard NOT allow such filtration.. If it does, how can
>you hope to justify it?
>
>
>3)     You cannot reliably represent a transmissive image (a negative)
>as a reflective one (print).  Add in dodging and burning to compress or
>accentuate tonalities and you are not rendering faithfully your
>in-camera image.. Instead, you are altering that image to be more
>aesthetically pleasing (hopefully).
>
>
>
>You are setting up straw men.  Screwing around with tonality and certain 
>formal issues do not fall in the same realm of discussion.  I, nor has 
>anyone else, argued those points. The "standards"  are not dogma and apply 
>only to what I keep repeating - what you see in my print is what was on my 
>film excepting conventional printcraft.

AZ


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