Digital BW, The Print

Does anyone have experience printing with Lyson Small Gamut inks. Any pros
or cons related to this inkset would be greatly appreciated.

Kevin Kerr

Kevin Kerr wrote:

>Does anyone have experience printing with Lyson Small Gamut inks. Any pros
>or cons related to this inkset would be greatly appreciated.
>
>  
>
I use BOTH the SGs and some MIS inks.. I love both.. Different tools for 
different jobs...

 
Keith Krebs

"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/EPSON_Printers/
 
"For the rest of you out there, the secret is to bang the rocks together 
guys"

I use Lyson SG ink. Initially I was disappointed, but realized it was my icc profiles that were the problem.

After running test sheets through my 1160 and having profiles written by Udo Machiels  am delighted with both the 
continuous tones and the the Neutral B&W - absolutely no metemarism. I only have profiles written for Ilford Classic 
Pearl (due to being £100 each!) which limits me a bit, but it is great paper.

regards
Simon Greenwood
Guildford, England


Organization:   	Persistence of Vision Image Service
To:             	DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
From:           	"Editor P.O.V. Image Service" <editor@...>
Date sent:      	Fri, 17 Oct 2003 03:31:28 -0400
Subject:        	Re: [Digital BW] Re:Lyson Inks
Send reply to:  	DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com

> Kevin Kerr wrote:
> 
> >Does anyone have experience printing with Lyson Small Gamut inks. Any pros
> >or cons related to this inkset would be greatly appreciated.
> >
> >  
> >
> I use BOTH the SGs and some MIS inks.. I love both.. Different tools for 
> different jobs...
> 
>  
> Keith Krebs
> 
> "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/EPSON_Printers/
>  
> "For the rest of you out there, the secret is to bang the rocks together 
> guys"
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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/ 
> 
> 
>

Anyone here has any experience with lyson inks? Pros and Cons?

Thanks, Alfred

I've been using the Quad Blacks for over a year and have been quite 
satisfied with them in both an Epson 860 and Canon S9000 (note - these 
printers take different inks, but the results are the same.)  I also played 
around a bit with the Lyson Small Gamut inks, but decided I could be 
satisfied with the Quad Black tone and not have to mess with the 
tone-setting step of the SG inks.  I use the ICM profiles offered by Lyson 
for both glossy and matte papers, as appropriate, and print using 
QImage.  I use Legion Photo Matte, and Ilford Classic Gloss and Pearl for 
the shinier surfaces.  The ink takes a while to dry on the Ilford papers, 
but I just hang them up by a corner with a clothespin on a line in my old 
darkroom, and let them dry overnight just like I used to do with chemical 
prints.  The matte paper seems to absorb the ink much more readily, 
although I usually hang the matte prints up for a while as well just to let 
as much moisture as possible get out of the paper before I stack things 
up.  There is a slight change in tone when carrying a print between 
incandescent and daylight, but without taking along a chemical print for 
reference I don't see the change myself.

I load my own cartridges for the Canon with bulk ink that I get from 
Marrutt, Ltd., in England (Small Gamut is also available in bulk, and I 
understand that both are now available in bulk in the US as well) using 
virgin empty cartridges and syringes from Inkjet Goodies..  The cost works 
out to around $2/cartridge if you pitch the cartridge after 10 reloads, 
which is about how many you get out of a 4 ounce bottle of ink.  (This 
compares to about $14 each if you buy prefilled cartridges for the 
Canon.)  The reloading process is a snap after you've done about two 
cartridges - just pop out the rubber stopper, fill the reservoir with about 
8cc of ink with a syringe, put the stopper back in, and (if you're not 
going to put it right back into the printer) stick a piece of tape over the 
breather hole.  You have to rinse out the syringe, but that takes less than 
60 seconds.

Both Quad Black and Small Gamut are dye inks, and so are not supposed to 
last very long as compared to pigment inks.  However, I've had an 
unprotected print sitting in a south-facing window for 6 weeks with no 
visible line between the part that is covered and the part that isn't. 
(Print was done with the Canon printer using Lyson Quad Black on Legion 
Photo Matte paper, the print half covered by a thick (3/16") piece of solid 
cardboard and the assembly leaned against the glass of the window - the 
masking tape holding the print to the cardboard has gotten a bit gooey, but 
there's no apparent change in the print.)  No significant clog issues 
(can't even remember the last one - knock on wood) to the point where I 
don't even do the nozzle check that I used to run each time I fired up the 
printer.  I've made about 600 8x8 prints in the last couple of months, 
getting ready to bind up into books at Christmas time.  Never a clog, and 
consistently nice prints (as long as I didn't forget and leave a color 
printer profile set in QImage - I have a separate color printer, and 
printing with the Lyson Quads using a color ink profile produces some very 
ugly results.)

So on the whole I'm quite satisfied with the Lyson Quad Blacks.  If they 
are available in cartridges for your printer, I'd certainly taking a chance 
on a set and giving them a try.

Cheers,
Kip

At 10/29/2003 07:37 PM +0000, Alfred wrote:

>Anyone here has any experience with lyson inks? Pros and Cons?

Well, in the "pro" column, I've been using Lyson's Quad Black 
Neutral carts in my Epson 1160 for a little under two years with 
few problems, and a lot of good prints. I've heard mixed reports 
about their Small Gamut inks, but that's about it.

- Barrett

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, 
"aevoegels" <aevoegels@y...> wrote:
> Anyone here has any experience with lyson inks? Pros and 
Cons?
> 
> Thanks, Alfred

Hi Barrett,

I have been using Lyson Small Gamut inks with my 1160 for a year now, and after having custom icc profiles written 
(important) I get excellent neutral prints (smother tone than quad black) but it is very important to get a good icc profile 
written to avoid metamerism.
On a personal note. I am really sorry to hear the news about your mother my sincere condolences.
regards
Simon



To:             	DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
From:           	"amateriat" <bwbenton@...>
Date sent:      	Thu, 30 Oct 2003 04:44:54 -0000
Subject:        	[Digital BW] Re: Lyson Inks
Send reply to:  	DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com

> Well, in the "pro" column, I've been using Lyson's Quad Black 
> Neutral carts in my Epson 1160 for a little under two years with 
> few problems, and a lot of good prints. I've heard mixed reports 
> about their Small Gamut inks, but that's about it.
> 
> - Barrett
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, 
> "aevoegels" <aevoegels@y...> wrote:
> > Anyone here has any experience with lyson inks? Pros and 
> Cons?
> > 
> > Thanks, Alfred
> 
> 
> 
> 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/ 
> 
> 
>

Simon,

Thanks very much for your words.

Also good to know about your results with Lyson SG. On the 
matter of custom profiles, where and how did you get them 
done?

- Barrett

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Simon 
Greenwood" <mail@s...> wrote:
> Hi Barrett,
> 
> I have been using Lyson Small Gamut inks with my 1160 for a 
year now, and after having custom icc profiles written 
> (important) I get excellent neutral prints (smother tone than 
quad black) but it is very important to get a good icc profile 
> written to avoid metamerism.
> On a personal note. I am really sorry to hear the news about 
your mother my sincere condolences.
> regards
> Simon
> 
> 
> 
> To:             	DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> From:           	"amateriat" <bwbenton@b...>
> Date sent:      	Thu, 30 Oct 2003 04:44:54 -0000
> Subject:        	[Digital BW] Re: Lyson Inks
> Send reply to:  	
DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> 
> > Well, in the "pro" column, I've been using Lyson's Quad Black 
> > Neutral carts in my Epson 1160 for a little under two years 
with 
> > few problems, and a lot of good prints. I've heard mixed 
reports 

> > about their Small Gamut inks, but that's about it.
> > 
> > - Barrett
> > 
> > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, 
> > "aevoegels" <aevoegels@y...> wrote:
> > > Anyone here has any experience with lyson inks? Pros and 
> > Cons?
> > > 
> > > Thanks, Alfred

Yikes! I just bought a used 1160 but I don't know 'important icc 
profiles'! Isn't that the profile for the printer that I download from 
Epson? Is there more? thanks, !Kimberly
> Send reply to:  	
DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> 
> > Well, in the "pro" column, I've been using Lyson's Quad Black 
> > Neutral carts in my Epson 1160 for a little under two years 
with 
> > few problems, and a lot of good prints. I've heard mixed 
reports 
> > about their Small Gamut inks, but that's about it.
> > 
> > - Barrett
> > 
> > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, 
> > "aevoegels" <aevoegels@y...> wrote:
> > > Anyone here has any experience with lyson inks? Pros and 
> > Cons?
> > > 
> > > Thanks, Alfred
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 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/ 

> > 
> > 
> >

I had them done by Udo J  Machiels in the UK  for Ilford Galerie Classic pearl and Lyson Standard Fine Art. I actually 
have two sets of profiles, one for viewing in daylight and one for Tungsten, but you would have to be sharp to notice the 
difference.

It is a pricey business getting profiles for SG inks, as it is much more difficult to profile than colour. Udo is great though 
and he charged GBP 65 for a colour profile and GBP 95 for a small gamut profile.

Before I had the profiles written for my printer I used the Lyson profiles that resulted  in metamerism and I had to use a 
tone to hide it. Now I just print perfect Black & White (well the B&W is perfect even if the pictures are not always!)

I am the kind of guy who will spend a fortune on cameras etc.. but is reluctant to spend money on things like profiles, but 
I have to admit that it turned a reasonably priced printer (1160) into a great printer.

regards
Simon




To:             	DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
From:           	"amateriat" <bwbenton@...>
Date sent:      	Thu, 30 Oct 2003 15:53:03 -0000
Subject:        	[Digital BW] Re: Lyson Inks
Send reply to:  	DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com

> Simon,
> 
> Thanks very much for your words.
> 
> Also good to know about your results with Lyson SG. On the 
> matter of custom profiles, where and how did you get them 
> done?
> 
> - Barrett
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Simon 
> Greenwood" <mail@s...> wrote:
> > Hi Barrett,
> > 
> > I have been using Lyson Small Gamut inks with my 1160 for a 
> year now, and after having custom icc profiles written 
> > (important) I get excellent neutral prints (smother tone than 
> quad black) but it is very important to get a good icc profile 
> > written to avoid metamerism.
> > On a personal note. I am really sorry to hear the news about 
> your mother my sincere condolences.
> > regards
> > Simon
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > To:             	DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> > From:           	"amateriat" <bwbenton@b...>
> > Date sent:      	Thu, 30 Oct 2003 04:44:54 -0000
> > Subject:        	[Digital BW] Re: Lyson Inks
> > Send reply to:  	
> DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> > 
> > > Well, in the "pro" column, I've been using Lyson's Quad Black 
> > > Neutral carts in my Epson 1160 for a little under two years 
> with 
> > > few problems, and a lot of good prints. I've heard mixed 
> reports 
> > > about their Small Gamut inks, but that's about it.
> > > 
> > > - Barrett
> > > 
> > > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, 
> > > "aevoegels" <aevoegels@y...> wrote:
> > > > Anyone here has any experience with lyson inks? Pros and 
> > > Cons?
> > > > 
> > > > Thanks, Alfred
> 
> 
> 
> 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/ 
> 
> 
>

an amusing if somewhat sad thread here:

"Anybody else getting heartburn with the new 'Carbon Print' ?

But am I just being a curmudgeon for thinking that calling an inkjet print a
'carbon print' is just a little disingenuous? There is a 100+ years of a
traditionally accepted meaning of the phrase 'carbon print', and to have
this term co-opted in the interest of avoiding 'calling a spade a spade'
just seems shameful...."

more:

 http://www.largeformatphotography.info/lfforum/thread.php?topic=496940

That was my original thought some months ago.  But, the inksets that Paul is working toward are certainly different enough from other 'ink jet' inksets, that they need some differentiation in terminology.  "Carbon" seems to be descriptive, and sets these inksets apart from other inkjet inksets.  Got a better idea?
 
Tom Baker

Tim Atherton <timatherton@...> wrote:
an amusing if somewhat sad thread here:

"Anybody else getting heartburn with the new 'Carbon Print' ?

But am I just being a curmudgeon for thinking that calling an inkjet print a
'carbon print' is just a little disingenuous? There is a 100+ years of a
traditionally accepted meaning of the phrase 'carbon print', and to have
this term co-opted in the interest of avoiding 'calling a spade a spade'
just seems shameful...."

more:

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/lfforum/thread.php?topic=496940


Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT

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]

> That was my original thought some months ago.  But, the inksets
> that Paul is working toward are certainly different enough from
> other 'ink jet' inksets, that they need some differentiation in
> terminology.  "Carbon" seems to be descriptive, and sets these
> inksets apart from other inkjet inksets.  Got a better idea?

go and join in the discussion Tom - you don't have to sign up - nit could do
with a bit more digital input!

tim

Just for the record, I call what I do "carbon pigment" printing, and then
usually tell what printer I've used.  If I'm using cotton-base paper, I say
so.  I think it is accurate and true.  Moreover, I suspect the archival
(dark storage) life of these prints may be longer than the old "carbon"
prints due to the buffering in the paper.  I have no idea about
lightfastness comparisons.

I don't really like the "selenium" description and typically put it in
quotes.

I really think the carbon pigs on cotton are so good they can stand on their
own now.

Paul
http://www.PaulRoark.com
___________________________________

-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Atherton [mailto:timatherton@...]
Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2003 10:44 AM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] Digital B&W dissing


an amusing if somewhat sad thread here:

"Anybody else getting heartburn with the new 'Carbon Print' ?

But am I just being a curmudgeon for thinking that calling an inkjet print a
'carbon print' is just a little disingenuous? There is a 100+ years of a
traditionally accepted meaning of the phrase 'carbon print', and to have
this term co-opted in the interest of avoiding 'calling a spade a spade'
just seems shameful...."

more:

 http://www.largeformatphotography.info/lfforum/thread.php?topic=496940

Absolutely! I happen to do both digital printing (Colorspan 11 color ­ Quad
Blk) and true Carbon printing.  I can¹t believe that the group would want to
use the same term.  It may be of some interest to note in this regard that
traditional Carbon printing generally does not use Carbon Black as a
pigment.  Monochrome images are usually mixtures of ³permanent² watercolor
pigments in gelatin forming tones by varying thickness of this suspension
coated on watercolor paper.  See my site if interested in technical stuff
www.jvee.com



On 10/30/03 10:43 AM, "Tim Atherton" <timatherton@theedge.ca> wrote:

> an amusing if somewhat sad thread here:
> 
> "Anybody else getting heartburn with the new 'Carbon Print' ?
> 
> But am I just being a curmudgeon for thinking that calling an inkjet print a
> 'carbon print' is just a little disingenuous? There is a 100+ years of a
> traditionally accepted meaning of the phrase 'carbon print', and to have
> this term co-opted in the interest of avoiding 'calling a spade a spade'
> just seems shameful...."
> 


-- 




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

On 10/30/03 12:05 PM, "Paul Roark" <paul.roark@...> wrote:

> Just for the record, I call what I do "carbon pigment" printing, and then
> usually tell what printer I've used.  If I'm using cotton-base paper, I say
> so.  I think it is accurate and true.  Moreover, I suspect the archival
> (dark storage) life of these prints may be longer than the old "carbon"
> prints due to the buffering in the paper.  I have no idea about
> lightfastness comparisons.
> 
> I don't really like the "selenium" description and typically put it in
> quotes.
> 
> I really think the carbon pigs on cotton are so good they can stand on their
> own now.
> Generally, the traditional Carbon printing is not done on buffered paper,
> probably because of the pigmnet suspended in a rather thick coat of gelatin.
> It is generally felt to be the most archival of all photographic printing
> methods but the studies suggesting centuries are, to be honest, old now.  As I
> understand it, the 3 or 4 color Carbon process is the ONLY truly archival
> color process.  J Vee
> 
> Paul
> http://www.PaulRoark.com
> ___________________________________
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tim Atherton [mailto:timatherton@...]
> Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2003 10:44 AM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Digital BW] Digital B&W dissing
> 
> 
> an amusing if somewhat sad thread here:
> 
> "Anybody else getting heartburn with the new 'Carbon Print' ?
> 
> But am I just being a curmudgeon for thinking that calling an inkjet print a
> 'carbon print' is just a little disingenuous? There is a 100+ years of a
> traditionally accepted meaning of the phrase 'carbon print', and to have
> this term co-opted in the interest of avoiding 'calling a spade a spade'
> just seems shameful...."
> 
> more:
> 
> http://www.largeformatphotography.info/lfforum/thread.php?topic=496940



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

I think the problem is that, ever since the first Iris print, people 
have been searching for a term that would add an air of validity to a 
new process.  Certainly, even if they no longer apply, there are lots 
of prejudices against inkjet prints floating around among the print-
buying public.  Even the term Giclee was simply a word Jack Duganne 
picked out of his French dictionary in an attempt to add an air of 
sophistication to the process.  Understandably, people try to find a 
substitute for the term 'inkjet' because it's a term that can be 
associated with $59 desktop printers as well as fine art.  It's 
actually kind of ludicrous if you think of all the terms that have 
been used for fine digital prints since the first Iris prints.  Yet, 
when you get right down to it, even a vastly expensive Iris printer 
is just an inkjet printer.  Also, I think it's kind of ironic that 
some of the print-buying public would still more readily part with a 
fair sum of money for something termed 'giclee', even those this 
often denotes Iris dye-based prints that don't have the longevity of 
prints done with pigment-based prints on, for example, a $700 Epson 
2200.  It's human nature, I suppose, to feel that somehow a print 
done on an $80,000 piece of equipment is better than once done on a 
$700 piece of equipment, even if it's not.  But I digress.  The 
problem, basically, is public perception of inkjet prints, combined 
with the somewhat unrealistic hope that a choice of terminolgy that 
conveys an air of sophistication will overcome any prejudices that 
linger.  Now, I admit that the modern art of marketing has proven 
that this can sometimes be a big part of the equation, yet I 
nonetheless think that time and education are what will really do the 
trick.  Nonetheless, the problem remains that an inkjet print can be 
something that fades in weeks, or can be something that won't fade 
for generations.  I think that the apparant validity or lack of 
validity of a certain term is not so important as coming up with a 
term or terms that simply indicate to print purchasers that they are 
receiving an archival product.  As for the whole 'carbon' print 
debacle, I think the important thing to stress is that pigments are 
in fact being used, thus providing a fundamental basis for 
longevity.  Beyond that, I think the motivation for labelling such 
prints with the pigment source is the simple fact that it sounds sort 
of sophisticated.  As I said earlier, it's an attempt, on a 
simplistic level, to suggest a sophisticated, archival product to the 
public.  Ultimately, I think it kind of works on that level, though I 
think perhaps an attempt to use the term 'carbon pigment print', 
instead of 'carbon print' would be most appropriate.  That way, 
there's at least a distinction between inkjet prints done with carbon 
black pigments and traditional carbon prints.  Other than that, 
there's certainly no inaccuracy in calling such prints 'carbon 
pigment prints', since they're indeed prints, indeed pigment-based, 
and the pigment is indeed pigment black.  In fact, I think that what 
I'll call my prints... archival carbon pigment prints.  Unless, of 
course, someone decides to produce a black ink based on another black 
pigment, such as black spinel (pigment black 28, the only truly 
neutral black pigment, though much more costly than dirt-cheap bone-
black based carbon pigments).  Then I'll have to call my prints 
archival copper chromite black spinel pigment prints, lol.  I don't 
know, maybe we're just too hung up on names.  Part of the 
modern 'name brand' era, I suppose.  Actually, though, I really like 
how many B&W pigment printers (the people, not the equipment) offer 
information about their printing process on their websites.  
Partially, I'm sure this is due to a perceived need to assure 
potential buyers about the soundness of the medium, but the fact is 
that the end result is education.  Which is always the best solution.

Sorry for the stream-of-thought, lol.  As someone getting into 
digital printing, I guess this is just something I had to ponder and 
reconcile myslef with, at least partially.

Mike


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark" 
<paul.roark@v...> wrote:
> Just for the record, I call what I do "carbon pigment" printing, 
and then
> usually tell what printer I've used.  If I'm using cotton-base 
paper, I say
> so.  I think it is accurate and true.  Moreover, I suspect the 
archival
> (dark storage) life of these prints may be longer than the 
old "carbon"
> prints due to the buffering in the paper.  I have no idea about
> lightfastness comparisons.
> 
> I don't really like the "selenium" description and typically put it 
in
> quotes.
> 
> I really think the carbon pigs on cotton are so good they can stand 
on their
> own now.
> 
> Paul
> http://www.PaulRoark.com
> ___________________________________
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tim Atherton [mailto:timatherton@t...]
> Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2003 10:44 AM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Digital BW] Digital B&W dissing
> 
> 
> an amusing if somewhat sad thread here:
> 
> "Anybody else getting heartburn with the new 'Carbon Print' ?
> 
> But am I just being a curmudgeon for thinking that calling an 
inkjet print a
> 'carbon print' is just a little disingenuous? There is a 100+ years 
of a
> traditionally accepted meaning of the phrase 'carbon print', and to 
have
> this term co-opted in the interest of avoiding 'calling a spade a 
spade'
> just seems shameful...."
> 
> more:
> 
>  http://www.largeformatphotography.info/lfforum/thread.php?
topic=496940

I'm curious.  Not exactly relevant to your message, but has anyone in the
group ever had a buyer inquire as to the medium?  I never have, nor have I
found anyone who had any interest when I explained it.  I just call them
photographs.  The viewer either responds to the image, or not.  Of course,
this excludes other photographers (who may never see the image) and art
dealers (who seem compelled to identify a process in fine detail).  But my
prints don't rise to that level...they're $250 prints (matted and framed, I
might add) done for my own amusement and amazement and hopefully the
enjoyment of others, definitely not for a living.

Regards,

  --Ken Carney
    www.kencarney.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Atherton [mailto:timatherton@...]
Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2003 12:44 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] Digital B&W dissing


an amusing if somewhat sad thread here:

"Anybody else getting heartburn with the new 'Carbon Print' ?

But am I just being a curmudgeon for thinking that calling an inkjet print a
'carbon print' is just a little disingenuous? There is a 100+ years of a
traditionally accepted meaning of the phrase 'carbon print', and to have
this term co-opted in the interest of avoiding 'calling a spade a spade'
just seems shameful...."

more:

 http://www.largeformatphotography.info/lfforum/thread.php?topic=496940



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/

>I think perhaps an attempt to use the term 'carbon pigment 
>print', instead of 'carbon print' would be most appropriate.  
>That way, there's at least a distinction between inkjet prints 
>done with carbon black pigments and traditional carbon prints.  

This has already been discussed to death in this and other forums over
the past two years.  I remember in a thread somewhere, maybe here, a
consensus that "carbon pigment print" is sufficiently different than
"carbon print" so as not to be seen as an "infringment" or something.
I looked in two books on photo history and found only "carbon print".
I posted a reply to that effect in that forum earlier this evening,
basically defending the digi folks against the accusation of
"coopting" the name of an earlier process, that the various names were
considered and debated, that we are good photographers and we love the
medium and its history as much as anyone else.

Regards,
Clayton


Info on black and white digital printing at    
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm

I find this topic fascinating, considering the debates in the 
1800's...how interesting if the internet was available to painters in 
1839:

http://www.rleggat.com/photohistory/index.html

Best,
Mark R.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Clayton Jones" 
<cj@c...> wrote:
> >I think perhaps an attempt to use the term 'carbon pigment 
> >print', instead of 'carbon print' would be most appropriate.  
> >That way, there's at least a distinction between inkjet prints 
> >done with carbon black pigments and traditional carbon prints.  
> 
> This has already been discussed to death in this and other forums 
over
> the past two years.  I remember in a thread somewhere, maybe here, a
> consensus that "carbon pigment print" is sufficiently different than
> "carbon print" so as not to be seen as an "infringment" or 
something.
> I looked in two books on photo history and found only "carbon 
print".
> I posted a reply to that effect in that forum earlier this evening,
> basically defending the digi folks against the accusation of
> "coopting" the name of an earlier process, that the various names 
were
> considered and debated, that we are good photographers and we love 
the

> medium and its history as much as anyone else.
> 
> Regards,
> Clayton
> 
> 
> Info on black and white digital printing at    
> http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm

Some wise person wrote:

"That was my original thought some months ago.  But, the inksets that Paul is 
working toward are certainly different enough from other 'ink jet' inksets, 
that they need some differentiation in terminology.  "Carbon" seems to be 
descriptive, and sets these inksets apart from other inkjet inksets.  Got a better 
idea?"

I attended the Affordable Art Fair opening here in Manhattan Wednesday, and a 
Manhattan B+W photo dealer, Laurence Miller, had two handsome B+W prints, 
13x40 each, on display described as "pigment prints."   When I asked Miller if 
that meant "inkjet," he claimed not to know the exact technology but said it was 
a "new process" and that the artist was working exclusively in the medium.   
Read:   It's inkjet.   Anyone want to follow Miller's lead and call them 
pigment prints?

Sanders McNew
www.mcnew.net


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

Clayton,

Didn't mean to rehash something that's been 'discussed to death'.  
I'm new to all of this, including this forum, and was responding to 
something that was new to me and that was presented as a new topic, 
something that I realized that I probably should give a little 
thought to.  Plus, sometimes, I ramble a bit. :)

Mike


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Clayton Jones" 
<cj@c...> wrote:
> >I think perhaps an attempt to use the term 'carbon pigment 
> >print', instead of 'carbon print' would be most appropriate.  
> >That way, there's at least a distinction between inkjet prints 
> >done with carbon black pigments and traditional carbon prints.  
> 
> This has already been discussed to death in this and other forums 
over
> the past two years.  I remember in a thread somewhere, maybe here, a
> consensus that "carbon pigment print" is sufficiently different than
> "carbon print" so as not to be seen as an "infringment" or 
something.
> I looked in two books on photo history and found only "carbon 
print".
> I posted a reply to that effect in that forum earlier this evening,
> basically defending the digi folks against the accusation of
> "coopting" the name of an earlier process, that the various names 
were
> considered and debated, that we are good photographers and we love 
the

> medium and its history as much as anyone else.
> 
> Regards,
> Clayton
> 
> 
> Info on black and white digital printing at    
> http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm

That's what I call mine..."pigment prints on rag", that's what they 
are. Photographs printed w/pigment ink on ....fill in the blank...I'd 
kind of like to take a piece of birch bark and run it through my 
1520. Just for s&g.

Best,
Mark Roth

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, sandersm@a... 
wrote:
> Some wise person wrote:
> 
> "That was my original thought some months ago.  But, the inksets 
that Paul is 
> working toward are certainly different enough from other 'ink jet' 
inksets, 
> that they need some differentiation in terminology.  "Carbon" seems 
to be 
> descriptive, and sets these inksets apart from other inkjet 
inksets.  Got a better 
> idea?"
> 
> I attended the Affordable Art Fair opening here in Manhattan 
Wednesday, and a 
> Manhattan B+W photo dealer, Laurence Miller, had two handsome B+W 
prints, 
> 13x40 each, on display described as "pigment prints."   When I 
asked Miller if 
> that meant "inkjet," he claimed not to know the exact technology 
but said it was 
> a "new process" and that the artist was working exclusively in the 
medium.   
> Read:   It's inkjet.   Anyone want to follow Miller's lead and call 
them 

> pigment prints?
> 
> Sanders McNew
> www.mcnew.net
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

In addition to educating people about the relatively archival quality of the
best current inkjet pigments, perhaps we should remind the traditionalists
that the selenium-toned silver print may not be as rock solid as they
thought.

In general, silver oxidizes and selenium at the traditional 1:19 dilution
has been found to be rather ineffective.

For a good summary of information and links, see
http://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/Archival/archival.html


The summary of the research that is often cited is at
http://palimpsest.stanford.edu/byorg/abbey/an/an12/an12-5/an12-507.html

Some quotes:

"There are two fundamental mechanisms by which silver photographs
deteriorate: they react with sulfur present in the air or left behind in
processing, or else they fade because of image oxidation, in which air and
moisture (or various pollutants) literally corrode the silver."

"...silver does react with air and moisture--it corrodes, ..."

"In the process, silver forms water-soluble species (silver ions and silver
compounds) and these begin to migrate throughout the gelatin layer.
Ultimately, most of the silver is redeposited in the metallic state, but at
some distance and in a different physical form that it originally was. It is
this physical rearrangement, together with the fact that silver compounds
are largely colorless, that is the real cause of "fading." ..."

" In actual practice, when used as recommended, the metal components of gold
and selenium toners for microfilm do very little to protect against
oxidation; their effectiveness is almost entirely due to the sulfiding
action of other constituents of the toner formulas."

"... surprising ineffectiveness of Kodak Rapid Selenium Toner..."

"Conclusion
Though many silver images have been ruined by poor processing (improper
fixing and washing), a more important deterioration mechanism for the
majority of photographs is image oxidation...."

And, of course, the chances of poor processing and the lack of buffers in
the traditional photo paper are not dealt with in this article, which is
focused primarily at microfilm deterioration.

Paul
http://www.PaulRoark.com

Very interesting, and a good point.  My own experience over 30 + years as
(also) a Carbon printer is that the name is not a good for marketing prints.
For many years, I have marketed my traditional Carbon prints as ³Pigment
Prints on Watercolor Paper².  I generally use no Carbon Black when I make up
my emulsion, preferring Mars black plus other pigment colors for a ³Black
and White² image.  And yes, metamerism  can be a problem, although usually
minor.  From my experience, I don¹t think there is much likelihood of a more
sophisticated buyer emerging to solve our problem.   J Vee


On 10/30/03 9:14 PM, "sandersm@..." <sandersm@...> wrote:

> Some wise person wrote:
> 
> "That was my original thought some months ago.  But, the inksets that Paul is
> working toward are certainly different enough from other 'ink jet' inksets,
> that they need some differentiation in terminology.  "Carbon" seems to be
> descriptive, and sets these inksets apart from other inkjet inksets.  Got a
> better 
> idea?"
> 
> I attended the Affordable Art Fair opening here in Manhattan Wednesday, and a
> Manhattan B+W photo dealer, Laurence Miller, had two handsome B+W prints,
> 13x40 each, on display described as "pigment prints."   When I asked Miller if
> that meant "inkjet," he claimed not to know the exact technology but said it
> was 
> a "new process" and that the artist was working exclusively in the medium.
> Read:   It's inkjet.   Anyone want to follow Miller's lead and call them
> pigment prints?
> 
> Sanders McNew
> www.mcnew.net



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

At 03:47 AM 10/31/03 +0000, you wrote:
> >I think perhaps an attempt to use the term 'carbon pigment
> >print', instead of 'carbon print' would be most appropriate.
> >That way, there's at least a distinction between inkjet prints
> >done with carbon black pigments and traditional carbon prints.
>
>This has already been discussed to death in this and other forums over
>the past two years.  I remember in a thread somewhere, maybe here, a
>consensus that "carbon pigment print" is sufficiently different than
>"carbon print" so as not to be seen as an "infringment" or something.
>I looked in two books on photo history and found only "carbon print".
>I posted a reply to that effect in that forum earlier this evening,
>basically defending the digi folks against the accusation of
>"coopting" the name of an earlier process, that the various names were
>considered and debated, that we are good photographers and we love the
>medium and its history as much as anyone else.
>
>Regards,
>Clayton




>Info on black and white digital printing at
>http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm



All,

Inventing misleading or fanciful names for ink jet printing doesn't help 
build confidence in the medium.  It is rather amusing that art dealers are 
so coy about explaining the exact nature of their digital products. It is 
probably a means of keeping the value higher than reproduction prints and 
lower than original prints - fair enough.

A record with the artwork of the exact materials and process used is a good 
professional practice. Archivists can then conserve the work much 
better.  Among artists, we photographers seem to be the most obsessed about 
that.

Most people have very old B/W family prints in good condition and assume 
correctly that B/W "art" prints also last.  B/W ink jet prints may benefit 
from this assumption.
I believe most people have found to their horror that their family color 
photos have faded and will not last more than one generation. Our task of 
educating the consumer about the durability of digital prints may be eased 
somewhat by photo industry efforts to convince them that digital processes 
will outlast conventional color photos.  It is interesting to note that 
color photos can only be conserved by digital copying.

AZ

Build a Lookaround!
The Lookaround Book, 2nd ed.
NOW SHIPPING
http://www.panoramacamera.us

At 01:39 PM 10/30/03 -0800, you wrote:
>Absolutely! I happen to do both digital printing (Colorspan 11 color ­ Quad
>Blk) and true Carbon printing.  I can¹t believe that the group would want to
>use the same term.  It may be of some interest to note in this regard that
>traditional Carbon printing generally does not use Carbon Black as a
>pigment.  Monochrome images are usually mixtures of ³permanent² watercolor
>pigments in gelatin forming tones by varying thickness of this suspension
>coated on watercolor paper.  See my site if interested in technical stuff
>www.jvee.com

Jvee,

I enjoyed your web page - loverly work!   Unlike the conventionally sought 
air-dried, silver print Holy Grail I am on a quest for the fine art print 
look such as your carbon prints. Do you feel you have reached that with 
your quad output?  By that I mean surface, material quality, authority - 
not necessarily similarity in appearance to carbon prints.

AZ

Build a Lookaround!
The Lookaround Book, 2nd ed.
NOW SHIPPING
http://www.panoramacamera.us

just a quick note.
i was just at your web site, you have really strong work.
it is my personal oppion that you should be charging more for your work!
matted is one thing, but also framing? your work speaks for itself.
kindly
alex lemus

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Ken Carney 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2003 5:08 PM
  Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Digital B&W dissing


  I'm curious.  Not exactly relevant to your message, but has anyone in the
  group ever had a buyer inquire as to the medium?  I never have, nor have I
  found anyone who had any interest when I explained it.  I just call them
  photographs.  The viewer either responds to the image, or not.  Of course,
  this excludes other photographers (who may never see the image) and art
  dealers (who seem compelled to identify a process in fine detail).  But my
  prints don't rise to that level...they're $250 prints (matted and framed, I
  might add) done for my own amusement and amazement and hopefully the
  enjoyment of others, definitely not for a living.

  Regards,

    --Ken Carney
      www.kencarney.com

  -----Original Message-----
  From: Tim Atherton [mailto:timatherton@...]
  Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2003 12:44 PM
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
  Subject: [Digital BW] Digital B&W dissing


  an amusing if somewhat sad thread here:

  "Anybody else getting heartburn with the new 'Carbon Print' ?

  But am I just being a curmudgeon for thinking that calling an inkjet print a
  'carbon print' is just a little disingenuous? There is a 100+ years of a
  traditionally accepted meaning of the phrase 'carbon print', and to have
  this term co-opted in the interest of avoiding 'calling a spade a spade'
  just seems shameful...."

  more:

  http://www.largeformatphotography.info/lfforum/thread.php?topic=496940



  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/



        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor 
              ADVERTISEMENT
             
       
       

  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]

> From: Ken Carney
>
> I'm curious.  Not exactly relevant to your message, but has
> anyone in the
> group ever had a buyer inquire as to the medium?  I never have,
> nor have I
> found anyone who had any interest when I explained it.  I just call them
> photographs.  The viewer either responds to the image, or not.
> Of course,
> this excludes other photographers (who may never see the image) and art
> dealers (who seem compelled to identify a process in fine
> detail).  But my
> prints don't rise to that level...they're $250 prints (matted
> and framed, I
> might add) done for my own amusement and amazement and hopefully the
> enjoyment of others, definitely not for a living.

I agree with Alex: nice images on your www.kencarney.com site. You have a
great ability to see potential pictures where most people wouldn't notice
anything worth pointing a camera at.

--

Ciao,               Paul D. DeRocco
Paul                mailto:pderocco@...

On 10/31/03 11:47 AM, "Alan Zinn" <AZinn@...> wrote:

> 
> Jvee,
> 
> I enjoyed your web page - loverly work!   Unlike the conventionally sought
> air-dried, silver print Holy Grail I am on a quest for the fine art print
> look such as your carbon prints. Do you feel you have reached that with
> your quad output?  By that I mean surface, material quality, authority -
> not necessarily similarity in appearance to carbon prints.

Thanks so much for the kind words.  Many of my images are printed both ways
and so I also compare.  Yes, the output is comparable aesthetically, but
subtly different to the trained eye. There is more freedom of printing
expression with traditional Carbon since you make a pigment mixture
individually that ³fits² the image.  Another difference is the presence of a
³relief² (thin = hi tones, thick = deeper tones) that you can literally feel
with you fingers on many prints.  All this said, the quad black prints of
the same images, in my case usually on Hahnamuhle photo rag, have a ³smooth²
sophisticated beauty of their own and the differences are not visible once
under glass.  Further, most of these images start in an 11 X 14 camera and
are drum scanned.  I love to quad (or 11 color) print some of them to 48² by
about 62².  Now if someone would only buy these big prints.  J Vee
www.jvee.com   


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

Just to add a little perspective to the "carbon print" issue, the first
carbon-based inks appear to have been used with reeds and brushes in Egypt
and China about 45 or 50 centuries ago. These early inks were probably
mainly carbon in the form of soot or lamp black, suspended in vegetable oils
or animal glue.
(See http://www.io.com/~tyrbiter/ink.html)

This ink's endurance through 30 centuries is attributed to carbon's
resistance to light and moisture.
(See http://www.wmich.edu/ppse/pekarovicova/290999.html)

Carbon's use in imaging slightly pre-dates this.  Carbon black is the
primary pigment in the Paleolithic horses from the Chauvet-Pont-d'Arc cave
in southeast France (over 30,000 years old).
(See http://webexhibits.org/pigments/intro/early.html)

So, the next time someone asks you about the archival life of your carbon
pigment prints ...  ;-)

Paul
http://www.PaulRoark.com

Whoa -- thank you very much.  Praise is always welcome : )
  --Ken

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul D. DeRocco [mailto:pderocco@...]
Sent: Friday, October 31, 2003 2:48 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Digital B&W dissing


> From: Ken Carney
>
> I'm curious.  Not exactly relevant to your message, but has
> anyone in the
> group ever had a buyer inquire as to the medium?  I never have,
> nor have I
> found anyone who had any interest when I explained it.  I just call them
> photographs.  The viewer either responds to the image, or not.
> Of course,
> this excludes other photographers (who may never see the image) and art
> dealers (who seem compelled to identify a process in fine
> detail).  But my
> prints don't rise to that level...they're $250 prints (matted
> and framed, I
> might add) done for my own amusement and amazement and hopefully the
> enjoyment of others, definitely not for a living.

I agree with Alex: nice images on your www.kencarney.com site. You have a
great ability to see potential pictures where most people wouldn't notice
anything worth pointing a camera at.

--

Ciao,               Paul D. DeRocco
Paul                mailto:pderocco@...



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/

----- Original Message ----- 

From: "Paul Roark" <paul.roark@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, October 31, 2003 11:23 PM
Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Digital B&W dissing


> Carbon's use in imaging slightly pre-dates this.  Carbon black
is the
> primary pigment in the Paleolithic horses from the
Chauvet-Pont-d'Arc cave
> in southeast France (over 30,000 years old).
> (See http://webexhibits.org/pigments/intro/early.html)
>
> So, the next time someone asks you about the archival life of
your carbon
> pigment prints ...  ;-)
>
> Paul
> http://www.PaulRoark.com

There's some evidence that they squirted the ink with blowpipes
and masked the print with their hands. The industry is aware of
those early roots of inkjet printing and of its French origin.
Lyson's "Cave Paints" and Giclee for example. It wouldn't
surprise me if those stone age tribes knew the piezo-electric
effects of some stones as well so it is surprising that it took
30 milleniums before inkjet became what it is now.

Paul, Isn't that cave not replicated above the ground with a kind
of Kodak flexible colour print emulsion (analogue) at the walls
about 15 years ago because the paintings couldn't resist the
higher humidity and light that was the result of the increased
tourist visits. Must have some documentation somewhere on that.
Before the cave was discovered the conservation condition must
have been better than Wilhelm's conditions. :-)

Ernst

I was un-subbed for a couple days, and I return to this as my first
post?  I get the feeling I missed a lot. <g>.
 
Ed 

-----Original Message-----
From: Ernst Dinkla [mailto:E.Dinkla@...] 
Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2003 5:03 AM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Digital B&W dissing
 <snip> 
There's some evidence that they squirted the ink with blowpipes
and masked the print with their hands. The industry is aware of
those early roots of inkjet printing and of its French origin.
Lyson's "Cave Paints" and Giclee for example. It wouldn't
surprise me if those stone age tribes knew the piezo-electric
effects of some stones as well so it is surprising that it took
30 milleniums before inkjet became what it is now.

Paul, Isn't that cave not replicated above the ground with a kind
of Kodak flexible colour print emulsion (analogue) at the walls
about 15 years ago because the paintings couldn't resist the
higher humidity and light that was the result of the increased
tourist visits. Must have some documentation somewhere on that.
Before the cave was discovered the conservation condition must
have been better than Wilhelm's conditions. :-)




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

At 02:23 PM 10/31/03 -0800, you wrote:
>Just to add a little perspective to the "carbon print" issue, the first
>carbon-based inks appear to have been used with reeds and brushes in Egypt
>and China about 45 or 50 centuries ago. These early inks were probably
>mainly carbon in the form of soot or lamp black, suspended in vegetable oils
>or animal glue.
>(See http://www.io.com/~tyrbiter/ink.html)
>
>This ink's endurance through 30 centuries is attributed to carbon's
>resistance to light and moisture.
>(See http://www.wmich.edu/ppse/pekarovicova/290999.html)
>
>Carbon's use in imaging slightly pre-dates this.  Carbon black is the
>primary pigment in the Paleolithic horses from the Chauvet-Pont-d'Arc cave
>in southeast France (over 30,000 years old).
>(See http://webexhibits.org/pigments/intro/early.html)
>
>So, the next time someone asks you about the archival life of your carbon
>pigment prints ...  ;-)
>
>Paul
>http://www.PaulRoark.com
>
>

Paul,

Thanks for these great links and the toner link.  From now on I'm labeling 
my prints:  Paleo-tone carbon.

AZ


Build a Lookaround!
The Lookaround Book, 2nd ed.
NOW SHIPPING
http://www.panoramacamera.us

Hello Paul,

>Just to add a little perspective to the "carbon print" issue...

Thanks for the excellent references - good stuff.


Regards,
Clayton


Info on black and white digital printing at    
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm

>From now on I'm labeling my prints:  Paleo-tone carbon.

LOL!  That's great!


Regards,
Clayton


Info on black and white digital printing at    
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm

Hi,
I,m new to this group and wondered whether any one else has used these
inks?
My printer is an epson 1290 and having tried both the Quad black and
the Small gamut I have to say the results are not great. The small
gamut seem to produce the best results for me.
Any comments gratefully received.
Regards Alan

Search these archives Alan. I don't think you will find much that is
positive. We go through this about once a month.

john




--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "alanpennsg8"
<a_penn@...> wrote:

>
> Hi,
> I,m new to this group and wondered whether any one else has used these
> inks?
> My printer is an epson 1290 and having tried both the Quad black and
> the Small gamut I have to say the results are not great. The small
> gamut seem to produce the best results for me.
> Any comments gratefully received.
> Regards Alan
>

On Apr 3, 2006, at 3:56 PM, john dean wrote:

> Search these archives Alan. I don't think you will find much that is
> positive. We go through this about once a month.
>
> john

Cave Paints derailed my printing for nearly two years, and Fotonics  
in a 7600, while they worked and look good at first, clog like mad  
and fade quickly.

James Irelan