Digital BW, The Print

Hello Group,

In response, has anyone considered "Archival Ink Print"?

Perry


> [Original Message]
> From: Eclipse Agency <eclipseagency@...>
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: 8/14/2004 10:12:38 PM
> Subject: [Digital BW] 2 cents for names
>
> Hey Group:
>
> On many occasions, I have asked shows/galleries to suggest what they would
> call them which makes one seem considerate and accomodating instead of
> insisting on a name that will only create more questions than answer. 
Most
> prefer Giclee and if that's what they what their clients/viewers have come
> to know as inkjet prints, then I don't want to confuse and happily go
along.
>
>
> However, for those who feel that more of a distinction be made I humbly
> offer a few suggestions. If a show/catalog/website has many reproductions
> listed as Giclee, I don't want my work to seem misrepresented so I then
call
> it something else to set it apart.  For the uneducated (none my buyers are
> art critics or jurors) who may not be familiar with the term, I think
giclee
> can become just as confusing when trying to explain what my prints are.   
>
> I call them:   Fine Ink Print (Fine being for archival quality and Ink for
> being descriptive of the nature of process) or for those photographs I
have
> transformed digitally into what looks like a painting I call those:  Fine
> Photographic Ink Print  because I don't want people to think I am a
painter
> and to know that the art is based on photography.  
>
> This is used for both BW/Color prints.  By not calling them Carbon Ink
Print
> I have avoided confusion with the traditional carbon process and many
> questions of what carbon ink is and all that.  If questions of archival
> quality and ink used is raised I'm happy to inform as well.  I think most
> people just want to know it's a high quality print (not made on a cheap
home
> inkjet) and I think Fine Ink Print is short and sweet.  If you call it a
> "fine" print then I think it's assumed by both parties that the print
should
> endure and not crumble or fade.  
>
> So that's my two cents worth.  Not that I'm right or wrong, is just what I
> do and the thinking behind it.  Have enjoyed the discussion on this and
now
> I'm no longer a lurker. 
> Regards, 
> Eclipse Agency 
>
>
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources
as they are often being updated.
>
> 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:
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to
keep them short.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames.
Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the
membership without notice.
> - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W
printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from
the membership.
> - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and
guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner
and Moderators. See \ufffdGroup Topic, Rules and Guidelines\ufffd in the Files
section:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
>
> BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND
\ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO
YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR
EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF
PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE 
\ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN
ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR
THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii)
UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii)
STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO
GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO
GROUP.

>  
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

Henry Wilhem reported at an inkjet seminar that I once attended that the French do not 
use the French word Giclee ( to spray ) in reference to digital prints, because the word is 
considered vulgur. So I just call mine "ejaculation prints" and leave it at that.




--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Perry McNeal" <pjmcneal@m...> 
wrote:
> Hello Group,
> 
> In response, has anyone considered "Archival Ink Print"?
> 
> Perry
> 
> 
> > [Original Message]
> > From: Eclipse Agency <eclipseagency@s...>
> > To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> > Date: 8/14/2004 10:12:38 PM
> > Subject: [Digital BW] 2 cents for names
> >
> > Hey Group:
> >
> > On many occasions, I have asked shows/galleries to suggest what they would
> > call them which makes one seem considerate and accomodating instead of
> > insisting on a name that will only create more questions than answer. 
> Most
> > prefer Giclee and if that's what they what their clients/viewers have come
> > to know as inkjet prints, then I don't want to confuse and happily go
> along.
> >
> >
> > However, for those who feel that more of a distinction be made I humbly
> > offer a few suggestions. If a show/catalog/website has many reproductions
> > listed as Giclee, I don't want my work to seem misrepresented so I then
> call
> > it something else to set it apart.  For the uneducated (none my buyers are
> > art critics or jurors) who may not be familiar with the term, I think
> giclee
> > can become just as confusing when trying to explain what my prints are.   
> >
> > I call them:   Fine Ink Print (Fine being for archival quality and Ink for
> > being descriptive of the nature of process) or for those photographs I
> have
> > transformed digitally into what looks like a painting I call those:  Fine
> > Photographic Ink Print  because I don't want people to think I am a
> painter
> > and to know that the art is based on photography.  
> >
> > This is used for both BW/Color prints.  By not calling them Carbon Ink
> Print
> > I have avoided confusion with the traditional carbon process and many
> > questions of what carbon ink is and all that.  If questions of archival
> > quality and ink used is raised I'm happy to inform as well.  I think most
> > people just want to know it's a high quality print (not made on a cheap
> home
> > inkjet) and I think Fine Ink Print is short and sweet.  If you call it a
> > "fine" print then I think it's assumed by both parties that the print
> should
> > endure and not crumble or fade.  
> >
> > So that's my two cents worth.  Not that I'm right or wrong, is just what I
> > do and the thinking behind it.  Have enjoyed the discussion on this and
> now
> > I'm no longer a lurker. 
> > Regards, 
> > Eclipse Agency 
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources
> as they are often being updated.
> >
> > 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:
> > - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to
> keep them short.
> > - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames.
> Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the
> membership without notice.
> > - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W
> printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from
> the membership.
> > - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and
> guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner
> and Moderators. See "Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines" in the Files
> section:
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
> >
> > BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
> YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE "OWNER" AND
> "MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO
> YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR
> EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF
> PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE 
> "OWNER" AND "MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN
> ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR
> THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii)
> UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii)
> STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT 
YAHOO

> GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO
> GROUP.
> >  
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Perry McNeal" 
<pjmcneal@m...> wrote:
> Hello Group,
> 
> In response, has anyone considered "Archival Ink Print"?
> 
> Perry
> 

I presume and hope that, after awhile, there is no 'ink' or glycol in 
my prints.  I don't like using the word 'inkjet' either as it is a 
process not an attribute of the print.

'Pigment print' seems accurate to me if no dyes are involved 
and 'archival pigment print' may be OK for some, if the purchaser and 
seller equally understand what 'archival' means.

Colin

Hello Colin,

>I presume and hope that, after awhile, there is no 'ink' or glycol 
>in my prints.  

Well, hmmm...how can we get away from the fact that we are putting ink
on paper?  I suppose we could call it "paint", since oil and
watercolor paints use pigments, but I don't think anyone would go for
that.  Seems to me that if we are putting colored liquid onto paper
we're using an ink process, regardless of how it gets there.


>I don't like using the word 'inkjet' either as it is 
>a process not an attribute of the print.

Yes, and too broad a term.  Since it covers dye as well as color pigs
and BO, it's similar to "painting", which includes watercolors,
acrylic and oils.  Not specific enough to describe what we're doing.


>'Pigment print' seems accurate to me if no dyes are involved 

Yes, except it's sort of ambiguous for someone who doesn't know
anything about it - it will require some explaining.  Pigment Print
could also include color inkjet prints.  We need something that says
"Black and White", without any ambiguity.


>'archival pigment print' may be OK for some, if the purchaser 
>and seller equally understand what 'archival' means.

Agreed, and even more esoteric than the above, to the uninitiated. 
Too awkward and artificial sounding as well - sounds contrived or
something...and still could include color prints.

I still think Carbon Ink Print has fewer negatives and more positives
than all the others.  But there seems to be some resistance to using
the word "ink", as if somehow that lessens its stature.  To me it's
just the oposite - it describes accurately what we're doing and adds
an aura of distinction.  I think that's an important element in
whatever name is ultimately used.  Our prints need a unique, distinct
and elegant identity, one that implies as much respect and prestige as
"platinum" does.  Imagine a prestigious gallery advertisement:

Platinum prints
Carbon Ink prints
Silver-Gelatin Prints
Gum Bichromate prints
Carbon Prints
Salt prints
Albumen prints
Photogravures
Tintypes
Daguerreotypes
Calotypes

Do any of the other terms fit here as well as Carbon Ink?  We need a
term that carries its own weight in this line up.  It needs to:

- accurately describe what it is to a layperson
- be easy to remember and say, to "roll off the tongue easily"
- not sound contrived, too mechanical or technical 
- not seem to be defensive (the term "archival" seems that way)
- not be confused with anything else ("Ink" takes care of this)
- imply longevity ("Carbon" is an already established term which does
this)
- fit, in an emotional or romantic sense, with the others 
in the list.  Somehow to me, anything with "pig" in it doesn't quite
make it - it simply lacks elegance.

Please understand that I'm not arguing for this because I made it up,
I didn't.  It's just one of many that I've seen used (forums, web
sites, books, magazines, gallery ads).  It just dawned on me one day
that there was no agreement and that it's hurting acceptance, so I
made a list of all the terms I knew of.  Carbon Ink Print is simply
the one that seemed to best fit the requirements, and after a lot of
thought it became apparent that someone needed to make an effort to
get some agreement and get it moving along.  So I wrote the two
articles on my web site in hopes that something will happen.

IMO, quite a few years will have to pass before Carbon Ink Prints (or
whatever we call them) gain the stature of the others in the mass
mind.  Not because they are inferior, but simply because anything new
has to take time to seep in and find its place, plus it is still an
emerging technology.  I believe the term we use will play an important
role in the length of time and degree to which this happens.  It
partly a PR challenge.  Remember the story about how diamonds weren't
a viable world-wide commodity until the "A Diamond Is Forever"
campaign made them desireable in the mass market?

It's not too late, but I think we need to get on with it.  I think we
need to agree on something and begin using it and getting others on
board.  Those of us who show, in galleries or any other venue, should
insist that this term be used in the promotions.  Don't let the
gallery owners decide for us.  

Regards,
Clayton


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

Hi Clayton,
Not meant as a criticsm as the name is quite ok w/me but there still
might be fussing from alternative process people. The carbon prints
spoken of are most often ,in fact, made with carbon inks. The ink is
used to prepare the emulsion for the tissue used in printing. Tis a
long and winding trail we wend in the naming :)
Duane

> 
> I still think Carbon Ink Print has fewer negatives and more positives
> than all the others.  But there seems to be some resistance to using
> the word "ink", as if somehow that lessens its stature.  To me it's
> just the oposite - it describes accurately what we're doing and adds
> an aura of distinction.  I think that's an important element in
> whatever name is ultimately used.  Our prints need a unique, distinct
> and elegant identity, one that implies as much respect and prestige as
> "platinum" does.  Imagine a prestigious gallery advertisement:
> 
> Platinum prints
> Carbon Ink prints
> Silver-Gelatin Prints
> Gum Bichromate prints
> Carbon Prints
> Salt prints
> Albumen prints
> Photogravures
> Tintypes
> Daguerreotypes
> Calotypes
> 
> Do any of the other terms fit here as well as Carbon Ink?  We need a
> term that carries its own weight in this line up.  It needs to:
> 
> - accurately describe what it is to a layperson
> - be easy to remember and say, to "roll off the tongue easily"
> - not sound contrived, too mechanical or technical 
> - not seem to be defensive (the term "archival" seems that way)
> - not be confused with anything else ("Ink" takes care of this)
> - imply longevity ("Carbon" is an already established term which does
> this)
> - fit, in an emotional or romantic sense, with the others 
> in the list.  Somehow to me, anything with "pig" in it doesn't quite
> make it - it simply lacks elegance.
> 
> Please understand that I'm not arguing for this because I made it up,
> I didn't.  It's just one of many that I've seen used (forums, web
> sites, books, magazines, gallery ads).  It just dawned on me one day
> that there was no agreement and that it's hurting acceptance, so I
> made a list of all the terms I knew of.  Carbon Ink Print is simply
> the one that seemed to best fit the requirements, and after a lot of
> thought it became apparent that someone needed to make an effort to
> get some agreement and get it moving along.  So I wrote the two
> articles on my web site in hopes that something will happen.
> 
> IMO, quite a few years will have to pass before Carbon Ink Prints (or
> whatever we call them) gain the stature of the others in the mass
> mind.  Not because they are inferior, but simply because anything new
> has to take time to seep in and find its place, plus it is still an
> emerging technology.  I believe the term we use will play an important
> role in the length of time and degree to which this happens.  It
> partly a PR challenge.  Remember the story about how diamonds weren't
> a viable world-wide commodity until the "A Diamond Is Forever"
> campaign made them desireable in the mass market?
> 
> It's not too late, but I think we need to get on with it.  I think we
> need to agree on something and begin using it and getting others on
> board.  Those of us who show, in galleries or any other venue, should
> insist that this term be used in the promotions.  Don't let the
> gallery owners decide for us.  
> 
> Regards,
> Clayton
> 
> 
> Info on black and white digital printing at    
> http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm

Hello Duane,

>Not meant as a criticsm as the name is quite ok w/me but there still
>might be fussing from alternative process people. The carbon prints
>spoken of are most often ,in fact, made with carbon inks. The ink is
>used to prepare the emulsion for the tissue used in printing. Tis a
>long and winding trail we wend in the naming :)

A couple of people have expressed this concern.  A year or so ago I
monitored a long thread in an alternate process forum where Carbon
Print folks were raging about inkjet people hijacking their name
"Carbon Print".  People from both camps participated and it went on
for several weeks.  The general consensus by the time it was over
seemed to be that anything was ok as long as it was not "Carbon
Print".  "Carbon Pigment Print" and "Carbon Ink Print" were some of
the names that seemed ok to them (I'm pretty sure that's where I first
heard the term).  I didn't get the impression that they wanted a
patent on the word "Carbon", just that "Carbon Print" has been used
for years to denote what they do and they don't want it associated
with inkjet printing. 

The "What To Call Them" article has been on line since spring and has
had over 1100 hits, and so far no Carbon Print people have fussed at
me.  It's been only positive responses. 

Regards,
Clayton


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

On Monday, August 16, 2004, at 10:45 PM, Clayton Jones wrote:

> Hello Duane,
>
> >Not meant as a criticsm as the name is quite ok w/me but there still
> >might be fussing from alternative process people. The carbon prints
> >spoken of are most often ,in fact, made with carbon inks. The ink is
> >used to prepare the emulsion for the tissue used in printing. Tis a
> >long and winding trail we wend in the naming :)
>

Excuse me for coming in late, and asking a dumb question, but what 
exactly is a carbon print, then?

James


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

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Clayton Jones" 
<cj@c...> wrote:

Hi, Clayton,

I am not sure this going to get anywhere in consensus terms, but I 
feel I owe you my further thoughts.  I am in the process of starting 
from zero knowledge base to build a website and explaining that I use 
pigments, as against dyes.  I work in colour and black and white, BO, 
UT2 including 'toned' (for want of a better word} prints, MIS FS and, 
maybe soon, Roy's QTR.  For me 'Pigment Print' fits all.  'Carbon Ink 
Print' is, I understand, only strictly applicable to BO printing  
Cone's piezotones, and maybe Sundance but not, for example, UT2 or 
Roy's QTR, or Image Print RIP.  I am prepared to stand corrected on 
this because I am not fully conversant with the technologies.

In my view it is not necessary to say how the pigment gets to the 
paper.  While in painting the terms oil painting and watercolour are 
everyday parlance, a silver print is a silver print without the need 
to refer to the developer or fixer, although 'selenium toned' is used 
to indicate hue and 'archival' properties.


Regards,

Colin
> Hello Colin,
> 
> >I presume and hope that, after awhile, there is no 'ink' or glycol 
> >in my prints.  
> 
> Well, hmmm...how can we get away from the fact that we are putting 
ink
> on paper?  I suppose we could call it "paint", since oil and
> watercolor paints use pigments, but I don't think anyone would go 
for
> that.  Seems to me that if we are putting colored liquid onto paper
> we're using an ink process, regardless of how it gets there.
> 
> >I don't like using the word 'inkjet' either as it is 
> >a process not an attribute of the print.
> 
> Yes, and too broad a term.  Since it covers dye as well as color 
pigs
> and BO, it's similar to "painting", which includes watercolors,
> acrylic and oils.  Not specific enough to describe what we're doing.
> 
> 
> >'Pigment print' seems accurate to me if no dyes are involved 
> 
> Yes, except it's sort of ambiguous for someone who doesn't know
> anything about it - it will require some explaining.  Pigment Print
> could also include color inkjet prints.  We need something that says
> "Black and White", without any ambiguity.
> 
> 
> >'archival pigment print' may be OK for some, if the purchaser 
> >and seller equally understand what 'archival' means.
> 
> Agreed, and even more esoteric than the above, to the uninitiated. 
> Too awkward and artificial sounding as well - sounds contrived or
> something...and still could include color prints.
> 
> I still think Carbon Ink Print has fewer negatives and more 
positives
> than all the others.  But there seems to be some resistance to using
> the word "ink", as if somehow that lessens its stature.  To me it's
> just the oposite - it describes accurately what we're doing and adds
> an aura of distinction.  I think that's an important element in
> whatever name is ultimately used.  Our prints need a unique, 
distinct
> and elegant identity, one that implies as much respect and prestige 
as
> "platinum" does.  Imagine a prestigious gallery advertisement:
> 
> Platinum prints
> Carbon Ink prints
> Silver-Gelatin Prints
> Gum Bichromate prints
> Carbon Prints
> Salt prints
> Albumen prints
> Photogravures
> Tintypes
> Daguerreotypes
> Calotypes
> 
> Do any of the other terms fit here as well as Carbon Ink?  We need a
> term that carries its own weight in this line up.  It needs to:
> 
> - accurately describe what it is to a layperson
> - be easy to remember and say, to "roll off the tongue easily"
> - not sound contrived, too mechanical or technical 
> - not seem to be defensive (the term "archival" seems that way)
> - not be confused with anything else ("Ink" takes care of this)
> - imply longevity ("Carbon" is an already established term which 
does
> this)
> - fit, in an emotional or romantic sense, with the others 
> in the list.  Somehow to me, anything with "pig" in it doesn't quite
> make it - it simply lacks elegance.
> 
> Please understand that I'm not arguing for this because I made it 
up,
> I didn't.  It's just one of many that I've seen used (forums, web
> sites, books, magazines, gallery ads).  It just dawned on me one day
> that there was no agreement and that it's hurting acceptance, so I
> made a list of all the terms I knew of.  Carbon Ink Print is simply
> the one that seemed to best fit the requirements, and after a lot of
> thought it became apparent that someone needed to make an effort to
> get some agreement and get it moving along.  So I wrote the two
> articles on my web site in hopes that something will happen.
> 
> IMO, quite a few years will have to pass before Carbon Ink Prints 
(or
> whatever we call them) gain the stature of the others in the mass
> mind.  Not because they are inferior, but simply because anything 
new
> has to take time to seep in and find its place, plus it is still an
> emerging technology.  I believe the term we use will play an 
important
> role in the length of time and degree to which this happens.  It
> partly a PR challenge.  Remember the story about how diamonds 
weren't
> a viable world-wide commodity until the "A Diamond Is Forever"
> campaign made them desireable in the mass market?
> 
> It's not too late, but I think we need to get on with it.  I think 
we
> need to agree on something and begin using it and getting others on
> board.  Those of us who show, in galleries or any other venue, 
should

> insist that this term be used in the promotions.  Don't let the
> gallery owners decide for us.  
> 
> Regards,
> Clayton
> 
> 
> Info on black and white digital printing at    
> http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm

Hello Colin,

>I am not sure this going to get anywhere in consensus terms, but I 
>feel I owe you my further thoughts.  I am in the process of starting 
>from zero knowledge base to build a website and explaining that I
>use pigments, as against dyes.  I work in colour and black and 
>white, BO, UT2 including 'toned' (for want of a better word} prints, 
>MIS FS and, maybe soon, Roy's QTR.  For me 'Pigment Print' fits all.
 
>'Carbon Ink Print' is, I understand, only strictly applicable to BO 
>printing  Cone's piezotones, and maybe Sundance but not, for
>example, UT2 or Roy's QTR, or Image Print RIP.  I am prepared to 
>stand corrected on this because I am not fully conversant with the 
>technologies.

These are excellent points.  The term "Carbon" (whether used with
Pigment or Ink) implies Black and White and of course can't be used
for color prints (the color pigments aren't carbon based according to
Bob at MIS).  I don't know what to suggest for color prints.  Even
since pre-inkjet days color photographs have had their own
nomenclature (Cibachrome, "C" Print, etc).  I suspect the same will
apply here.

BW of course is the focus of this forum and all of my remarks as
well.  Again according to Bob Ziess, there are not enough color
pigments in the UT toners to change their carbon status.  The only
question remaining is whether RIP prints with visible C/M dots keep
that status.  There is still an unanswered question of whether these
prints will color shift at some point.  However, I have a full ink
2200/UC print (a grayscale image printed full ink with Matte Black -
it's mostly K+LtK with tiny amounts of C/M) 11 months now on my window
sill torture test with no signs of fading.  So if it will color shift
it probably will be years down the road.  If I recall correctly, the
Wilhelm results for UC colors is 73 years or something like that,
while the blacks are 100+.  

I don't know how picky people want to be on that one. It will have to
sort itself out over time I guess, but I suspect that RIP prints will
ultimately be included.  "Carbon" implies longevity and the inks keep
getting better and better, so probably it will quietly over time
become a non-issue.  In the meantime, my main concern is that fine art
archival BW inkjet printing needs a unified identifying term that,
preferably, meets the requirements listed in the other message.  I
think it's important and is necessary to get the medium out of second
class status.

They way I see it now is that we are past the stage where inkjet
prints (IJP) are openly despised by sliver/platinum (S/P) folks.  They
have been overwhelmed by sheer numbers and many respected
photographers going the IJP route.  The hot emotional debates are
largely over and it is now politically incorrect to blatently put down
IJP, but of course it still happens in subtler ways (B&W and LensWork
mags for example - "There's nothing like a silver print").  Clearly
IJP is making headway, but subtle discrimination is still there and my
concern is that if gallery owners and/or others who silently favor S/P
decide what the final indentifying term is, that term will carry a
subtle connotation of inferiority and we'll be stuck with it.  That's
why I emphasized the "link with the past" and other attributes of
"Carbon Ink print" in the article.  The whole point is to carve a
niche that a generation of people down the road who didn't go through
"the wars" will percieve as equal.


>In my view it is not necessary to say how the pigment gets to the 
>paper.  While in painting the terms oil painting and watercolour are 
>everyday parlance, a silver print is a silver print without the need 
>to refer to the developer or fixer, although 'selenium toned' is
used 
>to indicate hue and 'archival' properties.

Yes, I agree.   Paintings generally aren't categorized by what kind of
brush was used, but whether they are watercolor, oil or acrylic is
certainly important to collectors.  Whatever term finally becomes
dominant for us, I think there will be no doubt in the mass mind that
it is associated with inkjet printers.

Regards,
Clayton


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