Ink Jet Prints
2004-08-16 by Roger Smith
Hi All, A friend recently made a trip to Chicago Art Museum and low and behold, an exhibit in the basement with prints labeled as "Ink Jet Prints" - don't know the details, but I thought that was significant. Roger Smith - E. Lansing, MI On Aug 16, 2004, at 2:16 PM, DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com wrote:
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> 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
>