Digital BW, The Print

Hi,

I just set up my UT2 system recently and am having good results. I 
am about to enter a few prints in a juried exhibition which some of 
you may be interested in called the Northwest Eye. Would love to 
have some competition from fellow group members.

http://humboldtarts.org/exhibitions/nweye/

Anyway, I've been involved in few shows with my color work (UC color 
on a 2200) and just called the prints Archival Pigment Prints. I 
searched the archives and found a lively discussion back in August 
concerning the naming of digital black and white prints. It didn't 
seem like a consensus was reached but names like Carbon Ink Print 
and Carbon Pigment Print along with variations of these names were 
mentioned often. At this point I'll probably just call them Carbon 
Pigment Ink Prints since that seems to describe the UT2 inks. Any 
feedback here from people showing and selling prints made with MIS 
products?

Jim

I've used many different descriptions over the last few years; giclee, piezograph, carbon 
piezograph, etc...  Got bored trying to explain the subtle nuances to those unfamiliar with 
our materials and methods, so now I just use "digital print".  The archival name still seems 
a bit silly or unethical to utilize, even though I do my best to use state of the art inks and 
substrates.

Don

I'm gonna call mine "fauxteaugraphs". 

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "jimpegoda"
<pegoda@c...> wrote:
SNIP
< At this point I'll probably just call them Carbon 

> Pigment Ink Prints since that seems to describe the UT2 inks. Any 
> feedback here from people showing and selling prints made with MIS 
> products?
> 
> Jim

The archival name still seems 
> a bit silly or unethical to utilize, even though I do my best to 
use state of the art inks and 
> substrates.

I have dropped the term archival myself. One person posted back in 
August that it sounded defensive to use the term archival and I have 
to admit I was defensive when I first started showing color UC 
prints having heard some very strong criticism and biases against 
not only inkjet prints but also digital media in general. In my 
experience though people were excited about the quality of the 
output and I didn't personally experience any negativity towards the 
medium.

Jim

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "jimpegoda" <pegoda@c...> 
wrote:
> Hi Jim, I like the term Carbon Ink Print. It's cleaner sounding and accurate. The term 
Carbon Pigment Print has a very harsh, clunky sound.

> Hi,

> I just set up my UT2 system recently and am having good results. I 
> am about to enter a few prints in a juried exhibition which some of 
> you may be interested in called the Northwest Eye. Would love to 
> have some competition from fellow group members.
> 
> http://humboldtarts.org/exhibitions/nweye/
> 
> Anyway, I've been involved in few shows with my color work (UC color 
> on a 2200) and just called the prints Archival Pigment Prints. I 
> searched the archives and found a lively discussion back in August 
> concerning the naming of digital black and white prints. It didn't 
> seem like a consensus was reached but names like Carbon Ink Print 
> and Carbon Pigment Print along with variations of these names were 
> mentioned often. At this point I'll probably just call them Carbon 
> Pigment Ink Prints since that seems to describe the UT2 inks. Any 
> feedback here from people showing and selling prints made with MIS 
> products?
> 
> Jim

>--- "Kelsang Drime" <kdrime@h...> wrote:
> 
> I'm gonna call mine "fauxteaugraphs."

I love this one. Very creative, made me laugh...

But actually, I do like the term, "Carbon Prints," or even "Carbon 
Ink Prints." Rolls off the tongue easily, is accurate, and sounds 
rather exotic and special (which it is).

I specifically DON'T like the use of the word, "Digital," since they 
are not really, uh, digital. They are printed with ink. They are no 
more digital than a blueprint that comes off a plotter or printer 
connected to a computer. No one says, "Digital Blueprint," do they??

Jeff

>I'm gonna call mine "fauxteaugraphs". 

LOL!  good one :-)


Regards,
Clayton


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

Hello Jim,

>...names like Carbon Ink Print and Carbon Pigment Print along with
variations of these names were mentioned often...Any feedback here 
>from people showing and selling prints made with MIS products?

I use Carbon Ink Print.  The reasons are listed in an article titled
"What To Call Them?" on the web site below, so I won't bother relist
them here.

Good luck in the Northwest Eye exhibition.

Regards,
Clayton


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

At 05:45 AM Thursday 3/3/2005, you wrote:
>I use Carbon Ink Print.  The reasons are listed in an article titled
>"What To Call Them?" on the web site below, so I won't bother relist
>them here.

What about we who use Ultra Chrome inks for BW - there are more colours involved, so can they still be called 'carbon'?

thanks,
Richard 
--
http://smallfield.vze.com
http://photos.smallfield.vze.com

   "Experience is a great advantage.  The problem is that when 
   you get the experience, you're too damned old to do anything 
   about it."
   --Jimmy Connors

That's a good question. You know the uc monochromes are really no different than 
Piezzotone and others in this reagard for most of the inksets .Pure carbon is very warm 
and the addition of other pigments allows for the other hues you end up with. So,unless 
you are printing sepia none of them is pure carbon, but all of them are primarily carbon.

Call em Carbon. Why not?

John



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Richard Smallfield 
<r.smallfield@p...> wrote:
> At 05:45 AM Thursday 3/3/2005, you wrote:
> >I use Carbon Ink Print.  The reasons are listed in an article titled
> >"What To Call Them?" on the web site below, so I won't bother relist
> >them here.
> 
> What about we who use Ultra Chrome inks for BW - there are more colours involved, so 
can they still be called 'carbon'?

> 
> thanks,
> Richard 
> --
> http://smallfield.vze.com
> http://photos.smallfield.vze.com
> 
>    "Experience is a great advantage.  The problem is that when 
>    you get the experience, you're too damned old to do anything 
>    about it."
>    --Jimmy Connors

Sepia often also contains Yellow in addition to the two Blacks - at least as used by 
QuadTone Rip I believe.  Someone will correct me if I'm wrong on this(I hope) but to use 
the term Carbon with the UltraChrome inks, would you not need to restrict yourself to 
using the two blacks exclusively?  BO printing or QuadTone Warm only would do this.  I 
agree the term "Digital" is a misnomer but using older conventions such as just Carbon 
Print or Pigment Print confuses this process with older, more traditional processes(I think 
Clayton says as much in his article).  The words Pigment and Carbon would seem to both 
be neccesary as they describe the nature of the inks.  Using the word Ink and pigment 
together almost seems redundant as the definition of Ink is "A pigmented liquid or paste 
used especially for writing or printing"   Maybe Carbon Ink Print as Clayton says or the 
redundant Pigment Ink Print, or for more redundancy, Carbon Pigment Ink Print.  Geez  Or 
what about instead of using the word Ink, we use Liquid Pigment Print(ha ha) 

Tariq

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "john dean" 
<deanwork2003@y...> wrote:
> 
> 
> That's a good question. You know the uc monochromes are really no different than 
> Piezzotone and others in this reagard for most of the inksets .Pure carbon is very warm 
> and the addition of other pigments allows for the other hues you end up with. So,unless 
> you are printing sepia none of them is pure carbon, but all of them are primarily carbon.
> 
> Call em Carbon. Why not?
> 
> John
> 
> 
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Richard Smallfield 
> <r.smallfield@p...> wrote:
> > At 05:45 AM Thursday 3/3/2005, you wrote:
> > >I use Carbon Ink Print.  The reasons are listed in an article titled
> > >"What To Call Them?" on the web site below, so I won't bother relist
> > >them here.
> > 
> > What about we who use Ultra Chrome inks for BW - there are more colours involved, 
so 

> can they still be called 'carbon'?
> > 
> > thanks,
> > Richard 
> > --
> > http://smallfield.vze.com
> > http://photos.smallfield.vze.com
> > 
> >    "Experience is a great advantage.  The problem is that when 
> >    you get the experience, you're too damned old to do anything 
> >    about it."
> >    --Jimmy Connors

Geez  Or 
> what about instead of using the word Ink, we use Liquid Pigment 
Print(ha ha) 
> 
> Tariq


Or Liquid Ink Print (ha ha)

Jim

Hello Richard,

>What about we who use Ultra Chrome inks for BW - there are more 
>colours involved, so can they still be called 'carbon'?

Good question.  It depends on how strict we want to be.  What % of
non-carbon pigments has to be in there before the term doesn't apply?
That's why I said in the article that there probably would be more
than one term evolve.  I have noticed in a number of gallery web sites
showcasing digi prints that the term "Ultrachrome Print" is being used
for RIP-based BW prints.  Another site used "Piezography Museum Black"
(I think that meant BO because others by the same person were called
"Ultrachrome").  At this point it seems the photographer can call them
anything he/she wants.  I think as digi prints become more widely
accepted a few terms will emarge and become standardized.  I hope
Carbon Ink Print is one of them.  

Regards,
Clayton

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

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Clayton Jones" 

> "Ultrachrome").  At this point it seems the photographer can call them
> anything he/she wants.  I think as digi prints become more widely
> accepted a few terms will emarge and become standardized.  I hope
> Carbon Ink Print is one of them.  
> 
Hello Clayton,

This is an issue that is far from resolved, but progress is being
made. The term "Carbon Ink Print" says it all when it comes to
printing with carbon pigments inks.

But in the case of the Ultrachrome prints, would the terms "Color
Pigment Ink Print" or "Pigment Ink Print" be more appropriate, as I
understand it, there's more color pigments than carbon pigments if any
in the UltraChrome inkset. 

And then there Epson that will be pushing the "UltraGiclée" concept
(Printer, ink, paper. Seems they too want to differentiate from dye
inkset prints or so called "digital prints".

Cheers,
Andre

Hello Tariq,

>Sepia often also contains Yellow in addition to the two Blacks - 
>at least as used by QuadTone Rip I believe.  Someone will correct 
>me if I'm wrong on this(I hope) but to use the term Carbon with the 
>UltraChrome inks, would you not need to restrict yourself to using 
>the two blacks exclusively?  BO printing or QuadTone Warm only 
>would do this.  

I would tend to favor this more strict interpretation.  I think if
"Carbon Ink Print" is to become widely accepted it has to mean
something more specific, rather than general. In my view, as a result
of my own testing as well as all the other info out there, a pure
carbon only print made with Eboni, Museum or MK is the most lightfast
inkjet print possible today.  Theoretically, something with toners or
color dots will not last as long, by varying amounts depending on the
mix.  

How many years before change is visible is another matter, and some
who aren't worried beyond their own lifetime may dismiss it.  But it
is likely that some photos made today will still exist in 100 years
and more.  A lot of silver stuff that old is now deteriorating and
needing super cold storage to survive.  So I think it's a significant
issue.  I use Eboni BO for most of my prints and I want my buyers to
know they are getting something more permanent than one containing
non-carbon pigments.  I think it's a good selling point



>Maybe Carbon Ink Print as Clayton says or the redundant Pigment Ink
>Print, or for more redundancy, Carbon Pigment Ink Print.  Geez Or 
>what about instead of using the word Ink, we use Liquid Pigment
>Print(ha ha) 

LOL!  It gets kind of crazy.  Will be interesting to see how it
unfolds.


Regards,
Clayton


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

How about simply "photograph" and then a 1-2 sentence note as to how is was
reproduced.  "This photograph was printed using xxxx archival pigment inks.
Images printed using these materials have been rated....by xxx under xxx
conditions."

I think you guys are getting too caught up on finding a single "name".  One
or two sentences gives you the opportunity to give far more comfort to a
buyer as to the materials used.

> From: Clayton Jones <cj@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2005 14:11:59 -0000
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: [Digital BW] Re: naming these things revived
> 
> 
> 
> Hello Tariq,
> 
>> Sepia often also contains Yellow in addition to the two Blacks -
>> at least as used by QuadTone Rip I believe.  Someone will correct
>> me if I'm wrong on this(I hope) but to use the term Carbon with the
>> UltraChrome inks, would you not need to restrict yourself to using
>> the two blacks exclusively?  BO printing or QuadTone Warm only
>> would do this.  
> 
> I would tend to favor this more strict interpretation.  I think if
> "Carbon Ink Print" is to become widely accepted it has to mean
> something more specific, rather than general. In my view, as a result
> of my own testing as well as all the other info out there, a pure
> carbon only print made with Eboni, Museum or MK is the most lightfast
> inkjet print possible today.  Theoretically, something with toners or
> color dots will not last as long, by varying amounts depending on the
> mix.  
> 
> How many years before change is visible is another matter, and some
> who aren't worried beyond their own lifetime may dismiss it.  But it
> is likely that some photos made today will still exist in 100 years
> and more.  A lot of silver stuff that old is now deteriorating and
> needing super cold storage to survive.  So I think it's a significant
> issue.  I use Eboni BO for most of my prints and I want my buyers to
> know they are getting something more permanent than one containing
> non-carbon pigments.  I think it's a good selling point
> 
> 
> 
>> Maybe Carbon Ink Print as Clayton says or the redundant Pigment Ink
>> Print, or for more redundancy, Carbon Pigment Ink Print.  Geez Or
>> what about instead of using the word Ink, we use Liquid Pigment
>> Print(ha ha) 
> 
> LOL!  It gets kind of crazy.  Will be interesting to see how it
> unfolds.
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Clayton
> 
> 
> Info on black and white digital printing at
> http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm

Hello Andre,

>This is an issue that is far from resolved, but progress is being
>made. The term "Carbon Ink Print" says it all when it comes to
>printing with carbon pigments inks.
> 
>But in the case of the Ultrachrome prints, would the terms "Color
>Pigment Ink Print" or "Pigment Ink Print" be more appropriate, as I
>understand it, there's more color pigments than carbon pigments if
>any in the UltraChrome inkset. 

I like "Color Pigment Ink Print" for color dot prints ("Pigment" can
mean carbon and non-carbon).  It is straightforward and accurate,
especially because color dots can be seen with a loupe.  A good one. 
However, I don't think it's adequate for toned carbon inks
where color dots can't be seen.  And there are different mixtures.

For example, I have recently worked out a special UT7 mixture that has
all magenta and yellow removed, and even the remaining blue toner (the
most lightfast) has been reduced.  The amount of blue remaining has to
be a very tiny %.  Something like "Toned Carbon Ink Print" might be
better for that (or maybe "Lightly Toned" <g>).  What a dilemma.



>And then there Epson that will be pushing the "UltraGiclée"
concept

Ugh!


Bottom line is there are three techniques: color dots, toned carbon,
and pure carbon.  So there probably ought to be three terms.  


Regards,
Clayton


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

Hello Steve,

>How about simply "photograph" and then a 1-2 sentence note as to 
>how is was reproduced.  

>I think you guys are getting too caught up on finding a single 
>"name".  One or two sentences gives you the opportunity to give 
>far more comfort to a buyer as to the materials used.

Good point for personal promotional materials.  But galleries and
shows need to advertise what they do.  "We show only the finest
Silver, Carbon Ink and Platinum photographs".  I think some sort of
universally recognized term is needed.  


Regards,
Clayton


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

But for them to advertise an exhibition wouldn't they say something like: "a
collection of photographs/images by the renowned photographer Clayton
Jones."  When it came to the detail they would likely better say
"photographs printed on xxx paper using archival pigment ink" etc.  They
need say nothing more.  I recently went to an exhibition where the images
were all printed on a Durst Lambda printer.  The show was not advertised as
a collection of "Durst Lambda Prints" but the exhibition described how the
images were produced ie on the DL.  It didn't even mention archival quality
which I think was a shortfall.  Having said that, another exhibition of
photos which was collectively described as  a "collection of images" were
individually noted as "editioned pigment print(s)".  Interesting, given
"editioned" is not a word.

> From: Clayton Jones <cj@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2005 14:53:53 -0000
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: [Digital BW] Re: naming these things revived
> 
> 
> 
> Hello Steve,
> 
>> How about simply "photograph" and then a 1-2 sentence note as to
>> how is was reproduced.
> 
>> I think you guys are getting too caught up on finding a single
>> "name".  One or two sentences gives you the opportunity to give
>> far more comfort to a buyer as to the materials used.
> 
> Good point for personal promotional materials.  But galleries and
> shows need to advertise what they do.  "We show only the finest
> Silver, Carbon Ink and Platinum photographs".  I think some sort of
> universally recognized term is needed.
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Clayton
>

Hi Clayton,

I agree completely, It does seem like the issue of naming these things is getting sort of 
crazy.  Specificity as you suggest would seem to be the way to go.  Silver Gelatin Print - 
now that was very specific.  The more I hear the term "Carbon Ink Print" the more I like it.  
The only thing which sort of gives me pause is that when people hear the word Ink vs. 
Pigment, I think the whole "inkJet" association is made which I don't like even as accurate 
as it is. Just makes me think of all those cheap desktop inkjet printers that were so Non-
archival, the prints would fade within months.  

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

> 
> Hello Tariq,
> 
> >Sepia often also contains Yellow in addition to the two Blacks - 
> >at least as used by QuadTone Rip I believe.  Someone will correct 
> >me if I'm wrong on this(I hope) but to use the term Carbon with the 
> >UltraChrome inks, would you not need to restrict yourself to using 
> >the two blacks exclusively?  BO printing or QuadTone Warm only 
> >would do this.  
> 
> I would tend to favor this more strict interpretation.  I think if
> "Carbon Ink Print" is to become widely accepted it has to mean
> something more specific, rather than general. In my view, as a result
> of my own testing as well as all the other info out there, a pure
> carbon only print made with Eboni, Museum or MK is the most lightfast
> inkjet print possible today.  Theoretically, something with toners or
> color dots will not last as long, by varying amounts depending on the
> mix.  
> 
> How many years before change is visible is another matter, and some
> who aren't worried beyond their own lifetime may dismiss it.  But it
> is likely that some photos made today will still exist in 100 years
> and more.  A lot of silver stuff that old is now deteriorating and
> needing super cold storage to survive.  So I think it's a significant
> issue.  I use Eboni BO for most of my prints and I want my buyers to
> know they are getting something more permanent than one containing
> non-carbon pigments.  I think it's a good selling point
> 
> 
> 
> >Maybe Carbon Ink Print as Clayton says or the redundant Pigment Ink
> >Print, or for more redundancy, Carbon Pigment Ink Print.  Geez Or 
> >what about instead of using the word Ink, we use Liquid Pigment
> >Print(ha ha) 
> 
> LOL!  It gets kind of crazy.  Will be interesting to see how it
> unfolds.
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Clayton
> 
> 
> Info on black and white digital printing at    
> http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm

Using the term "photograph" or "images" works well if you are having 
your own show but if you are part of a group show with other artists 
using various media or if you are submitting prints to a juried 
exhibition you are usually asked to give a specific name for the 
media you are using...which of course ends up on the label or tag.

Jim


> How about simply "photograph" and then a 1-2 sentence note as to 
how is was
> reproduced.  "This photograph was printed using xxxx archival 
pigment inks.
> Images printed using these materials have been rated....by xxx 
under xxx
> conditions."
> 
> I think you guys are getting too caught up on finding a 
single "name".  One
> or two sentences gives you the opportunity to give far more 
comfort to a
> buyer as to the materials used.

I think you certainly do talk more about the details that you mention at least verbally or in 
a longer Artist Description of their work.  But, A gallery or a Museum does not want to 
have a long paragraph right under the title of the work and Artist Name.  Something nice, 
short and descriptive will always be required.  Hence the delima.

Tariq


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale <stevekale@b...> 
wrote:

> How about simply "photograph" and then a 1-2 sentence note as to how is was
> reproduced.  "This photograph was printed using xxxx archival pigment inks.
> Images printed using these materials have been rated....by xxx under xxx
> conditions."
> 
> I think you guys are getting too caught up on finding a single "name".  One
> or two sentences gives you the opportunity to give far more comfort to a
> buyer as to the materials used.
> 
> 
> > From: Clayton Jones <cj@c...>
> > Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> > Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2005 14:11:59 -0000
> > To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> > Subject: [Digital BW] Re: naming these things revived
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Hello Tariq,
> > 
> >> Sepia often also contains Yellow in addition to the two Blacks -
> >> at least as used by QuadTone Rip I believe.  Someone will correct
> >> me if I'm wrong on this(I hope) but to use the term Carbon with the
> >> UltraChrome inks, would you not need to restrict yourself to using
> >> the two blacks exclusively?  BO printing or QuadTone Warm only
> >> would do this.  
> > 
> > I would tend to favor this more strict interpretation.  I think if
> > "Carbon Ink Print" is to become widely accepted it has to mean
> > something more specific, rather than general. In my view, as a result
> > of my own testing as well as all the other info out there, a pure
> > carbon only print made with Eboni, Museum or MK is the most lightfast
> > inkjet print possible today.  Theoretically, something with toners or
> > color dots will not last as long, by varying amounts depending on the
> > mix.  
> > 
> > How many years before change is visible is another matter, and some
> > who aren't worried beyond their own lifetime may dismiss it.  But it
> > is likely that some photos made today will still exist in 100 years
> > and more.  A lot of silver stuff that old is now deteriorating and
> > needing super cold storage to survive.  So I think it's a significant
> > issue.  I use Eboni BO for most of my prints and I want my buyers to
> > know they are getting something more permanent than one containing
> > non-carbon pigments.  I think it's a good selling point
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >> Maybe Carbon Ink Print as Clayton says or the redundant Pigment Ink
> >> Print, or for more redundancy, Carbon Pigment Ink Print.  Geez Or
> >> what about instead of using the word Ink, we use Liquid Pigment
> >> Print(ha ha) 
> > 
> > LOL!  It gets kind of crazy.  Will be interesting to see how it
> > unfolds.
> > 
> > 
> > Regards,
> > Clayton
> > 
> > 
> > Info on black and white digital printing at
> > http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm

Do prints produced in the dark room have to come with a tag that describes
the solutions used and type of paper?  Surely they don't expect all that
info in a "label".  No.

> From: jimpegoda <pegoda@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2005 15:58:07 -0000
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: [Digital BW] Re: naming these things revived
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Using the term "photograph" or "images" works well if you are having
> your own show but if you are part of a group show with other artists
> using various media or if you are submitting prints to a juried
> exhibition you are usually asked to give a specific name for the
> media you are using...which of course ends up on the label or tag.
> 
> Jim
> 
> 
>> How about simply "photograph" and then a 1-2 sentence note as to
> how is was
>> reproduced.  "This photograph was printed using xxxx archival
> pigment inks.
>> Images printed using these materials have been rated....by xxx
> under xxx
>> conditions."
>> 
>> I think you guys are getting too caught up on finding a
> single "name".  One
>> or two sentences gives you the opportunity to give far more
> comfort to a
>> buyer as to the materials used.
>

1-2 sentences only.  All that needs to appear below the image is "Printed on
xxx paper with archival pigment ink."

> From: tariqgibranstudio <tariqgibranstudio@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2005 16:03:05 -0000
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: [Digital BW] Re: naming these things revived
> 
> 
> 
> I think you certainly do talk more about the details that you mention at least
> verbally or in 
> a longer Artist Description of their work.  But, A gallery or a Museum does
> not want to 
> have a long paragraph right under the title of the work and Artist Name.
> Something nice, 
> short and descriptive will always be required.  Hence the delima.
> 
> Tariq
> 
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale
> <stevekale@b...> 
> wrote:
>> How about simply "photograph" and then a 1-2 sentence note as to how is was
>> reproduced.  "This photograph was printed using xxxx archival pigment inks.
>> Images printed using these materials have been rated....by xxx under xxx
>> conditions."
>> 
>> I think you guys are getting too caught up on finding a single "name".  One
>> or two sentences gives you the opportunity to give far more comfort to a
>> buyer as to the materials used.
>> 
>> 
>>> From: Clayton Jones <cj@c...>
>>> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
>>> Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2005 14:11:59 -0000
>>> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
>>> Subject: [Digital BW] Re: naming these things revived
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Hello Tariq,
>>> 
>>>> Sepia often also contains Yellow in addition to the two Blacks -
>>>> at least as used by QuadTone Rip I believe.  Someone will correct
>>>> me if I'm wrong on this(I hope) but to use the term Carbon with the
>>>> UltraChrome inks, would you not need to restrict yourself to using
>>>> the two blacks exclusively?  BO printing or QuadTone Warm only
>>>> would do this.
>>> 
>>> I would tend to favor this more strict interpretation.  I think if
>>> "Carbon Ink Print" is to become widely accepted it has to mean
>>> something more specific, rather than general. In my view, as a result
>>> of my own testing as well as all the other info out there, a pure
>>> carbon only print made with Eboni, Museum or MK is the most lightfast
>>> inkjet print possible today.  Theoretically, something with toners or
>>> color dots will not last as long, by varying amounts depending on the
>>> mix.  
>>> 
>>> How many years before change is visible is another matter, and some
>>> who aren't worried beyond their own lifetime may dismiss it.  But it
>>> is likely that some photos made today will still exist in 100 years
>>> and more.  A lot of silver stuff that old is now deteriorating and
>>> needing super cold storage to survive.  So I think it's a significant
>>> issue.  I use Eboni BO for most of my prints and I want my buyers to
>>> know they are getting something more permanent than one containing
>>> non-carbon pigments.  I think it's a good selling point
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> Maybe Carbon Ink Print as Clayton says or the redundant Pigment Ink
>>>> Print, or for more redundancy, Carbon Pigment Ink Print.  Geez Or
>>>> what about instead of using the word Ink, we use Liquid Pigment
>>>> Print(ha ha) 
>>> 
>>> LOL!  It gets kind of crazy.  Will be interesting to see how it
>>> unfolds.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> Clayton
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Info on black and white digital printing at
>>> http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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 ³Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines² 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 ³OWNER² AND
> ³MODERATORS² 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  ³OWNER² AND ³MODERATORS² 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
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
>

No, but traditional wet dark room prints are referred to as "Silver 
Gelatin,"
whether they've been printed on fibre base or rc paper.
I like "Pigment Print."  This sort of lets everyone know that the image
hasn't been printed with dye-based ink, and that they are getting 
something that's
not supposed to fade the day after tomorrow.  Peter G.

On Mar 3, 2005, at 8:12 AM, Steve Kale wrote:

>
> Do prints produced in the dark room have to come with a tag that 
> describes
> the solutions used and type of paper?  Surely they don't expect all 
> that
> info in a "label".  No.
>
>

I've really tried to resist getting into this discussion, but just for the fun of it, I have to 
wonder if we are truly justified in calling these objects photographs at all since they are 
not created from a light sensitive material?  It's probably more of a philosophical or 
intellectual discussion signifying little, but it's sort of fun to think about.

Jim





--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Peter Gorwin <pshelleyg@c...> 
wrote:

> No, but traditional wet dark room prints are referred to as "Silver 
> Gelatin,"
> whether they've been printed on fibre base or rc paper.
> I like "Pigment Print."  This sort of lets everyone know that the image
> hasn't been printed with dye-based ink, and that they are getting 
> something that's
> not supposed to fade the day after tomorrow.  Peter G.
> 
> On Mar 3, 2005, at 8:12 AM, Steve Kale wrote:
> 
> >
> > Do prints produced in the dark room have to come with a tag that 
> > describes
> > the solutions used and type of paper?  Surely they don't expect all 
> > that
> > info in a "label".  No.
> >
> >

Steve Kale wrote:
> Do prints produced in the dark room have to come with a tag that describes
> the solutions used and type of paper?  Surely they don't expect all that
> info in a "label".  No.

No, but more and more I see prints labeled "gelatin silver", or 
"platinum print", or "C-print", etc.   So while they don't describe the 
paper, they do describe the printing technique.

	Walt

I don't have any trouble calling my work photography - photography is
what happens in front of my camera; what happens in the dark room or
in my computer/printer is mere technology; the exciting part is over
when I cap my lens. Please note that this is my *opinion*, yours may
be different, that's all. Neither one is gospel.

When I was showing prints on Fujichrome R, I said the show consisted
of photographs and told anyone interested what the paper was (what
camera I used, film, etc.), if they asked. The same is true with my
digital prints.

The work is still photography; I go into the field with a camera (and
film, incidentally), the images are still photographs - light is still
the source of the imagery; having a partially digital workflow is
immaterial and "painting with light" is not restricted to chemically
sensitized paper.

Do platinum/palladium printers make a fetish of the fact that they
(may) use digital negatives for making their prints? Should they? Is
it of any significance to the outcome? Perhaps it is, if the buyer is
in love with large format cameras/film and the image size is assuamed
 to mean that a large format camera was used to make a huge negative,
rather than being from an enlarged 35mm shot. Is this different from a
traditional enlarged negative used for the print?

The really big thing I think casual buyers may be wary of is being
taken in by "phony" images, straight-looking photos that are not
represented as manipulations, when they hear that something digital
happened on the way to the wall. Art buyers are something else: if
they even accept photography as "art" and are not merely autograph
collectors, then they are likely to be somewhat aware of modern
printing technology and will ask the pertinent quetions about the
expected longevity of accessions.

Good luck with whatever it is you call it,

Frank

Hello Jim,

>wonder if we are truly justified in calling these objects
>photographs at all since they are not created from a light 
>sensitive material?  It's probably more of a philosophical or
>intellectual discussion signifying little, but it's sort of 
>fun to think about.

It's an interesting point and I mentioned it in the article, followed
by some quotes from reference books showing that ink-based
photographs, in the form of photogravures, have been an accepted
photographic art form for well over 100 years.  So it kind of pulls
the rug out from under it as an issue.  And I agree it is a fun
intellectual concept to wrap the mind around.  

For me the idea that our prints are ink-based is very intriguing and
exciting because it immediately conjurs up images of primitive
technologies (I call it "a link to the past" in the article).  When
you think of it like that it's easier to see that what we're doing
really is a new and different medium, and that they shouldn't be
compared to silver.  Photogravures are accepted for what they are, and
are actually revered for their unique qualities. Why not carbon ink
prints?  I think the fact that our works of art are ink on paper
should be capitalized on and emphasized.

We are on the cutting edge of an entirely new art medium.  To me
that's exciting.  It's also one reason I'm not terribly upset about
BO's graininess - I use it for most of my prints.  I've gotten past
the idea of imitating silver or platinum prints.   If I spent hundreds
of hours putting millions of dots on paper with an ink pen to get this
result, I'd be famous and my prints would be looked at with awe, sell
for thousands and be in museums and wealthy homes.  

I love what we're doing and aside from some minor frustrations am
having a ball.  I'm more excited about photography now than I was for
a long time.  Maybe I'm just a romantic, but "Carbon Ink Print" really
clicks for me.

Regards,
Clayton


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

Clayton,

I hope no one takes this too seriously, but just for the fun of the argument, the object may 
be "photographic" art, but maybe it should be called an inkograph since it wasn't created 
from a light sensitive material.  Would we feel OK representing one of Saint Ansel's posters 
as a photograph?  They are ink on paper.

Let's keep reminding ourselves that this is a discussion about how may angels can dance 
on the head of pin.....

Jim




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

> 
> Hello Jim,
> 
> >wonder if we are truly justified in calling these objects
> >photographs at all since they are not created from a light 
> >sensitive material?  It's probably more of a philosophical or
> >intellectual discussion signifying little, but it's sort of 
> >fun to think about.
> 
> It's an interesting point and I mentioned it in the article, followed
> by some quotes from reference books showing that ink-based
> photographs, in the form of photogravures, have been an accepted
> photographic art form for well over 100 years.  So it kind of pulls
> the rug out from under it as an issue.  And I agree it is a fun
> intellectual concept to wrap the mind around.  
> 
> For me the idea that our prints are ink-based is very intriguing and
> exciting because it immediately conjurs up images of primitive
> technologies (I call it "a link to the past" in the article).  When
> you think of it like that it's easier to see that what we're doing
> really is a new and different medium, and that they shouldn't be
> compared to silver.  Photogravures are accepted for what they are, and
> are actually revered for their unique qualities. Why not carbon ink
> prints?  I think the fact that our works of art are ink on paper
> should be capitalized on and emphasized.
> 
> We are on the cutting edge of an entirely new art medium.  To me
> that's exciting.  It's also one reason I'm not terribly upset about
> BO's graininess - I use it for most of my prints.  I've gotten past
> the idea of imitating silver or platinum prints.   If I spent hundreds
> of hours putting millions of dots on paper with an ink pen to get this
> result, I'd be famous and my prints would be looked at with awe, sell
> for thousands and be in museums and wealthy homes.  
> 
> I love what we're doing and aside from some minor frustrations am
> having a ball.  I'm more excited about photography now than I was for
> a long time.  Maybe I'm just a romantic, but "Carbon Ink Print" really
> clicks for me.
> 
> Regards,
> Clayton
> 
> 
> Info on black and white digital printing at    
> http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm

Clayton,

Could you point to the article for those of us that have been absent from the list for awhile?

Thanks, Diane

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Clayton Jones 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 10:15 PM
  Subject: [Digital BW] Re: naming these things revived



  Hello Jim,

  >
  It's an interesting point and I mentioned it in the article, followed
  by some quotes from reference books showing that ink-based
  photographs, in the form of photogravures, have been an accepted
  photographic art form for well over 100 years.  So it kind of pulls
  the rug out from under it as an issue.  And I agree it is a fun
  intellectual concept to wrap the mind around.  



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

Hello Diane,

>Could you point to the article for those of us that have been 
>absent from the list for awhile?

It's at the link below and is called "What To Call Them".

Regards,
Clayton


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

John,

> Call em Carbon. Why not?

Well, in the UK we have a thing called the "Trades Description Act". Selling 
something you call carbon when it isn't might cause you problems. Don't 
customers have any protection in the States?

Bob Frost.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "john dean" <deanwork2003@...>

Hello Jim,

>inkograph 

LOL!


>Would we feel OK representing one of Saint Ansel's posters 
>as a photograph?  They are ink on paper.

Excellent point. No, of course we wouldn't feel ok, and this actually
illustrates the point.  We call them "posters" and everyone knows what
that means.  We need a term to describe our work that everyone
understands.  If I use "Carbon Ink Print" I'm not calling my work a
photograph, so it nicely sidesteps the issue. 

This brings up the question: What is a photograph?  Here's what my two
dictionaries say:

D1 - "An image formed on a light-sensitive surface by a camera and
developed chemically to produce a positive print."

This brings up the question: Is a negative not a photograph?  The
definition leaves out the chemical step of developing the neg.  This
dictionary was printed in 1983.

Another dictionary from 1980 says: 

D2 - "A picture formed by means of the chemical action of light or
other radiation on a light sensitive surface."

This is a little more inclusive as it doesn't have the concept of a
negative or positive image.  It could include the negative or a
positive derived from it.  Interesting that it uses "picture" instead
of "image".  But it does clearly state that whatever a "picture" is it
must be formed on a light sensitive surface.

Here are the two definitions of "picture":

D1 - "A visual representation or image painted, drawn, photographed or
otherwise rendered on a flat surface."

D2 - "A representation of a person or people or object(s), etc., made
by painting, drawing or photography, especially as a work of art."

So, by these definitions it certainly could be argued that our ink
prints are not photographs since the print itself is not made on a
light sensitive surface.  But they certainly would qualify as
"pictures", and as "photographic art".

Both of these were written before digital cameras, so I wonder what a
dictionary would say today?  Certainly a sensor is a light sensitive
surface.  But what is the resulting digital image file?  Is that an
electronic picture?  Or is it not a picture intil it is "otherwise
rendered on a flat surface".  Does an LCD monitor screen qualify as a
flat surface?  The 1st definition of photograph could be modified to
include an ink print, either from a digicam or a neg:

"An image formed on a light-sensitive surface by a camera and further
processed to produce a picture."

If this definition was accepted then our prints would be photographs.
But then so would posters.  Trapped again! :-)

However, this will probably never happen because "photo" implies
light.  So an ink print of any sort will probably never technically be
a photograph.  But everyone will call them photographs.

This could (and probably will) be debated forever, but actually all of
the commonly used terms so far use "print", not "photograph", so the
issue is sidestepped.  Seems to me the real issues are:

1) whether a term accurately describes what it is, with implied
emphasis on archival longevity 

2) whether the term is acceptable in other ways, such as how it
"sounds" (or "rolls off the tongue"), other connotations or subtle
meanings, historical precedent, etc.


Well, this is great fun, but I have real work to do.  So long for
now. :-)


Regards,
Clayton


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

Thank you. 

----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Clayton Jones 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005 8:09 AM
  Subject: [Digital BW] Re: naming these things revived



  Hello Diane,

  >Could you point to the article for those of us that have been 
  >absent from the list for awhile?

  It's at the link below and is called "What To Call Them".

  Regards,
  Clayton



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

>> Call em Carbon. Why not?

>Well, in the UK we have a thing called the "Trades Description Act".
> Selling something you call carbon when it isn't might cause you problems.
> Don't customers have any protection in the States?

Yes, federal, 50 states, and hundreds of county DAs have similar laws.  I
worked in a related field, but will definitely not guarantee that what I do
will not cause problems.

Very often, if not usually, the name used does not assure that the product
is 100% that substance.  "100% Goose down" sleeping bags, etc., can have
something like 20% feathers that are not down.  "Cabernet" wine can have a
certain percent merlot in it.  The list is endless.  Few things are 100% of
anything.  

So, is a "carbon pigment print" that is predominantly carbon OK?  Beats me.
At some point there is probably too much non-carbon in there, but I don't
know where that point is.  Where that point is also is probably affected by
what the minority constituents are and how they affect performance. 

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

I am certainly no attorney, but I don't believe artwork falls under 
the same category as "consumer products." I don't think we are going 
to put our work on the shelves of supermarkets or department stores, 
with a label, "Carbon Print."

These are not mass marketed goods, just simple art. As artists, we 
can take "artistic license" and call our work pretty much whatever 
we want. IMHO, we are selling our art, not the process.

Buyers and collectors are, of course, entitled to know what they are 
buying, but most art purchases - I would think - are transacted with 
individuals, artists or galleries, and a simple explanation of the 
process should be available if requested. In fact, it is probably 
not a bad idea to print up some nice cards which explain 
simply, "About the Carbon Ink Process" which can be given to the 
buyer along with the invoice/receipt. 

Here's another thought:

Paintings rendered in oil, or acrylics are referred to as "oil 
paintings" or "acrylics." Yet, oil paint is not just oil, and 
acrylics are not just acrylic (could you imagine?). They obviously 
contain pigments or dyes, and are no more "pure" than "carbon ink," 
which may not be "just carbon."

Cheers,

Jeff

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark" 
<paul.roark@v...> wrote:
> 
> >> Call em Carbon. Why not?
> 
> >Well, in the UK we have a thing called the "Trades Description 
Act".
> > Selling something you call carbon when it isn't might cause you 
problems.
> > Don't customers have any protection in the States?
> 
> Yes, federal, 50 states, and hundreds of county DAs have similar 
laws.  I
> worked in a related field, but will definitely not guarantee that 
what I do
> will not cause problems.
> 
> Very often, if not usually, the name used does not assure that the 
product
> is 100% that substance.  "100% Goose down" sleeping bags, etc., 
can have
> something like 20% feathers that are not down.  "Cabernet" wine 
can have a
> certain percent merlot in it.  The list is endless.  Few things 
are 100% of
> anything.  
> 
> So, is a "carbon pigment print" that is predominantly carbon OK?  
Beats me.
> At some point there is probably too much non-carbon in there, but 
I don't
> know where that point is.  Where that point is also is probably 
affected by
> what the minority constituents are and how they affect 
performance. 

> 
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com