Digital BW, The Print

Why not just call them what they are? Carbon Pigment Prints.





antonisphoto wrote:

> 
> Daniel,
> 
> must've  felt nice to discover you couldn't tell a digital black-and-white from a
> darkroom print. I had the same experience several times, and at least once in
> the Museum of Photographic Arts in San Diego where a few piezoBW prints
> were thrown in with wet prints.
> 
> However, we are still in the era of seeking legitimacy for our prints in the world
> of collectors, museums and galleries. Inkjet prints - especially if you call them
> that and don't use French names for them - don't have the cache of "toned
> silver prints". Yet.
> 
> Antonis
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Daniel Perez <tronicart@y...> wrote:
> After a few days, I
> > decided to take a very close look at it and realized
> > that it was an inkjet print! Ah-ha!  I had this
> > wonderful revelation, that, to some extent put me at
> > ease.
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 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/

Jerry,
I beg to differ.

To be academically correct (like from a museum and informative standpoint) they
are inkjet prints using 'carbon pigment' (or whatever) inks.

To use any other term is a marketing ploy.  And that's ok if you recognize the
difference. :-)

Harvey Ferdschneider
partner, SKID Photography, NYC


Jerry Olson wrote:

>  Why not just call them what they are? Carbon Pigment Prints.
>
>
> antonisphoto wrote:
> >
> > Daniel,
> >
> > must've  felt nice to discover you couldn't tell a digital black-and-white
> from a
> > darkroom print. I had the same experience several times, and at least once
> in
> > the Museum of Photographic Arts in San Diego where a few piezoBW prints
> > were thrown in with wet prints.
> >
> > However, we are still in the era of seeking legitimacy for our prints in the
> world
> > of collectors, museums and galleries. Inkjet prints - especially if you call
> them
> > that and don't use French names for them - don't have the cache of "toned
> > silver prints". Yet.
> >
> > Antonis
> >
> > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Daniel Perez <tronicart@y...>
> wrote:
> > After a few days, I
> > > decided to take a very close look at it and realized
> > > that it was an inkjet print! Ah-ha!  I had this
> > > wonderful revelation, that, to some extent put me at
> > > ease.
>





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

on 2/8/02 3:55 PM, SKID Photography wrote:

> I beg to differ.
> 
> To be academically correct (like from a museum and informative standpoint)
> they
> are inkjet prints using 'carbon pigment' (or whatever) inks.
> 
> To use any other term is a marketing ploy.  And that's ok if you recognize the
> difference. :-)

Not sure I agree with that. When I look at photos in museums and galleries I
see tags like: "Toned Silver Gelatin Print", or "Chromogenic Print". This
refers to the materials solely, much as Carbon Pigment inks on Rag Paper
does. 

The traditional equivalent of what you propose might be: "Enlarged Toned
Silver Gelatin Print", or "Contact Print, Toned Silver Gelatin".

The latter are terms one might see in some places, but when they are
represented more simply, as in the former instance, which in my experience
is most of the time, I've not heard it referred to as a marketing ploy.

Todd

Todd Flashner wrote:

>  on 2/8/02 3:55 PM, SKID Photography wrote:
>
> > I beg to differ.
> >
> > To be academically correct (like from a museum and informative standpoint)
> > they
> > are inkjet prints using 'carbon pigment' (or whatever) inks.
> >
> > To use any other term is a marketing ploy.  And that's ok if you recognize
> the
> > difference. :-)
>
> Not sure I agree with that. When I look at photos in museums and galleries I
> see tags like: "Toned Silver Gelatin Print", or "Chromogenic Print". This
> refers to the materials solely, much as Carbon Pigment inks on Rag Paper
> does.
>
> The traditional equivalent of what you propose might be: "Enlarged Toned
> Silver Gelatin Print", or "Contact Print, Toned Silver Gelatin".
>
> The latter are terms one might see in some places, but when they are
> represented more simply, as in the former instance, which in my experience
> is most of the time, I've not heard it referred to as a marketing ploy.
>
> Todd

I guess the Brooklyn Museum of Art in NYC, who had one of the defining shows on
Digital imagery last summer is wrong.  ;-)

The reason there is no mention of 'photography' or 'enlargement' with a 'toned
silver gelatin print' is that it is understood to be a photograph.  'Oil on
canvas' or 'Oil on Paper' does not mention the word painting because it's
understood.  If someone got oil paints to go through an inkjet printer, it would
not be labeled 'oil on paper'.

Say what you like, academically, what we do here are 'inkjet prints' using
various different inks.  In the marketplace, where 'marketing' comes into play,
all bets are off.

Harvey Ferdschneider
partner, SKID Photography, NYC





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

SKID Wrote:

    >I guess the Brooklyn Museum of Art in NYC, who had one of the defining shows on
    >Digital imagery last summer is wrong.  ;-)

    >The reason there is no mention of 'photography' or 'enlargement' with a 'toned
    >silver gelatin print' is that it is understood to be a photograph.  'Oil on
    >canvas' or 'Oil on Paper' does not mention the word painting because it's
    >understood.  If someone got oil paints to go through an inkjet printer, it would
    >not be labeled 'oil on paper'.

Wow, I guess because one uses makes an image with a camera, deveops the negative, scans it and "prints" it with a inkjet printer that the final product is not understood to be a photgraph.......

I give up....from now on I am going back to platinum printing. I guess I will be spending a lot of money on allergy pills. I really want to make photographs.

Mike



      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

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]

SKID Photography wrote:

>  Todd Flashner wrote:
>
> >  on 2/8/02 3:55 PM, SKID Photography wrote:
> >
> > > I beg to differ.
> > >
> > > To be academically correct (like from a museum and informative standpoint)
> they
> > > are inkjet prints using 'carbon pigment' (or whatever) inks.
> > >
> > > To use any other term is a marketing ploy.  And that's ok if you recognize
> the
> > > difference. :-)
> >
> > Not sure I agree with that. When I look at photos in museums and galleries I
>
> > see tags like: "Toned Silver Gelatin Print", or "Chromogenic Print". This
> > refers to the materials solely, much as Carbon Pigment inks on Rag Paper
> does.
> >
> > The traditional equivalent of what you propose might be: "Enlarged Toned
> > Silver Gelatin Print", or "Contact Print, Toned Silver Gelatin".
> >
> > The latter are terms one might see in some places, but when they are
> > represented more simply, as in the former instance, which in my experience
> > is most of the time, I've not heard it referred to as a marketing ploy.
> >
> > Todd
>
> I guess the Brooklyn Museum of Art in NYC, who had one of the defining shows
> on
> Digital imagery last summer is wrong.  ;-)
>
> The reason there is no mention of 'photography' or 'enlargement' with a 'toned
>
> silver gelatin print' is that it is understood to be a photograph.  'Oil on
> canvas' or 'Oil on Paper' does not mention the word painting because it's
> understood.  If someone got oil paints to go through an inkjet printer, it
> would
> not be labeled 'oil on paper'.
>
> Say what you like, academically, what we do here are 'inkjet prints' using
> various different inks.  In the marketplace, where 'marketing' comes into
> play,
> all bets are off.
>
> Harvey Ferdschneider
> partner, SKID Photography, NYC

In thinking about this further, another analogy:
'Silver gelatin print', 'Inkjet Print', 'Chromogenic Print', Platinum Print'
etc. describes a process.

'Chlorobromide print' is a material, 'Bromide print' (both types of 'silver
gelatin prints') are adjectives (as is 'Selenium toned').

Carbon Pigment Print is an adjective to Inkjet Print (process).

"Carbon Pigment inks on Rag Paper " could describe many processes...Etching,
gravure, silk screen (serigraphy), stone lithography, photo offset lithography
etc.

The point of the labels is to inform and educate not obfuscate.

Harvey Ferdschneider
partner, SKID Photography




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

I recognize the difference Harvey.

But the term "Inkjet print" does have an inferior connotation to most
ears. Sort of like 90 minute photo versus Custom photography. 

And it doesn't sound nearly as pretentious as "Gicl\ufffde".

Jerry 





SKID Photography wrote:

> 
> Jerry,
> I beg to differ.
> 
> To be academically correct (like from a museum and informative standpoint) they
> are inkjet prints using 'carbon pigment' (or whatever) inks.
> 
> To use any other term is a marketing ploy.  And that's ok if you recognize the
> difference. :-)
> 
> Harvey Ferdschneider
> partner, SKID Photography, NYC
> 
> Jerry Olson wrote:
> 
> >  Why not just call them what they are? Carbon Pigment Prints.
> >
> >
> > antonisphoto wrote:
> > >
> > > Daniel,
> > >
> > > must've  felt nice to discover you couldn't tell a digital black-and-white
> > from a
> > > darkroom print. I had the same experience several times, and at least once
> > in
> > > the Museum of Photographic Arts in San Diego where a few piezoBW prints
> > > were thrown in with wet prints.
> > >
> > > However, we are still in the era of seeking legitimacy for our prints in the
> > world
> > > of collectors, museums and galleries. Inkjet prints - especially if you call
> > them
> > > that and don't use French names for them - don't have the cache of "toned
> > > silver prints". Yet.
> > >
> > > Antonis
> > >
> > > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Daniel Perez <tronicart@y...>
> > wrote:
> > > After a few days, I
> > > > decided to take a very close look at it and realized
> > > > that it was an inkjet print! Ah-ha!  I had this
> > > > wonderful revelation, that, to some extent put me at
> > > > ease.
> >
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> 
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various resources on the homepage.
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

on 2/8/02 9:08 PM, SKID Photography wrote:

> SKID Photography wrote:
> 
>> Todd Flashner wrote:
>> 
>>> on 2/8/02 3:55 PM, SKID Photography wrote:
>>> 
>>>> I beg to differ.
>>>> 
>>>> To be academically correct (like from a museum and informative standpoint)
>> they
>>>> are inkjet prints using 'carbon pigment' (or whatever) inks.
>>>> 
>>>> To use any other term is a marketing ploy.  And that's ok if you recognize
>> the
>>>> difference. :-)
>>> 
>>> Not sure I agree with that. When I look at photos in museums and galleries I
>> 
>>> see tags like: "Toned Silver Gelatin Print", or "Chromogenic Print". This
>>> refers to the materials solely, much as Carbon Pigment inks on Rag Paper
>> does.
>>> 
>>> The traditional equivalent of what you propose might be: "Enlarged Toned
>>> Silver Gelatin Print", or "Contact Print, Toned Silver Gelatin".
>>> 
>>> The latter are terms one might see in some places, but when they are
>>> represented more simply, as in the former instance, which in my experience
>>> is most of the time, I've not heard it referred to as a marketing ploy.
>>> 
>>> Todd
>> 
>> I guess the Brooklyn Museum of Art in NYC, who had one of the defining shows
>> on
>> Digital imagery last summer is wrong.  ;-)
>> 
>> The reason there is no mention of 'photography' or 'enlargement' with a
>> 'toned
>> 
>> silver gelatin print' is that it is understood to be a photograph.  'Oil on
>> canvas' or 'Oil on Paper' does not mention the word painting because it's
>> understood.  If someone got oil paints to go through an inkjet printer, it
>> would
>> not be labeled 'oil on paper'.
>> 
>> Say what you like, academically, what we do here are 'inkjet prints' using
>> various different inks.  In the marketplace, where 'marketing' comes into
>> play,
>> all bets are off.
>> 
>> Harvey Ferdschneider
>> partner, SKID Photography, NYC
> 
> In thinking about this further, another analogy:
> 'Silver gelatin print', 'Inkjet Print', 'Chromogenic Print', Platinum Print'
> etc. describes a process.

Um, no. Those are materials with a process assumed.
 
> 'Chlorobromide print' is a material, 'Bromide print' (both types of 'silver
> gelatin prints') are adjectives (as is 'Selenium toned').

Hmm, well I don't know my particles of grammar so well, but I think
Chlorobromide and Bromide are a sub-set of materials under silver gelatin.
Selenium is primarily a material in this context in that the process of
toning isn't important, it's the "archival" relevance as a material in the
process that is.

> Carbon Pigment Print is an adjective to Inkjet Print (process).

I suppose it falls somewhere between
> 
> "Carbon Pigment inks on Rag Paper " could describe many processes...Etching,
> gravure, silk screen (serigraphy), stone lithography, photo offset lithography
> etc.

It's true, but as mike pointed out, if you put Photograph, Carbon Pigment
Inks on Rag Paper" what is the assumption?

Plus each of THOSE above labels could equally be subcategorized with
materials additionally articulated too, but when they're not it's not
considered to be a marketing ploy. It's just the short hand of convention,
and we've yet to establish convention for our field.
 
> The point of the labels is to inform and educate not obfuscate.

I totally agree, AND I'm not opposed to the inkjet label on my prints. But
that's me.

What I'm taking issue with is the assertion that anything less is a ploy
aimed to deceive (which in some cases it may be).

Look, it works both ways. Which seems more like the marketing ploy, A) 3.5
liter, 345 Horsepower, Turbo charged 6 cylinder engine, AWD, anti-sway bar,
MoonRoof. Or, B) Car.

Todd

> 
> Harvey Ferdschneider
> partner, SKID Photography
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> 
> 
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other
> resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> 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/
> 
>

Exactly when did "Silver Gelatin Print" come into usage and replace
"Black and White Photograph"?  I never heard the term Silver Gelatin
until the 80's.

Jerry

Jerry Olson wrote:

>  Exactly when did "Silver Gelatin Print" come into usage and replace
> "Black and White Photograph"?  I never heard the term Silver Gelatin
> until the 80's.
>
> Jerry
>

Jerry,
How old are you and when did you start going to museums?  ;-)

Harvey Ferdschneider
partner, SKID Photography, NYC





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

Jerry, Todd, everyone,

I guess my point is that we don't get to set the labels, the academics do, those
people are the ones that archive, and write the history.  The reasoning is that
they have no prejudices (like 'this name sounds cool") and just want to be
exacting and informative.

A simple example is Man Ray.  He called those cameraless images that he made
'Rayograms' (or something like that) and the historians label them in museums as
'Photograms'.

Why fight what apparently has been set in place already? (Brooklyn Museum etc.)

Again, call your prints what you will, it is certainly your right as the
creator.  But if one wants to be 'neutral' (without any hype, marketing, or
artistic flourish), what we all make here are 'INKJET PRINTS' using various
different inks on various substrates..

Harvey Ferdschneider
partner, SKID Photography, NYC





>  I recognize the difference Harvey.
>
> But the term "Inkjet print" does have an inferior connotation to most
> ears. Sort of like 90 minute photo versus Custom photography.
>
> And it doesn't sound nearly as pretentious as "Giclée".
>
> Jerry
>
> SKID Photography wrote:
> >
> > Jerry,
> > I beg to differ.
> >
> > To be academically correct (like from a museum and informative standpoint)
> they
> > are inkjet prints using 'carbon pigment' (or whatever) inks.
> >
> > To use any other term is a marketing ploy.  And that's ok if you recognize
> the
> > difference. :-)
> >
> > Harvey Ferdschneider
> > partner, SKID Photography, NYC
> >
> > Jerry Olson wrote:
> >
> > >  Why not just call them what they are? Carbon Pigment Prints.
> > >
> > >
> > > antonisphoto wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Daniel,
> > > >
> > > > must've  felt nice to discover you couldn't tell a digital
> black-and-white
> > > from a
> > > > darkroom print. I had the same experience several times, and at least
> once
> > > in
> > > > the Museum of Photographic Arts in San Diego where a few piezoBW prints
> > > > were thrown in with wet prints.
> > > >
> > > > However, we are still in the era of seeking legitimacy for our prints in
> the
> > > world
> > > > of collectors, museums and galleries. Inkjet prints - especially if you
> call
> > > them
> > > > that and don't use French names for them - don't have the cache of
> "toned
> > > > silver prints". Yet.
> > > >
> > > > Antonis
> > > >
> >





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

In a message dated 2/9/02 1:09:03 PM, skid@... writes:

<< A simple example is Man Ray.  He called those cameraless images that he 
made

'Rayograms' (or something like that) and the historians label them in museums 
as

'Photograms'. >>

Hi Harvey:

I kind of like translating the names they often give prints, such as dye 
destruction print (C-print I think) and in the recent ICP show of Helmut 
Newton's work, there was a new description for what were probably lightjet 
prints, but I can't remember it.

All the best!

-Andrew Darlow

Photography, Digital Print Consulting and Custom Editions
Andrew Darlow Images International, www.andydarlow.com
Author: Inkjet Tip of the Month Club (newsletter) 
To subscribe, send e-mail to: Inkjettips-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

Harvey, I'm ageless.

When I was in California during my Brooks schooling, I went to museums
all the time, in L.A., San Francisco, Santa Barbara of course, etc. When
in High School, I went to museums as often as we went on vacation,
usually Chicago, Minneapolis and Florida.

In North Dakota there's only a couple very small museums, and they don't
have photography exhibits real often. But until the last 20 years or so,
I never heard of Gelatin Silver Prints. First time I heard it I smiled,
and thought it was  just a snobbish way to describe a photograph.

Jerry




SKID Photography wrote:

> 
> Jerry Olson wrote:
> 
> >  Exactly when did "Silver Gelatin Print" come into usage and replace
> > "Black and White Photograph"?  I never heard the term Silver Gelatin
> > until the 80's.
> >
> > Jerry
> >
> 
> Jerry,
> How old are you and when did you start going to museums?  ;-)
> 
> Harvey Ferdschneider
> partner, SKID Photography, NYC
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> 
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> 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/

Ah Yes, New York City. Land of the Museums. I imagine they started
calling them silver gelatin 20 years before it got to North Dakota.
We're usually about 10 years behind the rest of the country for a lot of
things up here.

Jerry



SKID Photography wrote:

> 
> Jerry, Todd, everyone,
> 
> I guess my point is that we don't get to set the labels, the academics do, those
> people are the ones that archive, and write the history.  The reasoning is that
> they have no prejudices (like 'this name sounds cool") and just want to be
> exacting and informative.
> 
> A simple example is Man Ray.  He called those cameraless images that he made
> 'Rayograms' (or something like that) and the historians label them in museums as
> 'Photograms'.
> 
> Why fight what apparently has been set in place already? (Brooklyn Museum etc.)
> 
> Again, call your prints what you will, it is certainly your right as the
> creator.  But if one wants to be 'neutral' (without any hype, marketing, or
> artistic flourish), what we all make here are 'INKJET PRINTS' using various
> different inks on various substrates..
> 
> Harvey Ferdschneider
> partner, SKID Photography, NYC
> 
> >  I recognize the difference Harvey.
> >
> > But the term "Inkjet print" does have an inferior connotation to most
> > ears. Sort of like 90 minute photo versus Custom photography.
> >
> > And it doesn't sound nearly as pretentious as "Gicl\ufffde".
> >
> > Jerry
> >
> > SKID Photography wrote:
> > >
> > > Jerry,
> > > I beg to differ.
> > >
> > > To be academically correct (like from a museum and informative standpoint)
> > they
> > > are inkjet prints using 'carbon pigment' (or whatever) inks.
> > >
> > > To use any other term is a marketing ploy.  And that's ok if you recognize
> > the
> > > difference. :-)
> > >
> > > Harvey Ferdschneider
> > > partner, SKID Photography, NYC
> > >
> > > Jerry Olson wrote:
> > >
> > > >  Why not just call them what they are? Carbon Pigment Prints.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > antonisphoto wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Daniel,
> > > > >
> > > > > must've  felt nice to discover you couldn't tell a digital
> > black-and-white
> > > > from a
> > > > > darkroom print. I had the same experience several times, and at least
> > once
> > > > in
> > > > > the Museum of Photographic Arts in San Diego where a few piezoBW prints
> > > > > were thrown in with wet prints.
> > > > >
> > > > > However, we are still in the era of seeking legitimacy for our prints in
> > the
> > > > world
> > > > > of collectors, museums and galleries. Inkjet prints - especially if you
> > call
> > > > them
> > > > > that and don't use French names for them - don't have the cache of
> > "toned
> > > > > silver prints". Yet.
> > > > >
> > > > > Antonis
> > > > >
> > >
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> 
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> 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/

Jerry,
But you have admit, 'Silver Gelatin Print' *is* descriptive of the type of
photograph, as compared to Platinum, or Palladium, or Bromoil etc.

The point of the labels are to describe and inform, and you must agree that
Silver Gelatin Print is informative...What would you have them call
them.....'pictures'?  ;-D  <vbg>

Harvey Ferdschneider
partner, SKID Photography, NYC



>  Ah Yes, New York City. Land of the Museums. I imagine they started
> calling them silver gelatin 20 years before it got to North Dakota.
> We're usually about 10 years behind the rest of the country for a lot of
> things up here.
>
> Jerry
>
>
>
> SKID Photography wrote:
> >
> > Jerry, Todd, everyone,
> >
> > I guess my point is that we don't get to set the labels, the academics do,
> those
> > people are the ones that archive, and write the history.  The reasoning is
> that
> > they have no prejudices (like 'this name sounds cool") and just want to be
> > exacting and informative.
> >
> > A simple example is Man Ray.  He called those cameraless images that he made
>
> > 'Rayograms' (or something like that) and the historians label them in
> museums as
> > 'Photograms'.
> >
> > Why fight what apparently has been set in place already? (Brooklyn Museum
> etc.)
> >
> > Again, call your prints what you will, it is certainly your right as the
> > creator.  But if one wants to be 'neutral' (without any hype, marketing, or
> > artistic flourish), what we all make here are 'INKJET PRINTS' using various
> > different inks on various substrates..
> >
> > Harvey Ferdschneider
> > partner, SKID Photography, NYC
> >
> > >  I recognize the difference Harvey.
> > >
> > > But the term "Inkjet print" does have an inferior connotation to most
> > > ears. Sort of like 90 minute photo versus Custom photography.
> > >
> > > And it doesn't sound nearly as pretentious as "Giclée".
> > >
> > > Jerry
> > >
> > > SKID Photography wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Jerry,
> > > > I beg to differ.
> > > >
> > > > To be academically correct (like from a museum and informative
> standpoint)
> > > they
> > > > are inkjet prints using 'carbon pigment' (or whatever) inks.
> > > >
> > > > To use any other term is a marketing ploy.  And that's ok if you
> recognize
> > > the
> > > > difference. :-)
> > > >
> > > > Harvey Ferdschneider
> > > > partner, SKID Photography, NYC
> > > >
> > > > Jerry Olson wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >  Why not just call them what they are? Carbon Pigment Prints.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > antonisphoto wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Daniel,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > must've  felt nice to discover you couldn't tell a digital
> > > black-and-white
> > > > > from a
> > > > > > darkroom print. I had the same experience several times, and at
> least
> > > once
> > > > > in
> > > > > > the Museum of Photographic Arts in San Diego where a few piezoBW
> prints
> > > > > > were thrown in with wet prints.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > However, we are still in the era of seeking legitimacy for our
> prints in
> > > the
> > > > > world
> > > > > > of collectors, museums and galleries. Inkjet prints - especially if
> you
> > > call
> > > > > them
> > > > > > that and don't use French names for them - don't have the cache of
> > > "toned
> > > > > > silver prints". Yet.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Antonis
> > > > > >





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

They used to be called Black and White Photographs.

Carbon Pigment is also descriptive of the method used to make the print.

Anyhoo, sounds better than Inkjet print, which most people (non photo
types) think are cheaply made-anyone-can-do-that prints.

Jerry




SKID Photography wrote:

> 
> Jerry,
> But you have admit, 'Silver Gelatin Print' *is* descriptive of the type of
> photograph, as compared to Platinum, or Palladium, or Bromoil etc.
> 
> The point of the labels are to describe and inform, and you must agree that
> Silver Gelatin Print is informative...What would you have them call
> them.....'pictures'?  ;-D  <vbg>
> 
> Harvey Ferdschneider
> partner, SKID Photography, NYC
> 
> >  Ah Yes, New York City. Land of the Museums. I imagine they started
> > calling them silver gelatin 20 years before it got to North Dakota.
> > We're usually about 10 years behind the rest of the country for a lot of
> > things up here.
> >
> > Jerry
> >
> >
> >
> > SKID Photography wrote:
> > >
> > > Jerry, Todd, everyone,
> > >
> > > I guess my point is that we don't get to set the labels, the academics do,
> > those
> > > people are the ones that archive, and write the history.  The reasoning is
> > that
> > > they have no prejudices (like 'this name sounds cool") and just want to be
> > > exacting and informative.
> > >
> > > A simple example is Man Ray.  He called those cameraless images that he made
> >
> > > 'Rayograms' (or something like that) and the historians label them in
> > museums as
> > > 'Photograms'.
> > >
> > > Why fight what apparently has been set in place already? (Brooklyn Museum
> > etc.)
> > >
> > > Again, call your prints what you will, it is certainly your right as the
> > > creator.  But if one wants to be 'neutral' (without any hype, marketing, or
> > > artistic flourish), what we all make here are 'INKJET PRINTS' using various
> > > different inks on various substrates..
> > >
> > > Harvey Ferdschneider
> > > partner, SKID Photography, NYC
> > >
> > > >  I recognize the difference Harvey.
> > > >
> > > > But the term "Inkjet print" does have an inferior connotation to most
> > > > ears. Sort of like 90 minute photo versus Custom photography.
> > > >
> > > > And it doesn't sound nearly as pretentious as "Gicl\ufffde".
> > > >
> > > > Jerry
> > > >
> > > > SKID Photography wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Jerry,
> > > > > I beg to differ.
> > > > >
> > > > > To be academically correct (like from a museum and informative
> > standpoint)
> > > > they
> > > > > are inkjet prints using 'carbon pigment' (or whatever) inks.
> > > > >
> > > > > To use any other term is a marketing ploy.  And that's ok if you
> > recognize
> > > > the
> > > > > difference. :-)
> > > > >
> > > > > Harvey Ferdschneider
> > > > > partner, SKID Photography, NYC
> > > > >
> > > > > Jerry Olson wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >  Why not just call them what they are? Carbon Pigment Prints.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > antonisphoto wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Daniel,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > must've  felt nice to discover you couldn't tell a digital
> > > > black-and-white
> > > > > > from a
> > > > > > > darkroom print. I had the same experience several times, and at
> > least
> > > > once
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > the Museum of Photographic Arts in San Diego where a few piezoBW
> > prints
> > > > > > > were thrown in with wet prints.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > However, we are still in the era of seeking legitimacy for our
> > prints in
> > > > the
> > > > > > world
> > > > > > > of collectors, museums and galleries. Inkjet prints - especially if
> > you
> > > > call
> > > > > > them
> > > > > > > that and don't use French names for them - don't have the cache of
> > > > "toned
> > > > > > > silver prints". Yet.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Antonis
> > > > > > >
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> 
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> 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/

At 11:35 AM 2/9/2002 -0600, you wrote:
>Exactly when did "Silver Gelatin Print" come into usage and replace
>"Black and White Photograph"?  I never heard the term Silver Gelatin
>until the 80's.
>
>Jerry
>
Jerry,

The exhibition curators make their labels based on whatever the archivists
say it is made of.  
Museum archivists need to keep accurate track of the materials in each piece.  
I think as an art photo print maker I would not use generic or trade names
but names that describe the materials. Carbon-based pigment ink print on rag
paper should be adequate. In that regard I have been told that museums
collect on the basis of artistic merits rather than archival qualities. They
take each piece as it comes and conserve it as required.  Ever wonder why
you need to bring your own flashlight when you go in some museum galleries?
I cringe when I think of all those cyan C-prints.

"Gheeeklaaaay" is an abomination and should be expurged from everywhere
except the likes of Thomas Kincade galleries.
 
AZ


Maker of Lookaround panoramic camera.

www.geocities.com/soho/gallery/8874/
         or
keyword.com lookaround

Jerry,
Carbon Pigment prints could also be a 'carbon print'.  I don't know if you ever
heard of these.  I believe they are somewhat akin to a 'carbo' print,.  Which is
to say a type of transfer process using carbon pigment inks are the emulsion.
Quite beautiful, very stable, and *very* difficult to make.

But you can see how calling an inkjet print made with carbon pigment inks could
be confused actual 'carbon' prints with your proposed labeling system.

And again, calling something a black & white photograph does nt inform.  I can
think of at least 5 different methods of making a black & white photo (including
inkjet technology), and all of them require different methods to achieve and
archive.

Again, inform and educate, not generalize and obfuscate.

And as far as your feeling that 'inkjet' sounds cheap and easy cheap, so is
'photograph'...Go to any 1 hour lab or drugstore.  In my opinion, *that* is no
excuse.

Harvey Ferdschneider
partner, SKID Photography, NYC





>  They used to be called Black and White Photographs.
>
> Carbon Pigment is also descriptive of the method used to make the print.
>
> Anyhoo, sounds better than Inkjet print, which most people (non photo
> types) think are cheaply made-anyone-can-do-that prints.
>
> Jerry
>
>
>
>
> SKID Photography wrote:
> >
> > Jerry,
> > But you have admit, 'Silver Gelatin Print' *is* descriptive of the type of
> > photograph, as compared to Platinum, or Palladium, or Bromoil etc.
> >
> > The point of the labels are to describe and inform, and you must agree that
> > Silver Gelatin Print is informative...What would you have them call
> > them.....'pictures'?  ;-D  <vbg>
> >
> > Harvey Ferdschneider
> > partner, SKID Photography, NYC
> >
> > >  Ah Yes, New York City. Land of the Museums. I imagine they started
> > > calling them silver gelatin 20 years before it got to North Dakota.
> > > We're usually about 10 years behind the rest of the country for a lot of
> > > things up here.
> > >
> > > Jerry
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > SKID Photography wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Jerry, Todd, everyone,
> > > >
> > > > I guess my point is that we don't get to set the labels, the academics
> do,
> > > those
> > > > people are the ones that archive, and write the history.  The reasoning
> is
> > > that
> > > > they have no prejudices (like 'this name sounds cool") and just want to
> be
> > > > exacting and informative.
> > > >
> > > > A simple example is Man Ray.  He called those cameraless images that he
> made
> > >
> > > > 'Rayograms' (or something like that) and the historians label them in
> > > museums as
> > > > 'Photograms'.
> > > >
> > > > Why fight what apparently has been set in place already? (Brooklyn
> Museum
> > > etc.)
> > > >
> > > > Again, call your prints what you will, it is certainly your right as the
>
> > > > creator.  But if one wants to be 'neutral' (without any hype, marketing,
> or
> > > > artistic flourish), what we all make here are 'INKJET PRINTS' using
> various
> > > > different inks on various substrates..
> > > >
> > > > Harvey Ferdschneider
> > > > partner, SKID Photography, NYC
> > > >
> > > > >  I recognize the difference Harvey.
> > > > >
> > > > > But the term "Inkjet print" does have an inferior connotation to most
> > > > > ears. Sort of like 90 minute photo versus Custom photography.
> > > > >
> > > > > And it doesn't sound nearly as pretentious as "Giclée".
> > > > >
> > > > > Jerry
> > > > >
> > > > > SKID Photography wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Jerry,
> > > > > > I beg to differ.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > To be academically correct (like from a museum and informative
> > > standpoint)
> > > > > they
> > > > > > are inkjet prints using 'carbon pigment' (or whatever) inks.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > To use any other term is a marketing ploy.  And that's ok if you
> > > recognize
> > > > > the
> > > > > > difference. :-)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Harvey Ferdschneider
> > > > > > partner, SKID Photography, NYC
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Jerry Olson wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >  Why not just call them what they are? Carbon Pigment Prints.
> > > > > > >
>





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

In response to Jerry's early post..  I referred to
the print in my original post as "inkjet" because that
was all I could gather from it.  I couldn't tell if
the inks were carbon or dye, nor could I tell if the
paper was rag or fiber(it was matte, though).  Nor was
it labeled as such.  
  So, I just called it an inkjet print, which
*without* labeling, is the only thing you could safely
call any of our prints. (better hope they don't loose
your labels;)
  And I know Gicl\ufffde sounds a bit pretentious, but why
the high level of animosity towards this word?  Never
quite understood the reasoning.

  -Daniel Perez
   Dallas, TX


--- Jerry Olson <jerryolson@...> wrote:
> Why not just call them what they are? Carbon Pigment
> Prints.
> 
>
> antonisphoto wrote:
> > 
> > Daniel,
> > 
> > must've  felt nice to discover you couldn't tell a
> digital black-and-white from a
> > darkroom print. I had the same experience several
> times, and at least once in
> > the Museum of Photographic Arts in San Diego where
> a few piezoBW prints
> > were thrown in with wet prints.
> > 
> > However, we are still in the era of seeking
> legitimacy for our prints in the world
> > of collectors, museums and galleries. Inkjet
> prints - especially if you call them
> > that and don't use French names for them - don't
> have the cache of "toned
> > silver prints". Yet.
> > 
> > Antonis
> > 
> > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Daniel
> Perez <tronicart@y...> wrote:
> > After a few days, I
> > > decided to take a very close look at it and
> realized
> > > that it was an inkjet print! Ah-ha!  I had this
> > > wonderful revelation, that, to some extent put
> me at
> > > ease.
> > 
> > 

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send FREE Valentine eCards with Yahoo! Greetings!
http://greetings.yahoo.com

Daniel ,
The derision for the name 'Gicl\ufffde' comes for a couple of reasons.  The literal translation of the word 'Gicl\ufffde' is something like
'ejaculate.  'Gicl\ufffde' has been 'copyrighted' by a business group, like 'Kleenex' and finally it is totally pretentious, like we are ashamed
of what we produce, so we need to have a different name to hide what we do.

And by the way:  'Inkjet' *is* the proper term, despite others' insecurities about the 'label'.

Harvey Ferdschneider
partner, SKID Photography, NYC

>   In response to Jerry's early post..  I referred to
> the print in my original post as "inkjet" because that
> was all I could gather from it.  I couldn't tell if
> the inks were carbon or dye, nor could I tell if the
> paper was rag or fiber(it was matte, though).  Nor was
> it labeled as such.
>   So, I just called it an inkjet print, which
> *without* labeling, is the only thing you could safely
> call any of our prints. (better hope they don't loose
> your labels;)
>   And I know Gicl\ufffde sounds a bit pretentious, but why
> the high level of animosity towards this word?  Never
> quite understood the reasoning.
>
>   -Daniel Perez
>    Dallas, TX
>
> --- Jerry Olson <jerryolson@...> wrote:
> > Why not just call them what they are? Carbon Pigment
> > Prints.
> >
> >
> > antonisphoto wrote:
> > >
> > > Daniel,
> > >
> > > must've  felt nice to discover you couldn't tell a
> > digital black-and-white from a
> > > darkroom print. I had the same experience several
> > times, and at least once in
> > > the Museum of Photographic Arts in San Diego where
> > a few piezoBW prints
> > > were thrown in with wet prints.
> > >
> > > However, we are still in the era of seeking
> > legitimacy for our prints in the world
> > > of collectors, museums and galleries. Inkjet
> > prints - especially if you call them
> > > that and don't use French names for them - don't
> > have the cache of "toned
> > > silver prints". Yet.
> > >
> > > Antonis
> > >
> > > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Daniel
> > Perez <tronicart@y...> wrote:
> > > After a few days, I
> > > > decided to take a very close look at it and
> > realized
> > > > that it was an inkjet print! Ah-ha!  I had this
> > > > wonderful revelation, that, to some extent put
> > me at
> > > > ease.
> > >
> > >

> 
> The word giclee is french slang that has a scatological connotation (to real
> French people) and can mean ,like it's english equiv,. to whiz, piss, etc.
> 

Alan,


Actually, at least in the south of France, that¹s not exactly how they use
the word.  It's really a slang for ejaculate.  I had a very funny discussion
with a gallery owner on my last trip there about that very word.  We laughed
so hard about how it looks and sounds to the French when the see it used to
describe a printing technique that we were in tears.

Lawrence



------------------------------
Lawrence W. Smith Photography
http://www.lwsphoto.com
lsmith@...
------------------------------

>  We laughed
>so hard about how it looks and sounds to the French when the see it used to
>describe a printing technique that we were in tears.

And to the Scandinavian ear the word piezography sounds like "pis og 
grafik" literally translates to "piss and graphic" or "graphic piss". 
To balance things, MIS is Danish for pussy, as in cat but lets not 
get into the slang on that one! Then there is a common Danish saying 
"  Han var der som en mis " translates to, He came like a shot.

Perhaps we should settle for something indelible and simple like ink 
jet print, carbon or dye.

Jerry.

I still do not like the name Inkjet print, nor Gicl\ufffde. What other
choices are there that don't sound pretentious, or cheap? :)

Jerry



SKID Photography wrote:

> 
> Jerry,
> Carbon Pigment prints could also be a 'carbon print'.  I don't know if you ever
> heard of these.  I believe they are somewhat akin to a 'carbo' print,.  Which is
> to say a type of transfer process using carbon pigment inks are the emulsion.
> Quite beautiful, very stable, and *very* difficult to make.
> 
> But you can see how calling an inkjet print made with carbon pigment inks could
> be confused actual 'carbon' prints with your proposed labeling system.
> 
> And again, calling something a black & white photograph does nt inform.  I can
> think of at least 5 different methods of making a black & white photo (including
> inkjet technology), and all of them require different methods to achieve and
> archive.
> 
> Again, inform and educate, not generalize and obfuscate.
> 
> And as far as your feeling that 'inkjet' sounds cheap and easy cheap, so is
> 'photograph'...Go to any 1 hour lab or drugstore.  In my opinion, *that* is no
> excuse.
> 
> Harvey Ferdschneider
> partner, SKID Photography, NYC
> 
> >  They used to be called Black and White Photographs.
> >
> > Carbon Pigment is also descriptive of the method used to make the print.
> >
> > Anyhoo, sounds better than Inkjet print, which most people (non photo
> > types) think are cheaply made-anyone-can-do-that prints.
> >
> > Jerry
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > SKID Photography wrote:
> > >
> > > Jerry,
> > > But you have admit, 'Silver Gelatin Print' *is* descriptive of the type of
> > > photograph, as compared to Platinum, or Palladium, or Bromoil etc.
> > >
> > > The point of the labels are to describe and inform, and you must agree that
> > > Silver Gelatin Print is informative...What would you have them call
> > > them.....'pictures'?  ;-D  <vbg>
> > >
> > > Harvey Ferdschneider
> > > partner, SKID Photography, NYC
> > >
> > > >  Ah Yes, New York City. Land of the Museums. I imagine they started
> > > > calling them silver gelatin 20 years before it got to North Dakota.
> > > > We're usually about 10 years behind the rest of the country for a lot of
> > > > things up here.
> > > >
> > > > Jerry
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > SKID Photography wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Jerry, Todd, everyone,
> > > > >
> > > > > I guess my point is that we don't get to set the labels, the academics
> > do,
> > > > those
> > > > > people are the ones that archive, and write the history.  The reasoning
> > is
> > > > that
> > > > > they have no prejudices (like 'this name sounds cool") and just want to
> > be
> > > > > exacting and informative.
> > > > >
> > > > > A simple example is Man Ray.  He called those cameraless images that he
> > made
> > > >
> > > > > 'Rayograms' (or something like that) and the historians label them in
> > > > museums as
> > > > > 'Photograms'.
> > > > >
> > > > > Why fight what apparently has been set in place already? (Brooklyn
> > Museum
> > > > etc.)
> > > > >
> > > > > Again, call your prints what you will, it is certainly your right as the
> >
> > > > > creator.  But if one wants to be 'neutral' (without any hype, marketing,
> > or
> > > > > artistic flourish), what we all make here are 'INKJET PRINTS' using
> > various
> > > > > different inks on various substrates..
> > > > >
> > > > > Harvey Ferdschneider
> > > > > partner, SKID Photography, NYC
> > > > >
> > > > > >  I recognize the difference Harvey.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > But the term "Inkjet print" does have an inferior connotation to most
> > > > > > ears. Sort of like 90 minute photo versus Custom photography.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And it doesn't sound nearly as pretentious as "Gicl\ufffde".
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Jerry
> > > > > >
> > > > > > SKID Photography wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Jerry,
> > > > > > > I beg to differ.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > To be academically correct (like from a museum and informative
> > > > standpoint)
> > > > > > they
> > > > > > > are inkjet prints using 'carbon pigment' (or whatever) inks.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > To use any other term is a marketing ploy.  And that's ok if you
> > > > recognize
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > difference. :-)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Harvey Ferdschneider
> > > > > > > partner, SKID Photography, NYC
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Jerry Olson wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >  Why not just call them what they are? Carbon Pigment Prints.
> > > > > > > >
> >
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> 
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> 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/

Daniel, Gicl\ufffde means ejaculate in french slang. That's why most don't
use it.

Jerry


Daniel Perez wrote:

> 
>   In response to Jerry's early post..  I referred to
> the print in my original post as "inkjet" because that
> was all I could gather from it.  I couldn't tell if
> the inks were carbon or dye, nor could I tell if the
> paper was rag or fiber(it was matte, though).  Nor was
> it labeled as such.
>   So, I just called it an inkjet print, which
> *without* labeling, is the only thing you could safely
> call any of our prints. (better hope they don't loose
> your labels;)
>   And I know Gicl\ufffde sounds a bit pretentious, but why
> the high level of animosity towards this word?  Never
> quite understood the reasoning.
> 
>   -Daniel Perez
>    Dallas, TX
> 
> --- Jerry Olson <jerryolson@...> wrote:
> > Why not just call them what they are? Carbon Pigment
> > Prints.
> >
> >
> > antonisphoto wrote:
> > >
> > > Daniel,
> > >
> > > must've  felt nice to discover you couldn't tell a
> > digital black-and-white from a
> > > darkroom print. I had the same experience several
> > times, and at least once in
> > > the Museum of Photographic Arts in San Diego where
> > a few piezoBW prints
> > > were thrown in with wet prints.
> > >
> > > However, we are still in the era of seeking
> > legitimacy for our prints in the world
> > > of collectors, museums and galleries. Inkjet
> > prints - especially if you call them
> > > that and don't use French names for them - don't
> > have the cache of "toned
> > > silver prints". Yet.
> > >
> > > Antonis
> > >
> > > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Daniel
> > Perez <tronicart@y...> wrote:
> > > After a few days, I
> > > > decided to take a very close look at it and
> > realized
> > > > that it was an inkjet print! Ah-ha!  I had this
> > > > wonderful revelation, that, to some extent put
> > me at
> > > > ease.
> > >
> > >
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Send FREE Valentine eCards with Yahoo! Greetings!
> http://greetings.yahoo.com
> 
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> 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/

At 01:45 PM 2/10/2002 -0800, you wrote:
>  In response to Jerry's early post..  I referred to
>the print in my original post as "inkjet" because that
>was all I could gather from it.  I couldn't tell if
>the inks were carbon or dye, nor could I tell if the
>paper was rag or fiber(it was matte, though).  Nor was
>it labeled as such.  
>  So, I just called it an inkjet print, which
>*without* labeling, is the only thing you could safely
>call any of our prints. (better hope they don't loose
>your labels;)
>  And I know Giclée sounds a bit pretentious, but why
>the high level of animosity towards this word?  Never
>quite understood the reasoning.
>
>  -Daniel Perez
>   Dallas, TX
>

Daniel,

The word giclee is french slang that has a scatological connotation (to real
French people) and can mean ,like it's english equiv,. to whiz, piss, etc.
Worse, it is a pitiful, self-conscious attempt at frenchifying something to
make it seem more cultured. The thinking must have been that it is a word
that would appeal to those prissy-pants gallery types - give the
vulgar-sounding vernacular a boost in class.  Before this "special" word was
invented galley sales people could only wave their hands and refer to some
mysterious new process that they couldn't really explain without uttering
the words "digital" or "ink-jet".

AZ


Maker of Lookaround panoramic camera.

www.geocities.com/soho/gallery/8874/
         or
keyword.com lookaround

>I still do not like the name Inkjet print, nor Giclée. What other
>choices are there that don't sound pretentious, or cheap? :)
>
>Jerry


Just to show that I can be serious about ink jet printing, your 
question and more are kind of addressed in a discussion at the 
Brooklyn Museum of Art.  You can download it in PDF at:

         http://www.artonpaper.com/roundtable/round.html

It creates more questions than answers, but its an interesting read.

Jerry

---FRON NOW ON I INTEND TO CALL MY PRINTS "CARBON EJACULATE PRINTS" 
NOW THAT SHOULD BE A CONVERSATION STARTER. LPIRRONE

 In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Alan Zinn <AZinn@n...> wrote:
> At 09:02 AM 2/11/2002 -0500, you wrote:
> >
> >> 
> >> The word giclee is french slang that has a scatological 
connotation (to real
> >> French people) and can mean ,like it's english equiv,. to whiz, 
piss, etc.
> >> 
> >
> >Alan,
> >
> >
> >Actually, at least in the south of France, that¹s not exactly how 
they use
> >the word.  It's really a slang for ejaculate.  I had a very funny 
discussion
> >with a gallery owner on my last trip there about that very word.  
We laughed
> >so hard about how it looks and sounds to the French when the see 
it used to
> >describe a printing technique that we were in tears.
> >
> >Lawrence
> 
> Lawrence,
> 
> What a hoot!  A couple of list-members from France on other lists 
I'm on

> have commented about it too.
> 
> AZ
> 
> Maker of Lookaround panoramic camera.
> 
> www.geocities.com/soho/gallery/8874/
>          or
> keyword.com lookaround

At 09:02 AM 2/11/2002 -0500, you wrote:
>
>> 
>> The word giclee is french slang that has a scatological connotation (to real
>> French people) and can mean ,like it's english equiv,. to whiz, piss, etc.
>> 
>
>Alan,
>
>
>Actually, at least in the south of France, that¹s not exactly how they use
>the word.  It's really a slang for ejaculate.  I had a very funny discussion
>with a gallery owner on my last trip there about that very word.  We laughed
>so hard about how it looks and sounds to the French when the see it used to
>describe a printing technique that we were in tears.
>
>Lawrence

Lawrence,

What a hoot!  A couple of list-members from France on other lists I'm on
have commented about it too.

AZ

Maker of Lookaround panoramic camera.

www.geocities.com/soho/gallery/8874/
         or
keyword.com lookaround

AZ,

> At 11:35 AM 2/9/2002 -0600, you wrote:
>In that regard I have been told that museums
> collect on the basis of artistic merits rather than archival qualities.
They
> take each piece as it comes and conserve it as required.

My good friend and photographer Tomas Lopez at the University of Miami has
just had a series of 20 44"x44" prints purchased by a Museum in France. The
prints were made on an Epson 9000, MIS double density black inks, and Hawk
Mountain Condor. The series entitled "The faces of Aids" was also just
recently shown at the Lowe Art Museum in Miami.

The process was secondary to the art of the series.

Mike

FYI\ufffdRest assured that the word \ufffdgiclee\ufffd is very proper
to use. 
Here is what it means according to the Hachette
Dictionary: \ufffdgicl\ufffde n. f. Jet de liquide qui gicle.
Une gicl\ufffde de sang.  
And here is how it is translated by the Harrap\ufffds :
1-spirt, squirt (of water, blood); burst (of
machine-gun fire)  2- spray (of petrol into
carburetor).
It is not a \ufffdslang\ufffd word even though it can be used as
such by extension (e.g. une giclee de sperm) and from
my knowledge of the French language, it is quite an
appropriate definition of a part of the process of the
Iris printing technology. 
And btw I am really French lol ! 
Benoit

--- Alan Zinn <AZinn@...> wrote:
> At 01:45 PM 2/10/2002 -0800, you wrote:
> >  In response to Jerry's early post..  I referred
> to
> >the print in my original post as "inkjet" because
> that
> >was all I could gather from it.  I couldn't tell if
> >the inks were carbon or dye, nor could I tell if
> the
> >paper was rag or fiber(it was matte, though).  Nor
> was
> >it labeled as such.  
> >  So, I just called it an inkjet print, which
> >*without* labeling, is the only thing you could
> safely
> >call any of our prints. (better hope they don't
> loose
> >your labels;)
> >  And I know Gicl\ufffde sounds a bit pretentious, but
> why
> >the high level of animosity towards this word? 
> Never
> >quite understood the reasoning.
> >
> >  -Daniel Perez
> >   Dallas, TX
> >
> 
> Daniel,
> 
> The word giclee is french slang that has a
> scatological connotation (to real
> French people) and can mean ,like it's english
> equiv,. to whiz, piss, etc.
> Worse, it is a pitiful, self-conscious attempt at
> frenchifying something to
> make it seem more cultured. The thinking must have
> been that it is a word
> that would appeal to those prissy-pants gallery
> types - give the
> vulgar-sounding vernacular a boost in class.  Before
> this "special" word was
> invented galley sales people could only wave their
> hands and refer to some
> mysterious new process that they couldn't really
> explain without uttering
> the words "digital" or "ink-jet".
> 
> AZ
> 
> 
> Maker of Lookaround panoramic camera.
> 
> www.geocities.com/soho/gallery/8874/
>          or
> keyword.com lookaround
> 
> 
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files,
> Bookmarks, Polls and other resources as they are
> often being updated. The page is at:
> 
>
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> 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/ 
> 
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send FREE Valentine eCards with Yahoo! Greetings!
http://greetings.yahoo.com

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Benoit <benoitml@y...> wrote:

> And btw I am really French ! 


...but, alas, the accent doesn't come through in written English. 
So, you have to prove it!....


Antonis

Is there the same size limit on the larger Epson printers as there is on the 
smaller ones then?

Or was the 44" a coincidence?

On Tuesday 12 Feb 2002 3:04 am, Michael Kravit wrote:
> 44"x44"

Ask a french student at a university what he thinks of when he hears the
word, and let me know what he says. The SLANG means ejaculate!

Jerry



Benoit wrote:

> 
> FYI\ufffdRest assured that the word \ufffdgiclee\ufffd is very proper
> to use.
> Here is what it means according to the Hachette
> Dictionary: \ufffdgicl\ufffde n. f. Jet de liquide qui gicle.
> Une gicl\ufffde de sang.
> And here is how it is translated by the Harrap\ufffds :
> 1-spirt, squirt (of water, blood); burst (of
> machine-gun fire)  2- spray (of petrol into
> carburetor).
> It is not a \ufffdslang\ufffd word even though it can be used as
> such by extension (e.g. une giclee de sperm) and from
> my knowledge of the French language, it is quite an
> appropriate definition of a part of the process of the
> Iris printing technology.
> And btw I am really French lol !
> Benoit
> 
> --- Alan Zinn <AZinn@...> wrote:
> > At 01:45 PM 2/10/2002 -0800, you wrote:
> > >  In response to Jerry's early post..  I referred
> > to
> > >the print in my original post as "inkjet" because
> > that
> > >was all I could gather from it.  I couldn't tell if
> > >the inks were carbon or dye, nor could I tell if
> > the
> > >paper was rag or fiber(it was matte, though).  Nor
> > was
> > >it labeled as such.
> > >  So, I just called it an inkjet print, which
> > >*without* labeling, is the only thing you could
> > safely
> > >call any of our prints. (better hope they don't
> > loose
> > >your labels;)
> > >  And I know Gicl\ufffde sounds a bit pretentious, but
> > why
> > >the high level of animosity towards this word?
> > Never
> > >quite understood the reasoning.
> > >
> > >  -Daniel Perez
> > >   Dallas, TX
> > >
> >
> > Daniel,
> >
> > The word giclee is french slang that has a
> > scatological connotation (to real
> > French people) and can mean ,like it's english
> > equiv,. to whiz, piss, etc.
> > Worse, it is a pitiful, self-conscious attempt at
> > frenchifying something to
> > make it seem more cultured. The thinking must have
> > been that it is a word
> > that would appeal to those prissy-pants gallery
> > types - give the
> > vulgar-sounding vernacular a boost in class.  Before
> > this "special" word was
> > invented galley sales people could only wave their
> > hands and refer to some
> > mysterious new process that they couldn't really
> > explain without uttering
> > the words "digital" or "ink-jet".
> >
> > AZ
> >
> >
> > Maker of Lookaround panoramic camera.
> >
> > www.geocities.com/soho/gallery/8874/
> >          or
> > keyword.com lookaround
> >
> >
> > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> >
> > Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files,
> > Bookmarks, Polls and other resources as they are
> > often being updated. The page is at:
> >
> >
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> >
> > 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/
> >
> >
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Send FREE Valentine eCards with Yahoo! Greetings!
> http://greetings.yahoo.com
> 
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> 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/

<jerryolson@r...> wrote:
> Ask a french student at a university what he thinks of when he 
hears the
> word, and let me know what he says. The SLANG means ejaculate!
> 
> Jerry

Hi Jerry,

So now French students decide the validity of word usage now, not the 
dictionary! Students always have too much to say ( usually with no 
valid content ) that's their job.

Now when they get money and start to buy prints... that's a different 
thing altogether.

Dave H.

davidhatton2000 wrote:

>  <jerryolson@r...> wrote:
> > Ask a french student at a university what he thinks of when he
> hears the word, and let me know what he says. The SLANG means ejaculate!
> >
> > Jerry
>
> Hi Jerry,
>
> So now French students decide the validity of word usage now, not the
> dictionary! Students always have too much to say ( usually with no
> valid content ) that's their job.
>
> Now when they get money and start to buy prints... that's a different
> thing altogether.
>
> Dave H.

Yeah, and I really *want* to call my prints some word that lots of people
consider rude.

It's *so* much better than using the actual descriptive term 'inkjet print'
that's cheap and tawdry (according to some).

Who kidding whom here?

Harvey Ferdschneider
partner, SKID Photography, NYC


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

If I remember in High School and college, students were always making up words, many which are in common use today!


Jerry

SKID Photography wrote:

> davidhatton2000 wrote:
>
> >  <jerryolson@r...> wrote:
> > > Ask a french student at a university what he thinks of when he
> > hears the word, and let me know what he says. The SLANG means ejaculate!
> > >
> > > Jerry
> >
> > Hi Jerry,
> >
> > So now French students decide the validity of word usage now, not the
> > dictionary! Students always have too much to say ( usually with no
> > valid content ) that's their job.
> >
> > Now when they get money and start to buy prints... that's a different
> > thing altogether.
> >
> > Dave H.
>
> Yeah, and I really *want* to call my prints some word that lots of people
> consider rude.
>
> It's *so* much better than using the actual descriptive term 'inkjet print'
> that's cheap and tawdry (according to some).
>
> Who kidding whom here?
>
> Harvey Ferdschneider
> partner, SKID Photography, NYC
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> 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'm curious, how do you feel about inkjet prints that
come our of an Iris printer?  They call them "Iris
prints" with pride.  It's a name brand that has come
to also describe the print itself!  (do you know
anyone who makes iris prints and just calls them
"inkjet prints"?)
 In that case we could call our prints "Epson prints!"
Ha.. except for the fact that everyone and their mom
has an Epson.
 Remember when a xerox was something that came out of
a Xerox machine?

  Daniel


--- SKID Photography <skid@...> wrote:
> It's *so* much better than using the actual
> descriptive term 'inkjet print'
> that's cheap and tawdry (according to some).
> 
> Who kidding whom here?
> 
> Harvey Ferdschneider
> partner, SKID Photography, NYC
> 
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send FREE Valentine eCards with Yahoo! Greetings!
http://greetings.yahoo.com

Daniel.
In my opinion, Iris prints should also be called 'inkjet' as well, and it was
only because Iris was first, way before there was a 'category' to put them into,
that they got their own classification..

Harvey Ferdschneider
partner, SKID Photography, NYC

Daniel Perez wrote:

>  I'm curious, how do you feel about inkjet prints that
> come our of an Iris printer?  They call them "Iris
> prints" with pride.  It's a name brand that has come
> to also describe the print itself!  (do you know
> anyone who makes iris prints and just calls them
> "inkjet prints"?)
> In that case we could call our prints "Epson prints!"
> Ha.. except for the fact that everyone and their mom
> has an Epson.
> Remember when a xerox was something that came out of
> a Xerox machine?
>
>   Daniel
>
>
> --- SKID Photography <skid@...> wrote:
> > It's *so* much better than using the actual
> > descriptive term 'inkjet print'
> > that's cheap and tawdry (according to some).
> >
> > Who kidding whom here?
> >
> > Harvey Ferdschneider
> > partner, SKID Photography, NYC
>





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

Hi,

I don't know how many prints you sell in France but, hey, if it 
really offends you...

> Yeah, and I really *want* to call my prints some word that lots of 
people
> consider rude.

But it isn't
 
> It's *so* much better than using the actual descriptive 
term 'inkjet print'

No it's not

> that's cheap and tawdry (according to some).
> 
That's true ( according to some ) but doesn't that ('cheap and 
tawdry') mean the same as 'rude'?


> Who kidding whom here?

I don't think anyone is kidding anyone

The point I am making is that you call your artwork what you care to, 
regardless of the opinion of others or their mis-use of language. The 
fact is that this method (whatever you wish to call it) of producing 
artwork is relatively new and squabbles inside the media are bound to 
occurr. It's healthy and produces ideas and growth.

If we need to coin a phrase to legitamise the process we have chosen, 
it may as well be one which will enable the reactionary art world to 
hang work with a light heart. After all it's the work that is the 
important thing here, not the process.

Let's stop being pedantic about process and get on with producing 
breathtaking images which would be valid regardless.

David H

Hi,

I use a small IRIS 3024 for my colour work and I call my 
prints 'IRIS' prints.

 Although at one level the IRIS machine is an inkjet printer, there 
is obviously more to it than that (hence the price tag). This is the 
problem with using the generic term 'inkjet print'. 

To compare an IRIS print with almost any other is akin to the chalk 
and cheese analogy, and further, to call an IRIS print an injet print 
is blasphemy. IRIS printers produce nothing less than beautiful 
images and work on an entirely different technology level to 
a 'normal' inkjet printer.

IRIS technology is unique, difficult to operate and very very 
expensive to run. On top of all that, IRIS rpints sell.

Regards,

David H

Hi,

<jerryolson@r...> wrote:
> If I remember in High School and college, students were always 
making up words, many which are in common use today!

I can't really answer that except to say - and that means...?


;?)

David H

davidhatton2000 wrote:

>  Hi,
>
> I don't know how many prints you sell in France but, hey, if it
> really offends you...
>
> > Yeah, and I really *want* to call my prints some word that lots of people
> > consider rude.
>
> But it isn't
>
> > It's *so* much better than using the actual descriptive term 'inkjet print'
>
> No it's not
>
> > that's cheap and tawdry (according to some).
> >
> That's true ( according to some ) but doesn't that ('cheap and
> tawdry') mean the same as 'rude'?
>
>
> > Who kidding whom here?
>
> I don't think anyone is kidding anyone
>
> The point I am making is that you call your artwork what you care to,
> regardless of the opinion of others or their mis-use of language. The
> fact is that this method (whatever you wish to call it) of producing
> artwork is relatively new and squabbles inside the media are bound to
> occurr. It's healthy and produces ideas and growth.
>
> If we need to coin a phrase to legitamise the process we have chosen,
> it may as well be one which will enable the reactionary art world to
> hang work with a light heart. After all it's the work that is the
> important thing here, not the process.
>
> Let's stop being pedantic about process and get on with producing
> breathtaking images which would be valid regardless.
>
> David H

David,
Perhaps you missed my point here.  What I was trying to get to was that what we
make here are 'inkjet prints'.  That's what the museums call them.  We might
wish to market them under some fancy name, but they will still just be 'inkjet
prints'.

There will always be good inkjet prints and bad ones out there.  There will be
cheap ones and expensive one. But is still does not change what these prints
are:  Inkjet prints.

Why use some fancy French word when, what we make are: Inkjet prints.

Do you see what I'm getting at?  We make inkjet prints, using machines that take
inks, propel them through a 'jet', and put ink on a substrate, usually paper,
but not always.

Since the words inkjet prints the most simple description of the process, it is
used by academic institutions as the 'label of choice'.  These 2 words, 'inkjet
print' can be modified with one or more adjectives to further refine what we are
describing. Like: Carbon Pigment inkjet print on rag paper.

Harvey Ferdschneider
partner, SKID Photography, NYC





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

davidhatton2000 wrote:

>  Hi,
>
> I use a small IRIS 3024 for my colour work and I call my
> prints 'IRIS' prints.
>
> Although at one level the IRIS machine is an inkjet printer, there
> is obviously more to it than that (hence the price tag). This is the
> problem with using the generic term 'inkjet print'.
>
> To compare an IRIS print with almost any other is akin to the chalk
> and cheese analogy, and further, to call an IRIS print an injet print
> is blasphemy. IRIS printers produce nothing less than beautiful
> images and work on an entirely different technology level to
> a 'normal' inkjet printer.
>
> IRIS technology is unique, difficult to operate and very very
> expensive to run. On top of all that, IRIS rpints sell.
>
> Regards,
>
> David H

David,
I may be ignorant.  What makes Iris so different from any contemporary inkjet
printer that they should be put in a different category of printmaking?

And if Iris were really that much a superior a system and methodology, why are
they no longer made (the machines, not the prints)?

Harvey Ferdschneider
partner, SKID Photography, NYC





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

But epson prints are better!  I still like Carbon Pigment.

Jer

> Hi,
>
>
> To compare an IRIS print with almost any other is akin to the chalk
> and cheese analogy, and further, to call an IRIS print an injet print
> is blasphemy. IRIS printers produce nothing less than beautiful
> images and work on an entirely different technology level to
> a 'normal' inkjet printer.

That's where a great deal of common every day words come from! High school and College students. Check out a slang dictionary. Don't think
too many are originated by the over 40 crowd!

Jer



davidhatton2000 wrote:

> Hi,
>
> <jerryolson@r...> wrote:
> > If I remember in High School and college, students were always
> making up words, many which are in common use today!
>
> I can't really answer that except to say - and that means...?
>
> ;?)
>
> David H
>
>
> 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
>
> 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/

The Epson 9000 prints a max of 44" rolls. Tom made his prints on a
Hasselblad (6x6) with Kodak High Speed 70mm Infrared  film. This the 44"
length and width.

Mike

----- Original Message -----
From: "Derek Clarke" <derek_c@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2002 3:55 AM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Running into inkjet work....


> Is there the same size limit on the larger Epson printers as there is on
the
> smaller ones then?
>
> Or was the 44" a coincidence?
>
> On Tuesday 12 Feb 2002 3:04 am, Michael Kravit wrote:
> > 44"x44"
>
>
> 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
>
> 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/
>
>
>

Hmmm, maybe I missed something...  :)

Where can I see some of these IR shots?

Thanks!

Jon

> 
> The Epson 9000 prints a max of 44" rolls. Tom made his prints on a
> Hasselblad (6x6) with Kodak High Speed 70mm Infrared  film. This the 44"
> length and width.
> 
> Mike
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Derek Clarke" <derek_c@...>
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2002 3:55 AM
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Running into inkjet work....
> 
> 
>> Is there the same size limit on the larger Epson printers as there is on
> the
>> smaller ones then?
>> 
>> Or was the 44" a coincidence?
>> 
>> On Tuesday 12 Feb 2002 3:04 am, Michael Kravit wrote:
>>> 44"x44"
>> 
>> 
>> 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
>> 
>> 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/
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 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/
> 
>

Antonis,
Ze accent does not translate vel in the computer and I
was sinking of ow to prove I am French but after my
usual bottle de Beaujolais for lunch it is the time
for me to doze of\ufffd I sink I had too many giclee of
wine\ufffd

Beno\ufffdt


--- antonisphoto <antonisphoto@...> wrote:
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Benoit
> <benoitml@y...> wrote:
> 
> > And btw I am really French ! 
> 
> 
> ...but, alas, the accent doesn't come through in
> written English. 
> So, you have to prove it!....
> 
> 
> Antonis
> 
> 
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files,
> Bookmarks, Polls and other resources as they are
> often being updated. The page is at:
> 
>
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> 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/ 
> 
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send FREE Valentine eCards with Yahoo! Greetings!
http://greetings.yahoo.com

Hi Mike,

Great, thanks for the info! (disregard that message I sent you...)

Jon

> 
> Jon,
> 
> Tom's work was and possibly still is on display at the Lowe Art Museum in
> Coral Gables, Florida. You could call them and see if they are still showing
> it. I know Tom will be having a show in France this summer. I am not sure
> where. You can do a search for his email address on the University of Miami
> website. His full name is J. Thomas Lopez,  Professor of Art and Art
> History.
> 
> Mike
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 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/
> 
>

Jon,

Perhaps I misunderstood your question.

Smaller Epson Printers obviuosly can only print to their max width. I think
the 1280 is limited in length. The 7000 can print roughly 24" wide (actually
a bit less). The 9000 is a 44" wide printer. I don't believe that on the LF
printers you are limited to any specific length. I might be wrong, but I
only have expeience with the 1280, 7000, and 10000.

Mike


----- Original Message -----
From: "Jon" <vze249jf@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2002 7:29 PM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Running into inkjet work....


> Hmmm, maybe I missed something...  :)
>
> Where can I see some of these IR shots?
>
> Thanks!
>
> Jon
>
> >
> > The Epson 9000 prints a max of 44" rolls. Tom made his prints on a
> > Hasselblad (6x6) with Kodak High Speed 70mm Infrared  film. This the 44"
> > length and width.
> >
> > Mike
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Derek Clarke" <derek_c@...>
> > To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2002 3:55 AM
> > Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Running into inkjet work....
> >
> >
> >> Is there the same size limit on the larger Epson printers as there is
on
> > the
> >> smaller ones then?
> >>
> >> Or was the 44" a coincidence?
> >>
> >> On Tuesday 12 Feb 2002 3:04 am, Michael Kravit wrote:
> >>> 44"x44"
> >>
> >>
> >> 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
> >>
> >> 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/
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > 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
> >
> > 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/
> >
> >
>
>
>
> 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
>
> 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/
>
>
>

Jon,

Tom's work was and possibly still is on display at the Lowe Art Museum in
Coral Gables, Florida. You could call them and see if they are still showing
it. I know Tom will be having a show in France this summer. I am not sure
where. You can do a search for his email address on the University of Miami
website. His full name is J. Thomas Lopez,  Professor of Art and Art
History.

Mike

Or is that the other way round, that because it's so expensive you feel it 
_has_ to be more than a simple inkjet? :-)

On Tuesday 12 Feb 2002 11:05 pm, davidhatton2000 wrote:
> \ufffdAlthough at one level the IRIS machine is an inkjet printer, there
> is obviously more to it than that (hence the price tag). This is the
> problem with using the generic term 'inkjet print'.

It was my question really!

There's a deliberate software limitation on all the smaller epsons which 
makes the longest print that you can make on banner paper 44". 

Unfortunately I bought three rolls of paper for my 1200 before I realised 
this, and I never did print that panorama...

On Wednesday 13 Feb 2002 2:40 am, Michael Kravit wrote:
> Jon,
>
> Perhaps I misunderstood your question.
>
> Smaller Epson Printers obviuosly can only print to their max width. I think
> the 1280 is limited in length. The 7000 can print roughly 24" wide
> (actually a bit less). The 9000 is a 44" wide printer. I don't believe that
> on the LF printers you are limited to any specific length. I might be
> wrong, but I only have expeience with the 1280, 7000, and 10000.
>
> Mike
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jon" <vze249jf@...>
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2002 7:29 PM
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Running into inkjet work....
>
> > Hmmm, maybe I missed something...  :)
> >
> > Where can I see some of these IR shots?
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > Jon
> >
> > > The Epson 9000 prints a max of 44" rolls. Tom made his prints on a
> > > Hasselblad (6x6) with Kodak High Speed 70mm Infrared  film. This the
> > > 44" length and width.
> > >
> > > Mike
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Derek Clarke" <derek_c@...>
> > > To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2002 3:55 AM
> > > Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Running into inkjet work....
> > >
> > >> Is there the same size limit on the larger Epson printers as there is
>
> on
>
> > > the
> > >
> > >> smaller ones then?
> > >>
> > >> Or was the 44" a coincidence?
> > >>
> > >> On Tuesday 12 Feb 2002 3:04 am, Michael Kravit wrote:
> > >>> 44"x44"
> > >>
> > >> 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
> > >>
> > >> 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/
>
> > > 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
> > >
> > > 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/
>
> > 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
> >
> > 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/
>
>
> 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
>
> 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/

Hi,
No I didn't miss your point, in fact I agree with you in part. Giclee 
is a patent of IRIS technologies and any print made on an IRIS 
printer can safely be described as a Giclee print. All other printers 
should use 'inkjet print' as you say.

David H.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., SKID Photography 
<skid@b...> wrote:
> davidhatton2000 wrote:
> 
> >  Hi,
> >
> > I use a small IRIS 3024 for my colour work and I call my
> > prints 'IRIS' prints.
> >
> > Although at one level the IRIS machine is an inkjet printer, there
> > is obviously more to it than that (hence the price tag). This is 
the
> > problem with using the generic term 'inkjet print'.
> >
> > To compare an IRIS print with almost any other is akin to the 
chalk
> > and cheese analogy, and further, to call an IRIS print an injet 
print
> > is blasphemy. IRIS printers produce nothing less than beautiful
> > images and work on an entirely different technology level to
> > a 'normal' inkjet printer.
> >
> > IRIS technology is unique, difficult to operate and very very
> > expensive to run. On top of all that, IRIS rpints sell.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > David H
> 
> David,
> I may be ignorant.  What makes Iris so different from any 
contemporary inkjet
> printer that they should be put in a different category of 
printmaking?
> 
> And if Iris were really that much a superior a system and 
methodology, why are
> they no longer made (the machines, not the prints)?
> 
Hi Harvey,

IRIS printers ARE still manufactured. The current iteration having 
the name IXIA (pr Zia). I commend you to visit

http://www.itnh.com/itpages/equip/new_output.html?IXIA,IXIA%20Printer

for the latest info,

Regards,

David H.

The term "Iris Gicl\ufffde is copyrighted. Gicl\ufffde is not.

Jerry



davidhatton2000 wrote:

> Hi,
> No I didn't miss your point, in fact I agree with you in part. Giclee
> is a patent of IRIS technologies and any print made on an IRIS
> printer can safely be described as a Giclee print. All other printers
> should use 'inkjet print' as you say.
>
> David H.
>
>
> 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
>
> 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/

David,
I cannot believe that you are missing the point of the 'inkjet' label.  While
all porpoises are whales, not all whales are porpoises.  And while an 'Iris'
print or an 'Iris Giclée' are patented processes and have 'copyrighted'  names,
it does not negate the fact that the prints they produce are still a type of
'inkjet print'.

One could also make the argument that a Ferrari is the ultimate driving machine,
this does not prevent it from being classified as an 'automobile' any more than
a 'Yugo', (probably at the bottom of the quality level of automobile).  They are
*ALL* inkjet prints, and if you are describing (as in a museum show, where you
want to inform the public) any of the aforementioned prints, they should be
listed first and foremost as 'INKJET PRINTS'.....After that you can add all the
adjectives and descriptions you like.

Any other use of labels is marketing, and I don't care what you call them...It's
all just marketing hype at that point.  (This is not a put down, it is
fact...And coming from someone who makes a living at advertising hype. IMO,
calling a spade a spade.)

Harvey Ferdschneider
partner, SKID Photography, NYC

>  The term "Iris Giclée is copyrighted. Giclée is not.
>
> Jerry
>
>
>
> davidhatton2000 wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> > No I didn't miss your point, in fact I agree with you in part. Giclee
> > is a patent of IRIS technologies and any print made on an IRIS
> > printer can safely be described as a Giclee print. All other printers
> > should use 'inkjet print' as you say.
> >
> > David H.
>





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

>Mike Kravit wrote

>"So I would suggest that my prints are "Pigmented Carbon Ink >Prints". 

Right on Mike -- I think you nailed it. Sounds cultured, snooty,
nose up in the air. The art world will love it !!!!!!. If its ok with you I'm going to start using it right now.

Don Rooney

Maybe you should translate "pigmented carbon ink prints" into French and really set the art world on its ear 


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

has anyone tried:
Carbon Pigment Digital Print on Photo Rag from traditional film negative"
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
t

> From: "Michael Kravit" <michael.kravit@...>
> Reply-To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 19:18:27 -0600
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Running into inkjet work....
> 
> Hmm, Giclee perhaps?
> 
> Mike
> 
>> Maybe you should translate "pigmented carbon ink prints" into French and
> really set the art world on its ear
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 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/
> 
>

Way to go Mike !!!!!!
Don

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Michael Kravit 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2002 5:36 PM
  Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Running into inkjet work....


  I guess I made my point, eh?

  Mike

  ----- Original Message -----
  From: "Patricia Ternahan" <ternahan@...>
  To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
  Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2002 6:11 PM
  Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Running into inkjet work....


  > has anyone tried:
  > Carbon Pigment Digital Print on Photo Rag from traditional film negative"
  >
  ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
  > t
  >
  > > From: "Michael Kravit" <michael.kravit@...>
  > > Reply-To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
  > > Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 19:18:27 -0600
  > > To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
  > > Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Running into inkjet work....
  > >
  > > Hmm, Giclee perhaps?
  > >
  > > Mike
  > >
  > >> Maybe you should translate "pigmented carbon ink prints" into French
  and
  > > really set the art world on its ear
  > >
  > >
  > >
  > >
  > > 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
  > >
  > > 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/
  > >
  > >
  >
  >
  >
  > 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
  >
  > 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

  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]

Harvey,

When a picture is reproduced in a magazine with a 4 color process, we do not
say "Hey great 4 color printing press picture". That would be absurd. We say
"Hey dude, great image".

When I go to a gallery and look at a great image, irregardless of how it was
created it is the photograph that is whats important. Yes, we may want to
know the process, but I don't care what the machine was the printed it. We
don't say, "Hey dude, great point source enlarger print" Or "Great diffusion
enlarger w/ #2-1/2 filter print do we?" Of course not, that would be too
foolish.

So why do we need to call a print by the machine that makes it. If a
"traditional" print is made on an enlarger, it is the paper and coating that
is described as in "Silver Gelatin Print". So I would suggest that my prints
are "Pigmented Carbon Ink Prints". Who gives a sows ear wht the machine was
that got the coating on the paper. A platinum print is not called "A #3
artists brush coated print" no it is a Platinum print because the media
which is platinum/palladium in on the paper.

I think this discussion has gotten way to anal.  We are artists, we make
art, let's forget about the machine, otherwise we will be calling our
prints, "Diffusion light source w/ 2-1/2 contrast filter Prints".

Mike

Hmm, Giclee perhaps?

Mike

> Maybe you should translate "pigmented carbon ink prints" into French and
really set the art world on its ear

I guess I made my point, eh?

Mike

----- Original Message -----
From: "Patricia Ternahan" <ternahan@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2002 6:11 PM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Running into inkjet work....


> has anyone tried:
> Carbon Pigment Digital Print on Photo Rag from traditional film negative"
>
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
> t
>
> > From: "Michael Kravit" <michael.kravit@...>
> > Reply-To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> > Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 19:18:27 -0600
> > To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> > Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Running into inkjet work....
> >
> > Hmm, Giclee perhaps?
> >
> > Mike
> >
> >> Maybe you should translate "pigmented carbon ink prints" into French
and
> > really set the art world on its ear
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 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
> >
> > 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/
> >
> >
>
>
>
> 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
>
> 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/
>
>

Michael Kravit wrote:

>  Harvey,
>
> When a picture is reproduced in a magazine with a 4 color process, we do not
> say "Hey great 4 color printing press picture". That would be absurd. We say
> "Hey dude, great image".
>
> When I go to a gallery and look at a great image, irregardless of how it was
> created it is the photograph that is whats important. Yes, we may want to
> know the process, but I don't care what the machine was the printed it. We
> don't say, "Hey dude, great point source enlarger print" Or "Great diffusion
> enlarger w/ #2-1/2 filter print do we?" Of course not, that would be too
> foolish.
>
> So why do we need to call a print by the machine that makes it. If a
> "traditional" print is made on an enlarger, it is the paper and coating that
> is described as in "Silver Gelatin Print". So I would suggest that my prints
> are "Pigmented Carbon Ink Prints". Who gives a sows ear wht the machine was
> that got the coating on the paper. A platinum print is not called "A #3
> artists brush coated print" no it is a Platinum print because the media
> which is platinum/palladium in on the paper.
>
> I think this discussion has gotten way to anal.  We are artists, we make
> art, let's forget about the machine, otherwise we will be calling our
> prints, "Diffusion light source w/ 2-1/2 contrast filter Prints".
>
> Mike
>

Michael,
Of all people, I'm surprised to hear you say this.

I personally don't give a hoot what people call these prints that we make,
especially as they try to 'sell' them.  But this discussion, I thought, was
about what the 'proper' terminology was.  Like the concepts of genus, and
species in plants.

There are several plants that have the same common name but are completely
different genus and species.  And if one just uses the 'common name' (which is
finally completely subjective, and not informative) two people can easily be
speaking of different plants, hence plant Latin, which is specific and based on
a logical system that it recognized worldwide.

If you go into a museum, and see a magazine reproduction of a photograph (as I
have seen at an Irving Penn and Richard Avedon show), the label next to the
piece will say" 4 color photo offset print', because that is the 'type' of
reproduction of the photograph that it is.  It is informative.

When one sees 'silver gelatin' or 'platinum', or 'carbo' or 'bromoil' or
'carbon' or 'gum bichromate' print labels, they are there to inform the viewer
that this PHOTOGRAPH was made using a specific reproduction process.  Just add
inkjet to that and you have it.

Why is this so hard to understand?  For the life of me, I think it's odd to hear
people be proud of ignorance or using ignorant terms, like it makes them look
cool.


Harvey Ferdschneider
partner, SKID Photography, NYC





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

At 04:11 PM 2/13/2002 -0800, you wrote:
>has anyone tried:
>Carbon Pigment Digital Print on Photo Rag from traditional film negative"
>????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
>t

That's getting there...  like the traditional film negative part.  

What about:

 Archival digital print from traditional film negative.

AZ
Maker of Lookaround panoramic camera.

www.geocities.com/soho/gallery/8874/
         or
keyword.com lookaround