Well, you treat people how you want, and I'll do the same. Printing is hardly rocket science. I'm not saying I'll bore people with endless minutia, but if they ask and seem interested, I'll certainly fill in the blanks. Nothing is that hard to explain if you have a good grasp on the subject. But I label things the way I do for me ultimately, no one else. It's important to me that the process I use is accurately described- it's a wonderful terminus for a journey of learning and tradition.
I dont see a contradiction with this Sandy. Youve described how the image forms at a deeper level of detail than I did. For the lay public its enough to say that image is formed from the noble metal. For people who want to know more, theres a chemical process involved as youve described.
I was trying to find a form of words that meant that using platinum is a requirement to it being called a platinum print, while other metals are an additive. Personally I wouldnt consider a pure palladium print to be a platinum print with or without trace amounts of platinum. I think it would also be stretching things to call an extreme Ptd ratio such as 1:11 a platinum print but Id rather leave it to peoples conscience than try to dictate a purity standard.
Perhaps this would be a better first sentence: A platinum print is a print made using one of several processes which uses platinum to form an image under ultraviolet light.
My instinctive answer is that platinum toned kallitypes is a more appropriate label. Im no expert on kallitypes (so would bow to your and others judgement), but if theres a fundamentally different process then to label them platinum prints would seem like an attempt to deceive.
As I said earlier in the thread, there should never be an attempt to deceive. The important thing is that our communication is pitched at the right level for the audience. That means balancing the need for full disclosure with the need to be understood and its more important to be understood than it is to reveal all the technical details.
Its the nature of our society that the rarity (and price) of raw materials is a significant influence on the market price charged for an artwork. People tend to pay more for a gold necklace than they do for a silver necklace, but in many ways silver is a more beautiful metal than gold. Similarly, in the past painters often used ultramarine (lapis lazuli) specifically because by doing so they demonstrated the wealth of their clients.
Perhaps some people do feel the need to label their palladium prints as platinum prints for this reason, although I havent seen this personally. This would sadden me because, although I dont particularly like the palladium aesthetic (thats just my taste not a value judgement), I would hope that people would call a palladium print a palladium print and allow the strength of their work to create the value.
My instinctive answer is that platinum toned kallitypes is a more appropriate label. Im no expert on kallitypes (so would bow to your and others judgement), but if theres a fundamentally different process then to label them platinum prints would seem like an attempt to deceive.
I think the real point is that many people want to use the term "platinum printing" because the word platinum is pretty much a synonym for something that costs a lot, and that is the real appeal of these prints to the "lay public." By contrast, the lay public by and large knows nothing about palladium, and even though pure palladium is in many ways a much more elegant process than pure platinum, or pt/pd, it does not speak money as does platinum.
Sandy King
In any event I hope no one thinks that I am obsessing about the topic. I am primarily a carbon printer and spend most of my time and obsessions in that realm.
For alt processes I primarily do kallitypes. Currently, I've been gold toning them, and label them gold-toned kallitypes. But the amount of toning depends on when I pull the print for the desired effect, so the amount of gold vs silver will vary. In the future I plan on trying platinum and palladium toning; and would call them platinum-toned kallitypes, for example. But, again, the ratio will vary.
There is a certain marketing panache when labeling prints - the nobler the metal, the higher the price. If we are educating the prospective buyer market, seems to me we out to be developing terms that relate to the percentage of a particular noble metal irrespective of how we got there. I realize this may be heresy to those who practice a particular technique, but clarity would seem to demand changes in terminology.
I'm suggesting that buyers may not care about the technique used, except for those techniques that are of historical interest (eg, Albumen print); but they may care more about the noble metals used. Many photographers use term "Silver Gelatin" print but that could be shortened to just Silver print, just as with Carbon print. A print that uses primarily Palladium with just a hint of Platinum could be called Palladium/Platinum print. A platinum toned Kallitype could be called a Platinum/Silver print. Just food for thought for I haven't yet tried using such labels.
I think you pretty much hit the nail on the head here Clay. This has largely been my experience as well. People really looking to buy a print they like rarely ask process details, "what paper... lens, etc." If they do, it seems that 9 times out of 10 that they are another photographer looking for the information and not the print.The label readers would rather spend that $500 on a new lens so they can run out and make copies of work they have seen and liked.
But to be fair, the majority of APUG members are not photography collectors so it's likely that this kind of discussion will reflect the opinions of photo makers rather than photo buyers.
Wow, this thread is still going. I am going to make one wise-ass observation: in my experience, the only people who really care about this very legalistic naming precision are the same ones who will never buy a print from someone else anyway.
It is sort of the 'print sniffer' syndrome. I have noticed that the longer someone spends with their nose pressed up against a print, the less likely it is that they are going to want anything from me other than detailed information about exactly how I made it. At gallery shows, the buyers are the ones who stand back a few feet, and really look at a picture. The label readers would rather spend that $500 on a new lens so they can run out and make copies of work they have seen and liked.
Fine if you have a day job Sandy. Not all of us are that lucky! I find that "print sniffers" are great and I love talking to those that really know what goes into making a photograph. In fact, it can make all the difference in the world. God love 'em, but unfortunately they rarely help pay the bills.I personally could care less what buyers are looking for. Photography for me is primarily a means of self-expression, not a commercial endeavor.
Ahhh.... the best type of collector IMHO.Personally I buy/swop because I like the image.
Details, details...
ps Clay is dead right about buyers vs. photographers in a show setting. I like them both, but I'm not too proud to say I LOVE selling prints. I've got a day job, too, but the print sales help sustain my work.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?