Call it what it is

[Pieter12]

Example, "Anthony Hernandez, Screened Pictures #19, 2017/2018, Inkjet print, 54 1/2 x 54 1/2 inches." Hats off to Kayne Griffin Corcoran gallery in LA--it is refreshing to see a fine art gallery label a print as an inkjet print, rather than "archival pigment" or "giclée."

 

[jtk]

why are you "refreshed" by that label?

Personally, I especially like photo silkscreen and have done good business with it (matching Pantone colors in photos).

I agree that "giclee" is a marketing ploy (but as a capitalist I don't mind marketing ); "archival pigment" is a nearly universal museum description for a inkjet pigment print ( a few non-archival INKS proved unstable within a few years, but Epson/Canon's PIGMENTS have proven very stable in common practice for the last 20 years.

I'd like to see Hernandez's work in person.

https://www.kaynegriffincorcoran.com/exhibitions/anthony-hernandez?view=slider#3

 

[jim10219]

Eh. I don't care what they call it. If someone is buying expensive art and they don't know what the terminology means... well I guess that's just an application of the old adage "a fool and his money will soon part".

In any case, the value isn't in the materials or process. Otherwise all 8x10 silver gelatin prints would be worth the same. So you could call it a Cheapachrome for all I care.

 

[jtk]

These are the best of the poorly photographed photos under discussion. Looks like Kayne Griffin Corcoran itself is "cheap."

 

[George Mann]

Canon's PIGMENTS have proven very stable in common practice for the last 20 years.

I have Canon prints which faded after 5-6 years!

 

[jtk]

I have Canon prints which faded after 5-6 years!

There's no such generic thing as "Canon prints". Canon pigment prints are relatively recent. If someone is using non-pigment inks it means they don't care about archival issues (same as with Epson)..

 

[jtk]

I have Canon prints which faded after 5-6 years!

A) were they made properly, with Canon OEM PIGMENTS? (rather than "inks" or non-OEM)
B) I've always used pigments, initially (about 20 years ago) with Epson OEM and subsequently Canon OEM. Canon has been trouble free, totally non-clogging... that may have become true with Epson in recent years.

 

[removed account4]

I have Canon prints which faded after 5-6 years!

i have prints from a 25 year old epson that still look like they were made yesterday.OP
are darkroom prints called a print made from whatever darkroom paper they are printed on ? I don't see many silver bromide on baryta or digital Cprints or variable contrast prints or ? how far does someone have to go before they satisfy people that need things to be called what they are?
after all the photograph is the negative and the postive is a developed out ( or printed out ) paper print. Does someone have to say the developer they used too ?

 

[Pieter12]

A buyer of fine art deserves to know how the print was made, if nothing else so they know how to care for it and preserve or restore it if necessary. Paintings will always spell out the medium used as well as the surface (canvas, linen, wood panel, etc.).

 

[faberryman]

Simply labeling it inkjet does not tell you whether it is dye or pigment ink.

 

[removed account4]

A buyer of fine art deserves to know how the print was made, if nothing else so they know how to care for it and preserve or restore it if necessary. Paintings will always spell out the medium used as well as the surface (canvas, linen, wood panel, etc.).

buyers deserve to know what fix removal technique and washing technique so called "fine art black and white photographers" used to wash their prints ?
i think labels for black and white wet lab prints should say " rc 2 min wash 2 min fix remove 2 min final wash" or "fiber based silver chlorobromide print 24 min wash holding bath being soaking in fixer, 2 min perma wash, 3 hour runing water fill and dump final wash" as well

 

[Pieter12]

buyers deserve to know what fix removal technique and washing technique so called "fine art black and white photographers" used to wash their prints ?
i think labels for black and white wet lab prints should say " rc 2 min wash 2 min fix remove 2 min final wash" or "fiber based silver chlorobromide print 24 min wash holding bath being soaking in fixer, 2 min perma wash, 3 hour runing water fill and dump final wash" as well

A bit over the top, a fine art photo should be fixed and washed to archival standards. I don't think anyone has the expectation to know the exact methods used.

 

[jtk]

Simply labeling it inkjet does not tell you whether it is dye or pigment ink.

Galleries and museums commonly very specifically use "archival inkjet" which answers the common dye/vs pigment question.

 

[removed account4]

A bit over the top, a fine art photo should be fixed and washed to archival standards. I don't think anyone has the expectation to know the exact methods used.

not sure about over the top, seems about the same level of over the topitude as what you have written ... cause my spidey sense tells me that not all "fine art photographs"
( not even sure what that means ) that are in collections galleries and museums follow your rigid prescription.

 

[jtk]

https://hindman-production.s3.amazo...d_image/the_image/468363/large_294028-2_1.jpg

This for jnantz

 

[Pieter12]

not sure about over the top, seems about the same level of over the topitude as what you have written ... cause my spidey sense tells me that not all "fine art photographs"
( not even sure what that means ) that are in collections galleries and museums follow your rigid prescription.

And my "prescription" is?

 

[Luckless]

Call it what it is?

Okay, "Reacted chemicals suspended in rendered and processed pig remains, spread over dried plant fibre pulp..."

No one is truly innocent when it comes to 'prettying things up' for marketing purposes.

 

[jtk]

Call it what it is?

Okay, "Reacted chemicals suspended in rendered and processed pig remains, spread over dried plant fibre pulp..."

No one is truly innocent when it comes to 'prettying things up' for marketing purposes.

yes...for example, claiming an optical print somehow has special value because it was made using an inferior (vs digital) process.

 

[Pieter12]

The original post was about a fine-art gallery actually labeling an inkjet print as "inkjet" rather than giclee or archival pigment. Not the technical make-up of the piece. How far the forum can go off the edge always amuses me.

 

[removed account4]

And my "prescription" is?

Umm not really sure because you kind of flip flopped

a fine art photo should be fixed and washed to archival standards.

A buyer of fine art deserves to know how the print was made

I don't think anyone has the expectation to know the exact methods used.

i couldn't care less what substrate or archival standards an image is. (and yes i used to part own an art gallery).

You gave referenced a "fine-art gallery" in your posts, what are you suggesting "fine-art" is?

 

[removed account4]

https://hindman-production.s3.amazo...d_image/the_image/468363/large_294028-2_1.jpg

This for jnantz

thank you ! that is beautiful

 

[jtk]

A buyer of fine art deserves to know how the print was made, if nothing else so they know how to care for it and preserve or restore it if necessary. Paintings will always spell out the medium used as well as the surface (canvas, linen, wood panel, etc.).

How will a Weston or Adams be "restored"? I've seen originals of both that were suffering. For that matter, most Adams "originals" were printed by employees of General Graphic Services...

 

[Pieter12]

These are the best of the poorly photographed photos under discussion. Looks like Kayne Griffin Corcoran itself is "cheap."

Not sure where you looked on the gallery website, but they have decent-size images under https://www.kaynegriffincorcoran.com/artists/anthony-hernandez

 

[Pieter12]

A sorry example of what I was alluding to in my original post: I saw a show recently of a well-known photographer at a major photo gallery where the prints seemed to be palladium prints, but on closer inspection lacked the depth and richness, but did have a brushed texture. The description on the price sheet was "archival pigment."

 

[jtk]

A sorry example of what I was alluding to in my original post: I saw a show recently of a well-known photographer at a major photo gallery where the prints seemed to be palladium prints, but on closer inspection lacked the depth and richness, but did have a brushed texture. The description on the price sheet was "archival pigment."

Whatever that gallery put online does in fact represent their abilities and professionalism. That some parts of their website are done badly does represent them.

That you imagined mistakenly that the prints might be palladium doesn't have anything to do with what the gallery actually exhibited.

In my experience as a fairly accomplished inkjet advocate (Canon Pro10 currently) it is very hard to rival SOME platinum palladium and very easy to rival silver. And of course, Photoshop allows more refined dodging/burning, localized contrast adjustment etc than is possible optically or with contact (if that's important). Whatever floats your boat.