I like his work. And at $1600 for a gelatin silver print, he is practically giving it away. Certainly after the galley takes its 50% commission.
The bulk of those $1600.00 prints are pigment.I like his work. And at $1600 for a gelatin silver print, he is practically giving it away. Certainly after the galley takes its 50% commission.
The bulk of those $1600.00 prints are pigment.
lecarp - I doubt any of them are actual pigment prints, not at that price. You must mean ordinary inkjet instead. It's misleading to generically term inkjet prints "pigment prints", even though galleries often incorrectly do that for marketing reasons. Inks potentially involve various ingredients.
What fun! Thanks for sharing!
I think the major strengths of Keith Carter's images (the swampy ones) are subject, lighting, and composition. I am guessing the images might be equally powerful - possibly more so - if presented more traditionally(?)
I do enjoy looking at pictoralist-style work. But the subjects and compositions of Carter's swamp photos are so strong, I would like to pull back the veil and see them a little more clearly. (But, perhaps if viewing the prints in real life, at actual size, the subjects would appear more clarity?)
A little research (not much) did not reveal anything about what methods Carter used to make the Ghostlight images. It shouldn't matter, but...
When I see a modern photo that has a distressed or historical look, sometimes I feel like the photographer is trying too hard. Trying to make the print somehow more "arty" by use of special effects. It's similar to how I feel when I see a digital photo with grain, dust, and scratches added in post-processing -- it seems like an affectation.
But here is the funny thing. If I know beforehand that what I am calling "the distressed or historical look" is a necessary and unavoidable result of the photographer working with some arcane alternative process, then I'm fine with that. Only if I suspect the photographer has taken a technically proficient negative and manipulated it to look artificially historical does it sometimes irritate me. It's like listening to music. If a vinyl LP has a few pops and crackles, I can tolerate that as part of the analog experience. But the same noise would be intolerable on a CD recording.
Silly, I know. I should be able to like (or not like) a photograph based only on what I see, and not on what I know. But every photograph is viewed through the prejudices of the viewer (and yes, I have a few).
I obviously made the mistake of thinking it would be common knowledge they were ink-jet.lecarp - I doubt any of them are actual pigment prints, not at that price. You must mean ordinary inkjet instead. It's misleading to generically term inkjet prints "pigment prints", even though galleries often incorrectly do that for marketing reasons. Inks potentially involve various ingredients.
Exactly!jtk - the bad habit is ubiquitous, all over the internet as well as in seemingly every gallery dealing with photos here in the Bay Area. Across the whole country in fact. But that does not change a thing with respect to proper identification itself. And actual pigment printers deserve to be distinguished form inkjet machines which by design require compromises due to the tiny tiny nature of what has to pass through those nozzles tiny themselves, which prohibit many pigment particles. Yeah, it's remarkable technology capable of its own thing, but true pigment printing ain't one of them. That label should be legitimately reserved for things like carbon, carbro, Fresson, gum printing, etc.
...
If we are referring to traditional methods, is color carbon easier than dye transfer?
No...which is one of the reasons dye transfer replaced full-color carbon as the prime method of color reproduction in the 1930s.
...
Aside from that, what is a pigment print? Does this refer to dye transfer, color carbon or something else (ink-jet)?
The bulk of those $1600.00 prints are pigment.
A print made with pigments. Really a very loose definition. The definition of 'pigments' is very wide itself..."a substance used for coloring or painting' -- seems covers any color that comes out of an inkjet printer. Another defintion is;" the natural coloring matter of animal or plant tissue"
Archival Pigment Print is at least better than Giclee.
For $1600 for a 16x20 inkjet print, one should be given a second to stash away from light.
If it's ink-jet, I think it should be less that $100.
Depending on the size of the print and the paper it is printed on, a good out-sourced inkjet print can cost as much or more than a silver gelatin print. You are paying for more than the print, you are paying for the image.
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?