Naming Print Types - Baryta

A recent marketing trend with some paper companies has been to call any paper containing a barium compound a Baryta paper. There are traditional B/W papers using Barium hydroxide, like the old Oriental Seagull Bromide paper, which have been displayed as Baryta Prints; as opposed to calling them Silver Prints. Newer papers are mostly using barium sulphate, and no silver nor bromide.

So the ethical issues I have with this is that Baryta is now a hot buzzword in the gallery realm, and with art photographers. It was never often that I would see a Baryta Print in the past, but I always knew it was a chemical B/W print. Now I think the term will be equated with new papers and inkjet prints, due to the current marketing.

So what to do? Rename or re-term the old Baryta prints I have done? Call them Bromide Prints? Call them Silver Prints?

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography

I hate to open this issue up even further, but the real question is: What do you call a chemically made, non-digitized print? And at some point how do you differentiate between RC and Fiber?

Would love to see some discussion on this.

I haven't seen too many prints in galleries or museums in the US labeled "baryta prints." Usually the designation is "gelatin silver print" or "silver gelatin print." I don't think there is really an issue there.

Inkjet prints should be labeled as such. Usually you don't see the substrate named with designations like "Iris print," "pigment inkjet print," etc.

As far as digital wet process prints go, I've seen "digital chromogenic print," and it wouldn't be hard to extend that to "digital silver gelatin print" for B&W digital on traditional silver papers, and "digital dye destruction print" for Ilfochrome.

The problem is usage, and at least in southern California, Pigment Print, Giclée, and now Baryta (for the new papers), are becoming very common. There was an attempt for a while to call all these D Prints, though it really didn't take off. That is the marketing aspect, in that a term or name is appended to increase the perceived value, or attempt to lend more importance to the process. Yes, those pesky upstart new photographers are defining convention simply by the volume of images on display . . . at least in California.

Contrast that with Silver Prints, Chromogenic Prints, or the Polaroid Manipulations I have shown. In the case of Chromogenic Prints, I got so many questions of what Chromogenic meant that I simply started calling them C Prints, except for the one R Print I sometimes exhibit. The few Baryta Prints I have not exhibited for quite a while, though it would be nice to have others see them. I suppose I could simply call them Silver Prints.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography

The ultimate standard that eschews hype and fashion is the one used by art conservators: "what medium on what substrate?" Examples:

Gelatin-silver photograph on fibre base.
Gelatin-silver photograph on resin coat base.
Palladium photograph (or palladiotype) on Crane's Kid Finish paper.
Chromogenic (or colour coupler) photograph on Fuji Crystal Archive paper.
Bromoil print on Kentmere bromoil paper.
Dye transfer print on fixed-out Ilford Galerie paper.
Epson pigment ink-jet print on Arches water colour paper.
.....and so on.

In loose talk, especially around commercial galleries trying to sell stuff off the wall, the distinction between prints and photographs can be adjusted to maximise profit. Down at the conservation laboratory it becomes important when a picture needs repair or preservation.

A print uses a pre-existing mark-making medium eg ink that is picked up and transferred to a receiving surface by an "organising matrix" like an etched plate or a silkscreen.

A photograph has its mark-making medium eg silver or dye clouds generated inside a sensitive surface by the direct impact of light.

When that expensive picture I bought ten years ago starts to fade I want to save it by sending it to someone who knows exactly what it is.