New Group: Photrio Photographic Arts Standards

[jtk]

My link to wikopedia wasn't supposed to be a consensus but to explain to you what a carbon print is incase you believed it was a carbon pigment ink jet print. I'm not sure why the number of people who make carbon ink jet prints matters. If they label them carbon prints its not being truthful because they aren't. It is like the current trend of ink jet or light jet on metal and suggesting they are tintypes, is that OK because there are not as many people making tintypes?

I thought photographic prints require LIGHT, are you suggesting they don't? Maybe mean they can be more GRAPHIC?

Think what you want.

 

[removed account4]

Think what you want.

i'm a but confused.
i realize that ink jet and modern digital image making is the future, im not crazy, but do you think it is OK for
the new tech to appropriate the names of older processes because they look like them or they use carbon pigment?
certainly digital driven imagery can be more graphic, more like illustration, photo painting, but I don't know how it could be more photographic than a photograph. maybe it has to do with what your definition of a photograph is? mine has gotten me in hot water because I consider digital images, at least in their raw electronic and visual state as photographs because light hit the sensor and the latent image was converted to machine language. folks have suggested that because there was no "artifact" from the latent image (maybe a memory on the sensor?) it wasn't a true photograph. i get that, but i don't get how a ink jet print which requires no light, can be more photographic than a photograph. light jet or chromeria (?) i get it, its light but ink jet, IDK.
whats your definition of a photograph? maybe that will help make sense of your post... because as it is it makes no sense...

 

[jtk]

Sorry. Can't help you. I'm a photographer, not a lexicographer.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

i'm a but confused.
i realize that ink jet and modern digital image making is the future, im not crazy, but do you think it is OK for
the new tech to appropriate the names of older processes because they look like them or they use carbon pigment?
certainly digital driven imagery can be more graphic, more like illustration, photo painting, but I don't know how it could be more photographic than a photograph. maybe it has to do with what your definition of a photograph is? mine has gotten me in hot water because I consider digital images, at least in their raw electronic and visual state as photographs because light hit the sensor and the latent image was converted to machine language. folks have suggested that because there was no "artifact" from the latent image (maybe a memory on the sensor?) it wasn't a true photograph. i get that, but i don't get how a ink jet print which requires no light, can be more photographic than a photograph. light jet or chromeria (?) i get it, its light but ink jet, IDK.
whats your definition of a photograph? maybe that will help make sense of your post... because as it is it makes no sense...

Hear, hear!!

 

[Sirius Glass]

i'm a but confused.
i realize that ink jet and modern digital image making is the future, im not crazy, but do you think it is OK for
the new tech to appropriate the names of older processes because they look like them or they use carbon pigment?
certainly digital driven imagery can be more graphic, more like illustration, photo painting, but I don't know how it could be more photographic than a photograph. maybe it has to do with what your definition of a photograph is? mine has gotten me in hot water because I consider digital images, at least in their raw electronic and visual state as photographs because light hit the sensor and the latent image was converted to machine language. folks have suggested that because there was no "artifact" from the latent image (maybe a memory on the sensor?) it wasn't a true photograph. i get that, but i don't get how a ink jet print which requires no light, can be more photographic than a photograph. light jet or chromeria (?) i get it, its light but ink jet, IDK.
whats your definition of a photograph? maybe that will help make sense of your post... because as it is it makes no sense...

Please stop feeding the troll.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

That ignore feature is great!

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Hello?

 

[removed account4]

Sorry. Can't help you. I'm a photographer, not a lexicographer.

that's too bad. it would have been nice to have a better understanding of your somewhat off the wall comments.

 

[jtk]

that's too bad. it would have been nice to have a better understanding of your somewhat off the wall comments.

Perhaps you can find someone to help you express yourself. I'd be happy to respond to coherent questions.

 

[SchwinnParamount]

How could we not with analog photographers proposing standards for digital photographers?

The OP is NOT an analog photographer. He himself confessed that at the time of his original post, he had just purchased his FIRST film camera (after 150+ years of film history) and seemed somewhat nonplussed that it didn't behave like his digital cameras. My belief is that he is pushing his standards simply because he has no idea that "standards" have existed in the form of tribal knowledge for a century. Those of us who have developed our film and made our prints since we were in high school have absolutely no new need of some newbie to come along and propose fancy-pants "standards" or "tags" or whatever the heck he calls them.

 

[SchwinnParamount]

That could work. Most of the controversy is in digital.

ALL of the controversy is in digital. Analog photographers ironed out that controversy by about 1930.

 

[markjwyatt]

The OP is NOT an analog photographer. He himself confessed that at the time of his original post, he had just purchased his FIRST film camera (after 150+ years of film history) and seemed somewhat nonplussed that it didn't behave like his digital cameras. My belief is that he is pushing his standards simply because he has no idea that "standards" have existed in the form of tribal knowledge for a century. Those of us who have developed our film and made our prints since we were in high school have absolutely no new need of some newbie to come along and propose fancy-pants "standards" or "tags" or whatever the heck he calls them.

Not sure where you got that. I shot film for 30+ years before I started with any digital.

 

[SchwinnParamount]

Not sure where you got that. I shot film for 30+ years before I started with any digital.

You: "hanks for the insight. What drew me here is the analog content, as I am interested in analog (still holding, and even newly acquiring analog equipment); though am enjoying digital. It does seem to have a substantial digital and hybrid content also."

your analog equipment was 'newly acquired` when you posted this a couple of years ago.

 

[markjwyatt]

You: "hanks for the insight. What drew me here is the analog content, as I am interested in analog (still holding, and even newly acquiring analog equipment); though am enjoying digital. It does seem to have a substantial digital and hybrid content also."

your analog equipment was 'newly acquired` when you posted this a couple of years ago.

I have some newly acquired analog equipment, yes. I also have some from the early 70s and from the 80s. What's the point?

https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/hello-from-california.159369/

https://www.flickr.com/people/markjwyatt/

 

[removed account4]

Perhaps you can find someone to help you express yourself. I'd be happy to respond to coherent questions.

CHICAGO !

 

[Bill Burk]

Required reading for the participants in this thread...

davidkatchel just announced a book on photogravure. Please look at his website and follow deeply enough to read how he describes different kinds of printing.

He tackles this same issue in his writings. I think he treats the topic fairly and dispassionately. I’m afraid our passions are getting in the way of our discussion here.

For example he talks about the use of the term carbon print by both traditional soot printers and modern inkjet printers. He talks about the difference between photogravure and rotogravure.

I posted an example in the galleries. It’s a print of mine which was printed by rotogravure. I have a small stack of these magazines my grandmother gathered up for me. I have one presentable print on 11x14 paper (with smaller margins than usual for me so it looks bigger) and a couple smaller printed silver gelatin prints of the same. The original 35mm negative is gone. So this is truly a limited edition unless I use a hybrid method or print from a second generation 4x5 negative that I have on file.

 

[ic-racer]

The only way to know if you are holding a silver print in your hands is to hold a silver print in your hands. Digital representations of objects sent through the internet are always digital representations of objects sent through the internet, no matter what other descriptors one might want to apply.

 

[markjwyatt]

The only way to know if you are holding a silver print in your hands is to hold a silver print in your hands. Digital representations of objects sent through the internet are always digital representations of objects sent through the internet, no matter what other descriptors one might want to apply.

This is true. Perhaps anytime a tag is used on an internet digital representation of an analog image it should end with #[APUG:<tag1>, <tag2>...; Digital Representation]; though it is stating the obvious. It could be considered acceptable to say ";DR".

 

[removed account4]

Required reading for the participants in this thread...

davidkatchel just announced a book on photogravure. Please look at his website and follow deeply enough to read how he describes different kinds of printing.

He tackles this same issue in his writings. I think he treats the topic fairly and dispassionately. I’m afraid our passions are getting in the way of our discussion here.

For example he talks about the use of the term carbon print by both traditional soot printers and modern inkjet printers. He talks about the difference between photogravure and rotogravure.

I posted an example in the galleries. It’s a print of mine which was printed by rotogravure. I have a small stack of these magazines my grandmother gathered up for me. I have one presentable print on 11x14 paper (with smaller margins than usual for me so it looks bigger) and a couple smaller printed silver gelatin prints of the same. The original 35mm negative is gone. So this is truly a limited edition unless I use a hybrid method or print from a second generation 4x5 negative that I have on file.

Thank you Bill - it was a good read!
He doesn't say anything about people making dye sublimation tintypes and if it OK to call them tintypes?
I see what he is saying, but I think it is too easy to call a carbon pigment ink jet print a carbon print
when they have nothing to do with eachother, and many people don't know the difference between the two.

 

[faberryman]

I see what he is saying, but I think it is too easy to call a carbon pigment ink jet print a carbon print
when they have nothing to do with eachother, and many people don't know the difference between the two.

We don't need to adopt a standard to say that people calling carbon pigment ink jet prints carbon prints are not being truthful. I suspect that the guilty parties don't even know what a carbon print is. They are just jazzing up the description - like calling them giclees.

 

[markjwyatt]

We don't need to adopt a standard to say that people calling carbon pigment ink jet prints carbon prints are not being truthful. I suspect that the guilty parties don't even know what a carbon print is. They are just jazzing up the description - like calling them giclees.

The standards also educate people. The idea is to have links from the tags back to descriptions, or at least a link to the standards where people can read what the standard considers carbon prints to be (purportedly a consensus of what APUG considers it to be).

 

[faberryman]

The standards also educate people. The idea is to have links from the tags back to descriptions, or at least a link to the standards where people can read what the standard considers carbon prints to be (purportedly a consensus of what APUG considers it to be).

There is already a consensus of what a carbon print is. Has been for a hundred years. Google "carbon print". The first entry takes you to Wikipedia, which describes carbon prints.

 

[Bill Burk]

I think you can call it anything that you like, a little narrative helps distinguish what you did and can help someone who might like it and want to do something similar.

 

[markjwyatt]

There is already a consensus of what a carbon print is. Has been for a hundred years. Google "carbon print". It takes you to Wikipedia, which describes carbon prints.

Wikipedia would likely accept a link in its "External Links" section back to the APUG standards.