jtk
Allowing Ads
Think what you want.
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?
i'm a but confused.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...
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...
that's too bad. it would have been nice to have a better understanding of your somewhat off the wall comments.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.
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.How could we not with analog photographers proposing standards for digital photographers?
ALL of the controversy is in digital. Analog photographers ironed out that controversy by about 1930.That could work. Most of the controversy is in digital.
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.
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."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.
Perhaps you can find someone to help you express yourself. I'd be happy to respond to coherent questions.
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.
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.
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.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.
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.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". It takes you to Wikipedia, which describes carbon prints.
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?