Silver Gelatine Print? The same as Fiber base print?

[Maris]

Yet again I'd plead for the designation "Silver Gelatine Photograph" instead of S-G print. The process whereby silver gelatine photographs come into being - light sensitive materials get exposed, developed, fixed, and washed - is the same as any other photograph. Ok, the emulsion is coated on paper and the subject-matter is usually (but not always) a film-based negative. Nevertheless the darn things are photographs all the same and merit respect as such.

 

[MattKing]

Yet again I'd plead for the designation "Silver Gelatine Photograph" instead of S-G print. The process whereby silver gelatine photographs come into being - light sensitive materials get exposed, developed, fixed, and washed - is the same as any other photograph. Ok, the emulsion is coated on paper and the subject-matter is usually (but not always) a film-based negative. Nevertheless the darn things are photographs all the same and merit respect as such.

Maris:

Would you accept "Silver Gelatine Photographic Print"?

 

[giannisg2004]

I see many people are of the opinion that there's a need to "differentiate", which leads to all those names.
Why? Why the need to differentiate?

It's not some candy in a black box, so a description is needed for the customer to know if it's strawberry flavored or banana flavored before he buys it.

It's a print. The customer buys what he sees.
If he sees the difference, the description is redundant.
If he doesn't see the difference, the description is still redundant, except maybe for a few hypocrites that will buy a print base on the description and not what's there for their eyes to see.

The only valid reason I can think of is archivability, but still, I'm not sure how much people value this property anymore.

 

[brian steinberger]

People are ignorant to the differences between silver gelatin and inkjet. I think they should be informed of the difference. They should be informed of the processes, and the possible archival faults of inkjet prints. If I were buying a print there's no way in hell I'd spend top dollar on an inkjet print not knowing how it was made. It could fade in less than a year if poorly done! The general public doesn't know anything about this. They just buy what they see. And it's our job to educate them about silver gelatin prints, and why they demand such high dollar.

I had a show about a year ago and was amazed at how many people at the show were asking what silver gelatin prints were and I explained it to them and they were amazed. They were also curious as to how I got the different colors into the prints that are advertised as "black and white." So then I started explaining toning. People really do find it interesting, especially since most think film is dead. I've always said that the thing the majority of the population is most ignorant about is photography.

 

[frank]

I see many people are of the opinion that there's a need to "differentiate", which leads to all those names.
Why? Why the need to differentiate?

It's not some candy in a black box, so a description is needed for the customer to know if it's strawberry flavored or banana flavored before he buys it.

It's a print. The customer buys what he sees.
If he sees the difference, the description is redundant.
If he doesn't see the difference, the description is still redundant, except maybe for a few hypocrites that will buy a print base on the description and not what's there for their eyes to see.

The only valid reason I can think of is archivability, but still, I'm not sure how much people value this property anymore.

I respectfully, yet unreservedly, completely disagree.

 

[Simon R Galley]

The term 'Silver Gelatine Print' is actually very, very important.

The reason is the growing market in collecting photographic heritage and 'art' .

In the major auction ( and even minor ) houses that have photographic sales the term Silver Gelatine Print is a pre-requisite for important photographs, collectors do understand what it means although RC as well as FB prints can be described as such, as they both are, but since 'most' seriously collectable photographs were probably actually printed before 1970 the presumption is that they are on a baryta or 'paper' base, as not all photo base papers were baryta coated. The obvious reference relates to the originality of the actual print and the 'presumed' archival stability of the print that is purchased. If you are selling your photographs through a gallery or direct to buyers you have the opportunity to 'educate' the buyers into the meaning of silver gelatine and why you print on it. It is one of the reasons we include the small stamps in packs of FB paper so as you can identify the actual product the image is printed on and then they can reference that against our website.

The buyers of art also understand some of the related silver or none silver print terminologies such as Cyanotype etc, etc.

When colour prints are sold they normally reference the medium such as 'C' Type or 'R' Type or CIBA print, whilst inkjet prints are sold they are highly unlikely to appear in sales of collectable photographic art in an auction house.

Finally, and one of the main reasons we manufacture FB and RC products that can be digitally exposed is that an image can be identified as a silver gelatine print even if it was originally taken as a d*****l photograph only, which is valid, or much more likely it is a print from a negative from a collection that has been scanned and can be output on our paper without the negative being present.

Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited :

 

[giannisg2004]

People are ignorant to the differences between silver gelatin and inkjet. I think they should be informed of the difference. They should be informed of the processes, and the possible archival faults of inkjet prints. If I were buying a print there's no way in hell I'd spend top dollar on an inkjet print not knowing how it was made. It could fade in less than a year if poorly done! The general public doesn't know anything about this. They just buy what they see. And it's our job to educate them about silver gelatin prints, and why they demand such high dollar.

I had a show about a year ago and was amazed at how many people at the show were asking what silver gelatin prints were and I explained it to them and they were amazed. They were also curious as to how I got the different colors into the prints that are advertised as "black and white." So then I started explaining toning. People really do find it interesting, especially since most think film is dead. I've always said that the thing the majority of the population is most ignorant about is photography.

I don't disagree with you.

But you managed to intrigue them by the aesthetic you achieved with your toning. They were genuinely interested to know.
They would probably buy from you just based on aesthetics, and your backstory on the process would be a nice bonus.

What I disagree with, is people trying to sell prints based *only* on the fact that they're traditional silver gelatin.
The only customers that will buy a print they didn't like from the beginning, just because it's a silver gelatin (or any alternative process), are some hypocrites.
To my eyes, they don't differ from someone blind-tasting a wine, not liking it, and then listening to a winery commercial or a review describing it with fancy words like "velvety, smooth, biscuity", and then buying said wine based on the description alone.

Archivability is a concern for me too.
I'd be very reluctant to spend money on inkjet prints, though I must confess I'm not up to date with inkjet technology.

On the other hand, I've seen stuff that makes me question said archivability if I don't know the printer or his previous work.
For instance, many guys in my University at some point started using fiber paper exclusively for exhibitions. Because it was more archival.
We were printing in the same darkroom and I can guarantee you there's no way in hell their prints are more archival than RC, with the faulty/insufficient washing I've witnessed them doing.
There were also visibly ruined toned prints, because of insufficient fixing (probably well used single bath semi-exhausted fixer).

So, I'm saying everything is relative.
Firstly, I'm drawn to a print for its aesthetic quality, a combination of composition, subject matter, and the printer's craftsmanship with dodging/burning to enhance the above.
And secondly, if I'm going to spend money on it, I'm interested in its archivability.

 

[pentaxuser]

Gosh.. do I feel silly. Siver gelatin is photgraphic emulsion.. of course. They made it sound special.

Todd

No, no they are certainly special at those prices. Special for the seller's bank account. If he can sell all of them at those prices two magnificent things follow:

1. President Obama can declare the U.S. to have left the recession far behind and sing "Happy Days Are Here Again"
2. The seller can buy and reopen Lehman Brothers

pentaxuser

 

[frank]

I don't disagree with you.

But you managed to intrigue them by the aesthetic you achieved with your toning. They were genuinely interested to know.
They would probably buy from you just based on aesthetics, and your backstory on the process would be a nice bonus.

What I disagree with, is people trying to sell prints based *only* on the fact that they're traditional silver gelatin.
The only customers that will buy a print they didn't like from the beginning, just because it's a silver gelatin (or any alternative process), are some hypocrites.
To my eyes, they don't differ from someone blind-tasting a wine, not liking it, and then listening to a winery commercial or a review describing it with fancy words like "velvety, smooth, biscuity", and then buying said wine based on the description alone.

Archivability is a concern for me too.
I'd be very reluctant to spend money on inkjet prints, though I must confess I'm not up to date with inkjet technology.

On the other hand, I've seen stuff that makes me question said archivability if I don't know the printer or his previous work.
For instance, many guys in my University at some point started using fiber paper exclusively for exhibitions. Because it was more archival.
We were printing in the same darkroom and I can guarantee you there's no way in hell their prints are more archival than RC, with the faulty/insufficient washing I've witnessed them doing.
There were also visibly ruined toned prints, because of insufficient fixing (probably well used single bath semi-exhausted fixer).

So, I'm saying everything is relative.
Firstly, I'm drawn to a print for its aesthetic quality, a combination of composition, subject matter, and the printer's craftsmanship with dodging/burning to enhance the above.
And secondly, if I'm going to spend money on it, I'm interested in its archivability.

First point: No one has said that. It is solely your projection.

Second point: Poor craftsmanship is a separate and secondary issue, not salient to the identification of the process and medium used to create a print.

 

[giannisg2004]

Second point: Poor craftsmanship is a separate and secondary issue, not salient to the identification of the process and medium used to create a print.

I'm arguing that one of the most practical/pragmatic reason for the identification of the process, is the archivability that the process implies, but which is also heavily dependent on the printer's craftsmanship.

 

[brian steinberger]

What I disagree with, is people trying to sell prints based *only* on the fact that they're traditional silver gelatin.
The only customers that will buy a print they didn't like from the beginning, just because it's a silver gelatin (or any alternative process), are some hypocrites.
To my eyes, they don't differ from someone blind-tasting a wine, not liking it, and then listening to a winery commercial or a review describing it with fancy words like "velvety, smooth, biscuity", and then buying said wine based on the description alone.

So, I'm saying everything is relative.
Firstly, I'm drawn to a print for its aesthetic quality, a combination of composition, subject matter, and the printer's craftsmanship with dodging/burning to enhance the above.
And secondly, if I'm going to spend money on it, I'm interested in its archivability.

Exactly. It's all about the image first, then process second. If those people at my show weren't drawn to my photos in the first place they would have never asked about the process.

 

[brian steinberger]

I'm arguing that one of the most practical/pragmatic reason for the identification of the process, is the archivability that the process implies, but which is also heavily dependent on the printer's craftsmanship.

I agree with this too. Just because we label a print as silver gelatin many times we just assume it's better because of its archival qualities. But to buy a silver gelatin photograph we are assuming that it is processed up to archival standards. And whether or not that printer prints up to archival standards or even knows if he prints to archival standards is not known.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Vivian Maier is represented by the same gallery as our very own APUG member MaximusM3 (Massimo Marinucci). He is very picky about his photographs, and is extremely impressed with Maier's prints. $3-7k for a print is what the market will bear, and I know the prints are selling.

Silver gelatin MAY be fiber based, but could also be RC (resin coated). If it doesn't specify, you should ask, but it's probably fiber.

Make that Vivian Cherry, guys and gals. Sorry. Brain fart.

Although Cherry's photographs sell for a mint too.

 

[removed account4]

i think it is kind of funny to be honest, that people give modern RC papers such a bad rap as if they aren't every bit as good as fiber papers.
if you look at the testing done by the image permanency institute you will see that rc papers are every bit as archival as fiber, they even suggest even MORE archival.
its just one more snobbism i suppose ...

if you ask me, if the thing printed / imaged isn't interesting, i couldn't care less what medium it was made from ...
the hope diamond ground down mixed with glass from sand found in king tut's tomb, with a negative processed in hiv+ blood and chinese amidol, printed in
platinum+paladium from metals melted down from kings of the 14th century and toned in radium with gummed over tones made from ancient lapis lazul mined in
the 9th century afghan laphis mine ( sacre bleu ) and juniper berries..

too many people put emphasis on process not on content ..

 

[mfohl]

No, no they are certainly special at those prices. Special for the seller's bank account. If he can sell all of them at those prices two magnificent things follow:

1. President Obama can declare the U.S. to have left the recession far behind and sing "Happy Days Are Here Again"
2. The seller can buy and reopen Lehman Brothers

pentaxuser

Have you seen the prices for Peter Lik photographs? Or Andy Warhol? Ansel Adams or Mapplethorpe? What's a photo worth? Whatever someone is willing to pay. Whereas if one photo sells for a mint, it may have been sold to a sucker. But if lots of them sell, then I think the photos are very very very good.

 

[papermaker]

OK guys,

I emailed the gallery that handles the prints from famed street photographer Vivian Maier..? So for a 12x12 printed on 16x20 sized paper runs between 3,000 - 7,000 dollars for SILVER GELATINE print. So.. is a Silver gelatine print something different than what most of us here print on?

ToddB

Some of the responses posted have centered on the purpose/value of using the term Silver Gelatine Print (SGP) in the first place. This was addressed very well in Post #32 in which Simon Galley explained why the term is important.

SGP or GSP (Gelatine Silver Print) have a life that dates back to at least the 1960s. The term is actually a technical description of the major/functional components of the image bearing layer in a particular photographic print and has been in use in the art world and academia since at least the 1960s – in the art world to differentiate and in academia to precisely describe materials. While much is often implied in today’s artistic use, by itself, SGP is not a statement about how the image was processed, the expertise of the printer, the quality/value of the final print, nor the support that the image bearing layer is coated on.

Post #32 also addressed some apparent confusion about fiber/baryta/RC base terminology. Fiber base technically only differentiates between a fiber and film base support material. In practical use, fiber base can mean a paper (fiber) support or a fiber support coated with a baryta layer or another type of barrier layer. The RC paper designation was meant to distinguish it from a baryta coated paper. Even though the core of the RC support is a fiber base, the RC support is not, in practice, identified as a fiber base.

Back to the question(s).

Silver Gelatine Print? The same as Fiber base print? No, they are not the same thing. The first describes the major components of an image bearing layer. The second describes a fiber support material that might be one of at least 3 types.

Is a Silver gelatine print something different than what most of us here print on? In the context of the prints referred to in the question and the Post #32 explanation about how the art world interprets the information, we can probably say that they are not different, assuming that “what most of us here print on” is a baryta coated fiber base paper with a silver gelatin image bearing layer.

 

[AgX]

SGP or GSP (Gelatine Silver Print) have a life that dates back to at least the 1960s. The term is actually a technical description of the major/functional components of the image bearing layer in a particular photographic print and has been in use in the art world and academia since at least the 1960s.

Concerning the terminology used over here I very much doubt this. (Aside the fact that there merely was any art-dealing in photographies).

 

[papermaker]

Concerning the terminology used over here I very much doubt this. (Aside the fact that there merely was any art-dealing in photographies).

If what you doubt is the reference to the late 1960s, you might be correct. The source was a comment I saw some time ago that a museum had used the term silver gelatin in the 1960s. I don’t have independent confirmation so in the interest of accuracy should not have used it.

Following is an edit of the original paragraph in the interest of trying to be more technically accurate.

SGP or GSP (Gelatine Silver Print) is a technical description of the major/functional components of the image bearing layer in a particular photographic print and has been used in the art world and academia to differentiate from other print products. While much is often implied in today’s artistic use, by itself, SGP is not a statement about how the image was processed, the expertise of the printer, the quality/value of the final print, nor the support that the image bearing layer was coated on.

 

[Bob Carnie]

I have always referred to my prints as toned silver gelatin fiber prints. I think I am comfortable with that.

 

[StoneNYC]

I dry down silver gelatin test strips in a little toaster over in an adjacent room. If I leave it in there too long, it turns into carbon gelatin.

You make carbon prints with your toaster?

 

[StoneNYC]

I have always referred to my prints as toned silver gelatin fiber prints. I think I am comfortable with that.

I say "chemically printed not ink jet" hah!

 

[erikg]

If what you doubt is the reference to the late 1960s, you might be correct. The source was a comment I saw some time ago that a museum had used the term silver gelatin in the 1960s. I don’t have independent confirmation so in the interest of accuracy should not have used it.

Following is an edit of the original paragraph in the interest of trying to be more technically accurate.

SGP or GSP (Gelatine Silver Print) is a technical description of the major/functional components of the image bearing layer in a particular photographic print and has been used in the art world and academia to differentiate from other print products. While much is often implied in today’s artistic use, by itself, SGP is not a statement about how the image was processed, the expertise of the printer, the quality/value of the final print, nor the support that the image bearing layer was coated on.

I work at an art museum and I can confirm that the term has been in use there since at least the 70's. It's one of the terms within the art materials lexicon widely used by institutions world wide, along with descriptions of painting techniques, non-photographic printmaking etc. As institutions move towards having more interconnected databases these terms have become more standardized. All to aid in searching.
I think your definition is excellent.

 

[AgX]

I work at an art museum and I can confirm that the term has been in use there since at least the 70's. It's one of the terms within the art materials lexicon widely used by institutions world wide, along with descriptions of painting techniques, non-photographic printmaking etc.

I have not found it in any of my (photoengineering) books. Which does not matter as this is about the art world. I just wanted to say...

 

[erikg]

I have not found it in any of my (photoengineering) books. Which does not matter as this is about the art world. I just wanted to say...

Interesting. Different worlds, different lingo. I remember when this came up once before that PE hadn't seen it either, I recall that he was surprised to learn that the Eastman House uses it on their labels.

 

[AgX]

From the perspective of a photoengineer one easily could designate a RA-4 or Ilfochrome or even SX-70 print as silver-gelatine-print.
I would rather say "material" than "print", not to put emphasis on the final stage. And knowing what the art world is occupied with I would not expect that wide use there. But you see, terminology is based on the context it is used in, on the very aspect one want to hint at. Silver-gelatin as such incorparates a variety of aspects.