transparancy of process and naming what one does

[removed account4]

how important is it that a photographer making photographs, no matter the way he does it,
names it consistantly with whatever process he or she uses ?
some processes people use are very old like making retina prints. it was originally made by Nicéphore Niépce
and was a long exposed paper negative made from a light sensitive stew he made. is it OK to call a similar
process made with home made emulsion, bottled emulsion or store bought paper the same name? ...
or making modern trichromes using a computer, instead of registering each negative by hand in a color
darkroom. can the modern ones still be called trichromes ? ... a modern spin on an old process.

the original positive+negative in camera photographic process invented by talbot bears his name, the talbotype. for me at least
there has always been confusion about what is what in the process. is the negative "stage" the calotype?
is it a salted negative? is the final positive print a salt print, or a calotype? is the whole process
called calotype? i learned recently that there are people who call a modern paper negative by the same
name ( talbotype, salt print or calotype ) because it makes a paper negative, like talbot's process, but modern photo paper..
it kind of tookme by surprise because i always thought to call something by a specific process either it is exactly like what
it is called, or it is made with the same intent. which brings me back to retina prints.
is it ethically wrong to call something a retina print when it wasn't made with the same emulsion &c
should they just be called long exposed paper negatives?
and what happens if someone makes a positive print out of something that was originally a process
( like talbot's ) used to make the negative, a developed out calotype postiive image? is that still
a salt print?

 

[pdeeh]

that's a different case though.

if I make a paper negative using Ilford paper and call it a calotype, that is misleading to anyone who knows what a calotype is. it's not the same thing as the thing that is already known as a calotype.

if I make a photogram and call it a pdeehogram, that's just a different name for a photogram.

 

[removed account4]

Man Ray called his prints "Rayographs" and nobody complains.

that's a different case though.

if I make a paper negative using Ilford paper and call it a calotype, that is misleading to anyone who knows what a calotype is. it's not the same thing as the thing that is already known as a calotype.

if I make a photogram and call it a pdeehogram, that's just a different name for a photogram.

exactly !!

 

[NedL]

I'm with you and pdeeh about not calling modern photopaper negatives "calotypes".

But how authentic does something need to be to use its original name? There are so many parts! I've been using Canson Vidalon vellum paper to make calotypes. This paper is a sulfite bond paper that has been manufactured under extreme pressure to make it translucent. All the early calotypists had to struggle with what papers they could find, and often had to wax them to make them printable. So my calotypes are not authentic at all in that way, and if someone wants to say they are not authentic calotypes, I wouldn't argue with them.

I don't think there are many people on this planet making retinas. Niépce put silver chloride on paper and exposed in a camera obscura for a long time until an image was visible. He didn't develop it and couldn't fix it. If you make one using modern photopaper or emulsion on paper, then you've decided it is the ephemeral "printed out" image that makes it a retina print rather than the silver chloride. That seems fine to me. I suspect you personally have made more of them than anyone else currently living, and probably more than Niépce himself made, so as far as I'm concerned you can call them whatever you like! But I have to warn you, once you put the retina negative into your scanner, some people will tell you that you can't even call it a photograph anymore...

 

[removed account4]

hi greg

i don't think i would like the image any less or anymore, i would just feel a little different
about the image, how it was made and how it was sold to me, i suppose.
IDK maybe 12 years ago starbucks used to have these beautiful prints on their walls
that looked-like glass plate images. a practicioner of pt/pd image making suggested they
looked like gum-over-platinum on glass. i had never heard of platinum on glass, and it kind of blew my mind,
and i was eventually told that they weren't that at all, but a beautiful photo illustration made by very skilled
photo editing users. i was still pretty impressed ! but if i had bought a print and was TOLD by the maker
that it was a gum-over-platinum on glass image before i bought it, i would be different than if i was told it was a photo illustration of
that ... i'd still pay money for it, probably the same, but i wouldn't feel as if i was "tricked" ..
i don't know, maybe its just me? maybe it doesn't matter in the end, an image is an image and meant to be enjoyed, and no matter what it might
be called, it is still going to be enjoyed...

thanks for your insights ned, as someone who makes calotypes and salt prints i was hoping you would chime in.
and yeah i know what you mean about as soon as it hits a scanner it is something different ... i tend to say it is a photograph/sKKan OF a retina print
but i guess its kind of obvious the sKKanned version isn't the original ... i can't call them retinal scans, i'm not an MD

 

[pdeeh]

If you like a photograph and later find out it is printed on something different than you previously thought, for whatever reason, do you like it less?

But this is clearly not an issue of aesthetics or liking.

This is an ethical issue - is it OK to call something one thing when it is clearly another?

I know from Ned that making a calotype is amazingly fiddly and time consuming, and requires considerable experience, skill and judgment to make it right.

I know from making paper negatives with enlarging paper myself that it's a question of shooting and developing, and the major obstacle is working out what speed to shoot at.

Now, if someone sells me a "calotype" for £1000, I might like it just as much (or more) than if someone sells me a print from a paper negative of the same subject for £100, but I might be willing to pay £1000 because I know that a (real) calotype requires so much effort to make.

If I found out that the photographer (or gallery or shyster) had sold me a paper negative print and not what I understood to be a calotype, then I might - not unreasonably - be popping round with a baseball bat to discuss the transaction.

 

[jeffreyg]

Honesty is always the best policy. I don't think many people care too much about the original capture but the finished product should be correctly represented.

http://www.jeffreyglasser.com/

 

[grahamp]

An accurate description of what it is (advertising standards) seems fair. On the other hand, you can get too carried away and use terms only an expert would recognize.

 

[pdeeh]

Well these are interesting questions, and like so many things, picking particular "edge cases" makes it look all rather absurd.

So, we might say that "calotype" is a term only an expert would recognise.

It's clear that slight variations don't vary the situation however. A calotype not made with the exact materials Talbot used is still a calotype (many of his contemporaries made them too, and they wouldn't have used exactly the same materials as he did; but they would still be calotypes).

So I make salted paper prints, but I don't use the thin linen notepaper Talbot used. They are nevertheless salted paper prints.

On the other hand, someone representing a paper negative made on commercial enlarging paper as a "calotype" isn't making a minor (or even major) variation; they are making something else altogether.

We have to be practical about this. Nitpicking edge cases doesn't tell us anything useful about gross misrepresentation.

 

[pdeeh]

giclée is a nice case isn't it. As we all know, a giclée print is an inkjet print.
Before that French chap started to use the word "giclée" to mean inkjet print, the usage didn't exist.
So to call something that is an inkjet print a "giclée" is not a misrepresentation, is it?

Yet, whenever my more naive artist friends tell me that they have had a set of giclées done of their paintings, and I say "Inkjets you mean?", they go "Oh no no no! Giclée prints!" ... and the more I explain that they've just paid several hundred pounds for inkjet prints, the more they insist that they have had Giclée prints made.

In the end they get very very annoyed with me.

 

[pentaxuser]

if I make a photogram and call it a pdeehogram, that's just a different name for a photogram.

Absolutely the wrong nomenclature. A pdeehogram is a short message in block capitals on paper delivered by pdeeh in post office uniform on a green BSA bantam motorcycle

pentaxuser

 

[cowanw]

For the record, the Talbotype was his first process and was a pop negative . The Calotype was a dop negative developed in gallic acid and fixed in Hypo. The print was a salt print. in both cases. The processes are documented as patents and that is what defines a name.

 

[pdeeh]

in post office uniform on a green BSA bantam motorcycle

That would be a GPO uniform, and surely an AJS of some sort?

 

[pentaxuser]

That would be a GPO uniform, and surely an AJS of some sort?

Quite right on GPO but I am fairly sure that the two-stroke 125cc BSA Bantam was the bike used, certainly most commonly. They were cheap, easy to maintain and as most of the deliveries were short-haul high speed wasn't needed. Mind you they'd do 50mph or a bit better if required

I was a big fan of the 350cc longstroke "Jampot" AJ. Anyway I'd better stop this off topic "Dad's Army" type of rambling

pentaxuser

 

[pdeeh]

I was thinking AJS aesthetically rather than historically accurately. ly.

 

[faberryman]

What used to be called a black and white print is now called a silver gelatin print; what used to be called a color print is now called a chromogenic dye print, and what used to be called an inkjet print, is now called an archival pigment print. While technically accurate, I can't help getting the feeling that calling them as such is more a matter of pretension than technical accuracy. Calling an inkjet print a giclée print is egregiously pretentious. In all these cases, the materials for these prints are bought ready-made off the shelf.

 

[removed account4]

how far from the original process can one get and still call it as such?

exactly, is calling a ilford resin coated paper negative a calotype OK, especially if you know talbot's process
and what people are doing today as calotypes ? for me at least it is a bit of a stretch to say, because it is a paper negative
and a calotype is a paper negative it is the same thing,or OK to call it that. i guess one can say, yeah i know its not an actual calotype
but because it is a paper negative, i am just refering to all my paper negatives as calotype as a personal "standard" ... and if someone
says " hey, that's not a hand made salted and potassium bromide'd print developed in gallic acid !" you just say, "yeah i know .. sorry for the confusion.. "

 

[pdeeh]

What used to be called a black and white print is now called a silver gelatin print;

But some distinctions are nevertheless useful.

All printed black and white photographs are black and white prints, speaking literally (which few of us do, or at least not all the time). Although,of coursem there are those people who will argue (vacuously) that only a chemically made image is a real photograph, but then they are fanatics who can safely be ignored.

In this case, "used to be called" can be seen as signalling a time before such things as inkjets existed.

It is a useful distinction to call something a "silver gelatin print" to distinguish it from an inkjet print (which of course might also be tagged as giclee or archival pigment blah blah).

Things are in general not often either/or when linguistic habits or commerce or yes even snobbery come into it. "And" is much more useful.

I think John's point in the thread is not about usages that simply annoy, us or that we think out place (mostly because we grew up with them and don't like change), but about representing one thing as another, right in the middle of usage and well away from the edge cases.

 

[Ian Leake]

It is important to be transparent. People buying our work deserve to know what they're getting, and people learning from us deserve honesty. Personally, I'd be furious if I bought a this-otype only to find it is actually a that-otype.

But what's in a name?

The history of photography is littered with examples of people who have announced a new something-otype process, but upon investigation it's clear that all they've done is tweak an existing process: perhaps by swapping one chemical for another with similar action, or by adding a modifying component.

All active photographic processes are being continually refined and extended. To give every variant a new process name soon gets very confusing. This is especially true of alt-processes where historical materials are often no longer available or are sometimes too dangerous to use. So, at least for me, a process name covers quite a broad continuum, with hardcore historical precision at one end and a wider range of process variants at the other.

But this becomes problematic when different variants of a process produce material differences in the the finished works. My own particular bugbear is when people label palladium prints as platinum prints. Although they are similar, they are not the same thing - they have different visual and archival properties.

The only way is complete transparency about our process. That way the name we use is supported by facts. And people can then make up their own mind about whether or not the name is accurate.

 

[Maris]

What used to be called a black and white print is now called a silver gelatin print;....

faberryman identifies a tragic misnomer that misled thought about photography for a very long time. The "gelatin-silver" picture is a photograph not a print. To call it a print confuses its identity with things that are actually prints. And sure enough if you allow that photographs are prints then inevitably someone will insist that prints are photographs; witness the giclee madness.

Some years ago in a gallery I saw a large film positive lying on a mount board and it was called a print presumably because there was paper under the image. But when the film postive was picked up and looked through it suddenly became a photograph. Maybe if it was replaced on the mount board it would become a print again! Folks, the darn things are photographs whether the light-sensitive emulsion is coated on film-base or paper. In a world glutted with pictures photograph is a powerful word designating very special objects. I say photograph and I say it with pride.

 

[removed account4]

thanks maris !

are paper negatives calotypes, talbotypes or salt prints ... because talbot used a paper negative ?

john

ps a shadow on my counter or wall or side of my neigbor's house is a photograph too, and it is like a photographic movie.

 

[JPJackson]

It is important to be transparent. People buying our work deserve to know what they're getting, and people learning from us deserve honesty. Personally, I'd be furious if I bought a this-otype only to find it is actually a that-otype.

But what's in a name?

The history of photography is littered with examples of people who have announced a new something-otype process, but upon investigation it's clear that all they've done is tweak an existing process: perhaps by swapping one chemical for another with similar action, or by adding a modifying component.

All active photographic processes are being continually refined and extended. To give every variant a new process name soon gets very confusing. This is especially true of alt-processes where historical materials are often no longer available or are sometimes too dangerous to use. So, at least for me, a process name covers quite a broad continuum, with hardcore historical precision at one end and a wider range of process variants at the other.

But this becomes problematic when different variants of a process produce material differences in the the finished works. My own particular bugbear is when people label palladium prints as platinum prints. Although they are similar, they are not the same thing - they have different visual and archival properties.

The only way is complete transparency about our process. That way the name we use is supported by facts. And people can then make up their own mind about whether or not the name is accurate.

+1
The idea is that the "public" does not know what a palladium print is, but do know what a platinum print is, so it is OK to use the term platinum when it is a palladium print seems duplicitous to me.

 

[Bob Carnie]

I make gum pigment over palladium

Is the term gum bichromate in relationship with the fact I can use two types of dichromate with the process... and if so why would my process not be called

Gum Di chromates over top palladium.. I am confused.

 

[JPJackson]

I make gum pigment over palladium

Is the term gum bichromate in relationship with the fact I can use two types of dichromate with the process... and if so why would my process not be called

Gum Di chromates over top palladium.. I am confused.

Gum dichromate over palladium sounds accurate to me.

 

[Vaughn]

When people calling inkjet prints using carbon based pigments "carbon prints", I tend to get a little testy. I would not trust any gallery who allows their photographers to call their inkjet prints "carbon prints". Carbon prints have been around since 1864.