transparancy of process and naming what one does

[bsdunek]

I didn't know that was happening. Sounds like the news media - Misinformation!

 

[faberryman]

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

If the paper negative is a silver gelatin paper, and the print from the paper negative is on silver gelatin paper, why not call it a silver gelatin print. Why call it anything else?

We don't say, for example, carbon [transfer] print from a digital inter-negative. Isn't the point what the end result is, not what the intermediate steps are.

 

[pdeeh]

well no, sometimes the process is the defining thing. sometimes the end result is the defining thing

 

[faberryman]

I think if you want to call a print a calotype or talbottype, it should be done in the historically correct manner. Otherwise it is just a contact print from a paper negative. Why dress it up with a fancy name? It's disingenuous.

 

[pdeeh]

I'm not disagreeing that being disingenuous is being disingenuous.
Simply saying that end result is not always the defining characteristic of something.

 

[faberryman]

Understood. The question to ask is what is the motivation for calling a print by a special name. Is it to be technically accurate? Is it to impress the viewer? Something else?

For example, perhaps John can chime in on why he calls what he does here "retina prints".

 

[pdeeh]

John has already posted about retina prints in this thread hasn't he?

 

[faberryman]

John has already posted about retina prints in this thread hasn't he?

Not really. What John calls "retina prints" are not "retinas" a la Niepce ; they are something else entirely. The question is why he calls them that. Instead of inkjet print, or archival pigment print, or giclee, or something else. Is it a hand-tinted giclee, or a Photoshopped scan of a paper negative, or a just what? Giving it a name with a historic context implies something. Just what?

I have to say I like them, but that is not the subject of the thread.

 

[removed account4]

what is it about the retina images that i make that is so very different from what Nicéphore Niépce made?
he used silver chloride/ salted paper, i use commerical or hand made photo paper or film. he used a camera
obscura with a lens, i use a camera with a lens ( either hand made or store bought camera and lens )
and a camera is a camera obscura for the most part.
his exposures took hours or days, and some of mine have taken the same amount of time.
unfortunately, he was not able to preserve his original impressions on paper, but thankfully i am
able to scan the image, and through the marvels of modern technology i am able to invert it if i want
and add color/tint if i want.
i have never hidden the fact that i have scanned the original impression / image on the paper
and added color/tinted the imags in ps, or with water color paint &c. i've tried to be transparent and
honest and given credit where credit is due ( Nicéphore Niépce's original long exposed imaging technique ) .

they aren't paper negatives because paper negatives implies conventionally exposed photo paper
that is developed and fixed, not something that took 40 mins or 2 days to expose, that stained the paper or film, and can't be preserved.
i originally called them in camera chemical free POP prints, but it got to be too long and too much
explaining, of what a POP print, and that chemical free meant i didn't develop the images because they would
either vanish to white or turn black, so i thought about Nicéphore Niépce and what he had done
and what he called his ephemeral images, so i called mine the same thing because as far as i can tell
they pretty much are the same thing; at least the base impression/base image is the same.

i don't really so much to them, and if i invert them it is obvious it is an inverted negative ( positive ) and if i add color,
i say they are "tinted" using photoshop. the photograms i make in the sun, i call sun prints because
that is what they are.
i am open to calling the retina prints something completely different, i'm not really emotionally tied
to that expression, but i haven't come up with
a good, short, name. if you have a better name, i'm happy to change what i call them !

 

[faberryman]

Here is what you said in response to another post:

"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."

Actually, you tend to say they are retina prints. You don't call them scanned and hand colored and/or photoshopped retinas. And it is only obvious it is not an original retina to someone steeped in the history of photography. Are you being transparent or opaque? And for what reason.

 

[Vaughn]

If the paper negative is a silver gelatin paper, and the print from the paper negative is on silver gelatin paper, why not call it a silver gelatin print. Why call it anything else?

We don't say, for example, carbon [transfer] print from a digital inter-negative. Isn't the point what the end result is, not what the intermediate steps are.

Ah...but we do say that amongst ourselves so that we get important information across to each other. If we are talking about losing highlight detail in the print, then the info of camera negative vs inkjet negative is significant. And what is the harm in a little more information that will be useful to some, but not all? Might spark some interest.

And who knows...someday one's print might be of interest to someone long after the creator was died. A little more info on the back of the print might be helpful.

 

[removed account4]

Here is what you said in response to another post:

"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."

Actually, you tend to say they are retina prints. You don't call them scanned and hand colored and/or photoshopped retinas. And it is only obvious it is not an original retina to someone steeped in the history of photography. Are you being transparent or opaque? And for what reason.

i'm not being opaque at all.
i think it is obvious that they are scanned, otherwise they wouldn't be shared online or preserved as a file.
i say they are tinted in PS or hand colored when i add color to them. i don't add color to a lot of them,
and i don't photoshop them other than to invert them - the scanner-drive i click "reset" and it
removes all the level-changes, most of the time, the scan is a straight scan, as much as it can be.

and when asked i say exactly what they are, how they are made and how the original ones were made 170 years ago.
and yes as soon as an image is scanned it IS something different, it turns grey and its life is over, and if left in a dark drawer
or box in a dark room they turn grey as well. i have a drawer full of grey photo paper that once had light stained images on them.

as i said, i am happy to call them something else, maybe i will just call them photographs.
but unfortunately that is completely vague.

the difference between my calling long exposed sun stained paper negatives retina prints
and a paper negative made with ilford photo paper inverted and tinted in PS a calotype/salt print or talbotype
is extremely different.

Understood. The question to ask is what is the motivation for calling a print by a special name. Is it to be technically accurate? Is it to impress the viewer? Something else?

For example, perhaps John can chime in on why he calls what he does here "retina prints".

if you read the post in the blog you linked to it specifically said i scanned and inverted the image
and added colors to the negative. where is it that i am being opaque?

 

[Ian Leake]

if you read the post in the blog you linked to it specifically said i scanned and inverted the image
and added colors to the negative. where is it that i am being opaque?

It seems to me that you've been completely open about the process you use.

 

[faberryman]

Okay, you are right. My mistake.

 

[removed account4]

thanks ian, ..

faberryman, do you have a better name for what i call the long exposed images ?
its hard to put into a small name what they are, and i don't want to call them
nanograms, that name will be for my images on saran wrap, but i haven't done that yet ...

 

[faberryman]

Why name them at all? It's the path to the dark side.

 

[removed account4]

Why name them at all? It's the path to the dark side.

because they aren't "modern" ( post 1839 ) photographs, they aren't developed or fixed, they didn't originate as digital files et c.,
and i don't want someone to see or buy one and think it is something that it is not ... if it leads me to doom,
i would rather someone know what it is ( seeing i was told it was impossible to make these images )
so if someone wants to do it on their own, or know what IS possible, instead of listening to all the BS artists, naysayers and people that just pass on
bs in a post and have no clue ( BS artist enabler? ) ...

maybe i will just call them "photographs"
drawn with light ...

 

[pdeeh]

I think you should call them papiferous photonic excitation revenants

 

[faberryman]

I don't understand your need to give them a special name.

And your claim that they are not digital after you have scanned them, inverted (and sometimes "tinted") them in Photoshop, and printed them out on an inkjet printer is curious to say the least.

 

[removed account4]

I don't understand your need to give them a special name.

And your claim that they are not digital after you have scanned them, inverted (and sometimes "tinted") them in Photoshop, and printed them out on an inkjet printer is curious to say the least.

maybe you should actually read what i have said here on apug or other places i write about what i do, rather than
make statements and attibute them to me or something i have done.

i have never stated that they aren't a product of long exposure and capturing the image with a scanner. **
i have never stated that the images weren't inverted in PS, or tinted in PS ( or by hand with watercolors and then scanned )
i have never once printed them with an ink jet printer

YOUR comments are curious to say the least...

[added later to clarify]
** meaning there is an image that appears on the photographic film, or photo paper, or glass/metal plate
and before it turns grey i scan the image to preserve it, the retina print, and further use it, either by inverting in in photoshop, adjusting the levels to compensate for the scanner ruining the image, or using color from photoshop to tint the image.

 

[faberryman]

i have never stated that they aren't a product of long exposure and capturing the image with a scanner.
i have never stated that the images weren't inverted in PS, or tinted in PS ( or by hand with watercolors and then scanned )
i have never once printed them with an ink jet printer.

I never said you never stated that the images weren't captured with a scanner
I never said you never stated that the images weren't inverted in PS or tinted in PS

The fact is you did state those things, which is why I said that when you say they are not digital images I find that curious.

If you are not printing them on an inkjet printer, how are you printing them? Are they laser C-prints for example. Is that how you get the images on those canvases you sell at imagekind.com. What type of prints are the other options you offer on imagekind.com. I noticed they offered "giclee paper prints". To quote them:

"We are dedicated to selling and producing your work with the highest quality framed giclee prints and recognized attention-to-detail."

 

[removed account4]

how the heck have i claimed that an image that appears on a computer screen was never scanned?

i HAVE made some long exposed images that were soaked in devloper first and dried and exposed, scanned and inverted,
and a color image appeared, maybe that is what you are talking about ?

maybe you should read what i write a little better.

 

[faberryman]

You went back and altered you post:

It now reads "they didn't originate as digital files et c.,"

That's quite different than what you wrote before when you asserted that they weren't digital.

I can't read what you write a little better if you keep changing it.

 

[removed account4]

John has already posted about retina prints in this thread hasn't he?

yes i have ...

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Closed in response to request of original poster.