What is a C print?

Sean · Oct 6, 2004

Jim Dine calls his inkjet prints "pigment print" - since he uses pigment inks to produce the final image - any problems with that description?

Would you have a problem with a company coming out with "silver" branded inksets, and "gelatin" branded papers, and artists that use this ink and paper selling their prints as "silver gelatin" prints? Because it is going to happen, just give it another year..

tim atherton · Oct 8, 2004

Sean said:
So as far as your concerned, a hand crafted c-print and a "digital c-print" produced by a machine are identical in their intrinsic value? I just can't stomach that because it seems misleading and a bit too convenient, but I guess it is a buyer beware market..

Much of the most highly priced colour work from some of todays "best" photographers takes this route

It isn't about "hand crafted" vs "machine made" - which is pretty much a false dichotomy. It's more about getting the best looking image/photograph that fits with the photographers vision.

A "hand made" (if you like) digital colour print usually offers the photographer vastly more control over the final print than does the "traditional" wet darkroom process (I'm talking "C" prints in the context of this discussion - not exotic and expensive colour carbon processes or almost impossible to find dye transfer process etc).

Sean · Oct 8, 2004

"It's more about getting the best looking image/photograph that fits with the photographers vision."

So as long as the final image looks good that is all that matters then, regardless of who produced it? Someone can snap a pic and simply drop the file or negative off at a digital lab paying for the "professional output" option that includes "drum scan, full color calibration, and creative assistance including dodging, burning, sharpening, cropping, dust removal, etc", come back a day later and pick up their masterpiece, then sell it for $500 as a traditional hand crafted C-print? You make a good point and I see where you are coming from, but it only applies to the handful of honest photographers and artists out there who genuinely use digital as a craft (Les McLean for example). When I buy art I like to know how the piece was made, why would I pay for something a digital lab banged out for someone? Many digital artists want it to be a non-issue, one has to ask why is this?

tim atherton · Oct 25, 2004

Sean said:
"It's more about getting the best looking image/photograph that fits with the photographers vision."

So as long as the final image looks good that is all that matters then, regardless of who produced it? Someone can snap a pic and simply drop the file or negative off at a digital lab paying for the "professional output" option that includes "drum scan, full color calibration, and creative assistance including dodging, burning, sharpening, cropping, dust removal, etc", come back a day later and pick up their masterpiece, then sell it for $500 as a traditional hand crafted C-print? You make a good point and I see where you are coming from, but it only applies to the handful of honest photographers and artists out there who genuinely use digital as a craft (Les McLean for example). When I buy art I like to know how the piece was made, why would I pay for something a digital lab banged out for someone? Many digital artists want it to be a non-issue, one has to ask why is this?

Not at all - in the past, I'd say the majority of colour photographers had a lab do up all their prints. Some always provided much more input to the pritning process than others. Some had a favourite printer (who often came to know the photogorpahers style so well that the photogorpaher ended up having to give little input). A good few basiucally gave broad instructions to the lab and let the pritner do their stuff.

In fact, digital work (by which I mean here work made from scans from negs/trannies) has had something of the opposite effect, with many colour photographers becoming much more invloved in the printing side - at least "pre-prodcution" - as they can now exercise a great deal more control over their work than the "skilled pritner" could in the past. The final work is then sent off to the lab for printing from a master file.

It's not really digital artist who want it to be a non issue - it was always a non-issue.

In the past, buy an expensive colour print from famous XYZ colour photographer (insert you name of choice) and there was a very good chance it wasn't pritned by him/her - it was just a non iussue. (much of Paul Graham's excellent work was often done at the local High Street photo lab to highlight just this point - it still sold for a few thousand pounds - sells for an awful lot more now). But a "hand crafted" C print - what difference does it make if the picture is a good one? Very little.

In a way, colour work has never been as slavishly tied to the issue of darkroom craft as B&W has - the photogorpaher made the image, the printer printed it.

Ed Sukach · Oct 25, 2004

tim atherton said:
Not at all - in the past, I'd say the majority of colour photographers had a lab do up all their prints.

You are of course, correct. BUT ... there are those (including me) who DO their own color printing. I find that the communication gap with another printer would be too great.

Not all of us "found more freedom" in digital. To me, there is considerably less.

lee · Oct 25, 2004

Yeah Tim I agree. All of the commercial shooters used to have the chromes processed at a lab and then they would even have the lab deliver the prints or the transparencies to their studio. This is nothing new.

lee\c

Sean · Oct 25, 2004

Personally I could not feel comfortable selling anything as "my work" unless it was handled by me from start to finish. Not given to a lab for prints, or given to a machine for output. As ludicris as some mind find that, it's just me..

mark · Oct 25, 2004

I agree with you Sean but my color blindness prevents me from printing color. SO for color I have to go out for printing. It is a bummer but a fact of life for some of us. BW sure gets boring for me after a while. Color is a struggle at times but I find it worth it. I am stil looking for a wet darkroom that still does cibas, that I would not have sell the family into servitude to afford a print that cost 12.00US a few years ago.

tim atherton · Oct 26, 2004

But as I said - pick any one of the best/most well known colour workers today (especailly those whose work sells int he thousands) and there's probably a 75% chance their printer pritned the image - Meyerowitz, Sternfeld, Misrach, Gursky, Struth, Cohen, James, Eggleston whatever "flavour" of work you like, it's probably the case.

Many (though not all) sculpturs don't/didn't cast their own bronzes either - a foundry does it.

sanking · Oct 26, 2004

Tim atherton said:
But as I said - pick any one of the best/most well known colour workers today (especailly those whose work sells int he thousands) and there's probably a 75% chance their printer pritned the image - Meyerowitz, Sternfeld, Misrach, Gursky, Struth, Cohen, James, Eggleston whatever "flavour" of work you like, it's probably the case.

Many (though not all) sculpturs don't/didn't cast their own bronzes either - a foundry does it.

Tim,

I fully agree, but I would place the figure much higher, i.e., that all of the great color artists had their work printed by someone else about 98% of the time. The technical demands of color printing have always been such that printing one's own work is not compatible with image making, certainly not when one is a working professional and trying to earn a living. The time needed to master the skill requirements simply leave little or no time for the creative process of image making. There are a few exceptions that come to mind, Elliot Porter for example, but such cases are very rare.

Let's not forget that in painting many, perhaps most, of the great masters had their assistants do much of the work, and this practice goes on even today. I know for a fact that several very well known contemporary artists (painters) working in New York have assistants who do between 85-95% of the actual painting of their works.

I strongly support analog photography but in the case of color work the mantra of the anti-digital folks really flies in the face of reality. It is, quite simply, a bridge that goes too far, at last in my humble opinion.

Sandy

Murray@uptowngallery · Nov 23, 2004

I too am finding the cliches annoying.

A gallery/lab I was just at answered this same question for me as C-print = chromogenic. This begs the question...what does "chromogenic" mean? Does this mean nothing more than "it's a color photo", but how unhip is that terminology anymore?

I have been talking to someone at work about b/w photography and they keep asking me if someone's work is silver gelatin, in a tone of voice that I expect to be followed by genuflection.

I have read some discussion if this before, and asked Kodak to confirm my suspicion, and have my own opinion, that if the image you are viewing is b/w, and it isn't Pd/Pt, kallitype, etc, digital or Xerography, then, gosh it must be silver gelatin...even RC is silver gelatin underneath.

We used to say RC or fiber in school, but fiber has other connotations.

Kodak confirmed that all their (current) non-digital non-inkjet photo papers are indeed silver gelatin, whether fiber, RC, AZO or whatever.

Is this more significant than I am seeing?

roteague · Nov 23, 2004

tim atherton said:
Meyerowitz

I haven't seen much of Joel Meyerowitz's work, but if his book on Tuscany is any example, I would say it is c**p. Bland colors, blown highlights, questionable composition.

roteague · Nov 23, 2004

sanking said:
The time needed to master the skill requirements simply leave little or no time for the creative process of image making. There are a few exceptions that come to mind, Elliot Porter for example, but such cases are very rare.

I used to do color printing (Cibachrome) and I find you are right; I would rather spend my time photographing and researching for my various projects. I have West Coast Imaging do all my printing work.

jd callow · Nov 23, 2004

I would agree that most photographers, especially those working in colour have their film processed and prints made by others.

I do know very few photographers who at some point did not learn how to competently manage if not master the printing process. It is not a process that is all that difficult to do competently and is something that most photographers should know very well if they are to fully realize their creative ambitions.

My attempts at producing art are strongly supported by my printmaking. I could not delegate printing at this point in my career. I can imagine myself, in the future, brow beating some poor printer with my colour/dodging/burning requirements, but then I will have some knowledge of what is I require and the experience to know if it is feasible.

My opinion is, of course, just that. It is based upon my anecdotal experiences and is humbly offered.

mark · Nov 23, 2004

sanking said:
Tim,

I fully agree, but I would place the figure much higher, i.e., that all of the great color artists had their work printed by someone else about 98% of the time. The technical demands of color printing have always been such that printing one's own work is not compatible with image making, certainly not when one is a working professional and trying to earn a living. Sandy

Sandy
I find this statement from you to be , well.....rather hypocritical. With all of the work you do testing film, and fiddling in front of a computer getting a computer neg just right for your alt printing, it seems that you definately put forth the effort for a BW print. Does the technicalities and learning curve of BW hinder the image making? Or does it all work to create the final vision? Could it possibly be the same for the color photographer?

mark · Nov 23, 2004

mrcallow said:
I would agree that most photographers, especially those working in colour have their film processed and prints made by others.

I do know very few photographers who at some point did not learn how to competently manage if not master the printing process. It is not a process that is all that difficult to do competently and is something that most photographers should know very well if they are to fully realize their creative ambitions.

My attempts at producing art are strongly supported by my printmaking. I could not delegate printing at this point in my career. I can imagine myself, in the future, brow beating some poor printer with my colour/dodging/burning requirements, but then I will have some knowledge of what is I require and the experience to know if it is feasible.

My opinion is, of course, just that. It is based upon my anecdotal experiences and is humbly offered.

Well said peachbutt.

sanking · Nov 23, 2004

mark said:
Sandy
I find this statement from you to be , well.....rather hypocritical. With all of the work you do testing film, and fiddling in front of a computer getting a computer neg just right for your alt printing, it seems that you definately put forth the effort for a BW print. Does the technicalities and learning curve of BW hinder the image making? Or does it all work to create the final vision? Could it possibly be the same for the color photographer?

Gee Mark, I don't know what you find hypocritical about what I wrote, which was simply that, 1) "the great color artists of this and other periods have had their work printed by someone else about 98% of the time, and 2) the technical demands of color printing have always been such that printing one's own work is not compatible with image making when one is a working professional and trying to earn a living. Now, those are my opinions based on my knowledge of color photography and artists who work in color. If you believe that I am mistaken in those statements then show me how.

I was not advocating in the original message any particular approach, only stating what I believe to be facts. With rare exceptions, Elliot Porter being one of them, very few of the great color photographers have printed their own work. Now what the hell is hypocritical about that?

Sandy

mark · Nov 23, 2004

Maybe hypocritical was too strong a word, Sorry. My point was: you said "(2) the technical demands of color printing have always been such that printing one's own work is not compatible with image making when one is a working professional and trying to earn a living." and I was saying that the same could be said, rather easily, of BW photography or alt processes. WHat makes one less technical than the other. I have yet to heara color printer talk about even half the technical details that are thrown about quite freely when you and other knowledgeable people talk about BW exposure, printing, testing, and processing.

Look at the amount of time you spend testing film and talking about the importance of proper testing of paper and film and the proper matching of the two. Look at all of the different ways of developing, and even developers that each create their own look and feel. How could anyone feel this is not technical. Photography and photographic printing are both, by definition, very technical and if one wants to express their vision in photography then the technical goes right along with the image making.

How is a working color photographer any different than a working BW photographer, and do you feel that one should send their BW printing out for someone else to do because the "technical demands" get in the way of image making?

This is not a one is better or worse than the other statement. I just don't see the logic behind your statement.

jd callow · Nov 23, 2004

sanking said:
Gee Mark, I don't know what you find hypocritical about what I wrote, which was simply that, 1) "the great color artists of this and other periods have had their work printed by someone else about 98% of the time, and 2) the technical demands of color printing have always been such that printing one's own work is not compatible with image making when one is a working professional and trying to earn a living. Now, those are my opinions based on my knowledge of color photography and artists who work in color. If you believe that I am mistaken in those statements then show me how.

I was not advocating in the original message any particular approach, only stating what I believe to be facts. With rare exceptions, Elliot Porter being one of them, very few of the great color photographers have printed their own work. Now what the hell is hypocritical about that?

Sandy

Gee sandy relax. I can't speak for Mark, but what I disagree with is the statement that the time and expertise of making a colour print somehow acts as a barrier to producing an income or creating art.

I find making my own prints is much cheaper than going to a lab and takes very little time. I can make a colour print in the darkroom far faster than I can scan/CC/spot/size and output to <pick a digital device> -- I earn a living doing both. I can't print as fast as the time it takes to drop my film off and pick-up my prints, but I can print as well as any lab I've gone to and, as I said it is cheaper. I also feel that the print is the "performance" and is best done by the person who created the "score."

I don't disagree that most photographers, great and small, have most of their processing done by others. I do doubt that this is the best avenue toward achieving the best print.

mark · Nov 23, 2004

Jon

do you find that the technical barriers stood, or stand in the way of image making?

jd callow · Nov 23, 2004

mark said:
Jon

do you find that the technical barriers stood, or stand in the way of image making?

If that is directed at me, I don't find any technical barriers; in fact I find it an integral part of image making.

john

mark · Nov 23, 2004

Sorry forgot the H.

jd callow · Nov 23, 2004

mark said:
Sorry forgot the H.

No problem -- the mr callow is a joke (that only those who know me [especiallyy the other callows] find funny)

sanking · Nov 23, 2004

mrcallow said:
Gee sandy relax. I can't speak for Mark, but what I disagree with is the statement that the time and expertise of making a colour print somehow acts as a barrier to producing an income or creating art.

I also feel that the print is the "performance" and is best done by the person who created the "score."

I don't disagree that most photographers, great and small, have most of their processing done by others. I do doubt that this is the best avenue toward achieving the best print.

But the fact remains that there have been very few well known color photographers who printed their own work, and that fact speaks for itself as far as I am concerned. I have no doubt but that most of them could have learned to make excellent color prints but in the end they chose to leave these work to trained technicians. As to whether this is the best avenue to achievieng the best print, I think it depends on process. If you are talking about C-prints, yes, they are relatively easys to make, but if you want a color carbon best to have someone else make it for you in my opinion.

Sandy

jd callow · Nov 24, 2004

Sandy,
The fact that there have been very few well known color photographers who printed their own work, and that fact speaks for itself as far as you are concerned.

Then you go on to say:
As to whether this is the best avenue to achievieng the best print, I think it depends on process. If you are talking about C-prints, yes, they are relatively easys to make, but if you want a color carbon best to have someone else make it...

I will surmise from your last post that what you are saying is that doing your own prints is a good thing, not a technical, creative or commercial barrier, but photographers of stature don't often do it (and that says what?).

What is a C print?

Sean

Admin

tim atherton

Sean

Admin

tim atherton

Ed Sukach

lee

Sean

Admin

mark

tim atherton

sanking

Murray@uptowngallery

roteague

roteague

jd callow

Moderator

mark

mark

sanking

mark

jd callow

Moderator

mark

jd callow

Moderator

mark

jd callow

Moderator

sanking

jd callow

Moderator

What is a C print?

Admin

Admin

Admin

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency