What's ridiculous about 'silver-gelatin'?
Or 'Volume'?We don't have synonyms in English. Every word counts for something. There are times when volume and book are interchangeable, but those occasions are usually informal and unspecific. Volume is not a fancy word for book, and book is not Everyman's word for volume. Each word has an intended meaning use and history that not only are a pleasure to research, but are enriching to know and ponder. If there's one thing to take from practicing a craft like photography it is appreciating subtle differences - like with the near infinite and continuous tones, from paper white to dense black, that we are able to break down into zones and turn into poetry.
I just think it's silly to call ink jet prints "archival pigment prints." It sort of mystifies the whole thing by using arcane, obfuscating languageThere you have a point. I once noted how ridiculous I found it that one local photographer labels his work "Handmade Epson Prints". Handmade? Some labels are indeed intended to elevate the work or the worker, either for pride or for price. But if you took a more generous approach, you could say that they wanted a more refined way of saying that their work was done intentionally and with care - and that's the best they could come up with in three words. The inks that use lightfast pigments, and the printers that use them, are superior to the run of the mill home office ink-jets, and they do produce prints that will resist fading and won't contribute to the deterioration of the paper, and so it is worth noting. And as you point out, calling them squirt prints doesn't sound good. There's a reason we don't refer to each other as soft-flesh biped mammals, and we much prefer to be called men and women, or better yet, ladies and gentlemen. Silly? Pretentious? OK, but it's also civilized and pleasant.
E. On Feb 20, 2010, at 6:42 AM, Ralph W. Lambrecht wrote:
Regards Ralph W. Lambrecht http://www.darkroomagic.comThis electronic message contains information that is confidential, legally privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure. This information is intended for the use of the addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, printing or any other use of, or any action in reliance on, the contents of this electronic message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender and destroy the original message immediately.P don't print this e-mail unless you really have to On Feb 20, 2010, at 07:19, Carlileb@xxxxxxx wrote:In a message dated 2/19/2010 6:28:53 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, elroustom@xxxxxxxxx writes: When I look at a print I'd like to know how it's made because it helps me appreciate it. Because like many of you I don't just look at photographic prints for the content, but also for the craft. There is nothing at all pretentious about being accurate and descriptive.There's nothing wrong with identifying an inkjet print. But to call it "pigmented archival" or whatever is just plain pretentious. It's being deliberately fancy-schmancy, like calling a book a "volume."It also sounds funny-- pigmented is a funny word. Some words are funny, and pigmented is one of them. So it comes off as even more ridiculous.Why not just call them "inkjet prints" or something else simple?Buy you know why they don't? (and this all started with galleries). It's because they think "pigmented" sounds fancier. But to most people it just sounds silly. And even "silver gelatin" is a little ridiculous.
