[pure-silver] Re: "archival pigment print"

  • From: "Ralph W. Lambrecht" <info@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Sun, 21 Feb 2010 00:42:42 +0100

Why not just call them prints.
Because, there are many kinds of prints, and silver-gelatin prints are very special to us. 





Regards



Ralph W. Lambrecht

http://www.darkroomagic.com
This 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 21, 2010, at 00:06, Carlileb@xxxxxxx wrote:
In a message dated 2/20/2010 12:54:14 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx writes: 
The first time I saw this in a gallery I thought it was
quite pretentious but have changed my mind. One has to have
some way of identifying conventional silver prints to
distinguish them from similar looking prints. Galleries and
museums identify carbon, platimum, salt, albumin, etc,
prints so a specific name for conventional prints seems
necessary. Silver-gelatin is OK because there are other
prints which employ gelatin as the carrier for the image
which do not have silver images, carbon is an example.
Yeah, but they didn't used to do that.
It's all about marketing now-- like they are trying to foist a phony connoisseur-manship on people. Why not just call them prints.
The ultimate, though, is the "pigmented archival print" for inkjet. It must mean they can charge double for them.

Other related posts:

  1. Home
  2. pure-silver
  3. Archive
  4. 02-2010