[pure-silver] Re: "archival pigment print"
- From: mark@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- To: pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 20 Feb 2010 08:41:28 -0700
Well it depends on your perspective of archival. For some the 75 years might not be archival in nature. For others it is most certainly archival. I guess it depends on your idea of long term storage.
Not everyone knows the differences in inkjet prints. It would not be a mistake that everyone understands the differences in dye, pigment ect and this explanation may seem wordy but it is precise an would put all but the most ill informed buyer with an understanding of what they were actually getting. People understand pigments from paints. In fact a reasonable case could be made that an inkjet print made from pigmented ink was a new form of painting. I wouldn't necessarily agree with it, but it is putting a pigment down on something. A painter uses a brush where an inkjet printer uses the tiniest of spray painters.
I never liked the word giclee because a print that came out the top of the line inkjet, or the cheapest piece of garbage you can find at the second hand store that will work both produce them.
English does have synonyms. There are plenty of different words that mean the same thing even if you don't include the slang that can develop. If they didn't have them, there would be no need for a word for them.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [pure-silver] Re: "archival pigment print"
From: Eric Nelson <emanmb@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, February 20, 2010 8:15 am
To: pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Hehe! Squirts!
Therein lies the rub: making them look good. One can dodge and burn and control specific areas of an image onscreen in ways not possible in the darkroom, but there's a lot more to making a squirt print than just hitting the 'Print' button.
From: Shannon Stoney <shannonstoney@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Sat, February 20, 2010 8:21:45 AM
Subject: [pure-silver] Re: "archival pigment print"
I agree that it's good to know: 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 language. Everybody knows what an ink jet printer is, but it seems as if the people selling these prints don't want people to know that they made them with an ink jet printer. Why? Is it because most people have an ink jet printer and might think, "Oh, I could make one of those"?
I don't have a problem with people MAKING ink jet prints; I have a problem with them not CALLING them ink jet prints. Calling them giclee or some other french name (there was one I've forgotten that meant "squirt") doesn't make them NOT an ink jet print. Maybe we should call them "squirts."
I agree that some of them are great, and I am really curious about how people get such great ink jet prints. Even when I use the newer, more expensive ink jet printer at the lab at Houston Center for Photography, I don't think they look very good.
--shannon
============================================================================================================To unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org and logon to your account (the same e-mail address and password you set-up when you subscribed,) and unsubscribe from there.
Other related posts:
