[pure-silver] Re: "archival pigment print"
- From: "Eric Neilsen Photo" <ej@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 20 Feb 2010 17:58:47 -0600
So far, Harry has had the most pointed answer to Shannon's post that I have
seen. I have seen several discussions lately on the terms used in naming
prints of the new digital time frame. It is time to stop going back to the
French term for squirt in the context of digital printing and instead refer
to Harald Johnson's attributed beginning of the usage as that. I have a link
to that here.
http://www.ericneilsenphotography.com/forum1/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=19
While it might have been ok to call a print a print back in the day, when we
started to seriously try and make money selling them, we had to have a name
to indicate what they really were just like painters, and etching, and
drawing, and ... gelatin silver. And yes to show it was not a kallitype also
a silver print without the gelatin or a albumen print, also made with silver
and a gelatin like thing ( ok a little lightness) .
The use of term archival in the modern ink jet is a bit over the top and
that brings up a whole different can of worms which is fade testing and how
subjective some of the early test were done. So what do we have? a race for
truth in marketing of the prints. It will not be a sprint and the rules
will change from this year to the next.
and I feel for those that have to look up the parrot piece and don't
already know it and perhaps, almost memorized. It's not dead, it's just
resting. : ) perhaps like this conversation will do.
Eric Neilsen
Eric Neilsen Photography
4101 Commerce Street, Suite 9
Dallas, TX 75226
www.ericneilsenphotography.com
skype me with ejprinter
_____
From: pure-silver-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:pure-silver-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Carlileb@xxxxxxx
Sent: Saturday, February 20, 2010 5:06 PM
To: pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [pure-silver] Re: "archival pigment print"
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.
E-mail message checked by Spyware Doctor (7.0.0.514)
Database version: 6.14390
http://www.pctools.com/spyware-doctor-antivirus/
<http://www.pctools.com/en/spyware-doctor-antivirus/>
Other related posts:
