Disclosure in nomenclature.

[JBrunner]

Over at APUG there has been quite a discussion about hybrid methods involving Ilfords new silver paper for digital output. In fact Simons thread announcing the product has evolved into a discussion about if a digital print can even be considered "art" I would like to dispense with that right now, as it is explicitly not my intention to drag that discussion over here. It is fruitless, and besides the point. If an individual print by any method qualifies as art, is a completeley different matter.

What I would like to put forth is the idea of a unified nomenclature to describe prints involving digital and hybrid processes.

As I have moved about over the last few years, both on the internet, and in reality, I have noticed that prints from new printing process are called, named and described in a bewildering number of ways, some of which are very clear, some of which are unintentionally vague, and an unfortunate very few that are meant to obsfuscate. In the end it has stopped me from purchasing a number of prints because I frankly have no idea what I'm considering purchasing, and if the person selling doesn't either, then I have understandable misgivings about the work. Not that it might be ink for example, (I have, and will pay money for prints made with ink) but that if the photographer can't tell me, or be bothered to tell me what it is, without my asking, then my impression is that they can't be all that serious about the work itself.

There is no unified organization, or sanctioning body in photography to promote this. If it were to be succesful, it could only be by the proud example and persistant use of terms by a growing body of dedicated practitioners, dedicated to both their craft, and insisting that it be correcty described. That is how traditional and alternative process came to be, and there is no reason that the new processes can't have their place as well.

I would propose the term "digital process" and and perhaps "hybrid process" much the same way we use the terms "alternative proccess" to describe those processes and "traditional process" to describe traditional film/negative wet silver process. That doesn't mean you are a "hybrid photographer" anymore than you can be a "silver gelatin photographer" It simply describes a catagory of print.

We have no problem identifying a platinum/palladium print as alternative process, or a silver gelatin contact print as traditional process.

What would be left is to come to terms for agreeable nomenclature to decribe various methods within these processes. Perhaps a print produced on the new Ilford paper should be called "silver gelatin hybrid" or better yet it could be "Ilfosilver" or some such, put forward by Ilford if they chose, the way we know what Ilfochrome and Cibachrome are, and not describing both the method and substrate, just like we say "silver gelatin contact print" or like "Hahnemuhle rag ink print"

I believe this would help forge an identity of craft for those artists who are engaged in using these newer types of of materials, which would benefit the practitioners of all processes, but especially the newest. It would certainly end allot of sillyness.

Any good suggestions for naming of methods? Are the terms usable-"digital process" - "hybrid process" as encompassing descriptions?

[livemoa]

...and as a participant in "that" thread, I would probably go with gelatin silver light jet to describe using the new Ilford paper.

As to other processes, I personally don't much like "hybrid". I have emailed a couple of curators and asked how they deal with the subject, be interested in what they say as they are at the coal face so to speak.

[JBrunner]

...and as a participant in "that" thread, I would probably go with gelatin silver light jet to describe using the new Ilford paper.

As to other processes, I personally don't much like "hybrid". I have emailed a couple of curators and asked how they deal with the subject, be interested in what they say as they are at the coal face so to speak.

Hybrid does sound rather more like a strain of petunias, than like a photographic process. Gelatin silver light jet sounds good.

If we ignore the aquisition proccess, will people object to calling prints that are printed from a computer file "Digital Process" if they are originated on film?
In the narrow sense, it is a correct description, as we are attempting to classify print processes and substrate. We do not, for example, say "4x5 HP4 negative enlarged on silver gelatin" and then try to catch our breath, we say simply "silver gelatin enlargment" or far more often, "traditional silver gelatin"

As an aside I would like to personally refute any and all description of prints being called Giclee, unless they have actually been printed on that printer. (a personal irk of mine, I'll notify E*bay, the most odious offender in the world at classifying photography)

[Helen Bach]

I'd be more inclined to use descriptions that didn't include trade names, so 'digital silver gelatin' would be OK with me. I think that everyone is happy with 'digital C-print', so why not 'digital silver gelatin'? I don't care, and I don't see why it matters, whether it was made on a Lightjet or a Chromira or via a digital negative.

I'm not sure how much it matters about the process. Obviously it matters a lot to some people and though I don't share their values, accomodating them by adding 'digital' doesn't seem like a big deal.

What is most important is an accurate, easily understood and unambiguous description of the material, with no sign of an attempt at making an inkjet print sound like a carbon print, for example. I think that particular example ('carbon pigment print') often happens out of ignorance rather than deceit. Well, that whole 'pigment ink' thing is a bit fuzzy anyway - it makes people think of ground-up earthy things instead of the big clumps of dye-like molecules that they are.

Best,
Helen

[Don Bryant]

Hybrid does sound rather more like a strain of petunias, than like a photographic process. Gelatin silver light jet sounds good.

If we ignore the aquisition proccess, will people object to calling prints that are printed from a computer file "Digital Process" if they are originated on film?
In the narrow sense, it is a correct description, as we are attempting to classify print processes and substrate. We do not, for example, say "4x5 HP4 negative enlarged on silver gelatin" and then try to catch our breath, we say simply "silver gelatin enlargment" or far more often, "traditional silver gelatin"

As an aside I would like to personally refute any and all description of prints being called Giclee, unless they have actually been printed on that printer. (a personal irk of mine, I'll notify E*bay, the most odious offender in the world at classifying photography)

Jason,

This topic in one form or another has been discussed to death on various forums on the internet, and as far as I know no concensus for nomemclature of print-process designation has ever been reached.

I would suggest that you are beating a dead horse. If you feel strongly about your concerns about naming a process by all means you should label your prints as you suggest. But I don't think anyone should be required to do so.

In short silver gelatin is good enough for me.

I do have problems calling inkjet prints, carbon prints since a print made from the carbon process is totally different than one made on an inkjet print, but people do anyway.

Don Bryant

[clay]

Jason,
This same thread on APUG generated a lot of heat, and I hope you understand that my position had a premise, namely that if someone cannot tell from looking at a print how it was made, then adding additional descriptors just wastes everybody's time.

That said, I have seen a lot of platinum palladium prints made from digital negs that have obvious giveaway signs of their origin. Excessive unsharp masking being the most frequently-seen indication of this. On the other hand, I have also seen plenty of pt/pd prints made from digital negatives that are in every way as good, and in some cases better than ones made from in-camera originals. Assuming that a print of a great image is made by someone skilled in photoshop techniques and that it is not obvious that it has some digital DNA, I think it is silly, pedantic, and totally beside the point to insist that they add workflow descriptions to their print label.

Again, this is predicated on the final product being excellent in all respects.

[livemoa]

Well, the comment from one curator I know was that he would call it silver gelatin as that is what it is printed on. If people want to add anything to it they can, but when catalogued in a collection by him it would be silver gelatin.

My understanding is the naming is more to do with archiving, storage and repair.

[JBrunner]

Ok, I can see now that an inclusionary approach toward digitaly originated printing as a defined photographic process will be impossible. I had hoped that it could be, and that progress could be made toward that end.

Well, this cat will have to be skinned a different way.

Best,

J

[livemoa]

John

I think, as this is such a new area for many (including dealers and curators) it is going to be a while before it shakes out. Who knows what will happen, and even if it's agreed on by different groups within the arts.

I can see this being argued a lot in different forums (and not just online ones).

[bob carnie]

John
We are using this paper and calling them Digital Fibre Prints and have been doing so for three years.
Light jet is a proprietory name of an exposing device.
So Far only 4 labs are using this material and they are to my knowlege all Lambda exposing devices , * Lamont Imaging may be using Light Jet *.
This product does not have any history on Chromira as they are a LED exposing device and I am not sure if there is enough power to expose the paper.
I am quite happy with the name Ilford Digital Fibre Base Paper, as it does explain how the image is produced and to what material.
It gives our clients the immediate knowlege that I am not making these prints under an enlarger and helps them sort out the workflow.
Kevin my business partner at Elevator, will be at Harmons booth at Javits Center this Sat with samples of this paper if anyone is attending to see and make their own impressions of the product.