The folks who are showing Ultrastable prints are using scanners and digital devices to produce the four films that make this permanent colour process. I can definately take a loupe to these prints and see the stocastic pattern. Are these beautiful examples of craftsmanship sold as digital prints? or are they considered pure prints.
I believe there are many examples of this work in Stevenson Gallerys *sp*
in New York.


I never even considered the question when Ultastable was introduced. Assembly color processes are so incredibly complicated that the thought that one would not take advantage of the computer to make separations just never crossed anyone's mind, I don't think. I will say, however, that the use of the dot type separation negatives that were used to make Utrastable prints resulted in the loss of much of the relief one got with the old three-color carbon and carbro processes.

Sandy King

I never even considered the question when Ultastable was introduced. Assembly color processes are so incredibly complicated that the thought that one would not take advantage of the computer to make separations just never crossed anyone's mind, I don't think. I will say, however, that the use of the dot type separation negatives that were used to make Utrastable prints resulted in the loss of much of the relief one got with the old three-color carbon and carbro processes.

Sandy King

I have half a dozen images of mine in 20x24" ultrastable (done either by Ataraxia or by Limited Edition in Santa Cruz.. both gone now). I helped on the images that were done at Limited Edition, and as Sandy says, are intensly had produced :)

I haven't seen the relief possible on a continuous tone carbon print, but there's pretty significant relief on all of my color images (even have a couple of Clinton Smith images done in the same process)

one of the most beautiful processes i've seen to date

I think there is some confusion about my practice. I generally add a black border about 1/10" or so wide around the edge of my print but it is not there to imitate the film border. Rather, I just like the way the border holds in the image, especially images thate have a lot of highlight detail. When I matte these prints I usually show the border, leaving about 1/4" between the border and cut out of the matte. I used to make silver prints with that kind of border using a second exposure so it is just a look that I find appealing but definitely not something that is done to artificially imitate the film border.

Sandy

I guess there was some confusion on my part.
Thanks for setting the record strait.

The only time I notice these artifacts is when something is amiss with the printing of the digitized negative or the image is overworked in photoshop as has been described. Very often it can be a case of a misfiring printer nozzle. In every case where I see this, I run a cleaning cycle, reprint the neg and it is gone. I shoot almost exclusively in medium format and make both traditionally enlarged negs as well as digitally enlarged. I am at a point now where my digital negs surpass the quality of traditionally enlarged ones in every case and render the print far better.

I am with Sandy, Kerik and Clay on this one. The only tme I ever receive a question about the process, it is from another photographer. As long as the final print is not digitaly output, my collectors do not seem to care.

Bill

Hi Bill,

I'm not talking about artifacts, I'm talking about dots. Ink jet printers made images with dots. You only see this dots if you see the print with a powerfull loupe.
I'm with you, Sandy, Kerik and Clay in the sens that what it's important is the final print. But at a closer look we can see the difference between an image made from a digitally enlarged negative and an in camera negative.
I'm attaching 3 images to show the difference between film and digital enlarged negative.
At the center is a close up of th pt/pd made with pictorico and at the right is tn pt/pd made with tmax 400.
That is the difference I'm talking about.

Hi Bill,

I'm not talking about artifacts, I'm talking about dots. Ink jet printers made images with dots. You only see this dots if you see the print with a powerfull loupe.
I'm with you, Sandy, Kerik and Clay in the sens that what it's important is the final print. But at a closer look we can see the difference between an image made from a digitally enlarged negative and an in camera negative.
I'm attaching 3 images to show the difference between film and digital enlarged negative.
At the center is a close up of th pt/pd made with pictorico and at the right is tn pt/pd made with tmax 400.
That is the difference I'm talking about.

Hi Juanito,

Thanks for sharing the attachments. But to be honest, I just don't see the dots. If one were to adjust the Pictorico and TMY images for contrast they would look identical, I believe.

But be that as it may, I know for a fact that I can not see any difference in terms of dots or dithering patterns in my carbon, kallitype and Pt./Pd. prints made with in-camera and digital negatives from an Epson 2200. And I have looked very hard.

Best,

Sandy

...
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.

It's a shame that Harmon won't get your samples before Saturday, because the single UK-printed sample they have, which is screwed to the table, has disappointingly low definition.

Best,
Helen

Hi Bill,

I'm not talking about artifacts, I'm talking about dots.Hi Juanito,

Perhaps my terminology suffers... sorry. However I have looked with a very powerful loupe and have to agree with Sandy and say that I honestly cannot see the difference. What I do notice is, and perhaps it is just your scan, I see that there is more facial detail in the pictorico image than in the Tmax image. As presented I would say the digital neg gives a better rendering.

As one who became dissolusioned with digital print output by dots and micro bands, I have tried very hard to be disappointed in the negs I can make on my desktop with a common and relatively inexpensive printer. Haven't found a reason yet. At least with PT/PD. I have not tried the process with silver and would expect the greater sharpness of detail to reveal the limitations of the print process.

Bill

I have half a dozen images of mine in 20x24" ultrastable (done either by Ataraxia or by Limited Edition in Santa Cruz.. both gone now). I helped on the images that were done at Limited Edition, and as Sandy says, are intensly had produced :)

I haven't seen the relief possible on a continuous tone carbon print, but there's pretty significant relief on all of my color images (even have a couple of Clinton Smith images done in the same process)

one of the most beautiful processes i've seen to date


Are your prints on paper or Melinex?

I have a few sample Ultrastable prints on paper that Tod Gangler sent me some years ago when he was still printing with the process. They are beautiful, but show vey little relief. I suspect that the same images on Melinex would show much more relief.

Sandy

Are your prints on paper or Melinex?

I have a few sample Ultrastable prints on paper that Tod Gangler sent me some years ago when he was still printing with the process. They are beautiful, but show vey little relief. I suspect that the same images on Melinex would show much more relief.

Sandy


mine are on Melinex. in fact, Gerard from Ataraxia sent one of my images around in the 2002 travelling portfolio (a shot from Egypt)

Hi,

I'm very pleased with my results with pictorico and I will continue to work with my hybrid workflow.
The only thing I want to say it's that there is a real diffference between the two images depending of what kind of workflow one chose (ok, it's not at first sight).
But as I said before what it really counts it's the piece of art created, the workflow to achieve this will remain anectdotic.
With evrey print I sell I give an "autenticity certification", and in fact I just tell the serial No., the year when the picture was taken, the kind of process of the print, and the year when the print was made, tha's all the information I give.
Of course the collector can contact me to know more about what he is buying, and if he wants more information I am open to tell him.
You can wright a poem with a pen or a pencil.

Best.

Helen
You can try him on his cell , he is there now , I know he has a meeting at 2.30 this afternoon , but maybe there is a chance of hooking up .
Pm me if this works.
Bob

It's a shame that Harmon won't get your samples before Saturday, because the single UK-printed sample they have, which is screwed to the table, has disappointingly low definition.

Best,
Helen

I went back to PPE briefly this morning to have a look at the Elevator prints. Impressive. Very high quality work.

Best,
Helen

Thanks Helen

We are hoping to have a very large booth at Silver Conference and possibly the View Camera conference an some others.
We will try to have examples in very large format with multiple toning effects and extensive portfolios of this product and our traditional prints as well.

As a sometime photograph maker, print maker (etching, engraving, linocut), sometime gallery director and curator (Imagery Gallery - Brisbane) I applaud this early enquiry into "Disclosure in Nomenclature" on the new Hybridphoto site.

The impact of nomenclature is most severe in the chancy world of picture collecting. Who wants to spend their personal funds on an unknown? Here is a style of description that I try for as a seller and look for as a buyer.

1. What medium on what substrate? Gelatin-silver photograph on fibre base, chinese ink on vellum; that sort of thing.

2. How did the medium get onto the substrate? Dye transfer, press print, photography, light-jet exposure; for example.

3. Who is the designer? Camera work by H.Cartier-Bresson, maquette by August Rodin, judgement day by God and so on.

4. Who made the thing you see? Eliot Porter dye-transfer print rolled by Jim Bones, H. Cartier Bresson photograph made by Pierre Gassmann, Last Judgement painted by Michaelangelo, etc.

5. What is the title? Curating, cataloging and even recalling stuff without a title is a darn chore. One picture I have is titled "Desert Sand Dune".

6. What is the subject? Sophistication is required here. The subject description is not solely the real-world object depicted but should also include reference to intermediate stages. For example the dye transfer print showing a desert sand dune in Australia has as its subject listing "Desert Sand Dune from an Ektachrome transparency". If this picture had been optically written to Ilford Digital Fibre Base Paper the subject listing would read "Desert Sand Dune from an electronic file".

7. What is the size of the picture? Usually this is in the form centimetres high by centimetres wide. Frustratingly pictures that exist only as electronic files exhibited on a display screen have no dimensions as such.

8. What markings, stamps, signatures, edition marks, wear and tear exist to distinguish a picture from others that may look very much like it?

9. Where and when was the picture produced? The concepts "vintage photograph" or "recent edition" have valid interest for the collector or curator.

10. Who may have been the previous owners of the picture eg artist, collector, gallery, museum and how was possession transferred? No hot goods or war booty please!

11. What is the price? What conditions of sale pertain eg auction, list price, negotiated price etc?

The list too cumbersome for ordinary banter about pictures but the avoidance of ambiguity is still central. In particular there is a severe dichotomy between images fabricated from descriptions (in the most general sense) such as paintings or ink-jets and images generated from physical contact with subject matter eg footprints and photographs.

The importance of nomenclature is borne out by an annoying situation at e-Bay Australia. The listing for Photographic Paper is mostly populated by ink-jet sheets and there is now no available unambiguous name for photographic paper as a light sensitive surface.

Don,
As I was reading Maris's post I was thinking excellent post and thread. If we don't use the same words then its a bit of a stretch to expect us to understand each other.

It certainly applies to the arts and most especially to what is done here.

It gives me hope that we can give identity and value to what is done here.

Most if not all of your points have been discussed ad naseum on other sites on the net.

I see nothing productive in doing so here.

My 2 cents,

Don Bryant

give us a break, of course it should be discussed here, if you don't wish to add to the discussion, don't add to the naseum

These are essentially the same posts being made by Maris on The Large Format Forum. But let me be clear. I have no objection to Maris making his post as along as others can do the same.

Point 2: There is nothing much new noted here, though he does a great job of expressing himself.

Since this the Ethics and Philosophy Forum the post is apropos, let's just try to cover new ground.

And John I never said anything made me ill. Where did you get that?

My 2 cents,

Don Bryant

it's posted elsewhere, so what? we arn't elsewhhere we are here, what is the standard/accepted/agreed/norm here

I don't get a chance to consistantly read all the forums available and I am happy to see certain things cross-posted.

FWIW - B

Back to the original question of disclosure, I think it's fair to say that we appreciate not only the artefact but also the process of its making, whether we're talking about the physical effort of printing or the human effort of dealing with a subject and reacting to it. I think in relationship to the disclosure approach, I see a few issues:

* How much of the process's knowledge is relevant? It varies between people, and some will bother you about the lens you used and the exact f/stop while other won't even care if it's digital or not. A lot of people have already mentioned that they give a certain amount of info (e.g. silver print, inkjet, etc) and will simply be glad to provide the rest upon request. To me that is a sound practice, and the criterion I see for it is a conventional one: how much of the process's knowledge will help appreciate the work. This will vary with your audience, but you can find your own balance.

* We have to think which is the "default" standard that people associate photography with. If it's enlargement on silver-gelatin, then any digital manipulations come as an exception to the rule; if the opposite, then any light-sensitive material use should be specified. The hard case for me is the silver negative scanned and then printed on fibre-based silver halide paper using laser or LED. A lot of people might limit the digital work simply because they want to use the digital printing as a way to reveal their negative; other could go radically in the other direction. In both cases, almost every material is traditional, and the digital has a variable impact. So the process description then is not a simple question of materials, it's also a set of beliefs and practices regarding digital images.

In the end that brings me back to my original criterion: how much of your process matters to the appreciation of your work. And think also of where this information is relevant. Besides a hanged print you might want to say only that it's a digital enlargement on silver halide fibre paper, but if you make a booklet for your exhibit, you will have some space to explain your approach in more precise terms and in a more holistic way that mingles your medium, your intentions, your efforts, etc. The fact that you make digital collages doesn't really matter in the physical description of your print, but it matters in understanding the artistic statement you're trying to articulate.