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?

...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.

...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):)

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

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

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.

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.

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

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).

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.

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.

My thoughts exactly, from start to finish. I label my prints on the back by process, and sometimes give other details such as mix, tissue number, exposure time, etc. However, showing that the print was made from a digital or in-camera negative is just totally irrelevant to me and I won't do that. If someone is interested in buying a print and really wants that information I am happy tp provide it, but for most purposes I agree with Clay that the issue of workflow is "silly, pedantic, and totally beside the point."

The most obvious indication of bad digital work-flow is over-use of the unsharp mask. Initially I made some fairly horrendous looking prints because of excessive use of unsharp mask, but once I got over that it has become impossible to see the difference between printing with digital and in-camera negatives.

It is nice to be able to say these things without getting your eyes ripped out. Long live the hybrid forum.

Sandy

...but once I got over that it has become impossible to see the difference between printing with digital and in-camera negatives.

It is nice to be able to say these things without getting your eyes ripped out. Long live the hybrid forum.

Sandy

Hi Sandy,

At a normal view distance there is no difference between a print from a digital negative and an in-camera negative, but if you take a closer look (close up with a macro lens 1 to 1 ratio) you will see a huge difference. You will be able to see those tiny dots from a digital printer in the print from the digital neg. In the case of a print made directly from an in-camera neg. you won't even see the grain of the film.
That is not to say that a print made from a digital neg is inferior of one made with an in-camera neegative, the workflow to make a piece of art is a personal decision of the artist, and at the end, the important thing is the art created.
I think the customer has the right to know something about how was created what he is buying.
99% of my pt/pd prints are made with digitally enlarged negatives, so I'm not an "analogue fundamentalist".
I like the hybrid workflow, I think it's great because I shoot mostly in 35mm and 6X6, but I'm conscious that even if a print made from a digital enlarged negative looks, at a normal vewing distance, as a print made from an in-camera negative, at a closer look they are different.
So... I think I must tell.

My thoughts exactly, from start to finish. I label my prints on the back by process, and sometimes give other details such as mix, tissue number, exposure time, etc. However, showing that the print was made from a digital or in-camera negative is just totally irrelevant to me and I won't do that. If someone is interested in buying a print and really wants that information I am happy tp provide it, but for most purposes I agree with Clay that the issue of workflow is "silly, pedantic, and totally beside the point."

The most obvious indication of bad digital work-flow is over-use of the unsharp mask. Initially I made some fairly horrendous looking prints because of excessive use of unsharp mask, but once I got over that it has become impossible to see the difference between printing with digital and in-camera negatives.

It is nice to be able to say these things without getting your eyes ripped out. Long live the hybrid forum.

Sandy

Hi Sandy,

It's great to see someone of your experience weigh in on this issue, so I'll pop back up for a second. I am sorry that we seem to disagree on this subject.

I sometimes use digital tools in helping to create my work, (all of the time in of my commercial work) and I am not opposed to digital methods at all.
It is my position however, that when the product imitates the result of a traditional "analog" process, it should be disclosed in the provenance of the print. This is not meant to be a heated analog verses digi thread at all but rather a reasoned intelligent discussion of the subject adressed in my OP.

Now, If I recall correctly, on occasion, you have digitally added large format film edges to your digital negs. If workflow is "silly, pedantic, and totally beside the point.", as Clay asserts and you affirm, why would you add film edges to imitate a particular "work flow"?

I would appreciate your thoughts on this.

Best,

J

I hope you don't believe that I meant to say that the workflow itself is silly, etc, but rather the insistence that we have tack it on to a print description is silly. If anyone cares to ask, I will always tell them exactly what I did. Also, FWIW, I mask off the edges of all my in-camera negatives with rubylith so they don't nudge the viewer and say "Hey, look at me, I am a genuine 12x20 in-camera negative"

I had one man gallery show about a year ago with a mix of in-camera gumover platinums and digi-neg gumover platinums. No serious potential buyer asked me what I used to take a particular shot. The only questions I did get at the opening were from some other photographers who were trying to get technical information and had no intention of buying anything anyway. I ended up selling equal numbers of digital neg prints and 'pure' prints. Admittedly, this is one data point, but I walked away with the strong feeling that the buying public does not care. Ultimately, it is the image and the way it looks that matters.

And that is why i do not sell inkjet prints. They just do not look the same as a gumover platinum, and unless Epson makes a gum printer, they never will.

Hi Sandy,

At a normal view distance there is no difference between a print from a digital negative and an in-camera negative, but if you take a closer look (close up with a macro lens 1 to 1 ratio) you will see a huge difference. You will be able to see those tiny dots from a digital printer in the print from the digital neg. In the case of a print made directly from an in-camera neg. you won't even see the grain of the film.

That observation is not true for me in printing with alternative processes. I have looked very carefully at my carbon, kallitype and Pt./Pd. prints with a high power lens and there are no digital artificats to be seen. In the case of kallitype and Pt./Pd. the paper surface itself masks the artifacts. In theory I should be able to see some of the artifacts in carbon, since the process gives detail as great as silver, but for some reason the transfer operation eliminate them, though I can not figure out why.

However, my position is that if there is inedeed a visible differnce between a print made with a digital negative and one made with an in-camera negative that is a fact of importance and should be noted. I have made a few AZO print with digital negatives and you can clearly see the printer pattern if you look at the print closely with a loup. But if there is absolutely no difference in look, even on close inspection, the issue of digital negative versus in-camera negative is a technical detail of no relevance to me.

Sandy

Hi Sandy,

INow, If I recall correctly, on occasion, you have digitally added large format film edges to your digital negs. If workflow is "silly, pedantic, and totally beside the point.", as Clay asserts and you affirm, why would you add film edges to imitate a particular "work flow"?

I would appreciate your thoughts on this.

Best,

J

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

My work is 80% - 90% in-camera negs and the balance digital negs. I'm with Clay and Sandy on this issue. A collector is buying is the print, not the path you took to make it. It is of course important to disclose the process of making the PRINT, but the light-blocking mechanism used to make the print only seems to matter to photographers. If someone asks, I will describe every step in detail, if they can stand it.

I trim the rebate off of most of my in-camera negs because I don't like the way film holder borders draw attention to the 'how' not the 'what'. I usually use a thin black border as Sandy described for similar reasons. I also usually mask my borders so brush strokes don't draw attention to themselves either and I prefer the cleaner look. In my experience, collector's care about image first, print type second and process details a very distant third.

My work is 80% - 90% in-camera negs and the balance digital negs. I'm with Clay and Sandy on this issue. A collector is buying is the print, not the path you took to make it. It is of course important to disclose the process of making the PRINT, but the light-blocking mechanism used to make the print only seems to matter to photographers. If someone asks, I will describe every step in detail, if they can stand it.



Same here. If someone asks me for details about how the print was made I am prepared to talk for as long as they want to listen, and share every detail in the book. I can usually tell when I have gone on too long because their eyes start to glaze over, but sharing details about technique is something most photographers do only too well.

I am still using ULF equipment (7X17 and 12X20) but printing with digital negatives really allows me to make a better print in many cases, so my normal workflow these days is to scan the negative, even the large ones, do all the tonal corrections, and print with a digital negative. In the long run this is more productive as you can standarize contrast and printing times if you do your homework in calibrating equipment.

However, for printing silver the in-camera negative is definitely superior to a digital negative, at least to those made with an inkjet. If you want to pay someone to make your negatives the way to go for silver is Imagesetter, or perhaps even better, one of the new LED or laser printers (LightJet, Lambda, etc.). Bob Carnie at Elevator has one of these printers and I hope to experiment with it during the workshop Mark Nelson and I are doing there in early December. The idea is to print on Ilford FP4+.

I am aware that this kind of approach does not appeal to everyone, as we have seen on APUG, but in the end control of process is what makes the print, not the type of negative used. The reputation of people like Clay, Kerik, Dick Arentz, etc. is not based on what kind of negative they use to make the print, but on creative vision in selecting subject, and control of technique in the image making process.

Sandy

At a normal view distance there is no difference between a print from a digital negative and an in-camera negative, but if you take a closer look (close up with a macro lens 1 to 1 ratio) you will see a huge difference. 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

Slightly off topic

Elevator will be trying to produce film enlarged negatives off our Lambda in conjunction with Mark Nelson and Sandy King. We hope to offer this output through Mark .
Today I have taken a loupe to lambda fibres and traditional fibres and inkjet output of the same image.
In the inkjet I see a random pattern that one expects from a sprayed process. In the lambda and traditional prints I see basically the same grain pattern Ie the film grain.I do not see any pixelation whatsoever with prints made 30x40 from Tango Scanned , lambda cibachrome output. *just the film grain*and as well from large lambda fibres.
My hope is to see 30 x40 continuous tone black and white film outputted that eliminates any spray effects that may be apparent upon close inspection of ink negs.
I suspect with Mark and Sandys help this may be a nice way of making negs for a variety of applications that use contact printing from larger negs.
Hopefully , Kerik will have some input on how to make colour separations negs that register together for gum over platinum.
This is a area that I want to persue personally and I have spent a lot of time exposing colour film for this purpose.
One question to the folks who are working this new process.
If all we are seeing is *film grain* on the enlarged digital negative is this process any different than making enlarged negatives under an enlarger?
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.
This post rambles a bit but maybe I am confused over the issues on *How We Get There*
1983-86 I was operating a Lisle Camera, basically a large process camera with front lighting for relective art, and back lighting for transparanceis and putting in position both medias onto colour negative, and transparancy film composition for large mural and art printing.
The Lisle camera was operated by a very complicated* to use* computer system that would push the camera and lights around. I never had a second thought about the mixing of two different technologys onto film. This was just before Photo Shop was introduced and the before the advent of the Kodak Premier Imaging systems of the 90's.
Its funny how things are coming full circle with traditional materials and computers for me anyways.
In the early 90's I started my own custom film processing and printing shop totally dedicated to black and white and cibachrome using enlargers. Things were good until 1997 , and basically over night I lost most of our portfolio work to inkjet. At that stage the quality of inkjets were basically not good enough for my workflow and I kept away from digital. It wasn't until I saw a very good scan-lambda print in 2002 did I think that it was time to start over.
I am wondering if some of the resentment to digital workflow is more of an economic and learning curve thing rather than the reality of its potential. At 50 I was forced to reinvest and go on a rather steep learning curve*still today* . I really did not think this was going to happen to me but it did , It is very difficult and financialy strapping and I would have liked to fade into retirement comfortably but the creative applications of this hybrid mixing was too much for me to resist.
I think this work flow to end product issue is overrated.
One thing that Elevator found out very quicky after we invested in a large variety of end product offerings , was that we were not in the position of trying to argue the merits of one output over the others. Since we produce most of them we could show the work and let our clients decide on which process most suited their needs.
We have let the merits of longevity of the different products rest in Wilhelms hands .