This is great news - especially if B+S are going to sell more than just a 'straight black' tissue. I can't wait to buy some! I'm fortunate to have one of Sandy's wonderful prints hanging on my wall. For those of us who print in pt/pd and yearn for the 'umpf' of 'silver' - carbon will be an interesting alternative.
I agree with you, Clay. Being someone who has struggled with REAL carbon printing - I never thought there was anything tougher than albumen - it bugs me to no end that "inkjet" has, through deceptive marketing, become synonymous with "carbon".
There is an interesting article (Editor's Comments - Evolution of the Artifact) on a related topic in the latest issue of LensWork (No. 49 Oct-Nov 2003) by Brooks Jensen. It's not about calling a spade a spade so much as it is about the quality of printing, but well worth reading nonetheless.
Yes, that is the same Clyde who had to replace all those prints.
I emailed Clyde and told them that what they were doing in my opinion was distasteful at the very least. They need to step up to the plate and call it what it really is...an inkjet.
I don't expect a reply.
The fact that Clyde sells these prints for $45.00 is an indication of how he values them.
I will be damned. Clyde's wife (I think) emailed me and here is the original email and their reply.
We spoke to Clyde concerning your email.. He explained that most
black and white digital prints use all five colors in their processing,
Clyde is using black and gray inks which are carbon based only. He
feels he is not misrepresenting the images. We are not trying to be
deceitful; that is why we call them digital carbon prints. We pride in
ourselves, for being upfront and honest to our customers. Thank you for
taking the time in emailing us. If you have further questions or
concerns, please feel free to contact us, 1-888-999-9113. Denise
From: Lee Carmichael [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2003 9:01 AM
Subject: digital carbon prints
Clyde et al,
I find this type of marketing to be some of the most decitful. This is
a carbon print at all but you are selling injet prints. Have the guts
call it what it is. There are people working in an older process called carbon printing. If I worked in that method I would be highly offended.
perhaps those that know a little more about injet could respond to Clyde's contention that "most " are using 5 colors and since Clyde only uses black and gray colors he is correct.
Well, why not go out and take some pictures with a Canon 1Ds, since I'm sure it's not too hard to find someone who claims that 11 Mpix is as good as large format, and market them as "Digital Large Format Prints"? Even better, why not use one of the high-end digital backs for medium format and call it "Digital Ultra Large Format photography," since they produce larger files than the 1Ds, which produces larger files than the 10D, which produces larger files than many consumer digital cameras. Would Clyde Butcher find this to be a deceptive practice that devalues his product? I don't see why, as long as it is specified that these are "Digital" Large Format photographs.
There has been over a 100 years of usage where the term carbon print refers to a print that is created from ink or pigment suspended in a gelatin tissue that has been made light senstive through the application of a dichromate. This tissue is then exposed via contact printing with UV radiation, which hardens the tissue in proportion to the amount of light transmitted through the negative. This tissue is transferred either to a temporary substrate or a final substrate, and the unhardened gelatin is then 'developed away' with hot water. The varying thickness of the remaining hardened tissue creates a photographic image on the substrate.
If Clyde has figured a way for his inkjet printer to do all this, then by all means, call the results a carbon print. And I sure would like to see that printer!
Why not pose this directly to Clyde and his minnions? Here is the email address off the website.
It is email@example.com
Is he marketing this in his web site?..let me go check....as Arnie says..."I'LL be Bauck"
That is a shame, Butcher was one of the photographers I admired. What is even worse is that some of his informatin is wrong. The "black" pigment is actually less stable than the grays, as the pigments do not give enough density and dye has to be added to the pigment to make it "really" black. at least that was the info I have gathered from piezography and MIS inks, I doubt Epson has come up with a better pigment, since they are actually behind Cone in the research of these inks...I think I will send them an e mail.