I found this...
Dye coupler photoprints
Most color photoprints (except instant camera) made since 1941 are included. Commonly referred to as Type C if made from a negative and Type R if made from a transparency. A chromogenic development process.
Dye destruction photoprints
Color photoprints made under various trade names including Utocolor in the early 1900s and Gasparcolor in the 1930s. Cibachrome, introduced in 1963, is the modern representative of this process. Valued in part for the relative stability of the color dyes.
I don't understand what you mean. Are you saying that some digital printers are calling inkjet prints C-prints?
Originally Posted by Sean
Basically using this type of technology, then hiding the fact that is was used:
Originally Posted by Sean
A C-print describes the final process. It is not a digital/analogue issue.
From my understanding of what these folks are doing they are making real c-prints, i.e. wet processed prinfs, from digital files. If that is indeed the case, and the caveat is that I am not sure that it is, there is absolutely nothing wrong in calling the work c-print. Prints by any process, whether it be cyanotype, gum, carbon, Pt./Pd., etc. don't care and don't specify what kind of negative was used.
The great majority of c-prints being made today are from either original digital negatives or from scans of film originals.
So as far as your concerned, a hand crafted c-print and a "digital c-print" produced by a machine are identical in their intrinsic value? I just can't stomach that because it seems misleading and a bit too convenient, but I guess it is a buyer beware market..
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Yes, exactly, that is what I believe. A c-print is a c-print is a c-print, regardless of whether it was made with a wet-processed negative or from a digital file. Now, if an inkjet print is called a c-print, that is deception. Or if an inkjet print is called a carbon or Pt./Pd. print, that is a deception.
Originally Posted by Sean
In the 19th century there were many kinds of print processes, i.e. albumen, salted paper, carbon, collodion, and various forms of silver gelatin. These prints were made from wet-plate collodion, dry plates, negatives on silver nitrate surfaces, etc. etc. Nowadays, in the vast majority of cases no one knows, or could care less, what kind of negatives were used to make the print. The final image has always been defined by the printing process, not the negative used to print the image.
But back to color. Some of the most beautiful color prints I have ever seen are color carbons, and Tod Gangler in Seattle makes some of the best prints of this type that I have seen. He spends hours and hours, if not days, hand-crafting each print. But he uses digital negatives because the end product is superior in color balance and density with this kind of control. Are you going to tell me that the product would be superior if he fried his brain and tried to make balanced separations with wet processes materials? Sorry, I don't think so. I would equate that kind of obsession to intellectual masturbation, "inutile et sans plaisir." And, since I have actually made color carbon prints from balanced separations with wet processing I don't hesitate to say this, hey, been there and done that, and it ain't better, just more masochistic.
Last edited by sanking; 10-02-2004 at 11:18 PM. Click to view previous post history.
Not taking sides in this, I do agree with Sandy that the process of the PRINT is what names the process - not the way the negative was created. Now, if you read much of what is said in ads these days you will here them talking about plt. inks, which have nothing to do with plt. prints - not sure that there is any noble metal in the ink. Would I like a print made from a digital file - probably not, it is not what I collect. I do recall some article in the past few years talking about the carbon process, one that described a color print from the late 1800's that was described as the most stable, richly colored print seen...don't know if the new carbon prints can match the older process or not. Would like to see one though.
Originally Posted by sanking
This may be true in that they are Chromogenic prints (c-prints) made via the RA4 process at the local 1 hour photoplace and are digital scans of 35mm snap shots.
The quantity of this work alone might be the majority of all colour prints.
I would think that many, if not a majority of, professional work is done similarly for proofs and packaged prints (portrait and wedding).
I suspect the traditional custom print is still done non digital by a wide margin.
Digital is a very slick and efficient way to get to point 'b' with colour work. RA4 process in combination with digital exposure is infinitely faster than inkjet output.
One can argue which is a better print by appearance or which process is more fulfilling, but it is difficult to argue against the business case of digital >> RA4.
You can teach monkeys how to load the machine and push the buttons and if you can make Koolaide you can probably be taught how to mix the chemistry.
The fact that RA4 is hanging on and is such an integral part of the digital wave gives me some sense of relief. It means that I will still be able to get my chems and that more R&D will be spent on the materials.
Quoting not really working, so...
Originally Posted by Joe Symchyshyn
(Common usage) is that "Type `C' prints are from negatives; Type `R' from transparencies ..."
Not really worth a long message. Labelling prints as either type "C" or "R" is not very common anymore. I would understand type "C" to be a direct positive, and ... I really would not have a label for the usual, more common color negative prints.
Ed Sukach, FFP.
Aren't these "type" names just gallery speak ? I don't think that that the intention is to have a name that describes a specific process (e.g RA4). Perhaps someone in the gallery trade could explain.
I thought everyone in the art market was calling inkjet output "giclee" or "iris".
Heat or light; it depends on your sensitivity.