What is a C print?

[mark]

Apparently Allen is right. I saw a polaroid listed at a gallery site as a Dye Dispersion print. That was funny.

[steve]

a lot of digital printers now use "C-Print" to describe their digital output, removing all description that it had anything to do with digital whatsoever

What's really funny about all of this, is that the wet darkroom advocates never seem to have a problem with package printers spewing out hundreds of thousands of school photos or wedding packages. Or, minilab setups turning out millions of photo prints. Neither requiring much in the way of photographic intervention or even knowledge to produce a print. Yeah, those are "real photographs."

Just chuck in the film, push the appropriate buttons and let the automatic exposure setup, take over. I can see how that's way more valid and creative than something coming from the dreaded LightJet or Lambda printer...

Jim Dine calls his inkjet prints "pigment print" - since he uses pigment inks to produce the final image - any problems with that description?

[Joe Symchyshyn]

Jim Dine calls his inkjet prints "pigment print" - since he uses pigment inks to produce the final image - any problems with that description?

As a maker of hand made (my hands) photographs, I'm bothered by that description... But I can see why if you do inkjet outputs, how that is an attractive title for you.

Everyone wants to make their work seem more special, less pedestrian...

Inkjet gets a bad name because of the common inkjet sitting on our desks. These are not tools to make art work that LASTS. By changing the paper and the inks one can make prints that are very good looking, attractive and long lasting (time will tell). I just don't spend my money on them that's all... Same with that silly Giclee description that gets used so often... Sounds special, sounds exotic... But in reality it means to spurt/spray.

joe

[sanking]

Jim Dine calls his inkjet prints "pigment print" - since he uses pigment inks to produce the final image - any problems with that description?

I have a problem with the use of the terms "pigment print" and "carbon print" to describe inkjet output because both terms have been used to describe historical processes, some of which are still in use today. This makes the use of the term confusing to buyers and collectors of photographs, and possibly misleading, though that would depend on the intention of the artist. My conclusion is that any inkjet printer marketing his/her prints as either "pigment prints" or "carbon" prints is either ignorant of other historical and contemporary use (least offensive), or is being deliberately deceptive (worse case).

Another issue is that the ink sets used to make prints on inkjet printers do not consist entirely of pigments, but of a combination of pigments and inks. This brings into question their permanence vis-a-vis processes that use pure pigments.

In my opinion the primary distinguishing quality of prints made with inkjet printers is the particular dye or pigmented ink set used by the printer so it would make sense to me to describe prints that way. Calling a print an Ultra-Chrome or Dura-Brite, etc. tells one a lot more about the technical qualities of the print that by use of the generic term pigment print.

Sandy King

[jd callow]

I have a problem with the use of the terms "pigment print" and "carbon print" to describe inkjet output because both terms have been used to describe historical processes, some of which are still in use today. This makes the use of the term confusing to potential collections, and possibly misleading, though that would depend on the intention of the artist.

Another issue is that the ink sets used to make prints on inkjet printers do not consist entirely of pigments, but of a combination of pigments and inks. This brings into question their permanence vis-a-vis processes that use pure pigments.

In my opinion the primary distinguishing quality of prints made with inkjet printers is the particular dye or pigmented ink set used by the printer so it would make sense to me to describe prints that way. Calling a print an Ultra-Chrome or Dura-Brite, etc. tells one a lot more about the technical qualities of the print that by use of the generic term pigment print.

Sandy King

I would agree in principle but would avoid brand names and call them Pigmented Inkjet prints or UV/Pigmented InkJet Prints

This could easily be shortened to UPIG.

[Sean]

Jim Dine calls his inkjet prints "pigment print" - since he uses pigment inks to produce the final image - any problems with that description?

Would you have a problem with a company coming out with "silver" branded inksets, and "gelatin" branded papers, and artists that use this ink and paper selling their prints as "silver gelatin" prints? Because it is going to happen, just give it another year..

[tim atherton]

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..

Much of the most highly priced colour work from some of todays "best" photographers takes this route

It isn't about "hand crafted" vs "machine made" - which is pretty much a false dichotomy. It's more about getting the best looking image/photograph that fits with the photographers vision.

A "hand made" (if you like) digital colour print usually offers the photographer vastly more control over the final print than does the "traditional" wet darkroom process (I'm talking "C" prints in the context of this discussion - not exotic and expensive colour carbon processes or almost impossible to find dye transfer process etc).

[Sean]

"It's more about getting the best looking image/photograph that fits with the photographers vision."

So as long as the final image looks good that is all that matters then, regardless of who produced it? Someone can snap a pic and simply drop the file or negative off at a digital lab paying for the "professional output" option that includes "drum scan, full color calibration, and creative assistance including dodging, burning, sharpening, cropping, dust removal, etc", come back a day later and pick up their masterpiece, then sell it for $500 as a traditional hand crafted C-print? You make a good point and I see where you are coming from, but it only applies to the handful of honest photographers and artists out there who genuinely use digital as a craft (Les McLean for example). When I buy art I like to know how the piece was made, why would I pay for something a digital lab banged out for someone? Many digital artists want it to be a non-issue, one has to ask why is this?

[tim atherton]

"It's more about getting the best looking image/photograph that fits with the photographers vision."

So as long as the final image looks good that is all that matters then, regardless of who produced it? Someone can snap a pic and simply drop the file or negative off at a digital lab paying for the "professional output" option that includes "drum scan, full color calibration, and creative assistance including dodging, burning, sharpening, cropping, dust removal, etc", come back a day later and pick up their masterpiece, then sell it for $500 as a traditional hand crafted C-print? You make a good point and I see where you are coming from, but it only applies to the handful of honest photographers and artists out there who genuinely use digital as a craft (Les McLean for example). When I buy art I like to know how the piece was made, why would I pay for something a digital lab banged out for someone? Many digital artists want it to be a non-issue, one has to ask why is this?

Not at all - in the past, I'd say the majority of colour photographers had a lab do up all their prints. Some always provided much more input to the pritning process than others. Some had a favourite printer (who often came to know the photogorpahers style so well that the photogorpaher ended up having to give little input). A good few basiucally gave broad instructions to the lab and let the pritner do their stuff.

In fact, digital work (by which I mean here work made from scans from negs/trannies) has had something of the opposite effect, with many colour photographers becoming much more invloved in the printing side - at least "pre-prodcution" - as they can now exercise a great deal more control over their work than the "skilled pritner" could in the past. The final work is then sent off to the lab for printing from a master file.

It's not really digital artist who want it to be a non issue - it was always a non-issue.

In the past, buy an expensive colour print from famous XYZ colour photographer (insert you name of choice) and there was a very good chance it wasn't pritned by him/her - it was just a non iussue. (much of Paul Graham's excellent work was often done at the local High Street photo lab to highlight just this point - it still sold for a few thousand pounds - sells for an awful lot more now). But a "hand crafted" C print - what difference does it make if the picture is a good one? Very little.

In a way, colour work has never been as slavishly tied to the issue of darkroom craft as B&W has - the photogorpaher made the image, the printer printed it.

[Ed Sukach]

Not at all - in the past, I'd say the majority of colour photographers had a lab do up all their prints.

You are of course, correct. BUT ... there are those (including me) who DO their own color printing. I find that the communication gap with another printer would be too great.

Not all of us "found more freedom" in digital. To me, there is considerably less.