Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,222   Posts: 1,532,351   Online: 1113
      

View Poll Results: Should a universally recognized system for print identification and photographic process be institut

Voters
26. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    18 69.23%
  • No

    8 30.77%
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 28
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,959
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by philldresser
    ...problem had his head so far up his own A%$£ that had his own personal darkroom

    Phill
    LOL!

  2. #12
    Ed Sukach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Ipswich, Massachusetts, USA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    4,520
    Images
    26
    Quote Originally Posted by philldresser
    I'm sure a salesman tried to sell me one today, problem had his head so far up his own A%$£ that had his own personal darkroom
    Phill
    Is there an inference here that some of the "Digital" salesmen ... DON'T????
    Do you mean to tell me that there is another kind??? :shock:
    Carpe erratum!!

    Ed Sukach, FFP.

  3. #13
    bjorke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    SF & Surrounding Planet
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,032
    Images
    20
    This sounds like that ridiculous "foundview."

    There is a system already in place -- it's called the legal system.

    NO.

    "What Would Zeus Do?"
    KBPhotoRantPhotoPermitAPUG flickr Robot

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Southern Cal
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    485
    Images
    14
    I voted YES. Platinum is platinum, Azo is Azo, silver is silver and digital is digital. Calling something by another name is misleading.

  5. #15
    bjorke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    SF & Surrounding Planet
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,032
    Images
    20
    Steve: Calling something by another name, when sales are involved is FRAUD. Art forgery is a crime, has been for a while (some big city police departments even have staff art historians!).

    Adding some additional "universally identified and recognized system for photographic print identification" is silly and impractical

    "What Would Zeus Do?"
    KBPhotoRantPhotoPermitAPUG flickr Robot

  6. #16
    Ed Sukach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Ipswich, Massachusetts, USA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    4,520
    Images
    26
    Weeelll...

    Trying to "mis-identify" a work is plainly and simply a LIE. It is a cause for pity - only those who are ... (searching for correct shade of meaning ...) ASHAMED of their work find it necessary to lie. A rose is a rose is a rose ... a truly GOOD work (I'm going to dodge here and let someone else choose the definintion of "good") will stand on its own - no matter what the media may be. Simply put - I wouldn't attempt to identify a charcoal drawing as an "oil", unless I perceived some value in the deception.

    There are GREAT charcoal drawings, GREAT oil paintings, GREAT silver-gelatin photographs (I'll admit that calling the ordinary "paper out of the box" by the lofty title of "silver-gelatin" is pretentious - but it is true - and accurate) -- and (... bite on patented flavored Inner Tube...) GREAT digital prints.

    It is sad and deserving of pity - not scorn - that some feel so insecure about their work that they feel it necessary to lie about it.
    Carpe erratum!!

    Ed Sukach, FFP.

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Fort Worth, Texas
    Posts
    229
    FWIW, I used to think it was pretentious to label a print as "gelatin silver" until I considered how difficult it could be to distinguish between an elaborately crafted, bleached, dyed and toned gelatin silver print and one produced by the various so-called "alternative" methods.
    Three degrees of separation from Kevin Bacon.

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Just north of the Inferno
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    750
    Images
    27
    I think the designation needs to be there for thebuyer since some processes are less archival than others. I would not want to drop $2,000.00 on something that will fade in 10 years because it was cheaply printed. Permanence is an issue. They just finsihed the Edward Weston : A Vision Conserved show here at the CCP, and it showed how even a pt/pd print could deteriorate. Many of the images were on loan from private collections and had suffered from poor mounting, poor materials (if I am not mistaken Weston used commercialy made pt/pd paper for many of his prints and the paper is yellowing now), and just poor placement.

    Withe all these new printing methods, one runs the risk of having something similar occuring. A digital platinum glicee print is NOT a pt/pd print. Not by a long shot! So you need to know the difference. And delars need to be honest about it. So do the artists.
    Official Photo.net Villain
    ----------------------
    [FONT=Comic Sans MS]DaVinci never wrote an artist's statement...[/FONT]

  9. #19
    Ed Sukach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Ipswich, Massachusetts, USA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    4,520
    Images
    26
    Quote Originally Posted by Robert Kennedy
    Weston used commercialy made pt/pd paper for many of his prints...
    I saw the Edward Weston show when it was in Boston, at the Museum of Fine Arts, and frankly I was disappointed with the quality of some of his printing.
    I have the book, "Edward Weston, Forms of Passion" - one of the more definitve books of the man and his work - and there is extensive information about his "being", the chronology of his work, his philosophies - but *very* little about his darkroom work or printing materials or techniques.

    As great a shining light as he was on the photographic universe, I don't really consider him to be a "Master Technician"; certainly Adams had more darkroom skills and a far greater propensity to "fuss" over his work. At the same time, I don't rank Adams "higher" than Weston - each was an eminently significant contributor to the art in his own right..

    One of the photographs in that exhibit was "Nude, 1936" - probably his single most famous work (woman seated on the floor, head down, legs severely crossed - arms down with hands enfolded under her right knee - yes - I'm looking at the image as I type) and the original print(s) by Weston are not technically very good, in my mind. I remember thinking - "Too flat - this really needs a lot more contrast and `snap'". Every reproduction I've ever seen of this image seems to be FAR better that the original.

    In the exhibit, there was Edward Weston's darkroom ... Piece by piece --- the benches, the contact printing frame, the chemicals, the trays ... the single light bulb overhead (he would lower it for more printing exposure and raise it for less), his chemicals (mixed his own ) and the last of the paper he had used ... I immediately recognized the Red Agfa packages, but I could't identify the specific papers.
    Carpe erratum!!

    Ed Sukach, FFP.

  10. #20
    DKT
    DKT is offline

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    504
    Quote Originally Posted by Robert Kennedy
    I think the designation needs to be there for thebuyer since some processes are less archival than others. I would not want to drop $2,000.00 on something that will fade in 10 years because it was cheaply printed. Permanence is an issue. They just finsihed the Edward Weston : A Vision Conserved show here at the CCP, and it showed how even a pt/pd print could deteriorate. Many of the images were on loan from private collections and had suffered from poor mounting, poor materials (if I am not mistaken Weston used commercialy made pt/pd paper for many of his prints and the paper is yellowing now), and just poor placement.

    Withe all these new printing methods, one runs the risk of having something similar occuring. A digital platinum glicee print is NOT a pt/pd print. Not by a long shot! So you need to know the difference. And delars need to be honest about it. So do the artists.

    I agree with you to a certain extent--but think realistically it would be impossible for this to work. The problem with guaranteeing something as "archival" is illustrated in the story you just told. There's a fundamental truth in the world of archives & museums--nothing lasts forever. Nothing is archival. In the ANSI/ISO standards groups they don't even use the wording "archival" anymore. They use the term Life Expectancy and assign a projected lifespan for a material based off a very stringent set of storage & display conditions, that you'd be hard put to meet outside of a climate controlled storage vault. What's more the print would have to live it's *entire* life in this type of environment. If it was taken out and put on display, it would be under another set of environmental conditions for a short period of time. In museums, they call this rotation sometimes--they "rotate" artifacts out in exhbits so they only see the dim, UV filtered, pristine air filtered light of day--for short periods of time...and you can forget letting visitors or patrons a chance to get close to the objects. Most are under vitrines or behind plex, glass or with security hovering over you. --this is the world I work in.....

    For you to guarantee an item as being "archival"--you first have to acknowledge that it's the buyer's/owner's responsibility to care for it as best as possible--and with photographs this often means not displaying them forever, and limiting access to them. If the work is color, it would mean pretty much keeping them in the dark, in cool & dry storage. The best way to actually do this is to keep the original in storage and use duplicates or access prints for display.

    Most people do not realize how many items in museums will never be even seen by the general public, or even being able to get close to them. The big reason is the security of the item and the fact that if you actually intend to *use* the item in any way, then it's life can be compromised. You can see this in old photographs--something as innocent as picking up a print with bare hands--leaving skin oils on the surface and decades later you have a fingerprint etched into the image. I see this all the time and it drives me nuts doing copywork or printing old negatives. I know, no harm was intended, but there's a reason why you wear cotton gloves to handle prints and negatives. I don't know how many times I've seen people outside of a museum or archive handling heirloom type prints or "archival" fiber base prints with their bare hands though....

    The PAT is one standard that manufacturer's submit products to be tested against--so they can claim that product as being "safe"--archival. They can claim that the product will not cause damage--chemical damage--to the items housed within them. This is mostly for paper enclosures and boards. Plastic items can be tested under the PAT, but the test is often destructive and sleeves & such can be destroyed & stuck to the contents etc--physically--and still pass. This is called "blocking"--so a product can pass this test--this standard, and still have the potential for some damage IF the storage conditions are conducive for it...There's another test for blocking as well, but it's not in the PAT. These tests are also independent--so a manufacturer can choose to disclose the results or not. It's up to them, and the labs that do the tests keep the results confidential.

    Even products that are good & pass the PAT can still cause damage-again, IF the storage conditions are wrong. So, that's the Big IF. The environment rules all in the end. The reality is that you can take unstable materials and put them in temp controlled storage vaults, and they'll outlast better materials just out there in the "real" world. You may not see it in your lifetime, but they will outlast them, because the cool temps and low RH slow down the deterioration. This is why cold storage vaults, cool rooms and the like are used for storing negs & photographs more & more now....but the thing is, the stuff has to stay in the vaults to get the benefit.

    Now, take the PAT. That standard is applied around the world. You see it in some catalogs. You have to read carefully however, because some products may have a certain component that passes the test, while some other part of it might not have been submitted. Say an album, where the liner is good, but the covering is not. What's more, just because a product won't harm, say a b&w neg or print, doesn't neccessarily mean it's good for a color material. Each type of material needs to be tested on it's own. The PAT is a great tool though, for ordering the right types of products--and the most reliable way to find decent storage products.

    HOWEVER, just because there's a bona-fide standard, doesn't stop people from claiming all sorts of products are "archival".....and you can spend a fortune on high-quality products and stick them in the wrong environments or subject them to careless handling and the like, and sooner or later they'll show it.

    As for the registering of a process as a trademark? forget it--pipe dream.

    KT

    guess I better put this here:Opinions expressed in this message may not represent the policy of my agency. if you decide to email me, be aware of third party monitoring & archiving under public records laws.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin