Peter Fraser (pigment over c type print)
Yesterday Peter Fraser came to my university to give a talk on his past photographic bodies and some hints to the future of his work.
If anyones interested in idea of found or over looked objects, images that would be classed as conceptual, you should take a look at his site.
He talked about his time staying with W.Eggleston, and his influence upon his photography. He talked briefly about colour photography in the early 80's and how it was viewed as a niche market ect.
On his future work he spoke about incorporating digital methods, in particular switching from C type prints to pigment printers. When asked why, he spoke of a recent meeting he had with a group of collectors claiming that the market for fine art collectors had been advised to purchase pigment ink created images instead of traditional paper. I dont intend this as a 'digital is taking over' post, I was just wondering if theres anyone out there that could give any reasons why this might be the case?
Perhaps it's about archival quality?
If we're talking strictly of C-prints vs. pigment prints, I believe the pigment prints have the edge for archivalness. (This is assuming that the person doing the printing has chosen an archival ink-paper combination.) I remember hearing some horror stories of very expensive C-prints that have now faded away.
Originally Posted by Paul Green
It's not quite the same comparison if we're comparing B&W silver gelatin (or Pt/Pd) vs. pigment. However, a badly fixed silver print, or one on RC paper, is going to lose against a B&W pigment print using carbon inks on an archival cotton paper. Again, this is in the context of archival quality, not aesthetics.
So I can see how if you were a collector who was investing in photographs and planning on holding onto them for several decades, the technology of pigment prints and good paper could have a definite appeal.