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.