Re: Charcoal Prints

Date: 03/08/04-10:50:30 PM Z
Message-id: <>

Hi Dick,


I think Chappell has a point regarding the two categories of print makers and
image makers and you are probably right about digital being a good medium for
image makers.

The large color images from digital output are probably Lightjet prints on
Fuji Crystal Archive. I believe they are rated at 60-80 years before fading.
I would agree, you could make a very similar print (Saturated colors, Bright
Glossy Surface like Cibachrome) on something like the Pictorico Hi Gloss
Film using archival pigments or even Ultrachrome inks and get quite a few more
years before fading.

I think perhaps, since size always seems to be an issue, that one of the most
important distinctions between digital and traditional is size. It's easy
to make big digital prints and not so easy to make big alt process prints. So
in a case where the need is for a large print for decorative purposes and
longevity is not as important, digital may be best and cheaper for the size. On
the other hand, if you are a collector, and want a fine hand crafted item
that you can hold in your hands and really enjoy up close, the alt process print
would fit the bill. Again, just my opinion.

I was mistaken about the "Charcoal paper"—it wasn't Ilford, it was Luminos
that makes the paper for traditional silver prints and a similar surface for
inkjet prints. The silver gelatin Charcoal surface is one that is used a lot by
people who like to hand paint their images. A friend of mine uses this
paper. She does mostly nudes. She is an excellent black and white printer.
She's also a good painter. So she prints on this paper and hand paints the
prints. I think she did workshops for Marshalls paints—Jerry Johnson.

I checked out the Rubin gums online...they do look great.

Mark Nelson
Precision Digital Negatives

In a message dated 3/8/04 1:29:10 PM, writes:

> Mark,
> Nice essay!
> I think the distinction comes easier if one uses Walter Chappell's dictum
> (written in 1948) that photographers fell into two basic categories: print
> makers and image makers.
> Digital prints do make sense for image makers. The collector market still
> seems that it would prefer a silver print over a digital of Cartier
> Bresson's work, though since he  does not print his own work, I don't see
> much difference. Once the image in the computer is fixed one can crank out
> an edition faster than the handmade silver prints. Once print speed goes up
> one can look at digital as a way to print editions opf photo books.
> Melody and I traipsed Chelsea (NYNY) last September and took in the shows.
> Lots of huge (48x48) C41 prints for big bucks. Strangely very few digitals.
> I would suspect that a 48 inch digital color chrome print would outlast a
> C41. Whjy one would buy a fading print for better than $10,000.00 is beyond
> me. But then there are people who redecorate their Park Av apartments every
> two years and donate everything to Goodwill.
> We did see the absolutely luscious gums of Ernestine Rubin at Stevenson
> Gallery. Wow!
> --Dick
Received on Mon Mar 8 22:50:48 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 04/01/04-02:02:05 PM Z CST