"Gallery Name" for Fuji Crystal Archive

[beepy]

In class today a classic "digital vs. film" argument erupted real time - it seems they are not

restricted to photo.net.

<p>

The sturm and drang arose over the problem that say my Fuji Crystal Archive Matte prints

were printed on a Lightjet from a 308.4 dpi scan of a 4x5 slide. Whereas person next to

me had printed Fuji Crystal Archive (Glossy) in a traditional darkroom.

<p>

The question was - how would you label each print? say in a show at a gallery? ("Archival

Chromogenic Print" vs. "Digital Archival blah blah...")

How would

you distinguish them, and why - and why was that important?

<p>

Note one person felt that it was important for a buyer to know it was all processed

traditionally...

[jreades]

I would argue that it's important for the buyer to know this *if* the buyer thinks it's important that they know. ;) *Or* if there's some distinguishable difference in the 'performance' (if you will) of the two styles of printing over the long haul.

 

So my understanding is that whether you use traditional printing techniques or a printer, both will fade over time if exposed to direct sunlight. The only reason that someone would need this information by *default* is if the rate of fading is substantively different between the two. So if I buy a digital print thinking that it will last me 30 to 50 years and instead it will only last 15 then it's an issue. If there's no real difference, then I can't see why it matters unless the buyer wants to know for subjective ("I like to promote traditional techniques") reasons.

 

My $0.02.

 

jon

[ellis_vener_photography]

Both are C-prints. Yours should say "C-print from digital scan of 4x5 e-6 transparency"

[scott_eaton]

None of the the above - Call it a 'LightJet' print. The process is widely known and LightJet/Lambda printing has already established it's reputation with museums/galleries.

 

I would NOT use the term digital anywhere in the description unless you want to place emphasis on it; digital manipulation, etc.

 

I'm curious on how your's compared to the other guys, or if there was a difference between the two that demanded and explanation.

[roger krueger]

I've used "Digital C-print", but judging by the catalog from Photo L.A. (a good sample of

what top galleries are doing) "Lambda Print" was used many times, and just "chromogenic

print" was used on a number of things that to my eye (I actually went and saw the show in

person) had to be digital.

 

In fact, I saw "Lambda" so many times, and "Lightjet" or "Chromira" not at all, I had to

wonder--is the market share of these systems wildly different than I'd imagined, or did

Lambda pay people to name-drop, or maybe even offer incentivees to galleries or

prominent individuals to get them to switch to their system?

[jim_simmons]

I agree with Ellis, although "chromogenic print" instead of "C-print" sounds even more generic and less brand-namey. I like these descriptions to be as much like dry evidence-reporting as possible. Let the gallery people do all the marketing gushing. Let the print description be a simple technical description of what you're buying. It's up to the buyer and the gallery owner to know and/or discuss the whole archival state of the art.

[scott_eaton]

Lambda/Durst has been around longer than LightJet I believe. Chromira has just started to establish itself in the market. The reason I like using this designation vs 'digital chromogenic print' or something similiar is the viewer can look-up the description and get more information from the process.

 

I've seen more LightJet denoted prints up here in the midwest than the other combined. We skipped right by the IRIS fad.

[beepy]

<emphasis>I'm curious on how your's compared to the other guys, or if there was a

difference between the two that demanded and explanation.</emphasis>

<p>

This discussion was not based on any review of prints. My prints in question were max

resolution Lightjet output (304.8 - correction to my original posting) - I am not sure there

are any artifacts to see. It was an extremely straight print - no digital manipulation

beyond brightness and contrast setting and subtle sharpening to correct softness

introduced in scanning. It was a discussion

based on our description of how we produced our prints.

<p>

It resembled the similar threads on photo.net which take place without evaluation of

images:-) I guess the other thought I had later, was that once archival properties are put

aside, deep technical info is likely of interest only to another photographer, or rarified

collector who documents such.

<p>

My issues are not output media - but creating compelling images. I keep trying to get

back to that point. I want to engage people visually. THAT SAID, I look forward to the day

I get to label some work I did these past few days:

<blockquote>

Palladium Print from an enlarged digital negative of original Polaroid 85 negative shot with

a Holga.

</blockquote>

Ah, the ironies.

[bruce watson]

<i>My issues are not output media - but creating compelling images. I keep trying to get back to that point. I want to engage people visually. </i>

<p>

I'm with you there. If the image is sufficiently compelling, few will care about the name of the process.

[scott_eaton]

My reason for asking about the comparison is that there are a lot of lazy labs out there kicking out bad digital work that shows artifacts, over zealous USM, etc. More often than not this is blamed on the LightJet/Lambda, which in fact it's not the fault of the printer device at all. Both devices print a fairly diffused and overlapping register on the paper, so device level artifacts aren't possible anyways, unlike ink-jets.

 

Properly done LighJet prints cannot be readily distinguished from optical prints, in which case the debate does become irrelevant, as it should be. The qualifier though is 'properly done', even though optical prints are for some absurd reason allowed a much greater degree of slop. If side by side you can't tell which print was optical and which was kicked out with RGB lasers, and that's what I'm asking, then you've succeded in your goal and the process was used propely - mission accomplished. Basically then using the term 'LighJet Print' on a print on display then bears the process some respect, which it deserves. I hope that makes sense. It's funny, but back before Lambda's and LightJet's were on the scene I was already a damn good custom printer and rarely saw prints, especially color ones in shows I'd consider technically well done. R-types were especially so bad I was embarrased to be involved with color photography.

 

Otherwise, I occasionally enter material in competitions and displays, but have grown irked at some of the overly verbose descriptions of conventional B/W work. All it does is call attention to the artist trying to draw attention away from the message.

[beepy]

Argh, it pays to search the archives. Here are some related threads on same topic.

<blockquote>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00B6hP">Proper

Art Gallery Description for Lightjet Prints???</a>

<br>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00AOR4">Which

printer: Pictography, Frontier or Lightjet</a>

<br>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00BCUZ">Digital

Prints And Galleries?</a>

<br>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00ARgV">Prints

from Costco on Fuji Crystal Archive</a>

<br>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00AO0a">How do I

calibrate my monitor to Fuji Frontier?</a>

<br>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00B9ce">AIPAD

2005: The Galleries Are Selling Gelatin Silver</a>

<br>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=008ytq">Do pro

most labs scan and print film images now?</a>

</blockquote>

[roger krueger]

<i>My prints in question were max resolution Lightjet output (304.8 - correction to my

original posting)</i><br><br>

 

Beepy: Actualy, the older model of Lightjet CAN be run at 406dpi, but many places run it

at 304.8 just like the new newer one.

<br><br>

Scott: I've certainly seen "generic" chromogenic prints that I'd swear were digital because

they were better than anything I'd believe came from an enlarger. If you've got a 36 x 48

that shows visible but very fine grain, and the grain is just as sharp in the corners as it is

in the center, you're going to have a very hard time convincing me an enlarger did that.

[beepy]

Yes, the grain issue... But, I'm scanning 4x5 slides to produce the digital files to drive the

Lightjet. The 4x5 scans are definitely "film grainy" compared to direct 1Ds Mark II image.

I think I need to do some more experiments and print out direct digital captures to a

Lightjet.

[beepy]

Another link to a related posting (damn, wish we could edit posts):

<blockquote>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?

msg_id=00BCYJ&unified_p=1">10D and sharpening for Frontier prints</a>

</blockquote>

[beepy]

Another related posting:

<blockquote>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=470884">what is a giclee

really?</a>

</blockquote>