Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Why print with pigments  (Read 10255 times)
tim wolcott
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 467


WWW
« on: December 17, 2009, 09:43:17 PM »
ReplyReply

I've recently been commenting on printing color photographs.  In brief I want everyone to see why they should be printing with archival pigments and the history in brief.

But first why,  the color photography market (the fastest growing art market in the world) only needs to look at the Black and White market.  The reason why B&W prints are very collectable and getting close to 4 million dollars for a single photo is because they really don't fade and are great images.  We have a color images at 3.3 million printed with archival pigments.  

I could go on and on about the history but will spare you.

If we get stupid and print with very fadeable degenerative  heavy metal chemical process like (cibachrome, fujichrome and R prints and c prints) we stand to hurt the entire photography market.  We only stand to gain the popularity of photography by keeping the process archival and its heavy metal and chemically free with almost unlimited surfaces to print on and creative control.

The modern pigment printing industry was really born 1990 when we made and invented the Evercolor pigment process, the very first virtually non fadeable process and green.  The inkjet pigment print was born in 1994, when we made the very first papers and developed the process, although they were not perfect but we were able to make some pretty good prints. The rest of the technology came from Evercolor and automotive division.

It has been my mission to develop and invent, better ways of making prints, papers and photo equipment.  
So for the sake of OUR photo industry lets keep it archival and green as possible.  

Pigment printing started around 1890 with the Fresson process and Carbro printing.  Some of those prints are still around.  There is a few people around the world still making them, but very costly and not that realistic and very time consuming at 13 hours to make one.
« Last Edit: December 17, 2009, 10:17:23 PM by tim wolcott » Logged
DanielStone
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 538


« Reply #1 on: December 17, 2009, 11:59:45 PM »
ReplyReply

would dye transfer count as printing with pigments?

i guess not, since they're dyes, duh !!!

but they sure are archival, compared to c-prints.

I still make wet(c type) prints from my color negs, but for the bulk I'm scanning and printing on my canon 5100. its a really nice printer, but I still haven't gotten the same look from it that I can get through a traditional optically-enlarged photograph.

call me a dinosaur(I'm 21 btw), but it gets me what I like. and getting slightly expired paper (8x10) 100sht boxes for like $12-15 a box, after a test strip or two, I generally have my color down that I like for a final, full print.

I don't want to argue analog vs. digital, but many artists from who I have talked to like c-prints for reasons similar to my own. Some call it more "handcrafted, and printed by the artist", so they can sell more of a "personal" work, but whatever works for them I guess.

different strokes for different folks. I'm split down the middle on this issue. I'd love to have some dye transfers made, having recently seen my first one in-person. it was marvelous. I talked to the photographer who printed it, and he stated that he had to make 4! contrast masks to get the final one right for printing. but he's been doing this for years, and now that the materials are no longer being made (CTEIN and 1 other guy make them, from stockpiled materials they mortgaged out), this print was made back in 2000/1? can't remember exactly.

but it was terrific. but PS gives you the ability to adjust the levels in every color channel, just like DT printing, except less labor-intensive.

-Dan

but just out of curiosity, why did you post this thread here? trying to convert the miniscule amount of film-shooters(like me) to go over to a totally digital workflow?
Logged
tim wolcott
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 467


WWW
« Reply #2 on: December 18, 2009, 12:35:16 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: DanielStone
would dye transfer count as printing with pigments?

i guess not, since they're dyes, duh !!!

but they sure are archival, compared to c-prints.

I still make wet(c type) prints from my color negs, but for the bulk I'm scanning and printing on my canon 5100. its a really nice printer, but I still haven't gotten the same look from it that I can get through a traditional optically-enlarged photograph.

call me a dinosaur(I'm 21 btw), but it gets me what I like. and getting slightly expired paper (8x10) 100sht boxes for like $12-15 a box, after a test strip or two, I generally have my color down that I like for a final, full print.

I don't want to argue analog vs. digital, but many artists from who I have talked to like c-prints for reasons similar to my own. Some call it more "handcrafted, and printed by the artist", so they can sell more of a "personal" work, but whatever works for them I guess.

different strokes for different folks. I'm split down the middle on this issue. I'd love to have some dye transfers made, having recently seen my first one in-person. it was marvelous. I talked to the photographer who printed it, and he stated that he had to make 4! contrast masks to get the final one right for printing. but he's been doing this for years, and now that the materials are no longer being made (CTEIN and 1 other guy make them, from stockpiled materials they mortgaged out), this print was made back in 2000/1? can't remember exactly.

but it was terrific. but PS gives you the ability to adjust the levels in every color channel, just like DT printing, except less labor-intensive.

-Dan

but just out of curiosity, why did you post this thread here? trying to convert the miniscule amount of film-shooters(like me) to go over to a totally digital workflow?


Dan, Dye Transfer have about the same longevity as a cibachrome.  Which is about 10%fade in 10-12 years  (according to Henry Wilhelm)

 To answer the question about hand crafted or digital, its really not the consumers need to know.  You should be talking about how great the image is and the it will not fade, if its a pigment print.

I once asked my professor a question when we were inventing the pigment process with digital negs (1990).  He said I'm so old that I remember when enlargers came into photography.  He said it doesn't matter how you make the photographic print, just that it looks great and it last for a long time.  

There is no way a c-print could ever look as good as a pigment print.  Since dyes are synthetic and pigment come from the earth so it mimics nature.  

Isn't the goal to create an image that best mimics nature.  Unless your doing something experimental.  

Dye transfer was a beautiful process back in day.  However when we created the pigment printing process we added a black to the process so to imitate the shadows of what you find in nature.

 I have nearly printed every process known to man and invented more than just a few.  But nothing looks as good as a pigment print in color.

You ask the question, why did I post here.  I posted here because no matter what age you are you should be producing the most archival process you can.  remember every print that fades is just one client that will not buy a print the next time.  Just want everyone to make prints that move the photographic collectors forward.

I'm going to ask Michael if he would like to do a video on how to properly display and matt and frame photographs so everyone can learn from what we have done.  

Look at the Warhol's they are fading and no one want those, look at litho's and serigraphs, polaroid transfers, ect.  They have really no value when they are sold.  Antique furniture would have no value if it was filled with termites.

 your younger than I, its our industry that we have to educate and get them to do the right thing.  After all its our future.  Tim
Logged
Paul Sumi
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1217


« Reply #3 on: December 21, 2009, 09:54:10 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: tim wolcott
You ask the question, why did I post here.  I posted here because no matter what age you are you should be producing the most archival process you can.  remember every print that fades is just one client that will not buy a print the next time.  Just want everyone to make prints that move the photographic collectors forward.

Tim,

I suspect that you are preaching to the choir as I think many here already use inkjet printers with pigment inksets.  But based what I have read on your website and elsewhere, there is pigment printing and there is pigment printing.  I had not previously heard of Evercolor and wonder how it compares to the pigment inks from Epson, Canon, etc.

Best,

Paul
« Last Edit: December 21, 2009, 09:55:07 PM by PaulS » Logged

tim wolcott
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 467


WWW
« Reply #4 on: December 22, 2009, 10:57:33 PM »
ReplyReply

Paul, I started the thread because, since the day we invented printing pigment prints in 1990.  My goal was to see a non fadeable photograph.  We started with goal to make fade proof and we did that but then we were able to make them green at the same time.  I started the thread because the photograph industry must protect what has been established over the past 20 years.  Just B&W prints have proven longevity and value.  Color has had a bad rap for long time, remember everyone in the world has photographs in color that has faded.  So we need to as  a whole do what we can to further instill the faith that our photographs today will have a value and last for a long time.  

Yes Evercolor is still the longest lasting process in the world, but has some drawbacks that hinder the process, cost, size ability to print, one type of paper.  But yes they look amazing and very 3D when put on display.

Everything we invented in Evercolor.  Was then taken to Inkjet and moved that process forward.  If they would just listen better we would have made stronger development strides.  I'm still fighting with them to design things that we need.  We still have a ways to go but we do indeed have a great process know but could and should be better.    

But when you see a posting talking about cibachrome, getting 12,000 looks.  You want to fix if people get stupid.  

Make no bones about it, if we want the future to grow we need to protect it.  I will be posting somethings soon with Michael, and other things that everyone should know.  Hope life finds you well.  Tim

Quote from: PaulS
Tim,

I suspect that you are preaching to the choir as I think many here already use inkjet printers with pigment inksets.  But based what I have read on your website and elsewhere, there is pigment printing and there is pigment printing.  I had not previously heard of Evercolor and wonder how it compares to the pigment inks from Epson, Canon, etc.

Best,

Paul
Logged
Thomas Krüger
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 451



WWW
« Reply #5 on: December 23, 2009, 12:44:49 AM »
ReplyReply

Since the EverColor Corp. has no website, is this the latest information about the Ever Color pigment printing process? http://www.artfacts.org/artinfo/articals/evercolor.html
Is there any starter kit available?

Logged
tim wolcott
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 467


WWW
« Reply #6 on: December 23, 2009, 12:49:16 PM »
ReplyReply

We did some great things at Evercolor, but times change and printing equipment moves with it.  It folded in 1998 or os.  I left before that,  The inkjet market was the promise land.  I jumped into it with both feet, designing printers and papers.  But what we learned from making the prints at Evercolor, I used in inkjet and made it better.  But it has taken many years for these companies even ones I have been consulting for to wake up and smell the coffee.

I then started to invent process for the Smithsonian which were things we wanted to do at Evercolor , but with investors they are short sighted.

Listen if you like to chat, feel free to call gallery line is 9098789214 and cell 9517411674 I'd be happy to help in any way.   Thanks Tim  

Quote from: ThomasK
Since the EverColor Corp. has no website, is this the latest information about the Ever Color pigment printing process? http://www.artfacts.org/artinfo/articals/evercolor.html
Is there any starter kit available?
« Last Edit: December 23, 2009, 01:25:22 PM by tim wolcott » Logged
jamesdesautels
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2


« Reply #7 on: April 02, 2010, 08:04:42 AM »
ReplyReply

I love pigment prints.  Ever since Evercolor prints were no longer available and Charles Burger stopped making his stuff I have wondered what we would be able to use to get an archival color print.  Thank you very much Tim for this info.  Pigment is definitely the only way to go for any serious photographer.  If it is worth printing it should be worth being around for a long time.
Logged
jamesdesautels
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2


« Reply #8 on: April 02, 2010, 08:12:00 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: ThomasK
Since the EverColor Corp. has no website, is this the latest information about the Ever Color pigment printing process? http://www.artfacts.org/artinfo/articals/evercolor.html
Is there any starter kit available?
LOL You need to have a huge processor and a laminating machine.  The Evercolor process was not the kind of thing you could do at home.
Logged
JamiePeters
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 66


« Reply #9 on: May 24, 2010, 08:23:05 PM »
ReplyReply

When was the first exhibit and where.  How do you mount those large print so flat.  Are you using a mounting machine.  I went up to the gallery and they said you were at the bike race.  Sorry I missed you.  jp
Logged
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad