Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/03/28
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I think what bugs me is the phrase "gelatin silver". Knowing that a print is silver-based is useful. Adding the word "gelatin" turns it into a phrase with a whiff of insider information: "Oh, it's not one of those plain ordinary silver prints, you know - this one's Gelatin Silver, and that's why the price is $500 higher than you expected". "Giclee" is just a pretentious euphemism, as far as I can tell. "Squirt prints" just doesn't have the same faux-art cachet, does it? And I would bet that even "inkjet" has too many lowbrow connotations for a curator's comfort - although I think that's changing these days. Paul - -----Original Message----- From: Johnny Deadman [mailto:john@pinkheadedbug.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2001 5:11 PM To: LUG Subject: Re: [Leica] WAS: SNAPS & England & the LHS: NOW "snaps use" on 3/27/01 4:33 PM, Paul Chefurka at Paul_Chefurka@pmc-sierra.com wrote: > God I hate going to a gallery and looking at a wall full of "gelatin silver" > prints - even when they're nice snaps. The value system implicit in that > naming convention (and "giclee") irks me no end. Sorry, what value system?? I've always thought it was just a technical description to distinguish them from palladium prints, carbon prints, daguerrotyupes, c-prints, r-prints, platinum prints... - -- Johnny Deadman http://www.pinkheadedbug.com