Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/03/28

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: RE: [Leica] WAS: SNAPS & England & the LHS: NOW "snaps use"
From: Paul Chefurka <>
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 06:39:55 -0800

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.


- -----Original Message-----
From: Johnny Deadman []
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2001 5:11 PM
Subject: Re: [Leica] WAS: SNAPS & England & the LHS: NOW "snaps use"

on 3/27/01 4:33 PM, Paul Chefurka at 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

Replies: Reply from Mark Rabiner <> (Re: [Leica] WAS: SNAPS & England & the LHS: NOW "snaps use")