I have no problem with that guy's article or his conclusions, in general. His proposed name is a good one--descriptive and not dishonest. As long as you're not calling them carbon prints ...

The only problem I see is that people would want to shorten the name to carbon prints, specially those that do not know there is a Carbon process already in existence. In any case it was refreshing to read someone doing ink jet saying it should stand on it's own and not pretend to be something it is not.