Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 45

Thread: Why not just call it an Inkjet Print?

  1. #21

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Hudson Valley, NY
    Posts
    1,692

    Why not just call it an Inkjet Print?

    I refer to mine as "digital prints". I think that's enough information for the typical customer and those that need more information will ask.

    I have no problem with "ink jet print" but I fear that most customers hearing that term can only relate to the line-up of $60 ink jet printers at CompUsa. Most people have never seen a pretty new pro level Ultrachrome printer and have no clue what a custom profile is.

    There are also people, including at least a few on this board, who have no clue about ink jets prints. They think because they have seen 1 print fade when placed in direct sublight that the entire class of prints have the same properties. They do not take the time to consider the permutations of ink and paper and what that might mean to lengevity. Their blanket negative statements help give "ink jet print" an undeserved bad name.

    There's another class of people (who most likely won't but a print anyway) who have comments like "that's a great photogrpah but why should I pay $xxx when I could just take the picture myself". When those people hear "ink jet" that just reinforces the misconception. In the end it really doesn't matter but it still bugs me.

  2. #22
    Old School Wayne
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Posts
    1,255

    Why not just call it an Inkjet Print?

    There's another class of people (who most likely won't but a print anyway) who have comments like "that's a great photogrpah but why should I pay $xxx when I could just take the picture myself".

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    I dont know about "take", but digital is certainly the great equalizer. Many people who wouldnt know their aperture from their f-stop could potentially "make" one.

  3. #23

    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Posts
    471

    Why not just call it an Inkjet Print?

    Here's an interesting approach. On the 4th we took a group from our church to the Cleveland Zoo. ( A great Zoo in case anyone is ever in the area.) We were fortunate to have the curator of primates speak to the children about the origins of the various primates. She made mention that the Zoo has been working under a grant on primate behavioral studies. The tasks she rattled off that the primates were capable of was quite impressive. I made the snide remark " next thing you know they'll be online". She said, " but Sir, they already have some computer skills". I thought, my god as soon as ralph the chimp learns how to download an image and figures out where the print key is we'll have "Fine Art Giclees" from a chimpanzee. You see, we can teach a monkey to do it!

  4. #24

    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Posts
    110

    Why not just call it an Inkjet Print?

    I have to laugh every time this gets brought up. If you'd like to know the evolution of Giclee, I suggest looking up, "The True Story of Giclee," by Harald Johnson.

    An excerpt from the essay shows how Jack Duganne coined this word that people get so wrapped up in.

    "... In 1991, Duganne had to come up with a print-medium description for a mailer announcing California artist Diane Bartz' upcoming show. He wanted to stay away from words like "computer" or "digital" because of the negative connotations the art world attached to the new medium. Taking a cue from the French word for inkjet (jet d'encre), Duganne opened his pocket Larousse and searched for a word that was generic enough to cover most inkjet technologies at the time and hopefully for some time into the future. He focused on the nozzle which most inkjet printers used. In French, that was le gicleur. What nozzles do is spray ink, so looking up French verbs for "to spray," he found gicler, which literally means "to squirt, spurt, or spray." The feminine noun version of the verb is (la) giclée, (pronounced "zhee-clay") or "that which is sprayed or squirted." An industry moniker was born."

    I like the description by another author who really quantifies the whole idea.

    "Question: If giclee and ink-jet printing are the same thing, why do people strain to use the more obscure and foreign-sounding name?"

    "Answer: For the same reason that they would rather sell you lingerie in a boutique than underwear in a store. They are convinced that they can get you to pay more for lingerie and giclees than for underwear and ink-jet reproductions. "

    For me personally, I too just call them photographs. If people want to know how they were produced, I tell them, "On and Epson 9600 printer." If they want to know the exact printing materials, I say "pigment inks on rag paper."

    But, in the end, doesn't it really come down to the idea that there are only two kinds of art - the interesting kind and the boring kind.

    No method of production (or reproduction) can save the second category from being visual garbage. Unless, of course you're a photographer who worships processes instead of interesting images.

    There are those people, and they're in the same category as "audiophiles" who use music as an excuse to listen to equipment.

  5. #25

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    South of Rochester, NY
    Posts
    286

    Why not just call it an Inkjet Print?

    "I too just call them photographs"

    Then, you too are committing fraud!

    You are NOT producing a Photograph by any deffinition of the term, common or exact. You are producing a COPY of a photograph. There is NO light involved in an inkjet print no matter what you try to call it!

    Perhaps you should call them 'faux-tographs'! At least that would be proper!

  6. #26

    Why not just call it an Inkjet Print?

    "A photograph (often just called a photo) is an image (or a representation of that on e.g. paper) created by collecting and focusing reflected electromagnetic radiation. The most common photographs are those created of reflected visible wavelengths, producing permanent records of what the human eye can see.
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photograph"

    "a picture obtained from a camera.
    library.thinkquest.org/6275/Glossary.html"

    "An image, usually on a specially coated light-sensitive paper and generally meant to be made by the artist photographer.
    www.darvillsrareprints.com/glossaryOPQ.htm"

    These definitions are a moving target depending on when you obtain them. Much in the same way that there would be no mention of the process of recording audio digitally in the 50's, doesn't mean it isn't considered a recording now. Language is always changing to reflect society as it progresses and advances.

    Printing something on inkjet or dye transfer that doesn't use photosensitive paper is called a photo by everyone other than those trapped in a futile argument against anything that has to do with a computer or digital output.

    You'll have a hard time convincing the hundreds of millions of people printing their holiday snapshots at home that the print they are holding in their hand is anything but a photograph.

    Let's move along.....nothing to see here

  7. #27

    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Posts
    110

    Why not just call it an Inkjet Print?

    Sure Rich - whatever makes you happy. I'll just live my life according to your rules. By the way, do you have a photo rule book you could send me so that I can shape up to your expectations?

    Give it a rest. I've spent well over 15,000 hours in darkrooms over the last 40 years, and have run nearly every standard and alternative processes known except for deguerotypes and palladium prints.

    And for my own preference as to a name - I'd call them "digigraphs" or "digitypes." But, "faux-tographs" is so clever...my, my, my...

  8. #28

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    South of Rochester, NY
    Posts
    286

    Why not just call it an Inkjet Print?

    It is extremely humorous how defensive, nasty and vicious the digi-users get when someone expresses an opinion not unto there own.

    Like it makes a difference how many hours are spent in a darkroom. I doubt the person buying a faux-tograph has spent any hours in a darkroom. But if they pay a premium for a PHOTO-graph and then find out they were sold a digital copy, they might be rather angry. I would!

    It's plain & simple; there's NO "photo" in a faux-tograph digital injet print. No light involved at all...

    And Dave, your just too funny. Keep it going as I usually do need a laugh during the day. Although this time you pretty much are sitting on my side of the fence....

    Now you boys can continue to argure with each other. I'd rather discuss things with people who have common interests, maybe like photgraphy....

  9. #29

    Why not just call it an Inkjet Print?

    Of course inkjet prints are photographs. But it is clear that calling them giclee prints is just a marketing ploy used by people who realize that customers are much less likely to buy an inkjet print. Note that this isn't all just predjudice; there is an important difference between inkjet and traditional silver prints that has nothing to do with longevity or Dmax. That is, regardless of how much time one puts into setting up a digital print (be it an Inkjet print on some fancy printer or a C-type lightjet print), once the digital file is set up and the printer profiles are calibrated, you can print out as many as you wish, all essentially identical, with the push of a button.



    I suspect that for many people who would choose not to buy an inkjet print (so labeled), the problem is not that they think it is a poor reproduction (after all, they can see the print, and should realize that their printers can't do that), nor is it likely that they have an aversion to all things digital (though it's possible). Rather, I think most collectors probably view silver gelatin prints as unique, whereas they view inkjets (rightly) as mass-reproducible.

  10. #30

    Why not just call it an Inkjet Print?

    Rich,

    As funny as you may find it.....I don't need to argue with you. You've lost the battle before it started. People are referring to their inkjet prints as photographs. No matter how much you kick and scream, it is an accepted term.....and has already begun to be added into dictionary terms.....although I'm sure you'll still be arguing it to death long after the last sheets of film are produced.

    Enjoy!

Similar Threads

  1. ROLL CALL
    By Frank Bagbey in forum Announcements
    Replies: 451
    Last Post: 19-Jul-2019, 13:27
  2. call for entries
    By Craig Wactor in forum Announcements
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 9-May-2006, 19:23
  3. roll call
    By Jack_5762 in forum On Photography
    Replies: 130
    Last Post: 17-Sep-2005, 09:14
  4. BW inkjet print quality
    By Tom Westbrook in forum Digital Hardware
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 11-Jan-2005, 13:40
  5. Piezography: Ansel Adams and the inkjet print
    By Micah Marty in forum Digital Hardware
    Replies: 53
    Last Post: 19-Dec-2001, 06:21

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •