How do you describe ink jet process

[Steve M Hostetter]

My thoughts-use the medium you prefer, and call it what it is. "Archival Inkjet Print" Why all the hubub and pretense? There are bad cheaply done silver gelatin prints, and really great ones that stretch the media to the limit. Same with inkjet. I swear some of the people that print inkjet are more hung up on process than us dinosaurs.

Hello J,,,, I wanna take oppertunity to thank you for helping me gain the confedence to process film after viewing your youtube videos,,, but I had to translate all that info into Jobo drum terms .... Regards

[lecarp]

Sorry, I spoke to soon about intelligent discussion.

Funny how the truth is considered not to be intelligent these days.

[Lenny Eiger]

Hi Dakotah, thats what led me to my original question in the first place. I post a brief bio and also a brief description of my process. In that description I have been refering to my prints as Giclee. As mentioned I hate the term but I don't want to mislead people into thinking they are silver prints. When they realize I shoot film they assume that I print in the darkroom. If I just call them ink jet it makes them think that it is similar in quality or process to what they can do at home on their $99.00 printer.

So far I really like some of the suggestions such as the simple phrase "pigment ink on paper".

Thank you all for the intelligent discussion and suggestions.
john
www.timeandlight.com

I hate the term Giclee. I'm no prude, but called my prints "sperm prints" seems to cheapen them a bit. I work very hard at it (as do a lot of others) and Giclee seems to be for those folks who are kind of haphazard at it... I talked to one local fellow who does fine art reproduction and he has the artist come over and asks them continuously "is that good enough" until they relent and he can deliver some half-baked piece of junk. Roland is now making canvas for ecosol ink so that the people who print signs and banners can also make Giclee's. Pretty soon there'll be a Costco/Walmart kiosk for it... less and less quality.

I am also cognizant that the terms Giclee and/or inkjet do not connote any quality differential. It's true that one can make a truly exquisite print on a $99 printer, altho' it might be 8 1/2x11 or smaller. Most of the difference is good paper...

Since I use b&w inks, I like the term carbon pigment prints. That separates them from carbon prints, which are indeed wonderful, and also from plain old Epson ink, ABW, etc. The ink I use is pure carbon pigment. It is wonderful stuff....

That's my 2cents.

Lenny

[paulr]

There's no shame in "inkjet print," especially if you're showing to an audience that knows a lot about photography. My fear, though, is that people less versed in newer printing methods will think I just hit print on an office printer like they do picures of their kids.

So in my own materials, I call my b+w work (which is printed with quadtone pigments) "carbon pigment ink prints," and my color work (printed with 8 color pigment inks) "pigment ink prints."

Jeffrey is right that you must never call the carbon pigment prints "carbon prints." That's just total confusion.

For the first time an ink print of mine was acquired by a museum, and it showed up in their catalog as just an inkjet print. They can call it whatever they want!

[Los]

in mixed company, i appreciate an "ink jet" description.

[Rakesh Malik]

I am also cognizant that the terms Giclee and/or inkjet do not connote any quality differential.

Of course they do, otherwise this discussion wouldn't be happening.

I suspect that you meant to say that they don't indicate any quality differential, which is true, since they're exactly the same thing.

[sanking]

It is not normally necessary to clarify the mechanics of production of true continuous tone photographs because the mechanics of delivery is necessarily a print processed in a wet darkroom. There may be some exceptions but for the most part we know that prints identified as salted paper, cyanotype, platinotype, albumen, carbon collodion POP, matte collodion, gelatin developing out papers, etc. were processed in a wet darkroom and are continuous tone. There are, however, some processes where the nature of the imaging chemistry and/or substrate was not seen as sufficient for full identification. One clear example of this would be a carbon print compared to a woodburytype. Although both are comprised of a pigment encapsulated in hardened gelatin a carbon print is a true photograph whereas the woodburytype is a print made with photomechanical process that could produce multiple prints. Carbon and woodburytype prints are “virtually” indistinguishable because both processes give continuous tone images.

My take on the above is that it is indeed important to identify the mechanics of delivery because that fact will clarify whether the print is a continuous tone photograph or one made with a photomechanical process capable of multiples. So the use of the delivery device in the production of the print, say inkjet, or whatever may be used in the future, is an important part of print identification.

Some respect for the history of the medium is needed. Clearly we should not call inkjet prints as “carbon prints” because carbon printing has a strong presence in photographic history, both as direct carbon and as carbon transfer. And the term “pigment print” has also been used. Strand used it to describe gum bichromate and other pigment based processes used by the pictorialists, and the term is also used to describe carbro prints made by Josef Sudek. These processes, known by different names, are in fact very similar to each other in that in every case the image is comprised of a pigment encapsulated in a hardened colloid (gum or gelatin) carrier, and are continuous tone in nature.

Personally I find the terms “carbon pigment inkjet” or “pigment inkjet” perfectly acceptable. Giclée, IMO, is a useless and pretentious designation, as is “archival pigment print.” I don't find that pigment on paper adds much to the discussion, in fact may confuse it some since some supports are more archival than paper and one of the primary purposes of the use of pigment inks is to enhance the archival qualities of the print.

Sandy King

Pertinent to this discussion, here is text from a sheet I include with prints, just to be fully transparent about such things:

"I am now offering inkjet images — the correct terminology is actually "pigment-on-paper." I refuse to call these giclée — a term I’ve always thought was meant to disguise rather than to elucidate. Gelatin silver and platinum/palladium prints are so designated because they indicate precisely the nature of the imaging chemistry and/or substrate. Neither of these are defined as their mechanical means of production — "projection prints" or "contact prints" although these would both be technically accurate terms that are occasionally used as supplemental descriptions. Similarly, "inkjet" is an accurate term describing the mechanics of delivery used, but pigment-on-paper describes the material — chemistry and substrate — and is a better equivalent for comparison to "gelatin silver" or "platinum/palladium" prints."

I believe that total transparency is the key to building trust with an audience. Whatever medium we use, as photographers we should do everything possible to help our audience have a full understanding of what we use and why we use it.

Brooks

[JBrunner]

I don't think inkjet is a dirty word. I don't feel the need to differentiate between a really good print and a really poor print made using similar methods holds any water. The quality is in the print, not in a description. The description should be non-obscufatory. Describing one of my prints correctly as gelatin silver does not elevate it from poorly executed examples of the same medium. FWIW I feel the need to come up with some kind of exotic name for a common method that is practiced with different levels of quality is pretentious.

[nathanm]

Expensivus Inkus Print
Light Impact Dot Matrix Print

[ljb0904]

How about just calling it art. :-D

How can calling an inkjet print a "pigment print" be a distortion. The device sprays pigment on to the paper. Call it a "pigment spray print" if you like, but it's still a paper with pigment on it that obeys the laws of physics and reflects certain spectra of light.

I don't like "giclee" cuz it has a reproduction connotation that I don't like. When people ask me if my prints are giclees, I say no.

My prints are made from an inkjet, but do not use pigment, but rather dyes. I like my fancy term "dye infusion print" :-)