How do you describe ink jet process

[paulr]

How can calling an inkjet print a "pigment print" be a distortion.

It's not so much about it being a distortion. It's about arriving at a standard vocabulary that everyone understands.

If you call something an "inkjet print," it's accurate, but at this point in time may still give people an inaccurate impression (is it a final print or just a proof?)

If you call it a "pigment print," no one will know what you're talking about, because that's not a standard term.

We have this issue now because these prints just haven't been in use long enough (and they've been evolving so quickly).

It looks like the art establishment is slowly settling on "inkjet print," but until that's comfortably entrenched, a little added description can be helpful. In much the same way I list some of my traditional prints as "gold toned gelatin silver prints." Gelatin Silver is the official term, but the added description is relevent and accurate.

[roteague]

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.

Some people who don't use inkjet printers for their work, don't want their work confused with inkjet prints.

[Mike Lopez]

Some people who don't use inkjet printers for their work, don't want their work confused with inkjet prints.

If inkjet output is as bad as its detractors claim, this shouldn't be a problem, should it?

[Vaughn]

A photograph consists of two parts. The image, and the method of reproducing/viewing the image. IMO, the most successful photographs are created in a perfect blending of the two parts. Nothing can beat a strong image presented well.

That said, the question becomes "What is the value of the photograph?" And this is where it is important that accurate and clear information is provided to the viewer. As a true, black-goo carbon printer, I know that any person passing off an inkjet print as a "Carbon print" should burn in the deepest pits of Hell.

As photographers, we place a value on our work...but in the end it is the buyer that actually creates the monatary value (one can price one's work at $1000, but if no one buys it, it does not have a value of $1000) and history that places the intrinsic value.

Given photographs of equally strong images (a subjective decision, to be sure), I give greater value to the photograph hand-made by the photographer. That is a generality to be sure, and my bias. But given two well-printed 8x10 prints of the same image -- one an inkjet , the other a platinum print -- I would place the value of the latter at least 5:1 over the former (for example $400 for the latter and $80 for the former). Most ink jet prints (IMO) are grossly over-priced.

So that is why I feel that it is important to label one's work honestly and clearly. If it is made with an inkjet printer, it should be labeled as such. The quality of the inkjet printer does not matter -- that will be seen in the print itself...just as there is no reason to label what type of enlarger/lens one prints a silver gelatin print -- the quality of the printed image will disclose that.

Vaughn

[roteague]

If inkjet output is as bad as its detractors claim, this shouldn't be a problem, should it?

I don't think it necessarily has to do with quality, at least for some people. There are other reasons why people don't want to use, or be associated with inkjet printing, for their work. It could just be a matter of esthetics or a simple desire to have or create something by hand.

[paulr]

The main thing is that it's customary to label work with the type of media. Oil on Canvas, marble, Lithograph, etc.. Photographs are almost alwyays labeled according to the print medium, not the capture or processing method. Platinum print, chromogenic print, photogravure, daguerrotype, cibachrome, etc... In all these cases, a standard name was arrived at by consensus. With any new medium, it takes a while.

[sanking]

But to put things in perspective, it has also been customary to differentiate between processes capable of similar or near identical multiples, and processes that were typically worked one-off. I mentioned earlier the case of carbon transfer versus woodburytype. One is a photograph, the other is a print made with a photo mechanical process.

The same distinction could also be made between a carbon print and a photogravure. While each begins with a carbon tissue, in the case of carbon transfer there is one unique photograph produced, whereas with photogravure the carbon tissue becomes the matrix for making multiple prints.

I personally see inkjet printing as a photo mechanical process that produces prints, and is capable of similar or near identical multiples. This to me is an important distinction between an inkjet print and photographs as we have understood them in the past.

Sandy King

The main thing is that it's customary to label work with the type of media. Oil on Canvas, marble, Lithograph, etc.. Photographs are almost alwyays labeled according to the print medium, not the capture or processing method. Platinum print, chromogenic print, photogravure, daguerrotype, cibachrome, etc... In all these cases, a standard name was arrived at by consensus. With any new medium, it takes a while.

[David A. Goldfarb]

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.

You're ignoring history. There is already a kind of print called a "pigment print" produced by a very different process than a pigment inkjet print. Calling a pigment inkjet print a "pigment print" is suggesting an equivalence between the two, which is misleading for the reasons Sandy King has stated.

[roteague]

In all these cases, a standard name was arrived at by consensus. With any new medium, it takes a while.

The technology we now have, it certainly will take time to sort out and come to a consensus on naming.

I have an old Epson R200, and I guess I could describe prints I could make on it as "pigment print" or even "inkjet", but would anyone consider prints from this old printer to be fine art or even quality? Doubtful.

[IanG]

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.

There is some confusing here because there are two totally different materials being used. 99% of inkjet printers use dyes which are organic compounds. Some will have far better light fastness than others. Under 1% of images made with an Inkjet printer use Pigments instead of dyes. Actually David Goldfarb is wrong in a way because thepigments used have much in common with the older Pigment processes.

What is important is that digital prints whether made with dyes or pigments are correctly b described and aren't passed off as something they aren't. There was the case last year of a photographer selling digital produced Platinum prints.

Last time I exhibited Digital prints, back around 2001, I described them as "Consumer Inkjet prints". Personally I hate the term Giclee which came into use around the time that Graham Nash, the musician & photographer, became involved in setting up a company producing high quality inkjet prints.

Ian