How do you describe ink jet process

[Brian Ellis]

Gee Clay – clear as mud to me.

I hate the French term for spaying ink on paper.

But then I'm sure the French hate it when they are forced to use an English word to describe something.

Ha ha ha ha ha

My understanding is that "giclee" actually isn't even a French word, it's a word dreamed up from the actual French word for spraying or something like that. I hate the term myself, it screams "pretentious" and "marketing ploy" to me.

If I'm just showing prints (i.e. not for sale) I don't say anything. I never used to go into detail about the materials and methods used for darkroom prints and see no reason to do so for digital. If someone asks I tell them. If prints are for sale I call them ink jet prints made on such and such a paper. That's what they are and I see no reason to try to gussy up the description for marketing purposes. If the people like the photographs they buy them and don't care how they're made. If they don't like them they won't buy them no matter how they're made. If people were paying thousands of dollars for my photographs it might be different but unfortunately they're not.

[pablo batt]

i allways call them crapjets

[Maris Rusis]

When buying or selling I like to specify all art media, ink-jets included, in terms of what "mark making stuff" on what substrate. For example Epson pigment ink on Canson watercolour paper, gelatin-silver photograph on fibre/baryta base, Windsor and Newton oil paint on Belgian linen, and so on.

When discussing the technical, aesthetic, and philosophical implications of various media the means whereby the "mark making stuff" gets onto the substrate is relevant. Oil painting is the result of someone using hand power to push paint over a surface with a tool. Ink-jet is using a mark placing machine to plot out the contents of an electronic file. And a photograph is an accumulation of marks formed in a sensitive surface as a consequence of being penetrated by light.

Each medium has a different relationship to subject matter and in consequence a different relationship to the astute viewer.

[Brian Ellis]

i allways call them crapjets

Congratulations on your 4th post.

[Greg Lockrey]

Congratulations on your 4th post.

Don't feed the troll, Brian.

[Brian Ellis]

Don't feed the troll, Brian.

You're right Greg. I actually tried to delete my response but for some reason couldn't get back to the "edit" button.

[JBrunner]

Don't feed the troll, Brian.

I have been impressed that except for the one dense response that this thread has remained in the realm of thoughtful considerations. I honestly don't think any universal term will be forthcoming from photographers to describe these "new process". I think the slow and methodical world of the curator will eventually come to bear. I have to admit that I have a peeve with the multiple descriptions that must be deciphered at times to figure out what I am considering, particularly when I can't see the physical artifact in person, such as on the internet. Some say that process is irrelevant, that is of course true for those that hold that opinion, but in my mind that is sort of like saying a photograph of a statue and the statue in person are the same experience. Since I am a "print oriented" person, process is relevant, because process imparts character, and knowing the process helps me make an informed decision about what that character is, in absence of being there. I'm glad that I'm not so numb to media as to think it is nothing but information. I have several inkjets or whatever you want to call them in my collection. One by Brooks that I quite like, and elicits remarks of satisfaction in almost everybody who views it. I don't discriminate about method, but some clarity would be nice. I have remarked elsewhere that the attempt by some to homogenize all photographic mediums as the same thing does damage to photography as a whole. Sort of like we can't get it together, as an artistic medium. If we can't get it together, why should else anyone take us seriously?

[Paul Kierstead]

Congratulations on your 4th post.

My apologies for veering OT, but why is he listed at 4 posts? He has quite a few more then that. Me no count so good, but me count more then four OK. Well, up to 10 if wearing socks.

[David Luttmann]

Actually it is mentioned with fair regularity in provenance. "Silver Gelatin Enlargement " and "Silver Gelatin Contact Print"

That may be so....bit I must admit I've never seen enlargement mentioned....but I see contact print a fair bit.

I'm certain there will never be a truly correct answer to this.

[Greg Lockrey]

My apologies for veering OT, but why is he listed at 4 posts? He has quite a few more then that. Me no count so good, but me count more then four OK. Well, up to 10 if wearing socks.

Lounge posts do not count.