Well it is a tad misleading to call an inkjet a pigment print. The inks are technically composed of pigments, but these are very complex blends of true pigments, lakes, and simply dyed inert particles which behave more like dyes per se. Then you have no true
emulsion involved with its own potentially preservative value, but only a substrate. The
pigments per se obviously have to be very small and work well in a programmable gamut.
A lot more complicated than choosing a CMYK system based upon specific process colors.
No doubt companies like Epson have spent a lot of effort trying to factor in optimal permanence too, but that fact should always be weighed against the inevitable tendency
for marketeers and galleries to utilize the largest BS coefficient available.
ROL said in part "FYI: By way of update, I learned only last week that these days the officialterminology for sellable inkjet technology prints is "Pigment Print" (no joke). Hmm... the emperor has no clothes." (emphasis in the original)
Where did you learn that? I didn't know there was an official terminology. Who established it and what makes it official?
Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you do criticize them you'll be
a mile away and you'll have their shoes.
I think it is fine if one wants to call prints made with inkjet prints that use pigment inksets "Pigment Prints." The term has been used, generally for prints that used pigment in conjunction with some type of colloid (gum arabic, fish glue, gelatin, etc.) but no one with reasonable knowledge of the look of different process prints would ever confuse a print made with an inkjet printer with one of these historical prints.
Photographers who sell their work will label it as they like, or not label it at all if they don't care to. I personally write on the back of any print that I might exhibit my name, title of the print, date, and process type. Process type for inkjet pigment prints might also include the name of the inkset, say "Epson K3" or "K7 Piezography" or "Vivera."
I think it had to be the sheet protector sleeves, I found some equally vintage prints that were OK.
I've kind of figured anything that went into a print portfolio book, commercial style, wasn't get reused, it would get tossed after a period. I found the length of the period ;-p and that these archival sleeves aren't.
Yes indeed Sandy. But there was a also BS coefficient in operation back when C and R prints were norm. Cibachrome was a significant improvement, and now C prints have improved quite a bit too; but I wouldn't want to display any kind of color photograph, inkjet included, in direct sunlight or under bright halogens. Maybe certain carbon pigments
would hold up decently, but UV might damage something else in the print. Heck, even the
Sphinx in Egypt isn't looking too good lately.
Icon LA, why they were insisting on its use for any inkjet process. Their master printer informed me that it was now the custom to label all inkjet processes, pigment. Chromogenic is their term for laser print process. Anyhow, the mystery was solved for me. The powers that be, which (shhh!) I suspect may actually be the Grand Omniscient Counsel of D, from the metameristic ephemeral green planet Remulac, have proclaimed it. And, at the risk of being disintegrated, that's good enough for me.
I don't much care what digistas call anything anymore, as long as they don't include my GSP's. Though in the never ending quest for legitimacy (which practically, they've already achieved), I'm certain that they will, eventually.