Why not just call it an Inkjet Print?

[Mark_3632]

The thread this was asked in got a bit out of hand but I feel the question is important.

None of the inkjet printers answered the question in the Giclee thread: Why not just call them Inkjet prints?"

I would like to hear the answer. This is not a troll, nor is it a compare digital vs. Traditional thing.

I think there are others who want to know the answer as well.

Personally I think there is nothing wrong with calling an inkjet an inkjet. But then again I don't do serious work on a computer so maybe I am missing something.

[Dean Tomasula]

I doubt if you'll get a definitive answer to this question.

But I agree with you.

As I said in my post in the last thread:

" What's the matter with just calling them ink jet prints? There's nothing wrong with well-produced ink jet prints. You can always specify how long the print will last if you want.

If you need to get fancy, why not call them "dye prints" or "pigment prints", depending on the type of printer used?"

[Paul Cocklin]

I don't think it's a digital vs. traditional thing at all. I think it's a marketing thing.

One of the reasons people spend big dollars on art is to purchase something that is unique, that has the mark of the hand of the artist on it. Even photographic prints done by hand are individually unique.

The public perception of inkjet printers is such that it can be difficult for a layman to understand how a professional artist can be printing their work on the same machine that the consumer has in their home office. The distinction between different types and qualities of different printers is lost on them. An inkjet print is one that they can do at home. Why spend big money for that?

In my experiences, most of life seems to be about marketing. If I can convince you that the print I am selling is 'special', made by some exotic process, you'll pay more for it. If I tell you I printed this at my computer at home, by a process that you are familiar with, the value is lessened in your eyes. (figuratively 'your')

Most people don't understand or know about photographic or artistic processes, and that's the way they like it. When you introduce something familiar by calling it an inkjet print, suddenly they are on familiar ground and unimpressed.

My two cents....

Paul

[Paul Butzi]

Why not just call them Inkjet prints?

I thought I had answered that pretty clearly over in the other thread.

Just to make it completely clear, that's exactly what I call them. If I need a more specific thing to call them, I call them "Ultrachrome inkjet prints on Epson Ultrasmooth paper", which is about as specific as it's possible to get without going into chemical compositions and trade secrets.

And, despite all the fuss about it, I don't personally know any photographers who call their inkjet prints any of the following: Giclee, carbon prints, platinum giclee prints, digital platinum prints, or any of the other weird things that everyone is complaining about. I don't doubt that, somewhere, these people exist. It just turns out I've never met them.

But, to answer your question specifically, I don't see any reason not to call them inkjet prints. It seems like a perfectly good name to me.

[Bill_1856]

Why not just call them "prints?"

[Kirk Gittings]

I answered it, I thought, in the very first response long before you even asked it:

"I just refer to mine as "Archival Ink" prints. I never say injet or Giclee just like I never said "Silver Projection" or "Gelatin Silver Enlargements" or some silliness like that for silver prints or "Contact Printed P/P". Inkjet or Giclee is part of the mechanics of producing the print not WHAT IS ON THE PRINT."

Print type names USUALLY (not always) refer to the material that makes up the image i.e. silver gelatin or P/P rather than the mechanical process that was involved. Its ink on the paper not inkjet on paper just like it is silver gelatin not silver enlargement or P/P contact print.

[bob carnie]

I call them Ink jet prints , printed on a epson9600 using ultrachrome inks. If my client asks me are they giclee prints I answer Yes that is another term for these prints using this process. An intern at my lab is from France and breaks out laughing every time giclee term is used. Apparently this refers to ejaculate in French.

[Joe_5571]

Well, I guess I won't be mentioning "giclee" around any French customers. LOL

[Eric Biggerstaff]

I don't do any digital printing - but Bob's answer has me laughing!!!!!

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Well, I guess I won't be mentioning "giclee" around any French customers. LOL

Unless the customer is in a little black number....then who knows, you might get luckier that you thought... :-)

[Pete Watkins]

I thought that Archival Ink prints were Bromoils {:-)

[John Berry ( Roadkill )]

Giclee could be a correct term, you can squirt them out one after the other.

[Brian Ellis]

This question was answered in the previous thread by several people and has been discussed ad nauseum here and elsewhere. To refresh your memory, some people don't like to use the term "ink jet print" because they don't feel compelled to say what type of material was used to make the print (e.g. when I made prints in the fume room I never referred to them as "Dektol prints"). Some people don't like the term because it conjures up images of something quickly run off on an office printer and so they're concerned that the time and effort often involved to make an ink jet print won't be appreciated. Some people just like to use fancy terms (e.g. "gelatin sliver print"). There are lots of reasons, do a little reading and you'll find all of them.

Then again some people do in fact call them "ink jet prints." Personally I call mine "photographs." The only time I become involved in describing the process used to print my photographs is when a serious potential buyer inquires and lately there haven't been enough of them around to worry about.

[David Luttmann]

I just call them inkjet prints or prints.....probably prints more often than not. Nobody has questioned or complained yet.

[paulr]

There are different inkjet processes that use very different kinds of inks (color, monochrome, dye, pigment, pure carbon, etc.) so sometimes "inkjet" isn't all that informative. A bit more description can help.

And marketing can be a genuine concern; it would be nice if potential customers didn't have the impression that you bought a $60 HP printer and just hit "print." You want them to know it's something more special, if indeed it is.

But the goal shouldn't be to confuse people into thinking it's not an inkjet.

In general, I'm finding that photographers are the ones who care about this issue more than anyone else.

[Alan Babbitt]

"Giclee could be a correct term, you can squirt them out one after the other..."

I can see you haven't seen the high side of 40 yet. That, or you have a young mistress...;0

[Dan Jolicoeur]

What is wrong with the term "Silver Gelatin Print"? I do not mean to be hoity-toity, but this is the process I was taught. Being naive I assumed it was supposed to be called that. It differentiates between other light sensitive printing processes. Or if you may, a process that produces a B&W photograph. As a cibachrome print would be a photograph made from a positive slide transparency. The word “Print” is too vague with all of the process.

[Wayne]

I'm going to surprise everyone and say I think its because of the digital-analog thing. Many people (using it) want to obscure the digital connection or minimize it's importance whenever possible. Surprised? :-) I applaud those who do not do so.

[David Luttmann]

Actually Wayne, for most commercial work, clients prefer digital....so if anything was going to be hidden, it would be the use of film. That said, I've had people think both my Mamiya RB67 and Shen Hao 4x5 are fancy digital cameras. Whatever makes them happy!

[John Berry ( Roadkill )]

Alan,
I'll be 57 in Oct. If I had a young mistress my wife of 35 yrs would make sure I didn't make. LOL

[Greg Miller]

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.

[Wayne]

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.

[robert_4927]

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!

[steve_782]

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.

[RichSBV]

"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!

[David Luttmann]

"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

[steve_782]

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...

[RichSBV]

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....

[Melchi M. Michel]

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.

[David Luttmann]

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!

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

LOL...you hit it right on the head Rich.

[Ellis Vener]

I like the term "inkograph" or "pigmentograph" over fauxtograf, but I guesss Rich and Jorge don't consider dye transfer or tri-color carbro prints to be photographs either.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

You guess wrong.........

[David Luttmann]

Than as usual Jorge, your argument collapses.....

[Joe Smigiel]

Of course inkjet prints are photographs....

No. Not "of course". Perhaps erroniously and colloquially though.

Inkjet prints may among other things be: perfect; collectible; exhibition quality; splendid; worthwhile; marvelous; and engaging. However, Inkjet/Giclee prints are prints, images, pictures, but not photographs. They are transcriptions of photographs.

"Fauxtographs." LOL.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Actually Wayne, for most commercial work, clients prefer digital....

Yeah, I guess they prefer ink jet posters because they look more like a printed magazine ad..... ;-)

[Wayne]

Fauxtographs it is! I have long said that the digital crowd should have come up with a name for their art other than photography-but you all may have waited too long. Fauxtography is perfect.

BTW, I dont see anyone here who is "anti" anything except anti-BS like "Of course inkjet prints are photographs."

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Wayne is right, heck it even has a french word.....how about that? Fauxtography.....I like better by the minute...

[steve_782]

Since I know this is a large format forum, and some of you may know who Leslie Stroebel is; I thought I'd post Leslie's definition of a "photograph."

"An image of one or more objects produced by the chemical action of light or other forms of radiant energy (gamma rays, x-rays, ultraviolet radiation, infrared radiation) on sensitized materials. By extension, an image formed by an electronic imaging system (electronic photography)."

You'll notice that Leslie has no problem calling an image formed with an electronic imaging system a photograph.

And I sort of like Ellis' "inkograph." But, I'd really like to see it "ink-o-graph." Somehow, that just looks better. Can I use that Ellis? Or, are you going to copyright it?

I like all kinds of photographs. I just don't think that one type of production method is inherently better than another. That's a personal value-judgement for photo dilettantes who seem to know what's best; and the only true, pure photographic way (power of the Photo-Force & all that stuff).

In my photo world, there's only the best choice for the image and the artist's intent. That's something that the analog only advocates seem to forget in their zeal to prove that digital imaging is somehow "bad" - what's best for the image and the artist's intent.

They want to concentrate on their perceptions that analog is "harder to do" and is therefore "better." For me, that's the same specious argument that black and white photography is harder to do than color, and therefore it's inherently "better."



I guess that's all relative too. I think it's the challenges you set for yourself within your medium of choice.

I make big color prints. Bigger than I could ever make in my darkroom. I make prints with multiple images. Something I've worked on for over 20 years and never been wholey satisfied with the results available through traditional photo processes - even through people who purchased them liked them immensly.

I wasn't satisfied, because I knew I wanted more and the prints still didn't do what I saw in my mind. Computers and large format inkjets have finally opened up the avenue for me to make what I want to see - and really, that's all that counts for me personally.

I spend at least as much time, if not more, working with images to get the results I want using a computer than I did in the darkroom. I have one print that I've been working on for nearly a year because I still can't get exactly what I want.

For all of those of you who think printing with a large format print is like doing the laundry - press the button and the machine does the rest. You haven't done it - I know that for a fact.

I've thrown away many large prints because of an imperfection caused in printing. That means I baby sit every print I make for as long as it takes (multiple hours for each print), to ensure that the image is absolutely perfect when it is taken off the printer.

As for longevity, I'm still testing that. I live in New Mexico - we get a lot of sunshine. I had 3 prints in a southeast facing window for a little over a year. An inkjet print done with Ultrachrome pigment ink on a 9600 printer, an Ilfochrome, and a C print done on Kodak paper.

I put them in the window in March of 2004. By May of 2004 the C print was looking a bit faded. The Ilfochrome looked good. The inkjet print also looked good.

March 2005. The C print is history. The Ilfochrome is showing a marked magenta tint (about 15cc), the inkjet print colors still look exactly like the control print kept in a drawer. However, the paper is beginning to yellow. I expected that as I used cheap paper (Epson Enhanced Matte) on purpose so I could see what a semi-worst case would look like.

Frankly, I'm surprised at the results. I printed Ilfochromes for 25 years and was hoping they'd do a bit better.

Totally unscientific. Uncontrolled, and only one sample of each. What does that prove? Probably nothing other than in some instances an inkjet print MAY outlast a color photographic print made on two types of traditional color materials.

I've thrown those prints away because I have a 9800 on order with a better inkset (I hope). You can bet the first print off the printer will go back in the window to see what happens with the new inks.

In the end, I guess I just don't understand the close-minded, bitter, vituperous comments made toward digital printing. You don't have to do it. Revel in the wet darkroom. I did that for years.

I just have something I find far more interesting as it meets my criteria for producing my images better - is that so hard to accept?

[David Luttmann]

Well said Steve!

[Ellis Vener]

Steve you are welcome to use it. the funny thing when i was writing I originally spelled it as ink-o-graph! I liked the way it looked to but then I second guessed myself out of it.



C'mon let's get real : we are just wagging our tongues about different types of printing processes .

Mister Jorge is of course welcome to his opinions, however irrational or incomprehensible they may seem to others. When you are able for what ever reason retire at age 43, as he says he was able to do, you have the luxury of spending the rest of your life building an awfully tall and narrow ivory tower to live in. That is his privilege and right and more power to him.

[Mark Sawyer]

I think inkjet/giclée prints fall into the "photo-mechanical reproduction" category of photography, much like newspaper photos or the photogravures published in Stieglitz' Camera Work, and the quality of workmanship and materials varies nearly as much.

Whether or not they are "photographs" is a matter of personal semantics, hard to pin down in an age where language evolves so quickly that yesterday's French ejaculate is today's fine-art print...

[Wayne]

Steve (I see all the little heads nodding in agreement with you), you very eloquently show you dont even understand the argument when you bring create your little straw man arguments based on value-judgements and others knowing whats "best". We dont, and we never said we did. I may prefer one form over the other, but thats irrelevant (sp). I have always said both are entirely valid-just DIFFERENT-nothing more. Saying an inkjet isnt a photograph is no more a value judgement than saying a chair isnt a fruit. Granted, the term fauxtography does have a bit of an edge to it, but it seems well-desrved when people are misrepresenting so much.

[Ellis Vener]

Why not just call them Inkjet prints?"

I agree that is what they should be called. There are different types of printing and paper technologies lumped under the "inkjet" label -- printers which use dyes, printers which use pigments and at least two very different types of paper technology.

I'm not sure that what museum curators call these "ink-o-graphs" but I know for damn sure they don't call them "glicee" prints either. As I recall "Glicee" is a term that was first used by the folks at Nash Editions. What they say is that they were not aware at that time is that "glicee" is also a French slang word describing the spurt of semen during the male orgasm.

[paulr]

"I'm not sure that what museum curators call these "ink-o-graphs" but I know for damn sure they don't call them "glicee" prints either."

last I saw, both MoMA and the Met were calling them plain old inkjet prints. All within the context of the Department of Photographs. But it's a rapidly evolving technology, and it's leading to rapidly evolving naming conventions. It will be a while before we see a standard.