Correct nomenclature for prints

[Roger Hicks]

I find most HDR images to be the digital equivalent of black velvet the poker-playing dogs. They became increasingly enjoyable after a few hands and, of course, several rounds.

Best regards,

Bob
Bob

Dear Bob,

Any advance on Elvis playng poker with a bunch of dogs at the Last Supper? After 12 pints?

Cheers,

R.

 

[rpsawin]

I beleive that is hanging in the Vatican as part of the Pope's personal collection. At least that's how I remember it.

Best,

Bob

 

[gdmcclintock]

The term "giclée" is the past participle of "to spurt" or "to squirt". It's not surprising that the art world would chose this French word to label inkjet prints.

 

[PKR]

I noticed a change in the use of Giclee to describe some digital printing. Many prints are being labeled "Pigment Prints" even though the ink is sprayed on the paper. I think the use of better, more stable inks have caused this move. Also, some galleries are getting more money for "Pigment Prints" than the more common "Giclee Prints"

Here's a link to a printer.. not mine. The description of "Pigment Printing" in the site text.
http://www.gicleeprint.net/abtGclee.shtm

 

[amateriat]

"Giclee" is an awful term we ought to try to put out of its misery. It was pure marketing BS.

I think most art uses names that describe the medium in a useful manner. The imaging substance and substrate seem to be the most important variables. If either variable is weak, the print, presumably, has less value.

In this respect, "silver gelatin" seems very appropriate, although I think one must distinguish between RC and fiber based paper. I recently saw a high end photo gallery selling "gelatin silver" prints that were obviously on RC paper. I think this is wrong.

With respect to inkjets, the problem has been that there is a huge range of qualities of inks as well as papers. The dyes were very fast fading. The best pigments are very good. From this perspective, I think "pigment" print is more useful than "inkjet" print to describe, for example, an Ultrachrome print.

Although if good pigments are printed on what Epson once called "Archival Matte," the high acidity of the paper should be disclosed, as it will yellow quickly. Most understand the need for "acid free" materials. However, in addition to this, whether a print contains optical brightening agents is also important. These are dyes that will fade quickly and cause the print to yellow.

As a B&W printer, I've been advocating "carbon on cotton" as the best combination -- 100% carbon pigments on an acid-free (and non-brightened) cotton substrate (paper). Carbon is way more lightfast and stable than color pigments.

Lordy, how I've dearly wanted to bury that word (and not merely for its "alternate" connotations).

In the world of inkjet printing, it gets even more nebulous: my "standard" of printing for the last five years has been via an HP Photosmart Pro 8750 printer, using HP's standard Vivera dye-based inks with HP's Premium Plus papers, the combination of which is rated at over 100 years in terms of "archival" keeping qualities by Wilhelm & Co. I refer to my prints as "archival inkjet prints" because that's about as close as I can come to an "accurate" description, on account of (1) no one coming up with an agreed-upon definition of "archival", and (2) my taking Wilhelm's say-so on the materials I've chosen for my work. I happen to prefer the image quality of my chosen process to some of the past third-party systems I've used in the past, even though I realize contemporary carbon ink-based systems have an edge in archival terms.

But the very word "archival" is a bit slippery in the world of photography. What's the metric here? A century? Two? Three? Where's the predictable (predictive?), verified "carbon-dating" for contemporary inkjet prints? A century's good enough for me, but what about everyone else?


- BWB

 

[JoeV]

Tired argument. In the 19th century people began making photographic prints using Intaglio printing techniques like Bromoil, Photograuve, etc. that do not involve a light sensitive paper for the final prints. No one has ever said those were not photographs, so why the prejudice against modern non-light-sensitive photo processes?

I'm trying to imagine the near-future, when it's quite likely that light-sensitive printing technology will have been relegated to the arcane corners of "alternative process" and ancient technological history. When that time comes, and almost all paper-based imagery is produced via sprayed/sputtered ink, shouldn't there be a more precise term to describe light-sensitive printing? And why can't we use that term now?

For myself, I like the idea of a "photographic print" referring to light-sensitive technology. It doesn't necessarily mean that non-light-sensitive prints aren't photographs; they just aren't "photographic" prints. A small but important distinction.

BTW, I consider "Costco" (and Walgreens, et al) prints to be "photographic prints" because they use lasers to expose RA-4 paper.

*Joe

 

[gns]

Inkjet print from either a digital camera or scanned film is called either an Inkjet or Giclee Print. The terms are interchangeable. Giclee is a French term used in the art world to sound more important than Inkjet, but it means just an Inkjet.

Actually, the art world seems to have standardized on the term, "Pigment Print" (or sometimes "Archival Pigment Print") to describe inkjets.
At least that is what I see in the galleries and museums I go to.

As stated, "Giclee" seems a silly term. At least outside of France. Kind of like seeing "Cuvee" on a bottle of California wine. Why can't they just say, "Blend".

Cheers,
Gary