Print terminology for exhibition

[mistercody]

Hi All,

For most photographic mediums, there is standard descriptor that you see when it is on display at a museum or gallery. For example, Gelatin silver print, Chromogenic print, etc. With inkjet prints (you'd think that would be it), there are such varying descriptions, that I am frustrated. I've seen the following at an exhibition, sometimes more than one in the same exhibition:

Inkjet print
Pigment print
Pigment ink print
Archival inkjet print
Archival pigment print
Pigmented inkjet print
K3 pigment ink on cotton rag
I'd go on, but you get it.

The Library of Congress Thesaurus for Graphic Materials uses simply "inkjet print". On MoMA's website, you can search their collections and I see "Pigmented inkjet print". I am wondering what to best refer to my work as. I print my color work using pigment inks on an archival quality paper. The resulting print is archival, but I don't see why I need to put that as the medium when my gelatin silver prints are also archival. I've even had a gallery change my medium descriptor for an inkjet print. I can see that inkjet print might not sound classy, but there really should be a set descriptor so there isn't so much confusion. Thoughts?

 

[gmikol]

Welcome to DPUG, and welcome to one of the biggest bones of contention in the digital world, aside from brand vs. brand fanboys.

Note, I'm just a hobby photographer, I don't sell my work, and it's not in museums or galleries. But...

I think that "Pigment Inkjet Print" (or "Dye Inkjet Print" if appropriate) is sufficient to identify the medium. If I were in such a position, I would probably include some additional metadata on a tag on the back of the print as to Printer/Ink type and substrate details, perhaps date of printing...these should be provided and known to the buyer, but I don't think it's necessary to have all the "nerd stuff" out front.

"Archival" is a word that is somewhat subjective and ill-defined, and despite the good work that the folks at Aardenburg are doing with fade testing, inkjet prints just don't have the long track record that more traditional output media do, so it's tough to justify a claim of "archival".

But really, it's the wild, wild west out there. There's always the favorite "Giclee", and one 3rd-party B&W inkset manufacturer spent some time calling their output "carbon prints" because they used carbon black pigments, despite the fact that it had nothing to do with traditional carbon prints (aka carbon transfer prints), and another (perhaps the same?), spent some time referring to their output as "Digital Platinum", because the tones of the inks used supposedly mimicked platinum prints.

IMO, it's important to be honest about the origin of the print, because the more we try to obfuscate, the more it lends credence to the idea than a "pigment inkjet print" is somehow not valuable, and that an inkjet print that uses some flowery language to describe it is somehow more valuable. I can call a dye inkjet print form a $49 printer a "Giclee" but that doesn't mean it won't be faded in a year. And, even more IMO, if your gallery seeks to obfuscate the nature of the print, perhaps you should re-consider your business relationship with said gallery.

Okay...time for someone else to hop up on the soapbox.

--Greg

 

[pschwart]

I agree with Greg. "Archival" is mostly marketing hype since there are no accepted standards. Even if there were, just because a process makes prints that are inherently long-lived, badly-crafted examples may not be. Consider carbon transfers made with fugitive dyes, or prints that are not cleared of residual dichromate. I wouldn't consider poorly processed gelatin silver prints archival, either. Things may be a bit simpler in the inkjet world, but longevity still depends on the specific ink and paper used. A description like "pigment ink(jet) on cotton rag" works just fine for me.

 

[mistercody]

Thanks for the thoughtful replies. I agree that the archival status isn't necessary on the gallery tag. I go to whatever lengths I can to make a quality print that will last (acid free cotton based paper, pigment inks, cotton rag matboard, etc.) but it doesn't seem necessary to put that in the medium descriptor. I just find it odd that other mediums are much more simple. Painters just say oil on canvas, acrylic on canvas, oil on plywood, mixed media, etc. I guess since inkjet prints as high end art pieces are relatively new, maybe the proper terminology hasn't been settled?

I'm not about to hang anything right now, but I am entering a couple juried exhibitions and they ask for this information. For my last show, I simply used "Toned gelatin silver print" and "Pigmented inkjet print" since I had seen a respected photographer use that. I am happy to describe my materials if anyone inquires. I just wanted to make sure I was accurately describing my work. Pigment(ed) inkjet print sounds fine to me for now.

Thanks for letting me rant. If anyone else has something to contribute, I am glad to read. Thanks much,

Cody

 

[ann]

I use pigment ink print.

the galleries love to use Giclee. there is a great story about how that term came about.

 

[jeffreyg]

I use exactly what the process and materials were. For example:

Epson Ultrachrome inks on Hahnamuhle Photo Rag 300, Gelatin Silver on Fiber Base Paper with archival processing and hand-coated Platinum/Palladium/Gold emulsion on Arches Platine Paper.

Accurately representing one's work is the best policy and the gallery should as well. Often the process will be of interest especially to a viewer who is not familiar with it and will increase their appreciation of your efforts.

HOME PAGE

 

[Felinik]

Giclée - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[desertfotog]

hooey

I think I used the term "giclee inkjet" when describing my gallery prints. I'd like to note that a dictionary, no matter which one it is, is just opinion and not necessarily actually true. The last time I checked there were 14 major dictionaries in the English language and they differ with one another a lot.
A lousy wet darkroom fiber print may last three months and a well processed one may last 100-plus years. I think it's important that one tell the truth as they see it. I have no idea how long an inkjet print will last and if asked that is what I will say to a customer.

 

[artobest]

Giclee is not an acceptable curatorial term because it is non-descriptive, ie unlike, say, 'oil on canvas', it denotes nothing about the materials or process. It's just a marketing term dreamed up in the 90s to give spurious respectablility to the new medium - that's hooey for you.

 

[pschwart]

I often see "giclee" used by painters to describe reproductions of their originals. Personally, I find "giclee" to be an affectation - might as well just call something what it is. "Giclee inkjet" is a tautology so I don't find that useful, either.

 

[desertfotog]

term

What can I say? It would seem the people who buy my prints are well educated and appreciate the way I describe my work.

 

[pschwart]

Maybe if you used "archival carbon pigment giclee inkjet on cotton rag" you would sell even more
Seriously, it's a personal choice, so do whatever works for you

 

[Felinik]

Giclee is not an acceptable curatorial term because it is non-descriptive, ie unlike, say, 'oil on canvas', it denotes nothing about the materials or process. It's just a marketing term dreamed up in the 90s to give spurious respectablility to the new medium - that's hooey for you.

Not really, the word giclée is french for "spray", which is exactly what the inkjet printer does, so something like, "Pigment/Dye/Carbon giclée on cotton rag", is more than correct and descriptive using that kind of notation.

 

[Felinik]

Visiting a gallery in Paris this weekend, exposing David Hamilton, the owner used the term "Digigraphie", when I asked "is it inkjet?", he started to talk about digigraphie as it was some kind of magic...

Digigraphie Explained - Digigraphie�

So when using Epson printers, its not Giclée or inkjet, or any other honest term, it's "digigraphie"...

 

[artobest]

Let's be clear, 'digigraphie' is no more or less honest than 'giclee' - both are marketing terms.

 

[Felinik]

Let's be clear, 'digigraphie' is no more or less honest than 'giclee' - both are marketing terms.

See my post above, #13.

 

[artobest]

So why don't we call them 'spray prints'? At least it would be authentic, if somewhat lacking in the faux glamour lent by the inauthentic French term 'giclee'.

 

[Felinik]

So why don't we call them 'spray prints'? At least it would be authentic, if somewhat lacking in the faux glamour lent by the inauthentic French term 'giclee'.

I agree, apart from that "spray prints" makes it sound like it's done by hand with spray cans or with airbrush. I see and understand where you are coming from here, though sometimes you need a certain term that is specific to a certain context in order to describe something specifically, now if you think about it you'll find there's a lot of words used within certain contexts, that are just synonyms for maybe more common words, but well suited for their context.

 

[desertfotog]

oh yeah

So some dude in Paris who like everyoe else is trying to make a buck (by exhibiting hackneyed prints it would seem) is now in charge of the English language. When one suffers from Extreme Cultural Envy one should keep off the forums until (s)he finishes a 12-step recovery program.

 

[Felinik]

The day I do my first exhibition, or for some other reason need to specify my prints, I'll for sure not use "digigraphie", I like the "Pigment Giclée on Cotton Rag" kind of notation, informative and at the same time elegant, imho.

 

[pschwart]

here's an idea: inkjet printers make inkjet prints. I think the point of "giclee" and "digigraphie" is to define an inkjet of exceptional quality, but that is silly -- an inkjet is an inkjet. I guess the concern is that inkjets are used by everyone for the most pedestrian tasks, and this association will constrain demand for fine art inkjets. Personally, I think the descriptor should identify the process; the viewer can determine the quality.
It's a reality that inkjets don't have the same pedigree as hand-made prints (silver, alt process, ...). Many photographers make their prints available as inkjets and a hand-made process like platinum or silver. I think that's a better strategy than bogus labels.

 

[DennyS]

I have to agree with Philip. It's worth noting that "digigraphie" looks like something Epson dreamed up. In any case, if a photographer is reluctant (or embarrassed?) to call an inkjet an "inkjet", it might be time to consider another printing process.

 

[mark]

There is nothing fancy about Water color on cold pressed paper; silver gelitain print, platinum print, oil on canvas. An inkjet is an inkjet, is an inkjet. It is that simple.

 

[JBrunner]

It's an inkjet print. Why? Because that is an accurate description of what it is. Anything more than that is an affectation designed to obfuscate. We all know what they are, and people to stupid to know aren't going to care, so stop trying to pretend they are something different. They're good prints right? Then what's the problem? Why would a good print need to be anything else than what it is? Spine up.

 

[Doyle_Thomas]

"pigment ink" is a mis-nomer, there are pigments and there are inks. The percived color of any object is a function of the structure and size of the molecules on its surface and the temperature of the light.
in a pigment this structure is created naturally as a result of its shape. the yellow color of sulpher or gold is an example of an elemental pigment. most inks on the other hand are created using what is called "dye coupling".
chemicals are combined and linked to create a structure. for this reason, inks are inherently less stable because they are prone to, with time and environmental conditions, broken links.