If I wanted a particular book bad enough, I'd pay what the market price was. It's a shame about the inkjet print, but I would be paying for the book anyway. If it had a real print made by the photographer, so much the better.
My judgement on such a print would also be considered according to the photographer. If the photographer made inkjet prints as a matter of course, and that was the medium they worked with, I would consider it differently than if they worked say in silver gelatin, but the print in the book was an inkjet. In the latter case, it would feel more to me like a lazy cheap shortcut to add some value. Some may howl all they want, but inkjet printing is basically a time and labor saving shortcut. That's not to say making a good output file is easy, by any means, but in the end, it is what it is, a print produced completely by a machine. (I tried making them too, but I quit, because it holds no satisfaction for me.)
In all cases I am happier with non-inkjets. I have a Brooks Jenson print that I quite like, but I really wish it were silver. Up on the wall next to my other prints I can tell the difference, and knowing anybody with access to the file could produce exactly the same inkjet print sort of keeps my affection for it at a distance. I feel like it is a very good copy of an image, but a copy nontheless. Thats just how I feel, and somebody may point out that it is illogical. Maybe so, but that is still the way I feel.
