Digital BW, The Print

Daniel ,
The derision for the name 'Gicl\ufffde' comes for a couple of reasons.  The literal translation of the word 'Gicl\ufffde' is something like
'ejaculate.  'Gicl\ufffde' has been 'copyrighted' by a business group, like 'Kleenex' and finally it is totally pretentious, like we are ashamed
of what we produce, so we need to have a different name to hide what we do.

And by the way:  'Inkjet' *is* the proper term, despite others' insecurities about the 'label'.

Harvey Ferdschneider
partner, SKID Photography, NYC

>   In response to Jerry's early post..  I referred to
> the print in my original post as "inkjet" because that
> was all I could gather from it.  I couldn't tell if
> the inks were carbon or dye, nor could I tell if the
> paper was rag or fiber(it was matte, though).  Nor was
> it labeled as such.
>   So, I just called it an inkjet print, which
> *without* labeling, is the only thing you could safely
> call any of our prints. (better hope they don't loose
> your labels;)
>   And I know Gicl\ufffde sounds a bit pretentious, but why
> the high level of animosity towards this word?  Never
> quite understood the reasoning.
>
>   -Daniel Perez
>    Dallas, TX
>
> --- Jerry Olson <jerryolson@...> wrote:
> > Why not just call them what they are? Carbon Pigment
> > Prints.
> >
> >
> > antonisphoto wrote:
> > >
> > > Daniel,
> > >
> > > must've  felt nice to discover you couldn't tell a
> > digital black-and-white from a
> > > darkroom print. I had the same experience several
> > times, and at least once in
> > > the Museum of Photographic Arts in San Diego where
> > a few piezoBW prints
> > > were thrown in with wet prints.
> > >
> > > However, we are still in the era of seeking
> > legitimacy for our prints in the world
> > > of collectors, museums and galleries. Inkjet
> > prints - especially if you call them
> > > that and don't use French names for them - don't
> > have the cache of "toned
> > > silver prints". Yet.
> > >
> > > Antonis
> > >
> > > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Daniel
> > Perez <tronicart@y...> wrote:
> > > After a few days, I
> > > > decided to take a very close look at it and
> > realized
> > > > that it was an inkjet print! Ah-ha!  I had this
> > > > wonderful revelation, that, to some extent put
> > me at
> > > > ease.
> > >
> > >