Digital BW, The Print

Hey Group:

On many occasions, I have asked shows/galleries to suggest what they would
call them which makes one seem considerate and accomodating instead of
insisting on a name that will only create more questions than answer.  Most
prefer Giclee and if that's what they what their clients/viewers have come
to know as inkjet prints, then I don't want to confuse and happily go along.


However, for those who feel that more of a distinction be made I humbly
offer a few suggestions. If a show/catalog/website has many reproductions
listed as Giclee, I don't want my work to seem misrepresented so I then call
it something else to set it apart.  For the uneducated (none my buyers are
art critics or jurors) who may not be familiar with the term, I think giclee
can become just as confusing when trying to explain what my prints are.   

I call them:   Fine Ink Print (Fine being for archival quality and Ink for
being descriptive of the nature of process) or for those photographs I have
transformed digitally into what looks like a painting I call those:  Fine
Photographic Ink Print  because I don't want people to think I am a painter
and to know that the art is based on photography.  

This is used for both BW/Color prints.  By not calling them Carbon Ink Print
I have avoided confusion with the traditional carbon process and many
questions of what carbon ink is and all that.  If questions of archival
quality and ink used is raised I'm happy to inform as well.  I think most
people just want to know it's a high quality print (not made on a cheap home
inkjet) and I think Fine Ink Print is short and sweet.  If you call it a
"fine" print then I think it's assumed by both parties that the print should
endure and not crumble or fade.  

So that's my two cents worth.  Not that I'm right or wrong, is just what I
do and the thinking behind it.  Have enjoyed the discussion on this and now
I'm no longer a lurker. 
Regards, 
Eclipse Agency

I'm just going to go with "Fine Ink Print".  Fine has a nice ring to 
it and some don't know what archival means anyways but those who do 
will usually assume that "fine" means the same thing. 

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Eclipse 
Agency" <eclipseagency@s...> wrote:
> Hey Group:
> 
> On many occasions, I have asked shows/galleries to suggest what 
they would
> call them which makes one seem considerate and accomodating 
instead of
> insisting on a name that will only create more questions than 
answer.  Most
> prefer Giclee and if that's what they what their clients/viewers 
have come
> to know as inkjet prints, then I don't want to confuse and happily 
go along.
> 
> 
> However, for those who feel that more of a distinction be made I 
humbly
> offer a few suggestions. If a show/catalog/website has many 
reproductions
> listed as Giclee, I don't want my work to seem misrepresented so I 
then call
> it something else to set it apart.  For the uneducated (none my 
buyers are
> art critics or jurors) who may not be familiar with the term, I 
think giclee
> can become just as confusing when trying to explain what my prints 
are.   
> 
> I call them:   Fine Ink Print (Fine being for archival quality and 
Ink for
> being descriptive of the nature of process) or for those 
photographs I have
> transformed digitally into what looks like a painting I call 
those:  Fine
> Photographic Ink Print  because I don't want people to think I am 
a painter
> and to know that the art is based on photography.  
> 
> This is used for both BW/Color prints.  By not calling them Carbon 
Ink Print
> I have avoided confusion with the traditional carbon process and 
many
> questions of what carbon ink is and all that.  If questions of 
archival
> quality and ink used is raised I'm happy to inform as well.  I 
think most
> people just want to know it's a high quality print (not made on a 
cheap home
> inkjet) and I think Fine Ink Print is short and sweet.  If you 
call it a
> "fine" print then I think it's assumed by both parties that the 
print should
> endure and not crumble or fade.  
> 
> So that's my two cents worth.  Not that I'm right or wrong, is 
just what I
> do and the thinking behind it.  Have enjoyed the discussion on 
this and now

> I'm no longer a lurker. 
> Regards, 
> Eclipse Agency