I can't personally think of a single photographer that uses the term Giclee to describe his/her original photographs printed by inkjet technology on matte or "photo" type media, but the term does seem to have made a real and useful inroad into commercial decor canvas applications and with artists that offer "limited print editions" of their original art. In the limited edition category, the public seems to understand/accept that the piece they are considering buying is indeed a reproduction, yet Giclee in this context now implies it's a superior art reproduction, both in color fidelity and in longevity (which is often but not always true). If the industry had just stuck with evangelizing inkjet, then inkjet as a term in the art world might have eventually been accepted, but "giclee" shortened the evangelization time for many artists. Prior to the acceptance of "giclee" as an identifiable category, this latter group of artists often turned to companies offering relatively inexpensive litho printing, but keeping costs low required the artist to commit to a single higher volume production run than inkjet "print-on-demand" technology requires. They could describe the reproduction as a " limited edition litho" print and this term had the advantage of being ambiguous, ie. was it a cheap litho made by a commercial printing company or a hand made litho made in the artist's own studio.
Bottom line for me: I stay clear of using the term for my own photography, but I fully understand its usefulness to many artists trying to offer high quality reproductions at lower pricing barriers to their art. For my own photographic prints, I embed metadata (usually by backprinting) that clearly identifies the materials and processes I have chosen to make the piece, e.g. camera, printer, ink, media, and coatings where applicable. I take pride in the materials and processes I use, and my audience usually responds favorably to my enthusiasm for digital print technologies.
