Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Printing: Printers, Papers and Inks => Topic started by: ralph257 on December 19, 2019, 04:53:25 pm
-
I popped into a print shop to get something framed noticed a nicely stitched pano
hanging on the wall, as I entered into a discussion with the shop owner how he did it,
process he used... I mentioned I had some some files to print large and what were his
requirements for the prints to my amazement his reply was:
1. the files can be .jpg "cause it doesn't really matter nobody can notice the difference"
2. the colorspace we print in is sRGB
3. we print 300ppi but I can do 100ppi no problem
4. When I asked about supplying a profile he didn't seem to care
My question is : Is this shop owner correct ? Does the viewer not care ? or not sensitive to know the difference
and furthermore Where does one seek out a Fine Art printer ? :-\
-
My question is : Does the viewer not care ? or not sensitive to know the difference
The viewer only sees the printed photo. If the viewer(Buyer) likes the print, $$$$SALE. That is all the buyer cares about.
Peter
-
I agree with Peter. Some of the greatest paintings are on bits of old board. One rarely asks what brushes or easel was used in making a painting. It's just the "look" of the image and frame combination.
What exactly is "fine art"? anyway.
-
I popped into a print shop to get something framed noticed a nicely stitched pano
hanging on the wall, as I entered into a discussion with the shop owner how he did it,
process he used... I mentioned I had some some files to print large and what were his
requirements for the prints to my amazement his reply was:
1. the files can be .jpg "cause it doesn't really matter nobody can notice the difference"
2. the colorspace we print in is sRGB
3. we print 300ppi but I can do 100ppi no problem
4. When I asked about supplying a profile he didn't seem to care
My question is : Is this shop owner correct ? Does the viewer not care ? or not sensitive to know the difference
and furthermore Where does one seek out a Fine Art printer ? :-\
Well unless you saw the a print using different parameters and the shop owner did as well, how would anyone know?
Can for example an sRGB output to print look great? Sure. Can it look better? Depending on the subject, without question. But you need to print both ways and be objective hence:
The benefits of wide gamut working spaces on printed output:
This three part, 32 minute video covers why a wide gamut RGB working space like ProPhoto RGB can produce superior quality output to print.
Part 1 discusses how the supplied Gamut Test File was created and shows two prints output to an Epson 3880 using ProPhoto RGB and sRGB, how the deficiencies of sRGB gamut affects final output quality. Part 1 discusses what to look for on your own prints in terms of better color output. It also covers Photoshop’s Assign Profile command and how wide gamut spaces mishandled produce dull or over saturated colors due to user error.
Part 2 goes into detail about how to print two versions of the properly converted Gamut Test File file in Photoshop using Photoshop’s Print command to correctly setup the test files for output. It covers the Convert to Profile command for preparing test files for output to a lab.
Part 3 goes into color theory and illustrates why a wide gamut space produces not only move vibrant and saturated color but detail and color separation compared to a small gamut working space like sRGB.
High Resolution Video: http://digitaldog.net/files/WideGamutPrintVideo.mov (http://digitaldog.net/files/WideGamutPrintVideo.mov)
Low Resolution (YouTube): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLlr7wpAZKs&feature=youtu.be (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLlr7wpAZKs&feature=youtu.be)
-
1. the files can be .jpg "cause it doesn't really matter nobody can notice the difference"
2. the colorspace we print in is sRGB
3. we print 300ppi but I can do 100ppi no problem
4. When I asked about supplying a profile he didn't seem to care
The big no no for me in that list would be using sRGB as the color space. I see a big difference in my files rendered as sRGB vs Adobe RGB and even though prints have a narrower gamut than monitors I think it would make a visible difference. As long as JPG files aren't saved over and over the quality should be fairly comparable to TIFF. And 100ppi is a bit thin but with many images it would work. Others would breakdown at 100ppi on close inspection. One of the more compelling photos I saw at the Seattle Art Museum about a year ago was a striking portrait shot by an African photographer that was stunning at normal viewing distances but a disaster up close. It didn't stop the museum from acquiring it or change the impact it had for a normal viewer.
But in general, his attitude represents a pretty casual approach to the "craft" of printing and I would use someone else.
-
I make two copies of all of my images. One is for the web at 1024x1024 maximum sRGB JPEG and the other a full size 16bit ProPhoto RGB TIFF for printing.
I once dragged the wrong one onto the printing programme and start to print it a metre wide. It was about a foot out before I noticed that something was wrong. So I think that from a distance on canvas especially, you could probably print anything for the local punter. I don't though.
As for profiles, sRGB is plenty for portraits. For nature, fashion etc, yes, you will notice the difference side by side.
These days many people move so often that they just want something to decorate the walls and will probably bin it next time they move. A local Reject shop sometimes sells 6'x4' canvas images for $25AU.
Very few people have enough knowledge or interest to buy quality. Most want pretty colour, not accurate colour. It is an education process.
-
I mentioned I had some some files to print large and what were his
requirements for the prints to my amazement his reply was:
1. the files can be .jpg "cause it doesn't really matter nobody can notice the difference" ....
My question is : Is this shop owner correct ? Does the viewer not care ? or not sensitive to know the difference
and furthermore Where does one seek out a Fine Art printer ? :-\
I'd bet you $1,000 U.S. that you could not reliably tell prints of actual photos made from 16-bit TIFFs from prints made from the same files converted to best-quality JPEGs. I've done some testing on this myself, and reported it here:
https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=123579.0 (https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=123579.0)
-
16 bit tiff files are for manipulation but once you've finished you can convert the final file to a 8 bit jpg for printing and you can't see any difference (just don't try further manipulation after the conversion as you might get banding). But using sRGB instead of Adobe RGB or (even better) ProPhoto RGB and you'll lose color gamut and density. And a low resolution file is definitely something to avoid if possible cause that can look like crap if viewed up close.
-
I do mini color management presentations for a couple of local camera clubs from time to time. One of the most fun parts for me is when, toward the end of the discussion about working color spaces and the the impact on prints, using modern printers with good papers and quality ICC profiles, I show four prints. I have a really lovely fall color photo that a friend created and allows me to use for this exercise. The photo was ingested as raw, into LR and processed to taste. First, in ColorThink Pro I show the plot of the image and then superimpose sRGB, Adobe RGB, and ProPhoto RGB color space wireframes. Lots of oohs and ahhhs from the audience. The image plot easily exceeds even the Adobe RGB wireframe. Then I show the plot for the printer/paper I printed with (one of the good Baryta papers) using a custom ICC profile made for me by Andrew Rodney. It clearly shows that I can print colors (colors that are “in” the image file!) that exceed Adobe RGB! (That takes care of the “You don’t need anything larger than Adobe RGB as a working color space crowd). I bring an easel with Solux 4700k lighting and a nice neutral gray magnetic panel to “pin” the prints on. Then I show them a nice print that was made from the file after converting to sRGB in Photoshop. Decent looking print. Then I show them a print from the file after conversion to Adobe RGB... better looking print! Way more tonal separation in the variety of leaf colors. Then the print made directly from the ProPhoto RGB file. A noticeably better print! It has a greater sense of depth and even more subtle tonal transitions in the leaves. The easel is large enough to have them all up together. The last print I put up is the ProPhoto version, carefully soft proofed for the printer/paper. An even nicer print with more of what I call “presence.” One of the take-always that I try to leave the groups with, that I’ve learned vicariously from Andrew Rodney and Jeff Schewe, is “Why leave any image quality on the table?” when it isn’t any big deal to work in an optimal way once you have some basic understanding?
So, does it matter? Depends on who the audience is. There seems to be a penchant today for uber-saturated, high contrast abominations printed on high gloss aluminum panels. For folk who are drawn to this genre, it probably makes no difference at all, since regardless of your work flow, as long as you end up yanking the saturation controls until your eyes bleed, you’re golden.
But for some it does matter. It matters in a way that can be seen and appreciated. Excellence for its own sake is a worthwhile pursuit - even if the audience isn’t sophisticated. You’ve presented your images in the best possible way available to you. Anything less, is... well “less.” It might be “good enough” - but you know it’s “less.”
Rand
-
Some labs use a RIP to print the files. The labs at school where I teach do use a RIP and recommend srgb files. The prints do look so much better than the same image as a ProRGB file.
Peter
-
Some labs use a RIP to print the files. The labs at school where I teach do use a RIP and recommend srgb files. The prints do look so much better than the same image as a ProRGB file.
Peter
Sorry, a RIP (and that term requires a definition when used) plays no role on the source color gamut and what that printer may be able to print with respect to color gamut. If the data exceeded sRGB and the printer could print that extended gamut, no RIP will recover the conversion to sRGB; those colors are clipped. Keep in mind NO printer can print all the color gamut of even sRGB but that's a different issue (or story, it's not really an issue if you understand the vast difference between print and display-like color gamuts). Recommending sRGB isn't a very good idea if the goal is to be able to output data you can capture and print. Of course the image content plays a role; 100% skin tone wouldn't benefit much from anything wider gamut than sRGB. Many scenes in nature greatly exceed sRGB. It's about the least ideal working space for those aiming to make prints!
The Epson or Canon driver could easily be considered a RIP if (big if) you consider the P in RIP to mean Processing. They can, with the OS, interpolate data for print, that's image processing.
Most 'high end' RIPs in labs or schools are Postscript RIPs where Postscript data must be rasterized to make a print. That's the critical processing in this workflow. TIFF, JPEG, PSD etc are already rasterized, there's no need for such RIPs for that task. Qimage does excellent output sharpening from existing rasterized data; it could be considered a RIP. Or a substitute Print Driver. As could Epson's Print Layout. One might argue that Lightroom's Print Module which applies output sharpening is a RIP; it processes data for print.
If you use the term RIP, explain what the processing is, don't assume it's better or worse than anything else used for making a print (a print driver if you will). And there's this:
http://digitaldog.net/files/ToRIPorNotoRIP.pdf (http://digitaldog.net/files/ToRIPorNotoRIP.pdf)
-
If you use the term RIP, explain what the processing is, don't assume it's better or worse than anything else used for making a print (a print driver if you will). And there's this:
http://digitaldog.net/files/ToRIPorNotoRIP.pdf (http://digitaldog.net/files/ToRIPorNotoRIP.pdf)
I have no knowledge that speaks to any of this...And thanks for the info.
Peter
-
It seems no one can define "Fine Art" at this point?
-
It seems no one can define "Fine Art" at this point?
Not sure that is particularly important. We are just after the best print. The question is how/where to get the best print.
-
The term "fine art" has been dead for years - at least to those who really know what they're talking about. There's art and there's commercial art. What ever sells, sells. You can have the most finely tuned and printed image in the world. If it doesn't strike someone's fancy, it's not worth the paper and ink it's printed on – unless you like it and want it for your wall.
I have a 38" canvas pano of Kilimanjaro (https://www.flickr.com/photos/luxborealis/17452282501/in/album-72157603755258266/) shot through the window of an airplane. It was made on a 5mp camera and is only 2560px wide, which makes it 67ppi. And it works!! Not even a hint of pixelation.
Most consumers are happy with far less quality than what many of us are capable of shooting and printing. If you want to sell, shoot and print what sells. If you want to do "fine art" then you just gotta do it whether someone else likes it or not. It seems many "fine art" photos nowadays aren't the kind of thing consumers want on their walls unless they are very astute and art-aware.
But I haven't really said anything that hasn't been said hundreds of times before.
-
The term "fine art" has been dead for years -
Now if only the silly usage of giclee (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giclée) with ink jet prints would die. ;D
Nash and Holbert never approved.
-
I'd bet you $1,000 U.S. that you could not reliably tell prints of actual photos made from 16-bit TIFFs from prints made from the same files converted to best-quality JPEGs. I've done some testing on this myself, and reported it here:
https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=123579.0 (https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=123579.0)
Of actual photos not, but you can with very abstract prints - with straight lines etc- like vector images.
Edit; you can also get into problems saving a prophoto 16bit soft gradual and save it to a prophoto jpeg best quality.
You might see banding.
-
I popped into a print shop to get something framed noticed a nicely stitched pano
hanging on the wall, as I entered into a discussion with the shop owner how he did it,
process he used... I mentioned I had some some files to print large and what were his
requirements for the prints to my amazement his reply was:
1. the files can be .jpg "cause it doesn't really matter nobody can notice the difference"
2. the colorspace we print in is sRGB
3. we print 300ppi but I can do 100ppi no problem
4. When I asked about supplying a profile he didn't seem to care
My question is : Is this shop owner correct ? Does the viewer not care ? or not sensitive to know the difference
and furthermore Where does one seek out a Fine Art printer ? :-\
Why settle for mediocraty ?
-
Of actual photos not, but you can with very abstract prints - with straight lines etc- like vector images.
Show us.
-
Why settle for mediocraty ?
Why not?
Would you always order the most expensive wine on the menu? For wine, as well as prints, the reason is simple: the vast majority of people can’t tell the difference.
-
Until they are shown something of quality.
Why not?
Would you always order the most expensive wine on the menu? For wine, as well as prints, the reason is simple: the vast majority of people can’t tell the difference.
-
"A professional is someone who can do his best work when he doesn't feel like it."-Alistair Cooke
Doesn’t matter what other people who haven’t been shown the difference can’t see!
-
"A professional is someone who can do his best work when he doesn't feel like it."-Alistair Cooke
Doesn’t matter what other people who haven’t been shown the difference can’t see!
Andrew,
This is the absolute truth...
Peter
-
Andrew,
This is the absolute truth...
Peter
And the other truth; not everyone is or acts like a pro. 😈
And:
"Have no fear of perfection-you'll never reach it". -Salvador Dali
-
Why not?
Would you always order the most expensive wine on the menu? For wine, as well as prints, the reason is simple: the vast majority of people can’t tell the difference.
Most of the time the best wine isn't the most expensive.
-
“ The difference between the right word and the almost right word is the difference between lightening and the lightening bug.”
Mark Twain
:)And the other truth; not everyone is or acts like a pro. 😈
And:
"Have no fear of perfection-you'll never reach it". -Salvador Dali
-
This most interesting thread points up another impressive truth. Comparison is what it's all about. Unless one makes a print on both matte and glossy paper, AND PLACES THEM SIDE BY SIDE, the blacks on both look fine even though when measured, the blacks in the matte print are likely inferior. I've hung in my home and even sold a few matte prints and no one has complained abut the blacks. All lenses look good, UNTIL PRINTS FROM THEM ARE COMPARED SIDE BY SIDE. Between these facts and the fact that content counts, we still revere prints from Edward Weston, Minor White and the other unquestionably great photographers of the twentieth century. These men and women were great artists, regardless of their medium and regardless of the quality of their materials. We should place greater emphasis on the art aspect of our work and less on the technical and I say that even though I am hopelessly enmeshed in the technical. (Perhaps it's because I'm a lousy artist?). Happy holidays to all.
Eric
-
Show us.
I can't, at least with a test image I created in the past, duplicated from TIFF, saved as JEPG (quality 10) and then printed on a 3880 with the TIFF TO actually compare. The two look visually identical. Here's what the test image looks like:
-
This most interesting thread points up another impressive truth. Comparison is what it's all about. Unless one makes a print on both matte and glossy paper, AND PLACES THEM SIDE BY SIDE, the blacks on both look fine even though when measured, the blacks in the matte print are likely inferior. I've hung in my home and even sold a few matte prints and no one has complained abut the blacks. All lenses look good, UNTIL PRINTS FROM THEM ARE COMPARED SIDE BY SIDE. Between these facts and the fact that content counts, we still revere prints from Edward Weston, Minor White and the other unquestionably great photographers of the twentieth century. These men and women were great artists, regardless of their medium and regardless of the quality of their materials. We should place greater emphasis on the art aspect of our work and less on the technical and I say that even though I am hopelessly enmeshed in the technical. (Perhaps it's because I'm a lousy artist?). Happy holidays to all.
Eric
Also, reflective glass is the great equalizer. It makes even the best print on the finest paper look mediocre.
-
Why not?
Would you always order the most expensive wine on the menu? For wine, as well as prints, the reason is simple: the vast majority of people can’t tell the difference.
Pragmatically, I agree. Personally, “I’d know” and that’s enough. And that statement isn’t pride or arrogance - it a sincere desire on my part to make the very best photos and prints I’m capable of making “just because” I value that. I think it is pretty much like anything else. If you take the time, effort, skill, expense to make something as well as it can be made - there will be a very limited-to-zero market for it. Thankfully, there are still craftspeople who embrace this esthetic. I think the world would be a poorer place if everything was merely “good enough.” How many of you would choose your camera gear solely from reading “Consumer Reports?” I find it amusing that we “measurebate” the finest micro-increments of digital cameras’ IQ parameters to justify purchases of equipment, yet argue here that, “Heck the public can’t tell good from bad anyway, so why bother to make anything other than ‘just OK’ prints?”
Cracks me up.
Rand
-
Now if only the silly usage of giclee (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giclée) with ink jet prints would die. ;D
Nash and Holbert never approved.
Not to mention the possible unintended double entendre! 8)
Rand
-
Now if only the silly usage of giclee (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giclée) with ink jet prints would die. ;D
Nash and Holbert never approved.
When I first heard the term 'giclée' it made me think of a fruit glaze applied to a French tart (the eatable variety).
-
I popped into a print shop to get something framed noticed a nicely stitched pano
hanging on the wall, as I entered into a discussion with the shop owner how he did it,
process he used... I mentioned I had some some files to print large and what were his
requirements for the prints to my amazement his reply was:
1. the files can be .jpg "cause it doesn't really matter nobody can notice the difference"
2. the colorspace we print in is sRGB
3. we print 300ppi but I can do 100ppi no problem
4. When I asked about supplying a profile he didn't seem to care
My question is : Is this shop owner correct ? Does the viewer not care ? or not sensitive to know the difference
and furthermore Where does one seek out a Fine Art printer ? :-\
I can't say he is 100% wrong because some might have a particlar workflow that they familiar with and don't like to change.
But here is how I reply to his 4 points (I do fine art and commercial printing and I do provide color managment services for clients)
1. Yes, a good JPG is good enough for print and you won't be able to see any difference with your naked eye.
2. Don't know why he only prints in sRGB. If he is using the printer driver and a proper printer profile, the print application such as Photoshop will make a color conversion from your source profile (sRGB, Adobe RGB) to the destination profile (paper profile) with some sort of rendering intent. Even he uses a RIP, it will do the same thing as well. So whoever say they can only print in sRGB, there must be something going on with his color management. (Maybe he is working with a close loop color management, sort of?)
3. If your original file has less than 300 dpi, you could resample it to 300 with your own techniques. If the file is more than 300dpi, you shouldn't be too worry about it. Any printer can print at any dpi, just a matter of sharpness.
4. You can tell him you want to use the paper icc profile for soft-proof and maybe need some extra color correction before you send him the file. If he still ignores you, I don't think he uses any proper ICC profile at all. Many signage shop does not have proper icc profile for every single material, the reason why is they might use 100 different kinds and what they usually does is use the one that has very close white point to it. He might be doing the samething as well for photo printing.
If you ask him if he is "professional" enough, I would say, yeah, he might know what he's doing, but when it comes to proper color management, maybe so so.
aaron
-
Now if only the silly usage of giclee (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giclée) with ink jet prints would die. ;D
Nash and Holbert never approved.
Andrew -- I could not agree more. It was simply a put-together word to describe the prints for an artists exhibition back in 1989. I still occasionally have people asking if I make Giclée prints. My first response is another question -- "define Giclée". Of course the customer has no idea what it is and has probably heard it or read it somewhere and decided he/she must have that type of print. I then try to educate them as to the initial use of the word Giclée and yes, I also squirt inks on a substrate to produce a print. If the customer is standing in front of me I hand them a copy of the letter Jack Duganne wrote later to describe the situation for which he initially coined the word Giclée. Here's the last two sentences from that letter - "For better or worse, it was a word and nothing more. It had a beginning in the simple attempt to describe what I thought might be a contribution to the great lexicon of printmaking nomenclature. I have never deviated from that original purpose".
Jack Duganne
-
Andrew -- I could not agree more. It was simply a put-together word to describe the prints for an artists exhibition back in 1989. I still occasionally have people asking if I make Giclée prints. My first response is another question -- "define Giclée". Of course the customer has no idea what it is and has probably heard it or read it somewhere and decided he/she must have that type of print. I then try to educate them as to the initial use of the word Giclée and yes, I also squirt inks on a substrate to produce a print. If the customer is standing in front of me I hand them a copy of the letter Jack Duganne wrote later to describe the situation for which he initial coined the word Giclée. Here's the last two sentences from that letter - "For better or worse, it was a word and nothing more. It had a beginning in the simple attempt to describe what I thought might be a contribution to the great lexicon of printmaking nomenclature. I have never deviated from thatoriginal purpose".
Here is the definition of the original french and the french slang...
Giclée The French verb form gicler meant to spray, spout, or squirt. Duganne settled on the noun giclée, meaning “the thing that got sprayed” and also, in French slang, ejaculation (a connotation Duganne did not know).
-
If the customer is standing in front of me I hand them a copy of the letter Jack Duganne wrote later to describe the situation for which he initially coined the word Giclée.[/b][/i]".
If there are no legal or rights concerns, I'd love to see a copy of the letter. I'm a gallery owner and fine art printer, and this is a frequent topic of discussion for me. I've never read Duganne's letter, although I'm very familiar with the giclee origin story.
-
No worries here about the connotations of the term Giclée. I never use it for the prints I make but my customers have no clue about the term's connotations anyway (or the process itself :-). Few French that I work for might have dirty thoughts if it ever falls in a discussion. However in France they do not make much fuss about the connotations either if I take this Wiki as my source of information: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gicl%C3%A9e Impression Numerique / Jet d'Encre (au service de l'Art) is more common and I think Epson's Digigraphie gained a footholt there more than in The Netherlands.
There is something more grave to think about when you use that term Giclée. With respect to Duganne and Nash as pioneers with a professional approach, the printers they had to use at that time, the Scitex Iris models, had dye inks that were not that stable in time and the prints were quite easily damaged by moisture. Even with the better dye inks made by Ilford and Lyson later on. Museum conservators have learned that in a bad way. I recall that in 2007 some were quite impressed when I put a HP Vivera pigment print proof under the tap and put it on a radiator to dry. It would be a good idea to have Giclée reserved for the products of the Iris printers and possibly the early dye ink Epson's, including third party dye inks used on the Epson's. It was after the Epson 10000/9500 pigment ink period that pigment inks from Epson, HP, Canon really delivered both a usable gamut and a better longevity. The Epson 10000 CF that I had delivered 1950's color in my opinion, I started to use Generations pigment inks to overcome that. Before that period inkjet inks either had a bad gamut or lacked longevity. Even the Iris got some third party pigment inks at some point in time. Must have been a disaster on that machine as it was already a hard to maintain printer. Interesting history here: http://spectrumimaging.com/fineart_history.html
Terms like that tend to loose their goal fast in this industry. I see Piëzography used for color printing as well these days and more odd, the prints being made on thermal head printers. I went for pigment prints, a more general term. One may argue that that term was used for an alternative photographic process too but at least it shares the pigment aspect of that process.
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
March 2017 update, 750+ inkjet media white spectral plots
-
I agree with Ernst. The primary reason I wouldn’t want to be associated with Giclee terminology is that they are some of the least durable prints ever made in the history of printmaking. I mean I have lots of Epson 1270 dye/pigment hybrid prints on cotton media in dark storage from that era that look as good as the day they were printed. In comparison I have a client who spent a lot of money on large Iris prints on cotton rag at the same time that were in dark storage, low humidity that we had to throw away. They were all totally blue or cyan and even the black and white work, which was cmyk of course was just as bad or worse. And the poor printers who invested in that technology spent a small fortune in hardware and constant software tech support, not to mention most of the ink never reached the paper.
Iris prints were really beautiful and unique though and what inspired me to be a printmaker. It blended ideas of painting and photographic color in ways I always dreamed about. But it became one of those dead end technologies that inspired a revolution but not something one would want to associated with today. As much as we complain about this or that quirk or limitation of the tech we have now, when we look back 20 years it’s a whole new world we have now that most people take for granted.
John
No worries here about the connotations of the term Giclée. I never use it for the prints I make but my customers have no clue about the term's connotations anyway (or the process itself :-). Few French that I work for might have dirty thoughts if it ever falls in a discussion. However in France they do not make much fuss about the connotations either if I take this Wiki as my source of information: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gicl%C3%A9e Impression Numerique / Jet d'Encre (au service de l'Art) is more common and I think Epson's Digigraphie gained a footholt there more than in The Netherlands.
There is something more grave to think about when you use that term Giclée. With respect to Duganne and Nash as pioneers with a professional approach, the printers they had to use at that time, the Scitex Iris models, had dye inks that were not that stable in time and the prints were quite easily damaged by moisture. Even with the better dye inks made by Ilford and Lyson later on. Museum conservators have learned that in a bad way. I recall that in 2007 some were quite impressed when I put a HP Vivera pigment print proof under the tap and put it on a radiator to dry. It would be a good idea to have Giclée reserved for the products of the Iris printers and possibly the early dye ink Epson's, including third party dye inks used on the Epson's. It was after the Epson 10000/9500 pigment ink period that pigment inks from Epson, HP, Canon really delivered both a usable gamut and a better longevity. The Epson 10000 CF that I had delivered 1950's color in my opinion, I started to use Generations pigment inks to overcome that. Before that period inkjet inks either had a bad gamut or lacked longevity. Even the Iris got some third party pigment inks at some point in time. Must have been a disaster on that machine as it was already a hard to maintain printer. Interesting history here: http://spectrumimaging.com/fineart_history.html
Terms like that tend to loose their goal fast in this industry. I see Piëzography used for color printing as well these days and more odd, the prints being made on thermal head printers. I went for pigment prints, a more general term. One may argue that that term was used for an alternative photographic process too but at least it shares the pigment aspect of that process.
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
March 2017 update, 750+ inkjet media white spectral plots
-
"If there are no legal or rights concerns, I'd love to see a copy of the letter. I'm a gallery owner and fine art printer, and this is a frequent topic of discussion for me. I've never read Duganne's letter, although I'm very familiar with the giclee origin story".
This is the letter below: