Most interesting. Working professionals around me, additional to my own work, never refer to print processes as "injket". Such a name is associated with a generally inferior quality and archival stability. And there is a big difference in what is actually done out there! What is wrong with referring to any photograph as prints? Or is getting bent out of shape over one process vs another and semantics all the go instead? Darkroom-produced prints are very commonly referred to as silver gelatin prints — neat; a quaint, old world term that elicits an aura of mystery and authority in the photographer. Then there is the alternative process camp: they are commonly termed "hybrid-X prints": colourimetrically synthesized RGB exposed to traditional photographic media (chiefly Kodak Endura Professional MET, among a swag of others, including, fibre, silk, RC-coated media now). Giclee is inkjet by definition, often favoured for quick proofing, but it is not a broad definition that sits easy with print processes that are off-hand or ignorantly referred to as "inkjet" when something is not produced by such a process.
Think I found a term worth using...
Now I know, a print I make costs me $2.50 a sheet for the paper. And an inkjet print costs $2.50 a sheet for the ink. So it's not like I'm using MORE expensive materials when I do silver gelatin. I do like an assurance that a print I'm buying is special. So when I bought a print from a local photographer, instead of buying the print I was MOST attracted to (an 8x10 - obviously one of her popular ones), I selected one that I was most PERSONALLY drawn to from her series of 50 for 50. I am still personally pleased with my purchase. Last week's paper's headline reminded me - the local artists guild is having their 50th 50 for 50 (sic) show!
The paper, by the way, exaggerated the age of the show. It's only in its 5th year.
On another forum, I'm participating in a thread where the debate centers on the effectiveness of Selenium toning... Now the outcome of that thread will probably have lasting impact.
"oil vs watercolor"
Sifting through all this, that observation is the lasting impact of this thread for me.
Of course missing from this obsession is the real purpose of photography.
The actual subject.
So while all this emotion is spent on semantics, process, naming and outrage, if the subject sucks then who really cares.
It's like arguing and obsessing over what kind of sandals Jesus wore.