I've voted "yes" on this - "appropriate" - yes, absolutely ... legally possible ... I don't know. Possibly "Truth in advertising...", somewhere?Quote:
Originally Posted by dnmilikan
I'm still trying to figure out what the @#$@ they are talking about in Canon's "ray trace', comparing their "Digital" lens design to the "conventional". Looks to me like the light coming out of the system is collimated, instead of focused.
I think museums, libraries, better galleries, major auction houses, and conservators already have such standards for identifying the final medium, and there doesn't really need to be a new trademarked system. Yes, there are emerging technologies and companies branding inkjet products using the names of traditional processes, but I think that in the museum and collecting world, the need to distinguish is widely recognized, and no one is mistaking a "Carbon" inkjet for a real carbon print, etc.
Perhaps what is needed is not registered trademarks, but a better awareness of what is meant by the various designations? The coming APUG magazine will mostly be read by people who already know the difference, so can we perhaps get BW Magazine (the picture-collector one) interested?
All we really need is a court case between seller and buyer of a "digital platinum print" - and lots of publicity.
Sounds good to me. The worst kind of fakery is the misappropriation of terms and applying them to digital processes. From "Iris" and "giclee" to "digital" carbon and "digital" pt/pd, otherwise serious digital photographers have engaged in deceptive practices.
I'm not sure whether the folks doing this are simply insecure about the value of their product or whether they're engaging in deliberately misleading hype.
And I don't care. I wouldn't call my gelatin silver prints on warmtone paper, processed in warmtone developer and selenium toned, "sepia" prints because they aren't. I don't like messing with sepia or other toners and I'm not ashamed to call my prints what they are: middling good warmtone prints. ;>
Even then, tho', it's understandable how someone could mistake the two.
But for a digitoid to knowingly take a digital capture, tweak it to resemble the color of a pt/pd, Van Dyke, cyanotype or other print and try to pass it off as such is outright fraud.
At the very least it's "mixed media" which is often used as a catch-all category by artists who don't work solely in oil, acrylic, watercolor or other media.
The art world doesn't tolerate acrylic painters calling their work "oil" or watercolorists passing off their work as "egg tempera" and, frankly, no self-respecting artist would do so anyway because they're proud to have the origins of their work known.
That's why I can't imagine what drives digitoids to fake the nature of their work, unless they are so insecure as to believe it has no hope of acceptance on its own terms.
It's kind of ironic. The digital world lives and dies by "standards", yet when it comes to digital imaging, they shy away from standards and try to emulate traditional terms to explain the medium. Bizarre.
I just think they are stiffled. There are no 'new' ideas and they therefore copy conventianal/traditional process results and therefore also the names as they cant describe them with acronyms.
Maybe soon we'll see:
Epson Announces New DPG/CPP/DCP printer.
(digital platinum giclee, carbon pigment print, digital contact print)
I'm sure a salesman tried to sell me one today, problem had his head so far up his own A%$£ that had his own personal darkroom