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.