Boy, what a great link. I had no idea that so-called 'digital carbon' was being marketed so aggressively (and deceptively). Just because something has carbon black in the inks does not mean that it is the same as what is traditionally known as a carbon print. Sadly, I think the onslaught of this sort of marketing will totally devalue the term 'carbon print' until no one knows what it signifies. I think it is very interesting that people will use just about any nomenclature to avoid using the term 'ink jet print', which is really what they all are. Giclee, digital platinum, digital carbon, etc are all somewhat deceptive monikers meant to portray a commonplace, easy-to-mass-produce object in a different, supposedly more flattering, way.

Let's face it, if these prints were actually harder to produce than a REAL carbon print, the creator would name them something entirely distinct in order to differentiate the print from a 'common' carbon print. As it is, they are misappropriating the cachet and uniqueness associated with a truly craft-and-skill-heavy process in order to sell something that is common as dirt. Unfortunately, the skilled traditional practitioners are vastly outnumbered by unethical hoardes who don't give a rat's ass about honesty in representation, and I fear the battle has already been lost.

I am not dissing the prints - I actually own a few inkjet prints that I consider fine pieces of work - but I still think there is nothing wrong with calling them what they are: inkjet prints.

<Rant-mode-off>