I have a problem with the use of the terms "pigment print" and "carbon print" to describe inkjet output because both terms have been used to describe historical processes, some of which are still in use today. This makes the use of the term confusing to buyers and collectors of photographs, and possibly misleading, though that would depend on the intention of the artist. My conclusion is that any inkjet printer marketing his/her prints as either "pigment prints" or "carbon" prints is either ignorant of other historical and contemporary use (least offensive), or is being deliberately deceptive (worse case).
Originally Posted by steve
Another issue is that the ink sets used to make prints on inkjet printers do not consist entirely of pigments, but of a combination of pigments and inks. This brings into question their permanence vis-a-vis processes that use pure pigments.
In my opinion the primary distinguishing quality of prints made with inkjet printers is the particular dye or pigmented ink set used by the printer so it would make sense to me to describe prints that way. Calling a print an Ultra-Chrome or Dura-Brite, etc. tells one a lot more about the technical qualities of the print that by use of the generic term pigment print.
Last edited by sanking; 10-06-2004 at 05:14 PM. Click to view previous post history.