Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2009/07/27
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]On Jul 27, 2009, at 8:14 AM, Slobodan Dimitrov wrote: > Pretty much what Tina says! > An inkjet print by any other name is still an inkjet print. > Nash Editions are yet another version. it is what it is... call it whatever... a squirt...? Steve > S.d. > > On Jul 26, 2009, at 10:08 PM, Bob Adler wrote: > >> I thought I would pose this question to this group. To try to put >> some parameters around the question, I am being told that my injet >> prints, using archival inks and paper, are not "giclee". >> Though I know this term, directly translated, means to spray, and I >> know that much of the use of this term by photographers is for >> "marketing" purposes, I am curious if you believe that the use of >> this term for my prints is accurate (archival pigments sprayed on >> archival papers of either scanned negatives or digital photographs). >> Thanks very much for any opinions you care to share. Any pointers >> to truly authoritative literature or sources would be greatly >> appreciated. >> Best, >> Bob >> >> Bob Adler >> Palo Alto, CA >> http://www.raflexions.com >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Leica Users Group. >> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information