Originally posted by Baer Charlton:
Printmaker...
Now adays, I take a digital picture, mess about with it in Photoshop, "print" it out as large as I can on watercolor paper, erase, color, and physically mess with it, scan it back into the computer, mess around in photoshop some more, and maybe repeat the process or not then "Print" on water color paper in a small very tight format.
So my question is, and this is an honest question, I've been calling it a "mixed media print", so what is it if not that? I only have a HP 990ce, do I need to buy a 7600+ to be respected as an artist? Where do we draw the line now adays?
baer
Here we go again…
You make some valid and interesting points, Baer. We are getting (perhaps more than) a bit off topic but, as you asked, here's my 2 cents worth.
The term "giclee" was undoubtedly fabricated to bring a "legitimacy" and elevate the market profile of printing via ink jet - after all, one would not pay large amounts of money for a lowly ink jet print (no matter how good the quality), but a "giclee" ... ooh, ahh, now that's a different story!

I could stand to be corrected but, the real value of the giclee for publishers and artists is the ability to produce as large (or small) an "edition" as required, with minimal cash outlay, and without requiring the printing of the entire edition as would be practical when printing via offset. But, I digress...
As you've eluded to, Baer, fraud and questionable marketing practices in the "print" market have been documented ad nauseum; the most common of these is the purposeful blurring of terminology to garner a larger profit share, as well as the blatant misrepresentation of the actual nature of “prints” in question.
So, “where do we draw the line nowadays”? If you're a publisher, sitting on a mountain of paper, you’re in luck. There are few, if any, laws limiting your “line”. (I recall a "reputable" publisher who, when faced with the rapid selling out of an edition of offset "prints", proceeded to sell "artists proofs", the numbers of which were far greater than the original "edition" ; this was quite "legal"
).
It seems that the bottom line is, most often, based solely on "bottom line". We each select our “lines” based on the marketplace, our experience and, (perhaps) most importantly, our ethics (or lack thereof).
I.M.H.O., the lowliest potato print is still “an original print”; it is an original piece of artwork. The finest “giclee”, the colours of which have been tweaked on the finest computer using the finest software, printed on the finest canvas in the tiniest of edition sizes, is still merely a reproduction - a form of "photocopy"...
This has nothing to do with the quality or marketability of the image(s) in question. It has to do with the essence of the “prints” in question…
Following this philosophy (of which, for most, would be counter-productive $$$!), the lowliest ink jet printer produces the same product as the most sophisticated iris (or other) printer; the essence of each is the same – only the quality might differ...
Regardless of the cost or quality of your printer, legally, you can call your "prints", pretty much, anything you want. If you're (in the apparent minority, and are) concerned with ethics and morality, I would urge you to choose your words and terms carefully. At the proverbial end of the day, it is important to look with pride at the person in your mirror.
Best of luck to you, Baer!