It is giclée / inkjet / digital / pigment prints that are largely the same. The difference in names is mainly down to branding, marketing and fashion. Press the 'Start' button on the printer, and out pops a print.

As many already know, unless combined with other mediums, this is a purely mechanised, computerised way of producing multiples. Fast, easy and cheap. Ideal for lazy, indifferent or greedy publishers, dealers and/or artists, because (i) minimal time and effort are required and (ii) a maximum amount of profit can be realised. 

Proponents generally talk about the accuracy of giclée reproductions. This is fair enough; you can't get more accurate than through a photograph. But often that argument is also disingenuous, used to detract attention away from underlying commercial motives. Or it's ignorant of what is achievable by other means when the expertise is present along with a willingness to invest in time, energy and money.

An additional advantage with giclées is that prints can be generated on command, as and when orders come through, reducing the need for storage and advance financial outlay for art that may or may not sell.

However, for enthusiasts who value the process of printmaking — and who, in their flawed or quaint romanticism, may even consider that process just as important as the finished work — the non-artisanal methods of creating giclées make them a less than ideal option. Unless the cost-savings are being passed on by releasing affordable prints accessible to most collectors, my own rather militant position (which seems similar to yours) is "Fúck giclées".

Photopolymer prints are different. Photopolymer is a relatively modern intaglio printing method. Quite environmentally-friendly, with no acids used or corrosive gases produced.

The reference to "etching" in the description you mentioned above is unhelpful and misleading because photopolymer printmaking doesn't actually involve etching. It is a basic technique in comparison. The training and skill needed are nowhere near the levels required to produce an etching. Very roughly, the process is as follows:

A thin metal plate covered with soft, UV-light-sensitive plastic is exposed to light that is shined through a transparency of the image being reproduced. The plastic cures and hardens in the areas exposed to the most light (being the lighter parts of the image, or non-image parts). The plastic stays soft in the areas exposed to the least light (being the darker parts of the image, or the image itself). When the plate is rinsed in warm water or solvent, the soft plastic washes away and you end up with surface recesses in the form of the image. These recesses will hold the printing ink, allowing the image to then be transferred to paper using a press.

Great post. Many, many thanks for this, met.

I'm annoyed every time you beat me to the punch, but apart from that I dont mind. Have noticed that you have alot less prints for sale than the PM's you send so I'm guessing there is alot of prints on the wall/under the bed :-) And ofcourse some that you dont buy :-)

Those are awesome, especially the teddy riot. Like I said before, I wasn't questioning you, I legitimately wanted to see some of your stuff. Now I legitimately want to rob your place.

I won't.

But I want to.

I really like your framing choice for a number of these with the thickness of the black frame and the white mount. Looks great

I was talking about you, you're just backtracking now to avoid confrontation and using homophobic rhetoric to try and augment your position visualising that all forum members roll around in Dodge cars emblazoned with the Conferderation flag. They don't.

This is possibly disguising latent homosexual leanings which should actually be embraced. IMO 

You are really a charming forum member with a lovely touches of sarcasm. Must say i really appreciate some good sarcasm. I remember the first time I noticed you in a thread on this forum. That time you where again to moralizing others and you have not lost your sharp tongue. :-) Thanks for including me in your moral class of 2014.

I have now showed you some pics of my collection, could you please send please send me picture of the badge you have received from " The Art Police Of Morality" on this forum? Or have you just designated that task to yourself?

There are certainly many on this forum who respect you but you lost me when you used the word "exploit". :-)
To exploit somebody is in my world a very bad thing and its quite rude to write that i have ever done that.
Every print or canvas i have ever bought i have made a fair offer and they have accept that offer and they have done that with their free will.

You are just rude and lurid and used to get away with it!! So just piss off with those rude accusations and bullshit claims.

"That's just my opinion." I have not asked for your opinion and i can not see that any other have done that in this tread. So please show some respectful and go somewhere else to spread doom and gloom.

Still looking for this print to frame and put on the wall.

You started it - if you're tired then perhaps go back to sleepyclub......

The level of disingenousness on this forum never ceases to amaze me, best of luck with your search for this print OP and the possibility that if sourced then there exist the possibility that you will sell it straight on..

Over and out.

Forum troll!

"Over and out."

Do you not have integrity? Are you not a man of your word?

Its funny to see that you have no posted in some other tread than this the last six days. :-)

I like cream crackers with cheese

mature chedder works best for me

Also the high fibre Cream crackers are nicer then the original

Love the collection :-)

And as for the comment on digging you out, I dont have a problem with you selling prints.. Or flipping them as Vera Lynn Says. I just saw an opportunity to get to see your collection :-)

Thanks :-)

I just wanted to quote this so I could come back and read it later. Normal reaction to "eat a dick."  

I think most rational people would also assume you're a woman given your username, in which case the remark couldn't possibly be homophobic?