Amateur to Buying Art - Giclee Cost Question
scadav
the eye, I might buy it. I have only purchased one piece of art in my
lifetime and I am now interested in buying a second piece because it
looked cool. As I started asking more questions about the piece I
wanted to buy, I found out that it was a Giclee.
Did some research on the web and found out what that meant.....Here is
the way I understand it, In the most basic terms: Piece of art that
was reproduced using a printer on canvas.
The piece that I want to buy cost $550 and I imagine that since it is
not an original, I am getting a discount from what the original would
be??? Is that right? Should I expect to pay that much money for
something that is not an original??
If anyone can answer that for someone who knows very little about art,
I would appreciate it.
Flying_Naked_People
dksc...@yahoo.com says...
> Subject: Amateur to Buying Art - Giclee Cost Question
> From: dksc...@yahoo.com (scadav)
> Newsgroups: rec.arts.fine
>
> I basically know nothing about art other than if it looks pleasing to
> the eye, I might buy it. I have only purchased one piece of art in my
> lifetime and I am now interested in buying a second piece because it
> looked cool. As I started asking more questions about the piece I
> wanted to buy, I found out that it was a Giclee.
>
> Did some research on the web and found out what that meant.....Here is
> the way I understand it, In the most basic terms: Piece of art that
> was reproduced using a printer on canvas.
... or on paper.
> The piece that I want to buy cost $550 and I imagine that since it is
> not an original, I am getting a discount from what the original would
> be???
It's not a discount. It's just the cost of the print. You are buying a print.
Do be aware that a print is a print - no matter what fancy names people give
it. Some "types" of prints are higher quality (last longer, resemble the
original better, etc.). Other prints are of lower quality (photocopies, etc.)
A search on the web can help you determine the different types of prints
available.
> Is that right? Should I expect to pay that much money for
> something that is not an original??
If that is what the artist asks, then yes, sort of - if you buy art simply
because you like it. If you are buying art for investment reasons, then you
need to (first) research the artist and compare that price to the *sales* of
the other artwork this artist has made.
A good book to help you is "The Art of Buying Art" by Alan Bamberger:
http://www.artbusiness.com
Seagull Manager
"scadav" <dksc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ef82e2b5.03080...@posting.google.com...
>
> The piece that I want to buy cost $550 and I imagine that since it is
> not an original, I am getting a discount from what the original would
> be??? Is that right?
Probably, but it may be worth checking. Does the artist have any originals
available, or have any been on the market lately? Some artists have prints
available for a few hundred dollars, while their paintings sell for tens of
thousands; others sell their prints for nearly as much as their paintings.
Some artists only make prints - no paintings.
> Should I expect to pay that much money for
> something that is not an original??
Only if you want to. Prints can be highly valuable, depending on the
quality, the edition size, and the artist. Some people will only buy prints
made using traditional techniques such as etching or woodcut, and consider
giclee too new-fangled to be trusted. An important factor is the edition
size: if thousands of copies are being printed, each is probably worth
little or nothing on the open market, depending on the popularity of the
artist.
Andrew D
dksc...@yahoo.com (scadav) wrote:
Giclees are basically high resolution, "long lasting", bubblejet (inkjet)
prints. Giclee is essentially French for "Squirt" - but that doesn't sound
so good when you're asking hundreds of dollars for a print! ;)
(I put "long lasting" in quotes because how long they'll last depends who
you speak to. Some claims go beyond 90 years, others much less.)
They are often "short" runs and are therefore expensive relative to other
prints. I've seen some here in Perth (West Australia) selling for over
$1600 so $550 (US?) doesn't seem extraordinary.
As with any "art", what it's worth depends entirely on what someone is
willing to pay for it and while it would often be the case that the print
would be cheaper than the original, I wouldn't assume it to always be so.
If you're concerened about the investment potential rather than just the
cost, then you may want to find out more about the artist and whether this
is a limited edition copy or if there are thousands of them floating
around with more lined up for production.
If you're only worried about the cost, then you only have to convince
yourself that you want it badly enough to pay for it and that you can't
get it elsewhere for less - and then maybe twist the retailer's arm a
little.
Andy D.
"I'm a great speller - but a hopless tpyist!"
Seagull Manager
"Andrew D" <right@the_end.of.my_tether> wrote in message
news:right-06080...@i172-004.nv.iinet.net.au...
>
> Giclees are basically high resolution, "long lasting", bubblejet (inkjet)
> prints. Giclee is essentially French for "Squirt" - but that doesn't sound
> so good when you're asking hundreds of dollars for a print! ;)
>
> (I put "long lasting" in quotes because how long they'll last depends who
> you speak to. Some claims go beyond 90 years, others much less.)
To refine that: the number of years (be that 25 or 100 - it depends on the
printer, the paper or canvas, and the ink) refers to the length of time the
print is expected to last before there is any detectable fading (to the
naked eye, assuming it is hung indoors away from the sun), rather than the
total length of time the print will last.
Neil Maxwell
And to expand further, the techniques and materials being used in most
giclees are less than 10 years old, and sometimes only a few years
old. Inks are reformulated constantly for various properties,
including but not limited to longevity.
The combination of factors listed by SM are mostly unknowns in terms
of longevity (save maybe the paper/canvas), and lifetime estimates are
basically guesses, nothing more. No amount of data will prove a 5
year old process will provide results that will last 50 years.
If the colors in the prints are pigment based rather than dye based,
your odds are better for a longer color life, but still not guaranteed
by any means.
Neil Maxwell - I don't speak for my employer
DNALJM
>not an original, I am getting a discount from what the original would
>be??? Is that right? Should I expect to pay that much money for
>something that is not an original??
I'm going to voice a personal bias here but you can just ignore it. These
prints are basically high-end comp prints that involve little effort. Little
effort-high retail-large editions.
Dali's prints were large editions and are worth very little money. My
parents had one. I suggest that you take this money and get an original.
Going to a graduating show at Cooper or an Academy (here in the US) is a good
way to get an original oil of high quality. A good oil painting will last for
hundreds of years and never depreciate, and who knows, you may get the next big
art hit. And you feel good knowing you are feeding a hungry art student. : )
Jane
www.geocities.com/teslathemothgod
<---- figurative art and exobiology links
Flobby Bischer
Giclee is NOT original art, it's a form of print.
Sometimes artists 'touch up' the print with some paint.
Giclee prints have a terrible resale value
Giclee prints have no collector value
Basically Giclee prints are worthless
Giclee inks are not as permanent as regular paint, they are susceptible to
fading and
color changes.
If you have $500 to spend, try to get ORIGINAL art and you'll have spent
your money wisely.
Seagull Manager
"Flobby Bischer" <blube...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:YSsYa.1411$ox5.2...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> Beware::
> Giclee is NOT original art, it's a form of print.
If it is a form of print, then it may be original art. Prints made by an
artist are normally regarded as original works of art.
The important distinction is between a print and a reproduction. A
reproduction is an open edition or a very large edition based on an original
work, and is typically made using lower quality materials and automated
techniques.
> Sometimes artists 'touch up' the print with some paint.
That's not necessarily a bad thing. Some artists touch up their lithographs
or etchings by hand-tinting them.
> Giclee prints have a terrible resale value
Most do, for sure. So does most art, except old art of high quality, or art
by blue-chip names (and even that's not guaranteed).
> Giclee prints have no collector value
If you're not a dealer, why does this matter?
> Basically Giclee prints are worthless
To the person who buys them, if they afford aesthetic pleasure for a few
decades, they are probably worth the relatively small outlay that they cost.
Never thousands of dollars, but somewhere between $50 and$500 seems quite
sensible. The purchaser may find it hard to find an image they like as much
for the same money outside of giclee prints. Generally, $500 will buy a
small etching by a good artist, or a lousy painting made with cheap
materials by an unknown artist. If you're *very lucky*, or you search *very
hard*, or your closest friend owns the biggest gallery in town, it might get
you an early masterpiece by the "next Van Gogh". Or it will buy you a big,
signed, coloured, giclee print that all your friends agree is beautiful and
goes well above the sofa.
> Giclee inks are not as permanent as regular paint, they are susceptible to
> fading and
> color changes.
Woodcuts also fade, but people collect woodcuts; watercolours fade, but
people collect watercolours. Pigment-based giclee inks have tested quite
well for permanence. The inks may be new, but the methods of testing are
well-established.
> If you have $500 to spend, try to get ORIGINAL art and you'll have spent
> your money wisely.
If you have $500 to spend, spend it on something you like, rather than
something you don't like that someone told you will have a good resale value
(though it probably won't).
DNALJM
>small etching by a good artist, or a lousy painting made with cheap
>materials by an unknown artist.
Unknown artists can care about their materials. I tell anyone who would
ask that my art will last for at least 500 years, even though you would need a
shovel to cash in on the guarantee. Odd Nerdrum used to use something really
ridiculous as a medium early on, I forget what it was, anyway these paintings
are sliding off the canvas right now.
A lot of my friends get 500 as the artist's price, or less for great
paintings. It is a shame that they get so little money for their efforts. Who
gets 50K for their paintings now seems more to do with luck and marketing than
real talent, sensitivity, and insight.
Giclee prints are the T shirt mass marketing era intruding into the
last oasis of craft and original artifact. I think it's a shame.
Robert Feinman
Even etchings can be found in editions of several hundred. I doubt that there
are inkjet editions that large, currently.
The latest Epson pigment-based inks are rated to last for 100+ years. This is
better than the dyes used in color photographs which are nevertheless also
collected.
Is the fear then, that ease of producing the print will lower the value of art?
If so, then it's already happened. Strolling through any popular street art fair
shows prices have come down.
DNALJM wrote:
--
Robert D Feinman
robertd...@netscape.net
Landscapes, Cityscapes, Panoramic Photographs: http://robertdfeinman.com
Neil Maxwell
<robertd...@netscape.net> wrote:
>The latest Epson pigment-based inks are rated to last for 100+ years. This is
>better than the dyes used in color photographs which are nevertheless also
>collected.
This is a marketing scam. They have absolutely no proof of this.
These claims are based on accelerated aging tests, which prove only
that the inks hold up well in accelerated aging tests.
The recent Epson orange-shift fiasco is an excellent example. Those
inks were rated at 25 years life on certain papers, and cyan fading
was occurring in a matter of months or weeks for many people.
They went through the standard accelerated testing by the respected
folks at Wilhelm Imaging Research, with no indications of serious
problems.
It's still not clear what caused the fading in all cases, despite a
ton of end-user research, but the combination of paper, ink, and
environment made some prints fade quickly while others didn't. Many
professional photographers have had to replace prints sold because of
color shifts, both in the Epson cases and with other printers.
Yes, pigments are better, but to assume these prints will last as long
as the vendor claims is to believe a fairy tale based on
circumstantial data. 100 years?!? They reformulate these inks every
few years for new generations of printers! The papers are changed as
often. Even data from 5 years ago is not valid for today's inks and
papers! Sheesh.
I hope you don't also believe the archival claims for CDRs, as your
digital files will disappear while sitting in your cool, dry storage
area.
These are facts. The vendor claims are wishful thinking. There is no
way around it.
Seagull Manager
"Neil Maxwell" <neil.m...@nospam.intel.com> wrote in message
news:avj7jv8ebp1kbkml7...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 11:27:58 -0400, Robert Feinman
> <robertd...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> >The latest Epson pigment-based inks are rated to last for 100+ years.
This is
> >better than the dyes used in color photographs which are nevertheless
also
> >collected.
>
> This is a marketing scam. They have absolutely no proof of this.
Fairer would be to say "there is no absolute proof", rather than "absolutely
no proof", because there is good evidence.
> These claims are based on accelerated aging tests, which prove only
> that the inks hold up well in accelerated aging tests.
The aging tests are a good guide - they are a better guide now than they
were a few years ago.
> The recent Epson orange-shift fiasco is an excellent example. Those
> inks were rated at 25 years life on certain papers, and cyan fading
> was occurring in a matter of months or weeks for many people.
This cock-up led to improvements in aging tests, so that now they take into
account more environmental factors than before.
> Many professional photographers have had to replace prints sold because
> of color shifts, both in the Epson cases and with other printers.
How many prints have had to be replaced, compared to the number that have
been made? What proportion of photographers and artists have given up on
digital printing because of durability problems? Truth is, the technology
works just fine most of the time, and most customers are perfectly happy
with their purchases.
> Yes, pigments are better, but to assume these prints will last as long
> as the vendor claims is to believe a fairy tale based on
> circumstantial data. 100 years?!?
It is not circumstantial data; it is good science. The pigments used are
known to be stable, and have been known to be stable in some cases for
hundreds of years. Even if the claims are optimistic (which I grant they may
be), digital printing is already more archivable than traditional
photographic prints.
> They reformulate these inks every
> few years for new generations of printers! The papers are changed as
> often. Even data from 5 years ago is not valid for today's inks and
> papers! Sheesh.
New inks and new papers are backed up by new data. Companies in the industry
pay a lot for independent research to prove their products.
Anyway, what are you comparing this with? Artists materials manufacturers
are constantly coming up with new products, which artists embrace cheerfully
without looking for research data to prove their quality.
> I hope you don't also believe the archival claims for CDRs, as your
> digital files will disappear while sitting in your cool, dry storage
> area.
If your digital data are precious to you, you probably will be transferring
them from medium to medium over time as a matter of course (e.g., as you
upgrade hardware or make new back-ups). If something sits on a CDR year in,
year out, and never gets copied anywhere else, that's probably because it is
not very important.
Seagull Manager
"DNALJM" <dna...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030808093631...@mb-m04.aol.com...
>
> Unknown artists can care about their materials.
Some do, some don't. Some do, but don't understand the issues well enough.
There are lots of issues relating to oil and acrylic painting that many
artists don't pay attention to. As for artists who use collage, add alien
materials to their paint, paint on unusual supports or grounds, use domestic
or industrial paints and mediums, they're all taking risks. Lots of modern
art is creating conservation nightmares (or conservation cash-cows,
depending on your point of view) right now.
> Odd Nerdrum used to use something really
> ridiculous as a medium early on, I forget what it was, anyway these
paintings
> are sliding off the canvas right now.
Well, there you go. A painting won't necessarily last longer than a giclee
print.
> A lot of my friends get 500 as the artist's price, or less for great
paintings.
If their paintings are truly great, they should get in touch with a
publisher and earn some money.
> Who gets 50K for their paintings now seems more to do with luck and
marketing than
> real talent, sensitivity, and insight.
That's modernism for you. No critical standards.
> Giclee prints are the T shirt mass marketing era intruding into the
> last oasis of craft and original artifact. I think it's a shame.
If all that matters about art is hand-made-ness, then you may as well give
up now. There are people in the Far East who are happy to do that hand-made
stuff for a tenth of what you need to live on.
DNALJM
If people dump a lot of crap into the paints and don't understand how they
work then they can be in for some nasty surprises. But if care is taken there
is no reason why an oil painting shouldn't last for centuries. Carbon based
drawing materials and oil paintings have the proof of history that they last.
>If their paintings are truly great, they should get in touch with a
>publisher and earn some money.
It's just great painting. But a lot of people don't understand what makes
it great, so they would rather have images of exciting trash fires and road
crews. (Thinking of someone in particular who has no reservations about being
a whore but I won't name them.)
>That's modernism for you. No critical standards.
No, and also a shame.
>If all that matters about art is hand-made-ness, then you may as well give
>up now. There are people in the Far East who are happy to do that hand-made
>stuff for a tenth of what you need to live on.
Yes, but it's usually garbage. They have painting mills where they repro
older paintings for above sofas. And that churn it out ethic really shows.
Well, they make those plastic toys by hand too, I wouldn't call any of it art
actually.
I would rather be painting or writing or even sleeping than going to a
printers and selling a slick photocopy for $30. If I were practical I would
have went to law school!
Neil Maxwell
<seagull...@nospamthanksbecauseisayso.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> This is a marketing scam. They have absolutely no proof of this.
>
>Fairer would be to say "there is no absolute proof", rather than "absolutely
>no proof", because there is good evidence.
I would buy this, though it depends on how you define "proof". From
an engineering perspective (which is what this really concerns),
extrapolation from accelerated aging tests is not proof, only theory.
>> These claims are based on accelerated aging tests, which prove only
>> that the inks hold up well in accelerated aging tests.
>
>The aging tests are a good guide - they are a better guide now than they
>were a few years ago.
And next year they may discover something different. The technology
is immature, though they are making some progress with each disaster
they analyze.
>> The recent Epson orange-shift fiasco is an excellent example. Those
>> inks were rated at 25 years life on certain papers, and cyan fading
>> was occurring in a matter of months or weeks for many people.
>
>This cock-up led to improvements in aging tests, so that now they take into
>account more environmental factors than before.
Yeah, yeah... And after the next disaster, they'll have even more.
Eventually they'll understand it pretty thoroughly, but that time's
not here yet.
>> Many professional photographers have had to replace prints sold because
>> of color shifts, both in the Epson cases and with other printers.
>
>How many prints have had to be replaced, compared to the number that have
>been made? What proportion of photographers and artists have given up on
>digital printing because of durability problems? Truth is, the technology
>works just fine most of the time, and most customers are perfectly happy
>with their purchases.
This is mostly from anecdotal evidence from the various
rec.photography groups (lots there on google), so there may be a
squeaky wheel syndrome. I don't think many of them gave up digital
printing, but many ended up moving to the far more expensive
pigment-based systems. These will be more affordable eventually, of
course.
>> Yes, pigments are better, but to assume these prints will last as long
>> as the vendor claims is to believe a fairy tale based on
>> circumstantial data. 100 years?!?
>
>It is not circumstantial data; it is good science. The pigments used are
>known to be stable, and have been known to be stable in some cases for
>hundreds of years. Even if the claims are optimistic (which I grant they may
>be), digital printing is already more archivable than traditional
>photographic prints.
Good science? Nope, it's marketing. No honest scientist/engineer
would make extrapolations like that without major caveats, but no
printer manufacturer wants the consumer to be confused by the facts.
In the Epson case, the same cyan dye had been used in their previous
generation carts with much less trouble, and some believe that it was
combination with other inks that increased the sensitivity. They just
don't have a good grip on this stuff yet. Dyes are definitely worse
than pigments, though.
Pigments are less of a problem, but as you know, all pigments age
differently, and some fade fairly quickly. The tradeoffs between
color balance and lightfastness are the marketing issue (with
printhead compatability as a major technical factor as well), since
poor color balance in prints (or clogging heads) will lose printer
sales now, while fading in 10 years (vs 25 or 75 or whatever) won't
mean anything to sales. They really have nothing to gain by being
truthful.
I have unprotected photos and inkjet prints on the wall of my cube,
and the prints are far more susceptible to fading than the photos.
This may be different on the new generation printers, but photo
printing is a very mature technology, and we know what to expect,
while digital printing is still very much on the learning curve.
>> They reformulate these inks every
>> few years for new generations of printers! The papers are changed as
>> often. Even data from 5 years ago is not valid for today's inks and
>> papers! Sheesh.
>
>New inks and new papers are backed up by new data. Companies in the industry
>pay a lot for independent research to prove their products.
Yet they still get bit.
>Anyway, what are you comparing this with? Artists materials manufacturers
>are constantly coming up with new products, which artists embrace cheerfully
>without looking for research data to prove their quality.
This is absolutely true, but when people ask about things like giclee,
I like to increase the awareness. Many of the colors in Japanese
woodblock prints are notoriously fugitive, but the awareness is
relatively high. People selling giclees rarely are upfront about the
risks of fading, IME.
>> I hope you don't also believe the archival claims for CDRs, as your
>> digital files will disappear while sitting in your cool, dry storage
>> area.
>
>If your digital data are precious to you, you probably will be transferring
>them from medium to medium over time as a matter of course (e.g., as you
>upgrade hardware or make new back-ups). If something sits on a CDR year in,
>year out, and never gets copied anywhere else, that's probably because it is
>not very important.
Again, it's an awareness thing. The CDR folks make extravagant and
unsupportable lifetime claims, complete with guarantees (which means
they'll give you another blank disk if yours fails). This is a dirty
little secret in the CD world, and most people believe that burned CDs
will have a lifetime like pressed CDs.
I know for a fact that even data written to top-grade archival blanks
on top-grade burners may fail within as little as a year. Other
disks, written on cheap media, are still readable after 3-4 years.
These were stored right next to each other. As with the printer
world, 5 year old data is meaningless, because the technology and
media formulations have changed multiple times, and are still
changing.
I've got many older photos archived, as well as a large library of
music, much of it converted from vinyl. Once I archive it to CD,
there's no real reason to make copies (unless you need it to still be
readable when you want it). I never used to routinely re-copy my
archived data until it started dying on me.
Erik A. Mattila
Neil, I bought a continuous inking device w/ pigment inks, which I could
have purchased w/ dye inks also. The price difference was only slightly
higher for the pigments. If you're talking about cartridges, I don't
know. I didn't even consider that option.
Erik
Neil Maxwell
<emat...@oco.net> wrote:
>Neil, I bought a continuous inking device w/ pigment inks, which I could
>have purchased w/ dye inks also. The price difference was only slightly
>higher for the pigments. If you're talking about cartridges, I don't
>know. I didn't even consider that option.
Yep, these are cartridge printers. Possibly a different market and
price range; my only experience is in consumer-oriented printers,
which is what many (most?) of the photographers on the rec.photo.*
groups are using when they print what they sell. The Epson pigment
printers tend to run in the $900+ range, depending on things like
carriage width and model age; this is 2-3x the cost of a similar
dye-based photo printer. Consumables are also more expensive, because
of the much smaller market.
While this is not dramatically expensive for people selling
high-priced work, it's still considered expensive in that market.
There are other issues in that type of printer, like encapsulated
pigments (which are more resistant to fading but don't give as good a
print quality) vs non-encapsulated (better looking, faster fading).
The paper used is critical, as always. Again, the learning curve is
still fairly steep here, and they're experimenting with the consumer's
cash (but that's the way of much high tech gear). The rate of
improvement is fairly dramatic, but it's nowhere near mature.
In any case, none of the pigment printers in this market have initial
image quality comparable to the dye printers that are half the price
or less.
It's a bit of a jihad of mine to inform people on fugitive colors from
printers and fugitive data on CDRs.
Marc Sabatella
pigment-based printing inks for Giclee, one might as well cast the same
doubts one oil paints, watercolors, and pastels made from modern
pigments that have also only been tested this way.
--------------
Marc Sabatella
ma...@outsideshore.com
The Outside Shore
Music, art, & educational materials:
http://www.outsideshore.com/
DNALJM
>pigment-based printing inks for Giclee, one might as well cast the same
>doubts one oil paints, watercolors, and pastels made from modern
>pigments that have also only been tested this way.
>
I think anyone who has given consideration to the archival nature of their
materials has realized they should investigate what they're made of and how
long it will last. Those dye-based pigments not only lack the concrete
evidence that they will last, but are hard to mute down too.
I just figure they are eye candy for people with attitudes like "Well, I'm
just a crazy art genius, let the conservators worry about that sh*t!" while
painting on paper plates and snorting coke.
Neil Maxwell
<ma...@outsideshore.com> wrote:
>It seems to me that if one is going to doubt the validity of tests on
>pigment-based printing inks for Giclee, one might as well cast the same
>doubts one oil paints, watercolors, and pastels made from modern
>pigments that have also only been tested this way.
This is absolutely true.
There is only one way to know how long pigment/substrate combinations
will last under certain conditions: wait. Unfortunately, the
combination of conditions and materials is so varied, you have to work
on best guesses, but it's important to understand this, IMO.
If you paint with the same pigments and canvas used by an artist 100
years ago, you have a pretty good idea how they will last.
Gud E. Nuff
neil.m...@nospam.intel.com says...
>If you paint with the same pigments and canvas used by an artist 100
>years ago, you have a pretty good idea how they will last.
You may be unaware of the fact that
paints manufactured in the USA for
professional use meet the ASTM
standard for whatever pigment is
involved. That means there is a
definitive standard that is met for
such things as light-fastness and
other longevity factors. No one needs
to guess at the most archival
pigment or dye if the ASTM label is
present.
Neil Maxwell
wrote:
>You may be unaware of the fact that
>paints manufactured in the USA for
>professional use meet the ASTM
>standard for whatever pigment is
>involved. That means there is a
>definitive standard that is met for
>such things as light-fastness and
>other longevity factors. No one needs
>to guess at the most archival
>pigment or dye if the ASTM label is
>present.
Sigh.
I am not unaware of the ASTM ratings. I am aware that laboratory
testing must be extrapolated to extend to the real world, and
extrapolation is a risky tool even with lots of data. The ASTM
ratings are not standards that must be met, but ratings applied to
results from accelerated testing. You, the artist, choose tradeoffs
between pigment qualities and ASTM ratings, just as the inkjet folks
do when formulating inks. Awareness is critical.
The original point is that accelerated testing has failed to
accurately predict product lifetimes in the past, and it will continue
to fail in the future. This is a fact. It can't be controverted.
ASTM is quite aware of this. To quote from the ASTM docs:
"The color changes that result from accelerated exposure may not
duplicate the results of normal indoor exposure in a home or gallery.
The relative resistance to change, however, can be established so
pigments can be assigned to categories of relative lightfastness."
I believe the point is essentially moot, as well chosen pigments will
certainly outlast the fame of most artists, and the pigments will
still be vibrant long after anyone has ceased to care about the image.
We can all hope, though.
Gud E. Nuff
neil.m...@nospam.intel.com says...
>The ASTM
>ratings are not standards that must be met
That's true. In the land of the Free and the
home of the Brave, there is no mandate that
paints conform to any standard. That's purely
a marketing decision of the manufacturer.
>The original point is that accelerated testing has failed to
>accurately predict product lifetimes in the past, and it will continue
>to fail in the future.
As with any "standard" - be it the SIS or ASTM -
the standard does just what the name implies. It
sets a standard by which manufacturers can guarantee
their customers that the product meets at least SOME
laboratory established guidelines. No one can predict
all the varied uses any given product will be put to.
Any product can be misused and give unsatisfactory
results, including artist paints.
>The relative resistance to change, however, can be established so
>pigments can be assigned to categories of relative lightfastness."
It's that word "relative" that makes ALL such
standards important. Exhaustive testing has
established a base line by which all others
are judged, and therein lies the value of having
a base line (standard). To pooh pooh it as
"irrelevant" or "moot" is to ignore scientific
laboratory testing methods that are crucial to
the manufacture of everything - not just paint!
Marc Sabatella
> >If you paint with the same pigments and canvas used by an artist 100
> >years ago, you have a pretty good idea how they will last.
>
> You may be unaware of the fact that
> paints manufactured in the USA for
> professional use meet the ASTM
> standard for whatever pigment is
> involved. That means there is a
> definitive standard that is met for
> such things as light-fastness and
> other longevity factors.
Well, sure - but what *is* that standard? Something along the lines of
"does well enough in an accelerated aging test", and Neil's point here
is that this isn't necessarily good enough for him. I personally I tend
to trust these tests more, simply because it seems logical that they'd
do what they purport to do. But then, I don't have a lot of experience
in the ways these tests have been proven to be unreliable in the past,
as has been alluded to several times on this thread.
> No one needs
> to guess at the most archival
> pigment or dye if the ASTM label is
> present.
Sure you do - you have to assume that the ASTM testing methods correlate
well with how long things would *actually* last. That's the point here.
Seagull Manager
> On 18 Aug 2003 17:00:36 -0600, gu...@dontemailme.com (Gud E. Nuff)
> wrote:
>
> The original point is that accelerated testing has failed to
> accurately predict product lifetimes in the past, and it will continue
> to fail in the future. This is a fact. It can't be controverted.
Consistently failed, or occasionally failed? That is the question.
Seagull Manager
"Marc Sabatella" <ma...@outsideshore.com> wrote in message
news:jJy0b.98$IY5...@fe01.atl2.webusenet.com...
> I personally I tend
> to trust these tests more, simply because it seems logical that they'd
> do what they purport to do.
Quite right, too.
> But then, I don't have a lot of experience
> in the ways these tests have been proven to be unreliable in the past,
> as has been alluded to several times on this thread.
Reliability is a matter of degree. The glass is more than half full, but
Neil wants to remind us that it is nearly half empty.
> ...you have to assume that the ASTM testing methods correlate
> well with how long things would *actually* last. That's the point here.
Indeed. The alternative is to assume that there is no correlation or a
negative one. Does that strike anyone as a *more* reasonable assumption?
Gud E. Nuff
says...
>Sure you do - you have to assume that the ASTM testing methods correlate
>well with how long things would *actually* last. That's the point here.
See my longer answer in this thread to why
such "standards" are important. It has nothing
to do with the end use of the product, which
will affect whether or not the product gives
satisfaction in the end.
Jeff Wilson
looking at original Impressionist's in Paris. The colors on many had
obviously changed. For example. Arazarin Crimson was in vogue then.
Unfortunately it is not light fast. Pity since I love the color. I
understand that many of the pigments used were not reliable over time.
I do share many people's concerns over the longevity of modern printing
techniques. In my own experience, prints on photographic with my cheap
HP printer fade and have severe color shift in less than a year. Of
course my inks are inferior but still there is the concern.
--
Jeff Wilson
"And now these three remain; faith, hope and love.
But the greatest of these is love."
...... Seek harmony and balance in the mountains.
Find harmony and balance within.....
Neil Maxwell
(most?) of my points, I'll jump back in. You're welcome to the last
word after this, since it's obvious we have different levels of trust
for marketing data.
If you are interested in a slightly technical but accessible
description of the variability of pigment formulations, there's a good
writeup here. It's primarily focused on watercolor, but pigments is
pigments:
http://www.handprint.com/HP/WCL/pigmt1d.html
A quote from http://www.handprint.com/HP/WCL/pigmt6.html:
"I realize that it's convenient and reassuring to take the word of
"experts" on the matter of paint lightfastness, but once you see your
own paint tests produce results that simply do not jibe with published
ratings, you will never again bother to consult any other source
(including me). You will do your own tests. "
On 19 Aug 2003 16:32:37 -0600, gu...@dontemailme.com (Gud E. Nuff)
wrote:
>In article <1nm4kv46kascl2qof...@4ax.com>,
>neil.m...@nospam.intel.com says...
>
>>The ASTM
>>ratings are not standards that must be met
>
>That's true. In the land of the Free and the
>home of the Brave, there is no mandate that
>paints conform to any standard. That's purely
>a marketing decision of the manufacturer.
Wrong point. The ASTM does not set standards that must be met by
products; it tests materials and assigns them to categories. It's a
fine difference, but an important one, IMO. A given pigment can't
have it's category changed by a manufacturer; they must use a
different material if they want it to fall into a different category
of lightfastness. Alizarin can never be made lightfast, regardless of
how strong the desire is for it's color or handling.
Most pigments and dyes today are synthetic, of course, but this does
not make them lightfast, and there are different formulations and
variations being developed all the time. Lightfastness is important,
but so is toxicity, dispersability, cost, what salts they are laked
to, transparency, whatever. Any changes to address one issue may
affect another, and there are an infinite number of combinations
available.
How do you know whether these changes will affect the pigment
properties after 25 years of being on display in variable
environments, in contact with unpredictable
materials/primers/papers/whatever? Well, you've got to take the word
of the manufacturer. Why would they hide anything from you? No big
deal if they're wrong, eh?
>>The original point is that accelerated testing has failed to
>>accurately predict product lifetimes in the past, and it will continue
>>to fail in the future.
>
>As with any "standard" - be it the SIS or ASTM -
>the standard does just what the name implies. It
>sets a standard by which manufacturers can guarantee
>their customers that the product meets at least SOME
>laboratory established guidelines. No one can predict
>all the varied uses any given product will be put to.
>Any product can be misused and give unsatisfactory
>results, including artist paints.
Again, wrong point. Many materials, rated to a specific guideline,
can give unsatisfactory results even when not misused. There are too
many variables. Will the lab data give some confidence? Yes, you
bet, but there is no subsitute for actual experience. The pigments
with the highest level of confidence in their colorfastness are those
that have been used for many years. Anyone trusting new synthetics
based on accelerated testing only is setting themselves up for
trouble. You're welcome to trust the vendor data on new materials, of
course.
>>The relative resistance to change, however, can be established so
>>pigments can be assigned to categories of relative lightfastness."
>
>It's that word "relative" that makes ALL such
>standards important. Exhaustive testing has
>established a base line by which all others
>are judged, and therein lies the value of having
>a base line (standard). To pooh pooh it as
>"irrelevant" or "moot" is to ignore scientific
>laboratory testing methods that are crucial to
>the manufacture of everything - not just paint!
Heh! In the part you clipped (that didn't support your point),
they're saying that their results may not correspond to real life.
They are in the business of this, and are fully aware of the drawbacks
of their methodologies.
You may want to read my previous post more carefully. Note that I did
not use the word "irrelevant", as I believe the test results are
relevant, as long as the limitations are understood. The "moot"
reference was not to the applicability of the data, but to the
necessity of it, given the long-term value of 99% of artistic works
being created. A bit tongue-in-cheek, to be sure, but not less valid
for it.
Neil Maxwell
<seagull...@nospamthanksbecauseisayso.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>"Neil Maxwell" <neil.m...@nospam.intel.com> wrote in message
>news:1nm4kv46kascl2qof...@4ax.com...
>>
>> accurately predict product lifetimes in the past, and it will continue
>> to fail in the future. This is a fact. It can't be controverted.
>
>Consistently failed, or occasionally failed? That is the question.
>
can decide how much risk of occasional failure of your materials is
acceptable to you. If it's not important, well, that's one less thing
to worry about in the world.
My day job is working with precise and expensive equipment making
precise and expensive artifacts. We measure and document processes
very carefully.
You can have process A, process B, and process C all very nicely
modeled for reliability and reproducibility, with years worth of
real-world data. You can combine process A+B and B+C, and still get
predictable, reproducible results. When you combine A+B+C, everything
looks fine, but there's some subtle, unexpected interaction, and 8
weeks later, you find out that you've been producing garbage.
Everything you've made in those 8 weeks is junk. In my line, this is
a major catastrophe. This is avoided by actual testing in real-world
scenarios (and by accelerated testing too, but nobody is foolish
enough to rely on it alone). Even then, there are occasional misses,
but not too many.
This happens in the real world too. Maybe not very often (tell that
to the Thalidomide babies), but it's important to be aware of the
possibilities of such issues.
I've had too many prints fade, too many CDs turn unreadable, too many
projects discolor, fall apart, or otherwise deteriorate to trust what
the manufacturers claim. Many things are not important enough to
worry about it, but when it is important, I want the facts, not the
marketing claims.
YMMV.
"What do you call someone in possession of all the facts? Paranoid."
- William S. Burroughs.
Gud E. Nuff
neil.m...@nospam.intel.com says...
>
>Well, I was going to let this drop, but since you missed several
>(most?) of my points, I'll jump back in. You're welcome to the last
>word after this, since it's obvious we have different levels of trust
>for marketing data.
Well, if this is the "last word" then let
it be "words" and "I give up!"
Erik A. Mattila
> I've had too many prints fade, too many CDs turn unreadable, too many
> projects discolor, fall apart, or otherwise deteriorate to trust what
> the manufacturers claim. Many things are not important enough to
> worry about it, but when it is important, I want the facts, not the
> marketing claims.
>
> YMMV.
>
> "What do you call someone in possession of all the facts? Paranoid."
> - William S. Burroughs.
>
>
>
> Neil Maxwell - I don't speak for my employer
"The only constant is change." Lao Tzu
Erik - being self employed, I do speak for my employer.
Neil Maxwell
<emat...@oco.net> wrote:
>Neil Maxwell wrote:
>
>> "What do you call someone in possession of all the facts? Paranoid."
>> - William S. Burroughs.
>
>"The only constant is change." Lao Tzu
>
>Erik - being self employed, I do speak for my employer.
>
"Between ego and entropy, there is no need for the Devil." - Gaskin
Seagull Manager
We're talking about art giclee prints. In this context, there's no need to
choose weird combinations of materials: just use the best ink and a
recommended paper to go with it. With art prints, unless you're Thomas
Kinkade, you're not going to print out several thousand copies in the space
of a few weeks, because you're probably selling a no more than a handful
each week. If nothing goes wrong in the first couple of months of operation,
then probably nothing major will, and if something does, planes don't fall
out of the sky, and the whole world doesn't fall apart.
We've already made the comparisons, and you already accept that a lot of
other stuff that is sold as art and bought by collectors is subject to
fading and other forms of impermanence. Yes, "archival" work exists, but it
is by no means everything that is on the market. I see no reason why, in
these days of video art and fibreglass sculpture, if you know that many
people merrily buy drawings, paintings, prints and sculptures without
worrying about whether they were made to last for hundreds of years, you
feel an obligation to fill their heads with Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt
about giclee prints in particular.
> "What do you call someone in possession of all the facts? Paranoid."
> - William S. Burroughs.
My answer would be "powerful".
There's a difference between skepticism in healthy doses and paranoia.
Paranoia is a symptom of mental illness.
Erik A. Mattila
"A man loves the smell of his own farts" - Icelandic aphorism
Erik - I do not speak for Reykjavik
Neil Maxwell
<seagull...@nospamthanksbecauseisayso.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> you
>feel an obligation to fill their heads with Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt
>about giclee prints in particular.
You would rather be unaware of the issues? To each their own.
>> "What do you call someone in possession of all the facts? Paranoid."
>> - William S. Burroughs.
>
>My answer would be "powerful".
And what would you call someone who doesn't want to know the facts?
Neil Maxwell
<emat...@oco.net> wrote:
"abyssus abyssum invocat." - Usenet's motto.
(not really, but it should be)
Erik A. Mattila
> On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 15:09:01 -0700, "Erik A. Mattila"
> <emat...@oco.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Neil Maxwell wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 02:24:11 -0700, "Erik A. Mattila"
>>><emat...@oco.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Neil Maxwell wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"What do you call someone in possession of all the facts? Paranoid."
>>>>>- William S. Burroughs.
>>>>
>>>>"The only constant is change." Lao Tzu
>>>>
>>>>Erik - being self employed, I do speak for my employer.
>>>>
>>>
>>>"Between ego and entropy, there is no need for the Devil." - Gaskin
>>>
>>>
>>>Neil Maxwell - I don't speak for my employer
>>
>>"A man loves the smell of his own farts" - Icelandic aphorism
>>
>>Erik - I do not speak for Reykjavik
>>
>
> "abyssus abyssum invocat." - Usenet's motto.
>
> (not really, but it should be)
I concede, I concede. I was wondering how much milage we could get out
of this - but I think we've just reached the limit.
Back to the print issue, there's another sub-issue to explore. What
could you call it?...something like "doability". Desktop printers have
opened up some pretty exciting possibilities for artist, considering the
overall economy. A while back I was going to farm out an Iris job to a
company in LA, but there was no original - it was a digital file. They
wouldn't do it, because they needed an original to calculate their color
correction against. What a catch 22 - I needed to get a print-out so
they could check the colors, but they wouldn't do the print-out. At any
rate, I was looking at a cash out lay of a few hundred bucks to get the
print, and 5 or 6 bucks @ for reorders, plus the shipping costs etc.
So I put the same kind of bucks in a desktop system, and I have
something I can work with. The archival issues are important, of
course, but even with biased market-based promotion, I think we have a
technology that is doable. Works on paper are called "ephemera" for
good reason - it's all subject to deterioration. So the question is, in
my mind, is the current desktop technology workable for a fine art
print? I think it is, even if a 100 year claim turns out to be 50 years
in actuality.
My concern is, however, a way to get digital art off the screen. It's
as simple as that. I've been eager about this ever since I started
using the Adobe Illustrator beta...it was very nice that laser printers
came out about that time. As charming as the Superpaint jaggies were, it
didn't cut it for commercial work. But since Photoshop 1, I've lusted
for a good output device that was affordable witout having to go to press.
It's funny...I've worked hands-on with 16th century prints. The recent
(relatively) developments of neutral papers on the market, easily
obtainable, had brought us back to the 16th century standard. I worked
(research) with a page out of a relatively unimportant book, a 3rd
edition of a German book published in Crackow - "Der Tusche Cicero" (The
German Cicero) - and the paper condition was remarkable. Unfortunately
the curator wouldn't let me use the hard lights necessary to find a
watermark, which would have allowed me to discover the paper
manufacturer, but it was pretty typical of the papers used at the time
throughout Europe. I could only make the "third edition" argument based
on the relative wear of the woodcut plate - a good argument but
inconclusive w/o paper id. Anyway, my point is that our recent
technology breakthroughs travel in time in both directions. Another
point is that at least on the paper side, "longiviticity" has a lot of
models to draw from. I do wonder, though, what the effect of the
coatings for inkjet papers will be, over time.
Erik
Seagull Manager
> On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 18:11:06 +0100, "Seagull Manager"
> <seagull...@nospamthanksbecauseisayso.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > you
> >feel an obligation to fill their heads with Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt
> >about giclee prints in particular.
>
> You would rather be unaware of the issues? To each their own.
The problem is not one of awareness, but one of a maintaining a sense of
proportion.
Seagull Manager
"Erik A. Mattila" <emat...@oco.net> wrote in message
news:3F4587DD...@oco.net...
>
> ..."longiviticity" ...
I know what longevity is; what's "longiviticity"?
Erik A. Mattila
More or less like your questionicity, S&M. Just a little joke among the
semiotics crowd.
Erik
>
>
Gud E. Nuff
>It's funny...I've worked hands-on with 16th century prints.
As I'm sure you're aware, the LA Times is notorious
for the length of its "special feature" articles.
My friend there recently sent me one such lengthy
discourse on the subject of UT Austin's "library"
known to those of us natives as the Harry Ransom
Research Center. The article focused on the various
"manuscripts" in the archives of the Ransom while
never mentioning the vast antique PRINT collection there,
and barely touched on the photography collection,
which is also second to none. And then the article
made the glaring error of mentioning that the Ransom
housed "one" of the only five Gutenberg Bibles, while
in point of fact the Ransom houses TWO of them.
http://www.hrc.utexas.edu/home.html
But my point in mentioning all the above is that
"paper" at some point was not "paper" as we know
it today, but rather "parchment." I'm not that
knowledgable on the subject, for sure, and I know
that "papyrus" is closer to "paper" than is
parchment, but I'm wondering if there is a definitive
date when "paper as we know it today" was invented?
I guess I'll spend the time to do some web research
unless one of you geniuses can enlighten me.
Gud E. Nuff
>while
>in point of fact the Ransom houses TWO of them.
>
>http://www.hrc.utexas.edu/home.html
WHOOPS...it's not two copies but rather
two VOLUMES that I'm not recalling correctly.
The two volumes are displayed in the same
air-conditioned glass case, so I was remembering
one is closed to show the tooled leather cover
while the other is open to show the interior
pages, and thinking it was two separate editions.
>I guess I'll spend the time to do some web research
>unless one of you geniuses can enlighten me.
Thanks to the marvel of the WWW, I now am
up to speed on papyrus, parchment (and vellum)
as well as when paper was introduced to the
west from the east.
Erik A. Mattila
Paper is a Chinese invention. It spread to Islam via India in the 8th
century and entered Europe via Moorish Spain (and I would guess through
the Balkans also). I think the distinguishing characteristic of paper
(from papyrus etc.) is the use of cellulous pulp as opposed to matted
plant fibers. As I recall, Gutenberg got his paper from Italy.
Am I a genius? Well, I just looked-up the above on the internet myself.
Let's see what you come up with. You too can be a genius with a few
simple mouse-clicks. But I did take a museum curtorial seminar once,
and we spent a lot of time on paper - so it's not all netsearch.
Erik
>
>
>
>
Neil Maxwell
<seagull...@nospamthanksbecauseisayso.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>"Neil Maxwell" <neil.m...@nospam.intel.com> wrote in message
>news:nclakvom3vmgphbt7...@4ax.com...
>> You would rather be unaware of the issues? To each their own.
>
>The problem is not one of awareness, but one of a maintaining a sense of
>proportion.
Curiously, I was just thinking the same thing, but from the other side
of the fence, no doubt.
Ultimately, if you don't do your own research, either primary or
secondary, you are at the mercy of the marketeers. A simple question
to the giclee seller like "Dye or pigment?" can help avoid
disappointment in 5 years. You've got to know about it before you can
ask.
Bought any opals lately? I have, and prices are extremely good, for a
reason. If you don't know, the vendor sure won't tell you.
Gud E. Nuff
> Let's see what you come up with.
If you have further interest, then I'm
lucky that IE's "History" option saved the web sites
I found useful earlier today:
http://www.paperonline.org/history/105/105_frame.html
http://www.parchmentpaper.net/history1.htm
http://www.hrc.utexas.edu/exhibitions/permanent/gutenberg/html/8.html
Dilettante
From what I recall from Greek Classics 101, paper was obtained from
Egypt using their method until for a time in the last centuries BC, it
was not available. Then people started using stretched sheep or goat
skin from the Pergamon region of Anatolia (i.e., Asia Minor, now
Turkey). The word, parchment, may be a corruption of the name,
Pergamon.
Dilettante.
Erik A. Mattila
Yes, but it boils down to how you define "paper" (a word which also
comes from "papyrus"). Making papyrus is quite different than making
"Chinese" paper, as is the end product.
Erik