Fine Art Printing?
Mike Murach
All of these new digital painting programs are wonderful. But, how can
your paintings / drawings, etc. be output in a Fine Art quality way?
Something that has the quality to be proudly displayed!
Mike.
Charles Eicher
well, look at it from the other end of the equation. What type of fine-art
medium do you want to produce? Photography? There are several ways to
produce photographic prints or transparencies from digital files. If your
files are sufficiently high-resolution, it is almost impossible to tell
they were produced digitally. Drawing and Painting? Some artists use
plotters or large-format inkjet prints as their underpainting (of course,
there are no archival inkjet prints yet). Printmaking? You can make
stencils on imagesetters, and print them with conventional media like
serigraphy. Sculpture? Well.. that's not quite ready yet, although there
have been some crude (and expensive) experiments.
So, what do I do myself? I occasionally do preliminary paintings on the
computer, just studies or sketches. Then I totally forget about them and
take what I learned directly to the canvas, painting in oil, or
watercolors. I also have been known to dabble in digital
printmaking-related techniques, but its far more trouble than its worth
(especially since the local galleries have expressed their interest in
selling these prints for less than it costs me to produce them).
| Charles Eicher |
| -=- |
| cei...@inav.net |
Larry Seiler
I recently won Wisconsin's 1998 Inland Trout Stamp competition, and I do
numerous landscape paintings. I was looking into reasonably priced
options to print and market my trout stamp and possible future landscape
paintings.
I had considered digital...but was emphatically told by a prominent
gallery that while acid free paper is not an issue, enough tests have
not yet been done to validate light fastness or time tests on the inks
and as such no reputable gallery would consider carrying such prints..
that I would do damage to myself to use the process and make such prints
available to galleries.
This is no argumentation against the process, as I am yet looking for an
affordable solution to getting into the print market...but I'm skeptical
yet about the digital ink jet process after hearing some of the concerns
of galleries.
Larry
Charles Eicher
In article <34123F...@execpc.com>, lse...@execpc.com wrote:
> I had considered digital...but was emphatically told by a prominent
> gallery that while acid free paper is not an issue, enough tests have
> not yet been done to validate light fastness or time tests on the inks
> and as such no reputable gallery would consider carrying such prints..
> that I would do damage to myself to use the process and make such prints
> available to galleries.
Yes, that is correct, the paper can be archival, but that means nothing if
the inks are unstable. And there aren't any archival inkjet inks yet.
> This is no argumentation against the process, as I am yet looking for an
> affordable solution to getting into the print market...but I'm skeptical
> yet about the digital ink jet process after hearing some of the concerns
> of galleries.
As I alluded to in my message, it is usually best to use conventional media
with known archival qualities, but adapt the digital output to that medium.
You can easily produce high resolution color transparencies from digital
files, and have the slide printed in conventional photographic media. In
fact, if your original file is high enough resolution, and you output to a
really good film recorder, your pixels will be as small as the film grain.
I've seen many transparencies that were scanned professionally, digitally
retouched and color corrected, and output back onto transparencies, and you
can't tell they were ever touched by a computer.
| Charles Eicher |
| -=- |
| cei...@inav.net |
Arjo Rozendaal
>> I had considered digital...but was emphatically told by a prominent
>> gallery that while acid free paper is not an issue, enough tests have
>> not yet been done to validate light fastness or time tests on the inks
>Yes, that is correct, the paper can be archival, but that means nothing if
>the inks are unstable. And there aren't any archival inkjet inks yet.
>> This is no argumentation against the process, as I am yet looking for an
>> affordable solution to getting into the print market...but I'm skeptical
>> yet about the digital ink jet process after hearing some of the concerns
>> of galleries.
>As I alluded to in my message, it is usually best to use conventional media
>with known archival qualities, but adapt the digital output to that medium.
>You can easily produce high resolution color transparencies from digital
>files, and have the slide printed in conventional photographic media.
Inkjet is not the only solution. I've made some prints on a wax-printer.
The wax is put on the paper using heath. This way of printing gives long
lasting prints. I've hanging one on my wall for 4 years now and I can't
see any difference with the one I keep in a dark place. But you can't make
big prints (AFAIK only A3 maximum). I've got nothing against photographic
prints, I did that too, but for some prints I wanted the dots you get with
a printer.
BTW every work on paper is a delicate work. As you can see in musea they
tend to keep them in quite dark rooms.
Arjo.
--
email: jo...@xs4all.nl
homepage: http://www.xs4all.nl/~joly
Gilbert Skink
Arjo Rozendaal <jo...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
what are you really trying to do?... make something beautiful or make
yourselves immortal? print your work, distribute it, and forget it so
that you can move on to other work, .....jeesch...perhaps you should
all be kept in "quite dark rooms."
Arjo Rozendaal
>>BTW every work on paper is a delicate work. As you can see in musea they
>>tend to keep them in quite dark rooms.
>what are you really trying to do?... make something beautiful or make
>yourselves immortal? print your work, distribute it, and forget it so
>that you can move on to other work, .....jeesch...perhaps you should
>all be kept in "quite dark rooms."
Sure, I guess you accept it when you buy something like your computer and
it breaks down after two months. I guess you go back to the shop saying:
I want to buy a new one the other one is finished.
Charles Eicher
> what are you really trying to do?... make something beautiful or make
> yourselves immortal? print your work, distribute it, and forget it so
> that you can move on to other work, .....jeesch...perhaps you should
> all be kept in "quite dark rooms."
And what is it that YOU are trying to do? Ink Jet prints are fine for
little notices you put on a bulletin board, or for a christmas card, but
for fine art, there is a fairly wide consensus that you should be using
archival materials, if you expect your works to sell in the price range as
other archival works in conventional media. Anyone who pays hundreds or
thousands of dollars for a photographic work surely expects it is processed
under archival conditions and isn't going to fade away in a few years. You
can't say the same thing about inkjet prints.
A few years ago, I went to a show in Los Angeles that commemorated the
150th anniversary of the invention of photography. I saw samples of
virtually every photographic process ever used. I even saw Talbotypes, the
very first photographic process ever used, which are definitely not
archival, but due to luck, they had survived 150 years. These prints were
shown in a darkened room, behind a curtain that you were only allowed to
lift for 3 seconds at a time. There were lines of people waiting for their
3 second peek at this photographic rarity. They were quite amazing. The
spectrum of works was quite astonishing, and virtually all of them were in
excellent condition. BUT.. when they commission the 200th anniversary of
photography, there will be one popular medium that will be conspicuously
absent: inkjet prints. There will be plenty of modern media like
Cibachromes, C prints, silver prints, etc, but all the inkjets will have
faded away.
If you don't mind that your work won't even outlast your own lifetime, and
will end up in the trash, go ahead and make inkjet prints. But don't expect
people to take your work very seriously. And don't expect to sell it for
serious prices.
| Charles Eicher |
| -=- |
| cei...@inav.net |
Gilbert Skink
Arjo Rozendaal <jo...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>>>BTW every work on paper is a delicate work. As you can see in musea they
>>>tend to keep them in quite dark rooms.
>
>>what are you really trying to do?... make something beautiful or make
>>yourselves immortal? print your work, distribute it, and forget it so
>>that you can move on to other work, .....jeesch...perhaps you should
>>all be kept in "quite dark rooms."
>
>Sure, I guess you accept it when you buy something like your computer and
>it breaks down after two months. I guess you go back to the shop saying:
>I want to buy a new one the other one is finished.
>
>
>Arjo.
>
>--
>email: jo...@xs4all.nl
>homepage: http://www.xs4all.nl/~joly
Sure, fair enough,...but 2 months is not the same as 2 hundred years,
or 2 thousand. For whom are you making your art, yourself or the
collector who's money you seek? Further, art is not an appliance, in
theory, at least. Fine art is not mundane, but that's just one man's
opinion.
>
Larry Seiler
Gilbert Skink wrote:
>
> Arjo Rozendaal <jo...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>
> >>> I had considered digital...but was emphatically told by a prominent
> >>> gallery that while acid free paper is not an issue, enough tests have
> >>> not yet been done to validate light fastness or time tests on the inks
> >
> >>Yes, that is correct, the paper can be archival, but that means nothing if
> >>the inks are unstable. And there aren't any archival inkjet inks yet.
> >
> >>> This is no argumentation against the process, as I am yet looking for an
> >>> affordable solution to getting into the print market...but I'm skeptical
> >>> yet about the digital ink jet process after hearing some of the concerns
> >>> of galleries.
> >
> >>As I alluded to in my message, it is usually best to use conventional media
> >>with known archival qualities, but adapt the digital output to that medium.
> >>You can easily produce high resolution color transparencies from digital
> >>files, and have the slide printed in conventional photographic media.
> >
> >Inkjet is not the only solution. I've made some prints on a wax-printer.
> >The wax is put on the paper using heath. This way of printing gives long
> >lasting prints. I've hanging one on my wall for 4 years now and I can't
> >see any difference with the one I keep in a dark place. But you can't make
> >big prints (AFAIK only A3 maximum). I've got nothing against photographic
> >prints, I did that too, but for some prints I wanted the dots you get with
> >a printer.
> >tend to keep them in quite dark rooms.
> >
> yourselves immortal? print your work, distribute it, and forget it so
> that you can move on to other work, .....jeesch...perhaps you should
> all be kept in "quite dark rooms."
>
> >
I was one of the ones making the original post. Make myself immortal?
No..believe me that has little to do with it. But..if gallery after
gallery is going to reject marketing my work for the reason of inks
non-tested..then this mortal flesh living in the here and now has some
legitmate concern, thank you...if you wish to bear the burden of
marketing my work for me and can assure me of a market just waiting for
images that galleries won't touch....hhmmm, maybe I might be interested
in your cynicism and what you might have to offer.
Larry
Larry
Larry Seiler
Gilbert Skink wrote:
>
> Arjo Rozendaal <jo...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>
> >>>BTW every work on paper is a delicate work. As you can see in musea they
> >>>tend to keep them in quite dark rooms.
> >
> >>yourselves immortal? print your work, distribute it, and forget it so
> >>that you can move on to other work, .....jeesch...perhaps you should
> >>all be kept in "quite dark rooms."
> >
> >it breaks down after two months. I guess you go back to the shop saying:
> >I want to buy a new one the other one is finished.
> >
> >
> or 2 thousand. For whom are you making your art, yourself or the
> collector who's money you seek? Further, art is not an appliance, in
> theory, at least. Fine art is not mundane, but that's just one man's
> opinion.
>
> >
Oh, if I was financially independent...I would be making art only for
myself. I know..I know..take me outside the City of Art for Art's Sake,
and stone me!...but, I prefer doing art to punching a clock or working
for someone else.
Larry
Larry Seiler
> > yourselves immortal? print your work, distribute it, and forget it so
> > that you can move on to other work, .....jeesch...perhaps you should
> > all be kept in "quite dark rooms."
>
thank you for your practical assessment! I'll keep looking..but in a
direction away from the ink jets... :)
Larry
LARSPAINTR
I am not sure of the original oriiginal post but seems like you simply DO
it- whatever it is- art wise.
Maybe Rauscherberg could paint/work with anything he wanted, likewise
Pollock with his house paints....
There are people in my city that do pieces using roofers asphaltum.... and
old boards etc.
No non acid there.
Or acid at night????
A comment from Audrey Flack (her book Art and Soul)..
It almost doesnt matter what you paint. It is what takes place during the
act of painting that matters.
It doesnt matter what style or technique you use. IT IS THE ARTISTIC
RESULT AND PERSONAL DEVELOPMENT THAT COUNT. (caps mine)
The act of painting (or whatever-me) is a spiritual covenant between
the maker and the higher powers. The intent of the artist flows through
the work of art, no matter what the technique or style.
end of quote
The issue you raise is of commercialism vs spiritualism of 'real' art.
There is art for you and art for others and art for commerce.
They may be independent or may be interdependent.
Or was that gallery saying 'you arent ready'?
Or you are not ready in their eyes?
Rotsa Ruck
Lars
itsalar...@aol.com Delete 'itsa' if sending E mail.