Printing fine art
Dave
artists want the prints to look as much like the original as possible
(even down to the paper). The local association had been using a process
that costs $250.00 per print and this is not practical for them. My
first instinct was to go for a color separation and send them of to a
conventional high quality printing shop. However these are limited
editions and the setup is where the cost is in 4 color printing.
So, I was wondering if anyone had experience with this problem...ie what
kind of paper or process would yield a print worthy of a limited edition
print for sale. I have no experience with the fine art or fiber based
materials or processes. I don't have any problem getting a good film
image since I have done art work before (on 4X5 or 120 film) for
documentation as well as advertising, but I am unsure as to the
materials that might be good candidates for printing. I would most
likely shoot a transparency as well as a negative so I have the
transparency to use to match color and contrast.
Thanks,
Dave
------------------------------------------
Please reply to the group or directly at:
dpayne at pacifier dot com
Msherck
>artists want the prints to look as much like the original as possible
>My
>first instinct was to go for a color separation and send them of to a
>conventional high quality printing shop. However these are limited
>editions and the setup is where the cost is in 4 color printing... (snip,
again)...
I think that your first thought was probably your best thought: I don't know
of any color photo print materials which aren't RC. It seems to me that your
choices are limited to offset printing, or sending the transparency for
scanning and Iris printing (or one of the other digital printing processes.)
Also fairly expensive, although I don't know how it compares to offset.
Mike
lemonade
> I have been asked to photograph and the print watercolor paintings. The
> artists want the prints to look as much like the original as possible
> (even down to the paper). The local association had been using a process
> that costs $250.00 per print and this is not practical for them. My
> first instinct was to go for a color separation and send them of to a
> conventional high quality printing shop. However these are limited
> editions and the setup is where the cost is in 4 color printing.
>
> So, I was wondering if anyone had experience with this problem...ie what
> kind of paper or process would yield a print worthy of a limited edition
> print for sale. I have no experience with the fine art or fiber based
I would recommend final output to an Iris inkjet printer. These machines
cost in the several tens of thousands of dollars range, and produce
beautiful output which is considered fine art. I believe the inks are
stable and fade resistant enough to qualify as archival on proper paper,
but you should double check from the manufacturer (conventional inkjet
printers do not give stable output, for the most part). You would scan your
transparencies and then send the file to a service bureau that has such
printers. The cost would be, I believe, in the $50-100 range for a 20x30
print, but it might vary greatly from service bureau to service bureau. If
there are none in your area, there are ones in New York or other major
areas that can do the transactions by modem and express you the output.
--
Due to the intolerable volume of spam these days, I no longer supply a
valid email address.
John G. Walter
or even Ilfochrome prints from transparency copies would produce acceptable
results considering your intended use. Aside from the color and contrast
reproduction limitations of the photographic media, especially the
variations in its response to certain pigments used in artwork, there is a
substantial disadvantage to the actual feel and look of photographic paper.
There are no fibre-based color print papers, except for dye transfer
prints which are VERY expensive and pretty much obsolete. They are
beautiful, but only a handful of people still do them.
As others have suggested, pursue the IRIS route. This process which was
originally designed as a proofing method for the printing industry, was
modified by Graham Nash (yes, the guy from the 60's music group) to produce
absolutely beautiful prints. It is an inkjet process. Many others have
followed Nash's innovations, and are regularly producing these prints for
artists which have gained wide acceptance in the art world. I have one
hanging on my living room wall amidst many original watercolors. It is
stunning. I generally prefer to buy only original art, but during a visit
to a favorite Maine artist's gallery, the image that I liked was no longer
available. The IRIS print was so spectacular that I purchased it.
I would suggest that you forget copying the artwork with photographic film,
unless they are VERY large. Get the work scanned directly either with a
drum scanner (if they are flexible and small enough) or copied directly
with a high-resolution digital scanning camera. You will need a VERY large
file to produce a quality product.
Where are you located, I may be able to point you in the right direction.
Dave <nos...@pacifier.com> wrote in article
<364125E6...@pacifier.com>...
> I have been asked to photograph and the print watercolor paintings. The
> artists want the prints to look as much like the original as possible
> (even down to the paper). The local association had been using a process
> that costs $250.00 per print and this is not practical for them. My
> first instinct was to go for a color separation and send them of to a
> conventional high quality printing shop. However these are limited
> editions and the setup is where the cost is in 4 color printing.
>
> So, I was wondering if anyone had experience with this problem...ie what
> kind of paper or process would yield a print worthy of a limited edition
> print for sale. I have no experience with the fine art or fiber based
Richard Knoppow
Iris prints are certainly spectacular but, at until very recently,
they have been notoriously short lived. I believe there are now fairly
long lived inks available but anyone interested in permanence needs to
research it and make sure that whatever service makes the prints uses
a long lived ink.
An alternative to dye-transfer might be a three-color carbon print
such as Evercolor ( http://www.treeo.com/out-opts/evercolor.html ) or
Ultrastable ( http://www.ultrastable.com/ ) both are about as
archival as any color process is going to be. Both processes are
expensive. They still may not be satisfactory due to surfaces, etc.
Iris prints can be made on a wide variety of papers as pointed out by
previous posters.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, Ca.
dick...@ix.netcom.com
SUMSUN25
them transparancies and let them process at a pro lab of their choice