can fine art prints be made from digital?
TheKeith
photos taken with digital cameras? If so, what kinds of prints are
acceptable -- what media, etc? Does it still have to be on photo paper (in
which case you'd have to take your digital files to a lab, right?) or are
inkjet prints accepted? Remember I'm talking about art photography for print
selling. The reason I ask is because an ink print-out isn't actually a true
photograph, even though they look almost identical sometimes. What do you
think? thanks.
--
********************************************************
"You know who wears sunglasses inside?
...blind people and assholes" - Larry David, from the Curb Your Enthusiasm
pilot
...but I've been saying it for years
Bob Hatch
news:QNidnWiUiMb...@giganews.com...
> I was wondering whether any fine art photographers are selling prints of
> photos taken with digital cameras? If so, what kinds of prints are
> acceptable -- what media, etc? Does it still have to be on photo paper (in
> which case you'd have to take your digital files to a lab, right?) or are
> inkjet prints accepted? Remember I'm talking about art photography for
> selling. The reason I ask is because an ink print-out isn't actually a
true
> photograph, even though they look almost identical sometimes. What do you
> think? thanks.
>
>
>
the answer is. BTW, giclee is a French word that means "spurt" or "squirt"
but in context here would mean a spray of ink. Or, inkjet printing.
--
http://www.bobhatch.com
Our web site about RV Stuff
A work in progress
TheKeith
> Do a search of the web using the words "giclee fine art prints" and see
what
> the answer is. BTW, giclee is a French word that means "spurt" or "squirt"
> but in context here would mean a spray of ink. Or, inkjet printing.
> --
> http://www.bobhatch.com
> Our web site about RV Stuff
> A work in progress
>
I might have been a bit misleading when I said "art photography for print
selling." I didn't mean that I take photos of paintings; I take regular
photos but was wondering if there really is any market among art buyers for
photos taken with digital cameras and printed on ink printers, versus the
traditional process? Sorry for my strange wording.
Bob Hatch
Large format inkjet printers have been in use for some time printing "Fine
Art" photos and other things like computer generated paintings and art work.
Using the newer technology the prints are "supposed" to have up to 100 year
print life. Rather than call these things "inkjet prints" they call them
Giclee prints and charge a premium for them.
The material that these printers, like the Epson 7600 or 9600 can print on
is extremely varied to include several types of "photo" paper, Crane Fine
Art paper, water color paper, canvas, etc.
Do a search of the web using the words I gave you, you will hit over 29,000
sites and by looking at the top few get an answer.
As to can *you* sell your work, who knows? How good is it and how good are
you at marketing?
Gene Palmiter
it using modern processes. People buy art for lots of reasons. The only
reason to not buy a (what can we call them?...MP for modern processes?) MP
print is that you specificaly wanted a wet processed print.
If you want something to hang on the wall...MP will serve...and chances are
it will be larger too.
I have sold some for $350...and I am just known localy.
"TheKeith" <n...@spam.com> wrote in message
news:QNidnWiUiMb...@giganews.com...
Tom Thackrey
Numerous fine art photographers use digital printing. I just saw Charles
Cramer's exhibition at the Highlands Inn in Carmel. All of his prints are
printed digitally. Most on the Epson 7600.
--
Tom Thackrey
www.creative-light.com
----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
Bill Karoly
photographic dye for printing on Epson glossy photo paper or UltraChrome, a
pigmented 7 color ink system that can be printed on a wide variety of art
papers. The pigmented inks are rated over 100 years based on ideal viewing
conditions and the photographic dyes are rated at 26 years under the same
conditions. Either version sells for 2995 USD or less. And that just gets
you started.
Bill
"TheKeith" <n...@spam.com> wrote in message
news:QNidnWiUiMb...@giganews.com...
TheKeith
"Gene Palmiter" <palm...@bellatlanic.net> wrote in message
news:sMPha.21738$HR6....@nwrdny01.gnilink.net...
> First...get rid of your hang-ups. It can still be a photograph if you
> it using modern processes. People buy art for lots of reasons. The only
> reason to not buy a (what can we call them?...MP for modern processes?) MP
> print is that you specificaly wanted a wet processed print.
>
> If you want something to hang on the wall...MP will serve...and chances
are
> it will be larger too.
>
> I have sold some for $350...and I am just known localy.
You're right -- I am kind of hung-up on a lot of preconceptions. the reason
I even asked is because I'm far more knowledgeable about computers and would
like to stop doing photography the old way -- it's just too messy,
expensive, time-consuming and I really don't like dealing with all those
chemicals. The only thing that has kept me from using computers exclusively
is that idea that photography is only photography if done the traditional
way. I guess it's time to get over that.
TheKeith
> Numerous fine art photographers use digital printing. I just saw Charles
> Cramer's exhibition at the Highlands Inn in Carmel. All of his prints are
> printed digitally. Most on the Epson 7600.
This is interesting. I didn't know digital prints have gained such
acceptance among art professionals. Looks like a pretty nice printer!
TheKeith
"Bill Karoly" <billkarol...@cox.netto> wrote in message
news:8YUha.40187$XA4....@news2.central.cox.net...
> Epson 7600 is a wide format printer that comes in two versions. Six color
> photographic dye for printing on Epson glossy photo paper or UltraChrome,
a
> pigmented 7 color ink system that can be printed on a wide variety of art
> papers. The pigmented inks are rated over 100 years based on ideal viewing
> conditions and the photographic dyes are rated at 26 years under the same
> conditions. Either version sells for 2995 USD or less. And that just gets
> you started.
>
> Bill
This printer looks pretty good -- I don't know if I'm ready to invest that
kind of dough yet, but I'll look into it.
Bob Hatch
popping. You don't have to buy one. There are lots of places that will print
your stuff for a fee, usually in the range of $5.00 to $8 or $9.00 per sq
foot depending on media used.
Charlie Ih
with that from 7600. Thanks.
In article <b6a5mu$35s7e$1...@ID-85448.news.dfncis.de>,
--
Charles S. Ih
302-831-8173, FAX 302-831-4316
e-mail, i...@mail.eecis.udel.edu
Bob Hatch
news:b6a8nb$12j$1...@dewey.udel.edu...
> Does anyone know how the printing quality from Epson 2200 compare
> with that from 7600. Thanks.
>
2200 at Epson it seems like the 2200 is a much smaller version of the 7600.
If this is true the prints would be darn close to the same quality, only
smaller.
John Russell
<to...@creative-light.com> wrote:
>Numerous fine art photographers use digital printing. I just saw Charles
>Cramer's exhibition at the Highlands Inn in Carmel. All of his prints are
>printed digitally. Most on the Epson 7600.
Andreas Gursky is at the SF MOMA right now until June 3:
http://www.sfmoma.org/exhibitions/exhib_detail.asp?id=112
Can't find the details now, but last time I looked up that exhibit I
thought it said the pictures were all digital. (Also there was a
recent thread about him on this group.)
John
--
Photo gallery: http://www.pbase.com/john_russell/
Chris Robisch
difference, as I understand it and how it has been explained by fine art
judges, museum board members, etc., is that digital prints (whether it be
photography, watercolor prints, etc.) are fine art PRINTMAKING, not fine art
photography. It makes perfect sense that a vast number of pros are using
high digital printers to create (and sell) "fine art photographic prints"
for many obvious reasons. I don't blame them.
However, the reality is that any bad photographer can make a bad image look
dynamite in Photoshop and print on a digital printer. That's great, but
that does not mean that said image is fine art photography; it's fine art
printmaking. A good graphic artist or computer wiz is not necessarily a
good photographer. This is why many fine art shows, museums, and galleries
make the distinction between fine art photography and fine art printmaking
(or digital art).
So, I guess it depends on who your audience is. Personally, I use an Epson
6-ink to produce my promotional materials and note cards (for sale). I
think it's spectacular. I'm not against digital prints; just a better
(modern) way of producing a photographic enlargement. I just always wonder
about the PS involvement for some "pros".
Just my thoughts.
Ciao'
--
__________________________________________________________________
Scenic Prints: Fine Art Landscape Photography
Capturing the essence and beauty of the Rocky Mountains and the American
West.
http://www.scenicprints.com
"TheKeith" <n...@spam.com> wrote in message
news:JT-dncxjcsN...@giganews.com...
-----------== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----= Over 100,000 Newsgroups - Unlimited Fast Downloads - 19 Servers =-----
Unclaimed Mysteries
> However, the reality is that any bad photographer can make a bad image look
> dynamite in Photoshop and print on a digital printer.
Now this is just so wrong on so many levels it's breathtaking. In fact I
can't even find the words to describe the essential wrongitude of this
statement so let's go to our special mystery guest:
*"I can say, and I am responsible for what I am saying, that the
traditional film photographetishists have started to commit suicide
under the walls of Baghdad. We will encourage them to commit more
suicides quickly. They are in a state of hysteria. God will grill their
bellies in hell where their souls will wail in lamentation as they fry
in their own fat. They should be hit with shoes. We will tackle them.
The operation contuinues."*
Thanks, mystery guest. I couldn't have said it better myself. Love the
beret.
> That's great, but
> that does not mean that said image is fine art photography; it's fine art
> printmaking.
Soooo... Daguerre didn't make his prints on good ol' Ilford Multigrain
paper either. Does that mean he wasn't doing photography?
Corry
--
It Came From C. L. Smith's Unclaimed Mysteries.
http://www.unclaimedmysteries.net/
"Here I am, the CEO of a multibillion-dollar company, and I'm having to
answer about what some weirdo has said on a message board." - Richard
Scrushy
Tom Elliott
print is the performance, IMHO means you still have to have the information
and then the talent to perform it.
So, an artist
"Chris Robisch" <ch...@scenicprints.com> wrote in message
news:3e98b...@corp-goliath.newsgroups.com...
> I know that I may irritate some, but that certainly is not my intent. The
> difference, as I understand it and how it has been explained by fine art
> judges, museum board members, etc., is that digital prints (whether it be
> photography, watercolor prints, etc.) are fine art PRINTMAKING, not fine
art
> photography. It makes perfect sense that a vast number of pros are using
> high digital printers to create (and sell) "fine art photographic prints"
> for many obvious reasons. I don't blame them.
>
> However, the reality is that any bad photographer can make a bad image
look
and print on a digital printer. That's great, but
> that does not mean that said image is fine art photography; it's fine art
> printmaking. A good graphic artist or computer wiz is not necessarily a
> good photographer. This is why many fine art shows, museums, and
galleries
> make the distinction between fine art photography and fine art printmaking
> (or digital art).
THE FINAL IMAGE IS IMPORTANT REGARDLESS OF MEDA!!!!!!!!!!!
Chris Robisch
not art. I agreed that it was.
I am quite aware that manipulation exists in the darkroom and I am aware of
Mr. Adam's views. I understand that darkroom manipulation is part of the
photographic process.
However, much more manipulation can be done in PS than in a darkroom. It
does not necessarily have to do with compostional elements. That IS
different. That makes it digital printmaking. If I am so wrong, than many
critically-acclaimed fine art shows (and their highly touted fine art
jurists) are incorrect too I guess. They make the distinction and so do I.
I never said you had to agree, of course. I believe the question was about
digital photography and it's relation to fine art. If the questioner was
answered incorrectly, he/she might have been a bit surprised if he/she ever
applied to a fine art show.
Just giving my opinion and thoughts based on experience......without
attitude.
--
__________________________________________________________________
Scenic Prints: Fine Art Landscape Photography
Capturing the essence and beauty of the Rocky Mountains and the American
West.
http://www.scenicprints.com
"Tom Elliott" <tell...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:Rbhma.23738$q2.2...@fe08.atl2.webusenet.com...
Tom Elliott
> You all bring up good points, but....I never said digital printmaking was
> not art. I agreed that it was.
Same here, art is art no matter the media.
> I am quite aware that manipulation exists in the darkroom and I am aware
of
> Mr. Adam's views. I understand that darkroom manipulation is part of the
> photographic process.
>
> However, much more manipulation can be done in PS than in a darkroom. It
> does not necessarily have to do with compostional elements. That IS
> different. That makes it digital printmaking. If I am so wrong, than
many
> critically-acclaimed fine art shows (and their highly touted fine art
> jurists) are incorrect too I guess. They make the distinction and so do
I.
I probably did not understand completly. Oh well, my wife accuses me that
the only exercise I get is jumping to conclusions ;-)
The problem seems to be one of "acceptance" of the digital realm. Look how
long it took for photography in general, and there are still hold outs.
In alot of the art shows I have been going to some artist reveal all as to
the media: ink jet (glacie (spelling)) and so forth. The main question has
always been one of "archivalness". Computer gives the illusion of "anyone
can do it" and to a certain level this is true. Then there is that last
quarter inch. So, the tools raise the bar. I love the new tools. PS gives
more controll over the final product and enables me to do things, like just
simple removing a strand of hair from infront of the eyes, without taking
more time, money and envolvling more staff.
I think the language is still developing along with education of what is
available in the fine art area, of any media.
> I never said you had to agree, of course. I believe the question was
about
> digital photography and it's relation to fine art. If the questioner was
> answered incorrectly, he/she might have been a bit surprised if he/she
ever
> applied to a fine art show.
As to applications of fine art shows. The compatition is fierce, in all
media. In some cases I get the feeling they are mainly money makers for the
promotors of the shows. My wife and I felt I should explore that venue for
me and phase out the commercial end of my photography business. Yes, I feel
I am talented, (my ego) and so does she (she loves me). So we invited an
artist friend of ours who has a web site and does the art show scene across
the country. To make a long story short we found it would take 8-$10,000.00
JUST to get to the point that if accepted I had everything to sell (tent,
merchandise, credit card account and so forth). Very daunting. Our artist
does make a living for she has been doing it for at least ten years and has
a reputation.
Is this e-mail TOO verbose??? Yes.
I really love my vocation/avocation of photography.
Yours truly,
Tom Elliott
http://www.tom-elliott-photography.com
>
> Just giving my opinion and thoughts based on experience......without
> attitude.
AND, I do apologize if I showed an attitude.
Marvin Margoshes
digital prints. I saw a digital print in the modern art museum in Amsterdam
last Spring. Film photography is well accepted as art. Digital is another
medium. The "art" part comes from what a photographer does. Art is
whatever an artist does, according to some folks.
"Tom Elliott" <tell...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:ZKSma.19452$a26....@fe03.atl2.webusenet.com...
Ron
>I was wondering whether any fine art photographers are selling prints of
>photos taken with digital cameras? If so, what kinds of prints are
>acceptable -- what media, etc? Does it still have to be on photo paper (in
>which case you'd have to take your digital files to a lab, right?) or are
>inkjet prints accepted? Remember I'm talking about art photography for print
>selling. The reason I ask is because an ink print-out isn't actually a true
>photograph, even though they look almost identical sometimes. What do you
>think? thanks.
I am real happy with the photos that I am producing right now.
I am shooting with Fuji FinePix S2, Processing with Photoshop and
printing on an Epson stylus photo 2200.
I don't think I will be shooting on 35mm again.
Oh I still have my View camera, theirs something about the process of
producing photos with a 4x5 camera that won't give up.
Ron
Ron
or in Pixels.
Sure Film can produce a sharper image but that may not be what's
called for by the artist.
Ron
Tom Elliott
question is really a variation on a theme: Just what is "fine art".
One can reduce it further to: what does it take to call it "art".
IMHO a work is "art" when you add or subtract from the content of the work
and in the adding or subtracting, the work does not make the same powerful
statement but a different less powerful statement.
When photography first came on the scene it was hailed as a great tool and
never thought of as fine art let alone fine art. Painters, sculptors of the
day used photography as a way to paint or sculpt when the real subject was
not available.
The only other issue is: how long with the work be available for viewing.
The better materials become at standing the ravages of time, light, heat,
and so forth then the ink jet will become thought of as no more than another
kind of media for creative people.
IMHO
Yours truly,
Tom Elliott
"TheKeith" <n...@spam.com> wrote in message
news:QNidnWiUiMb...@giganews.com...
your...@your.com
> >photos taken with digital cameras? If so, what kinds of prints are
> >acceptable -- what media, etc? Does it still have to be on photo paper (in
> >which case you'd have to take your digital files to a lab, right?) or are
> >inkjet prints accepted? Remember I'm talking about art photography for print
> >selling. The reason I ask is because an ink print-out isn't actually a true
> >photograph, even though they look almost identical sometimes. What do you
> >think? thanks.
Guess you are not familar with Stephen Johnson?
http://www.ekcsm.org/bios_johnson.html
Art is of course different to all but Johnson uses a digital back on a 4x5 camera
and stitches the results together (digital backs only capture 60 percent). He
works only in color that I know of. His work is considered art and I assume
purchased as such.
As to printing, look into Lightjet output. This is continous tone photoprinting
on archival photographic paper from digital files.
I shoot film. Digital cameras are too limiting for the type of photography I do.
However I have my COLOR negs scanned and printed on a Lightjet. The results are
superior to photo-optical printing (which BTW is harder and harder to find). For
b&w, I still prefer photo-optical printing PLUS the films are all so different,
right?
hope this helps-
John at photodigitalstudio dot com