how to offer art prints to customers?
Serg
We want to offer prints, postcards, folded cards of our original art
work (watercolor, oil) to our customers. We do not want to order
prints ourselves - just point our customers to publishers website. We
are looking for a publishing company to accomplish this goal
We provide
- High quality scans of our art work (digital images)
We expect
1. No operational cost on our side ( no sale - no fees/charges)
2. Our customers buy prints directly form the publisher's website
using direct link from our website.
3. Customer can order any number of prints, even just 1 (one).
4. easy modification by our webmaster of our prices using secure login
to your site(and/or by phone call)
5. Upon sale publisher transfers money (our portion of sale) to our
account(or sends check )
6. Publisher sends ordered prints to our customer directly (shipping:
USA as well as the rest of the world)
Help us find nationally/internationally recognized publisher who can
accomplish this goal
Thanks. Any help is appreciated.
Carmen Miranda
the key to reproduction--not the printing. It is totally amazing the
quality one can get from a HP printer --even the home editions at $200.00
but more importantly the quality of the paper. You can secure museum
quality paper and print them yourself. What becomes an obstacle are
posters, because then you need a printer that can accommodate the paper
size.
"Serg" <ser...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:7c044d45.04041...@posting.google.com...
Mike Stengl
> We want
>
> We expect...
> 1. No operational cost on our side
>
> Help us find nationally/internationally recognized publisher who can
> accomplish this goal
>
> Thanks. Any help is appreciated.
hey, me too, sign me up. thanx. gosh this is GREAT!
Serg
well done and not looking like home basement made. And if we'll get
100s of orders all other the world how we would not accomplish fast
printing and fast delivery to our cistomers. It has to be another way
- even if it cost say $50 for a publisher to produce 1 print it's ok
with us - we just add our $20-30 profit and sell it for $70-80 as long
as it can be done fast and sent to our customers all other the world.
Anyway all artists can benefit from such a service.
"Carmen Miranda" <carm...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<1082la...@corp.supernews.com>...
Dr. Slick
> well done and not looking like home basement made. And if we'll get
> 100s of orders all other the world how we would not accomplish fast
> printing and fast delivery to our cistomers. It has to be another way
> - even if it cost say $50 for a publisher to produce 1 print it's ok
> with us - we just add our $20-30 profit and sell it for $70-80 as long
> as it can be done fast and sent to our customers all other the world.
> Anyway all artists can benefit from such a service.
>
As Carmen said, the newer digital ink-jet printers are fantastic,
and
are virtually the same quality as a "proffesional" printer.
Like the Epson 2200 and 4000 are the same as the Epson 7600, which
is just bigger. You might consider these for prints less than 17"
across.
Slick
Joe
I'm not sure if this exactly fits what you are looking for, but
cafepress.com runs an interesting system where you provide the
images, and design you store, and they handle everything else -
customer orders, printing, shipping, returns.
2 sections in my store that might give you ideas:
http://www.cafeshops.com/joekaz/211164
http://www.cafeshops.com/joekaz/242154
You find fine more details at their main site:
http://www.cafepress.com/
It's an interesting system, but options for what print sizes and
styles is pretty limited.
Neil Maxwell
>Carmen Miranda wrote:
>
>> If you already have high quality digital prints of your work, that is
>> often
>> the key to reproduction--not the printing. It is totally amazing the
>> quality one can get from a HP printer --even the home editions at
>> $200.00
>> but more importantly the quality of the paper. You can secure museum
>> quality paper and print them yourself. What becomes an obstacle are
>> posters, because then you need a printer that can accommodate the
>> paper size.
>
>a larger obsticle i have found is calibrating your
>software/monitor/printer.
This is a big problem. You can eyeball decent quality, but you need
calibration hardware to get top quality.
Another big problem is the longevity of consumer-grade printer dye
inks and papers. Pigmented ink printers are available for a bit more,
but don't have as vibrant colors. To get into true art-grade archival
larger format "giclee" printers, you should be thinking about
spending anywhere from $3k (Epson 9000) to $50k (for an Iris).
Here's a review that talks about many of the issues:
http://www.fineartgicleeprinters.org/Epson_1520_Epson_inkjetprinters/Epson_1520_inkjet_printers.html
Neil Maxwell - I don't speak for my employer
sam ende
>>a larger obsticle i have found is calibrating your
>>software/monitor/printer.
>
> This is a big problem. You can eyeball decent quality, but you need
> calibration hardware to get top quality.
yeah. i had the 'brilliant' idea of making my own prints too but in the
end just had to give up as i couldn't get it to print what i saw on the
screen; it is tremendously difficult to get it right even for those
quite experienced in computing.
>
> Another big problem is the longevity of consumer-grade printer dye
> inks and papers.
i hadn't thought of that, but yes. plus who on earth buys a4 prints ? :)
a3 and larger printers are very expensive.
> Pigmented ink printers are available for a bit more,
> but don't have as vibrant colors. To get into true art-grade archival
> larger format "giclee" printers, you should be thinking about
> spending anywhere from $3k (Epson 9000) to $50k (for an Iris).
but then you probably are better of finding a local printer, take a
floppy of cd of your work, ask if they can print from that format et
blah (some insist on cymk which is crap if you ain't got photoshop and
are working on gimp/linux like me) and ask them to do a sample. they'll
probably do that but on cheap paper (paper also effects print quality
so it will be duller, but you will be able to see if the printers are
up to the job.
sammi
Erik A. Mattila
> Neil Maxwell wrote:
>
>
>
>>>a larger obsticle i have found is calibrating your
>>>software/monitor/printer.
>>
>>This is a big problem. You can eyeball decent quality, but you need
>>calibration hardware to get top quality.
>
>
> yeah. i had the 'brilliant' idea of making my own prints too but in the
> end just had to give up as i couldn't get it to print what i saw on the
> screen; it is tremendously difficult to get it right even for those
> quite experienced in computing.
Tweaking your monitor isn't that difficult - providing you have a decent
one (I used to have an old Sony TV that showed everything in green).
Then you can tweak your mind, too. I mean the more you work with
printing, the more you can anticipate what the printed results will be.
Think of the "print" as the original...to put it into perspective,
ponder the "look" of a woodcut block compared with the image it prints,
or a zinc-plate etching, or a stone lithograph etc etc etc. That's been
the printmaker's bane since day one: the disparity between the physical
plate and the resulting image. That's what you learn to do.
>
>
>>Another big problem is the longevity of consumer-grade printer dye
>>inks and papers.
>
>
> i hadn't thought of that, but yes. plus who on earth buys a4 prints ? :)
> a3 and larger printers are very expensive.
A3 and super A3 are nice sizes. But smaller prints are pretty common.
Think of the bulk of 14th C. German prints - most were done for book
illustration. Add a 3" mat to an 8 x 10 and viola! You have a 14 x 16,
not counting the frame size. Most folks don't have huge walls to hang
huge prints on.
There is a huge range of archival inkjet papers available - some really
lovely stuff. Now (since about 6 months) you can even get Arches w/ an
inkjet coating. Same with inks. The archival technology is improving
leaps and bounds. The Lyson "Cave Paint" inks look interesting to me,
and Epson now has the Ultrachrome pigment inks shipping with thier new
machines.
>>Pigmented ink printers are available for a bit more,
>>but don't have as vibrant colors. To get into true art-grade archival
>>larger format "giclee" printers, you should be thinking about
>>spending anywhere from $3k (Epson 9000) to $50k (for an Iris).
>
>
> but then you probably are better of finding a local printer, take a
> floppy of cd of your work, ask if they can print from that format et
> blah (some insist on cymk which is crap if you ain't got photoshop and
> are working on gimp/linux like me) and ask them to do a sample. they'll
> probably do that but on cheap paper (paper also effects print quality
> so it will be duller, but you will be able to see if the printers are
> up to the job.
Yeah, if you're serious about it you should invest in some decent
software. Photoshop is good, and there are some good competitors. The
new Epson SP4000 is pretty cheap (msrp 1800 bucks or so) and will print
in 17" x 22" (or longer). But look, any printmaking set-up will cost
you some bucks (with a few exceptions, which I'll note) - imagine
getting a home set-up to make etchings or lithographs. 5 grand,
minimum, I would guess - with some smart shopping. And the operating
costs would probably out-weigh ink-jet in the long run. Ultimately a
printmaker has to figure per unit costs. Inkjet (class A quality)
probably would run about 5 bucks a print over time. Since traditional
printmaking is limited to short runs, the per unit cost might be higher.
Monoprints are cheap, by comparison. A decent brayer, a sheet of
plexiglass, and some ink is about all you need. I did some a while back
using Alkyd paints, thinned with turps, instead of ink, and it worked
great after I learned to soak the Arches paper before printing. I did a
key drawing on paper that I placed under the plexiglass, so each print
loosely corresponded to one another. Great fun, nice images - very
casual - non-stress forming - and I went back in to some of the images
with pen and ink or paint to develop certain imaging.
Anyway, this is just to encourage you. I think you gave up too soon.
Just as a mind-set thing, you could ignore the monitor image - I mean
stop trying to reproduce it, and focus on the image itself, going back
to the computer to tweak colors around until you get satisfactory results.
Just a thought or two...
Erik
>
> sammi
>
>
sam ende
> Tweaking your monitor isn't that difficult - providing you have a
> decent one (I used to have an old Sony TV that showed everything in
> green).
heh, mine was too dark, it took me ages to work it out too that that was
the problem. i have a new one now but have lost interest in cg's and am
trying to teach myself how to paint. in oils. yeuch. i can't paint, i
am a very poor draughtsman. i tend to overwork stuff and ruin it and
generally i am just pulling out my hair atm.
i think perhaps what makes a "great" master is that they know when to
stop painting :)
> Then you can tweak your mind, too. I mean the more you work with
> printing, the more you can anticipate what the printed results will
> be.
the thing is does anyone actually buy prints ?
i used to do composites, say generate fractals and do manipulation
(layering and all that rubbish) but i don't think there's a market for
it really, and if, there are thousands that do such much better than i
anyway. some of its on my site which i haven't touched in over a year;
www.sende.co.uk
my main painting occupation is making drapes/backdrops for clubs which
is all very well but that is more like stage painting really and you
are very limited as to what you can do with flourescent paints,
overpainting for instance is neigh impossible as the paints are
translucent.
so i'm teaching myself to paint now.
tried pastels but they just make too much mess :(
acrylics dry too fast, and oils i end up muddying, lose all tone and
value.
ack.
ack.
ack.
> Think of the "print" as the original...to put it into perspective,
oh gosh, sorry, went off on a slight tangent there...
> ponder the "look" of a woodcut block compared with the image it
> prints,
pondering...
> or a zinc-plate etching, or a stone lithograph etc etc etc.
what ?
> That's
> been the printmaker's bane since day one: the disparity between the
> physical
> plate and the resulting image.
yes.
bit of a buggar isn't it ? bit like having an idea and not the skills to
do it. (i know that well i do)
>That's what you learn to do.
technically.
> A3 and super A3 are nice sizes. But smaller prints are pretty common.
> Think of the bulk of 14th C. German prints - most were done for book
> illustration. Add a 3" mat to an 8 x 10 and viola! You have a 14 x
> 16,
> not counting the frame size. Most folks don't have huge walls to hang
> huge prints on.
yebbut do they actually buy prints ?
>
> There is a huge range of archival inkjet papers available - some
> really
> lovely stuff. Now (since about 6 months) you can even get Arches w/
> an
> inkjet coating. Same with inks. The archival technology is improving
> leaps and bounds. The Lyson "Cave Paint" inks look interesting to me,
> and Epson now has the Ultrachrome pigment inks shipping with thier new
> machines.
forgive me but do they still take the piss out of customers by selling
non-refillable chipped cartridges which renders your printer (the one
you bought from them that is) useless (for an awful lot of money)
should only one of the colours run out ?
>> but then you probably are better of finding a local printer, take a
>> floppy of cd of your work, ask if they can print from that format et
>> blah (some insist on cymk which is crap if you ain't got photoshop
>> and are working on gimp/linux like me) and ask them to do a sample.
>> they'll probably do that but on cheap paper (paper also effects print
>> quality so it will be duller, but you will be able to see if the
>> printers are up to the job.
>
> Yeah, if you're serious about it you should invest in some decent
> software.
oi, i have got decent software!
> Photoshop is good,
photoshop cost hundreds of dollars. gimp cost nothing and is in everyway
except cmyk, comparable.
> and there are some good competitors.
yes, gimp :)
> The new Epson SP4000 is pretty cheap (msrp 1800 bucks or so)
i think that is a _lot_ of money, but yes, if you want to make/sell your
own prints that, or similar, would be the way to go.
>and will
> print
> in 17" x 22" (or longer). But look, any printmaking set-up will cost
> you some bucks (with a few exceptions, which I'll note) - imagine
> getting a home set-up to make etchings or lithographs. 5 grand,
> minimum, I would guess - with some smart shopping. And the operating
> costs would probably out-weigh ink-jet in the long run. Ultimately a
> printmaker has to figure per unit costs. Inkjet (class A quality)
> probably would run about 5 bucks a print over time. Since traditional
> printmaking is limited to short runs, the per unit cost might be
> higher.
how does this compare to getting a batch of prints made up by a
professiona;l printing firm ?
the only thing i have to compare it with is that, for instance, a run of
10,000 flyers cost maybe 150 to 200 pounds. that is way cheaper and of
a much better quality than what i can make prints at home. but that's
only card flyers, so i don't really know.
>
> Monoprints are cheap, by comparison. A decent brayer, a sheet of
> plexiglass, and some ink is about all you need. I did some a while
> back using Alkyd paints, thinned with turps, instead of ink, and it
> worked
> great after I learned to soak the Arches paper before printing. I did
> a key drawing on paper that I placed under the plexiglass, so each
> print
> loosely corresponded to one another. Great fun, nice images - very
> casual - non-stress forming - and I went back in to some of the images
> with pen and ink or paint to develop certain imaging.
i did screenprinting at college and found it was not for me as i am a
too messy/not precise enough worker :)
>
> Anyway, this is just to encourage you. I think you gave up too soon.
i may go back to it. i go through cycles of interest. :)
> Just as a mind-set thing, you could ignore the monitor image - I mean
> stop trying to reproduce it, and focus on the image itself, going back
> to the computer to tweak colors around until you get satisfactory
> results.
perhaps..
>
> Just a thought or two...
thank you :)
sammi
Neil Maxwell
>Neil Maxwell wrote:
>
>> Pigmented ink printers are available for a bit more,
>> but don't have as vibrant colors. To get into true art-grade archival
>> larger format "giclee" printers, you should be thinking about
>> spending anywhere from $3k (Epson 9000) to $50k (for an Iris).
>
>but then you probably are better of finding a local printer, take a
>floppy of cd of your work, ask if they can print from that format et
>blah (some insist on cymk which is crap if you ain't got photoshop and
>are working on gimp/linux like me) and ask them to do a sample. they'll
>probably do that but on cheap paper (paper also effects print quality
>so it will be duller, but you will be able to see if the printers are
>up to the job.
There's much to be said for taking such work to a pro. These folks
already know about the pitfalls that the rest of us will be caught by.
For a relatively small number of prints, particularly larger formats,
it's probably the most cost effective. However, if your goal is to
learn more about the print process (an artform in itself) and
eventually become more self-sufficient, there's only one way to get
the experience. Learning and maintaining pro-grade printing gear is
another chore.
Some cities have artist's collectives that may have shareable
resources.
Neil Maxwell
<emat...@oco.net> wrote:
>
>A3 and super A3 are nice sizes. But smaller prints are pretty common.
>Think of the bulk of 14th C. German prints - most were done for book
>illustration. Add a 3" mat to an 8 x 10 and viola! You have a 14 x 16,
>not counting the frame size. Most folks don't have huge walls to hang
>huge prints on.
I've made a number of consumer printer prints of scanned Japanese
woodblocks to put on the wall in my office. They reproduce well in
these sizes, since they're not much bigger originally. I do sort'a
want an 11x17 printer, but my actual use of the extra size would be
low.
>There is a huge range of archival inkjet papers available - some really
>lovely stuff. Now (since about 6 months) you can even get Arches w/ an
>inkjet coating. Same with inks. The archival technology is improving
>leaps and bounds. The Lyson "Cave Paint" inks look interesting to me,
>and Epson now has the Ultrachrome pigment inks shipping with thier new
>machines.
They are making very good progress, but the printer/ink marketing
people are lying sacks of sh*t still. This goes with the turf.
>Anyway, this is just to encourage you. I think you gave up too soon.
>Just as a mind-set thing, you could ignore the monitor image - I mean
>stop trying to reproduce it, and focus on the image itself, going back
>to the computer to tweak colors around until you get satisfactory results.
This has been my experience, too. I just look at the print, compare
it to the original if possible, and tweak it from there. The
on-screen version often ends up looking off, but the prints can get
very close with practice. Consumables costs do add up, though.
It's important to keep good notes, too. I like to write the settings
on the test prints, then put them away out of the light to jog my
memory next time.
Nomenon
> blah (some insist on cymk which is crap if you ain't got photoshop and
> are working on gimp/linux like me)
Install 'Corel Photo-Paint 9' for Linux,
it's more advanced and it has CMYK colour layout and separation.
Weaving the Conundrum
-=| NOUMENON |=-
sam ende
> Install 'Corel Photo-Paint 9' for Linux,
> it's more advanced
not sure why you think its more advanced than gimp ? ,its just a photo
editing suite.
http://www.linux-mag.com/2000-11/pr_photopaint_01.html
> and it has CMYK colour layout and separation.
i can't find any reference to this and i would like to check first as
i'm using debian woody and i can't imagine an easy compile-free
install, plus i've never been able to get anything to run under wine
sofar.
sammi
Dilettante
>
> We want to offer prints, postcards, folded cards of our original art
> work (watercolor, oil) to our customers.
> Thanks. Any help is appreciated.
Sure, be glad to help. Hang out outside the greyhound bus station
between midnight and, say, 4 a.m. Wear a long black raincoat with some
of your stuff hanging inside. The kids'll love it.
Dilettante
Jonsmind
Dil does it all the time. Thing is, he's wearing nothing beneath the
raincoat, and his stuff is, well as some would put it, an aquired
taste.
Dilettante
he's wearing nothing beneath the
> raincoat,
How would you know? Have you been talking to mani?
D.
Jonsmind
No, but in case you're wondering, I'm the guy who's been secretly,
outfitting those weird "OBEY" signs, seen everywhere, with hidden
surveilance equipment.
Serg
>
> It's an interesting system, but options for what print sizes and
> styles is pretty limited.
Joe, thank you very much - I think it's a good start!!