artist's proofs
Dilbert Firestorm
is there a difference between a print done by a litho or giclee process
and an artist proof?
I'm told that its basically the same image....
Holly Daze
scanb*nospam*31XXX@nospam*i-55*nospam*.com says...
ARTIST'S PROOF is the image the arist sees
after imbibing at least '80 proof' long enough
for vision to blur.
Karin Switzer
inkjets). that is, it's a photo of an existing painting or other work. It
makes no sense to talk about 'editions' or 'signatures' with repros.
A lithograph is a real print - done on a plate with a special crayon,
treated, then printed. Often lithos are created in limited editions, signed
by the artist (and sometimes the printer). So, 25/70 means that this is the
25th print of 70 total in the edition (the plate is defaced after the
edition is printed). The designation AP instead of 25/70 means that this
print is one of several artist's proofs - prints pulled for the artist's
approval before the edition is printed. There's more to this, available on
line and in various books on fine art printing.
Karin
"Dilbert Firestorm" <scanb*nospam*31XXX@nospam*i-55*nospam*.com> wrote in
message news:bs92o8$llo$1...@news.datasync.com...
Flobby Bischer
Also a giclee is worthless ink print, usually not very archival (meaning it
will fade in the long run.) They are popular now but really no better than a
color xerox or a print from your computer printer at home.
"Karin Switzer" <kar...@bellatlantic.net> wrote in message
news:bG%Fb.635$eC....@nwrdny02.gnilink.net...
Thur
quality mediums are used.
It is possible to find prints using archive quality paper,
and archive quality inks.
Are you reporting that this quality is also worthless?
Thur
"Flobby Bischer" <blube...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:SQ0Gb.7112$d%1.15...@news20.bellglobal.com...
Erik A. Mattila
> Karin is correct.
I don't think so, Flobby. Any print is a reproduction by it's very
nature. Giclee is a French word meaning "squirt" or "spirt" so you can
say those cavemen who spit paint on their hands to leave a hand-print on
a cave wall were the original giclee printers. Many giclee prints aren't
not from a photographic image, rather from a digital image which exists
nowhere else in nature than in binary code. Finally, Karin is wrong
about "editions/signatures" since it is a discretionary decision made by
an artist or publisher to limit an edition to increase the unit value.
> Also a giclee is worthless ink print, usually not very archival (meaning it
> will fade in the long run.) They are popular now but really no better than a
> color xerox or a print from your computer printer at home.
Nothing that sells for a price in the art market is worthless, by virtue
of being sold. If you mean some sort of aesthetic/evaluative
"worthlessness" then of course its a matter of each to his/her own. But
you're categorically incorrect about your comparison with xerox repros,
and indeed consumer grade printers are capable of printing outstanding
prints. As Thur pointed out, the papers and inks on the market for the
consumer are reaching higher archival standards year by year. I would
say that the state of the art right now is such that every artist would
be wise to consider print making. But even with push-button computers
and printers, it's still a bit of a task to produce an outstanding print.
Now, check this one out - a big break-through that's just around the
corner: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,4149,1357751,00.asp
Holly Daze
>Now, check this one out - a big break-through that's just around the
>corner: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,4149,1357751,00.asp
The article that came up was for an Epson Stylus
model that's been around for awhile. I wonder if
you gave us the wrong URL?
In regard to "lithography" - that too is a "generic"
term that can mean anything from thousands of prints
in one high-speed run to hand-pulled the "old fashioned way."
Which gets us back to the need to redefine an
artist's hand-pulled fine art print from the mass
produced reproductions. I don't know what the
answer is to that dilemma since educating the public
seems an impossible task, and coming up with new
terminology appears equally as daunting.
Holly Daze
>Which gets us back to the need to redefine an
>artist's hand-pulled fine art print from the mass
>produced reproductions. I don't know what the
>answer is to that dilemma since educating the public
>seems an impossible task, and coming up with new
>terminology appears equally as daunting.
I know it's also hopeless to think that there
will ever be a simple answer, such as a distinct
re-definition that would categorize images on
paper (or other surfaces) as either "PRINTS" or
"REPRODUCTIONS."
Here is one web site that tries to narrowly
define the term PRINT:
http://www.printdealers.com/learn.cfm
And with this site I agree - that anything other
than PRINTS produced by the named traditional
methods is a REPRODUCTION. For example: Digital
art works, when reproduced on the plethora of
printing systems available today, are still
reproductions - not "prints."
Black and white fades to grey...
Dr. Slick
> Also a giclee is worthless ink print, usually not very archival (meaning it
> will fade in the long run.) They are popular now but really no better than a
> color xerox or a print from your computer printer at home.
>
I was thinking the word "worthless" as i was reading your post...
Giclees can be printed in limited editions too, if you haven't
noticed in the galleries. And they are FAR more archival than a
fu**ing Xerox!
And with things like the Epson 1280, archival printing is
available for the home consumer too.
Slick
Dr. Slick
> nowhere else in nature than in binary code. Finally, Karin is wrong
> about "editions/signatures" since it is a discretionary decision made by
> an artist or publisher to limit an edition to increase the unit value.
>
yeah, some people don't seem to go to galleries to see what is
going on.
> prints. As Thur pointed out, the papers and inks on the market for the
> consumer are reaching higher archival standards year by year. I would
> say that the state of the art right now is such that every artist would
> be wise to consider print making. But even with push-button computers
> and printers, it's still a bit of a task to produce an outstanding print.
>
> Now, check this one out - a big break-through that's just around the
> corner: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,4149,1357751,00.asp
>
I'm thinking about getting one of these! Supposed to be coming
out after the new year, but you will have to wait in line....
Slick
Erik A. Mattila
Holly Daze wrote:
> In article <3FE8BC3F...@oco.net>, emat...@oco.net says...
>
>
>
>>Now, check this one out - a big break-through that's just around the
>>corner: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,4149,1357751,00.asp
> The article that came up was for an Epson Stylus
> model that's been around for awhile. I wonder if
> you gave us the wrong URL?
Hmmm...I just clicked on to the url in your post, and it arrived at the
PC mag review of the Stylus Pro 4000, which hasn't reached the market
yet (sometime in January 2004). I oughtta know, since I'm on a waiting
list for the printer once it hits the market. It would be pretty easy
to confuse the number with existing models...is that a possibility? (Oh,
one thing, the SP4000 has been on the market in Japan for a while, I
think, but not as that model number.)
>
> In regard to "lithography" - that too is a "generic"
> term that can mean anything from thousands of prints
> in one high-speed run to hand-pulled the "old fashioned way."
Generic in that it refers to the ink/water resist method (one wonders
why it's not calle aquaography???)
>
> Which gets us back to the need to redefine an
> artist's hand-pulled fine art print from the mass
> produced reproductions. I don't know what the
> answer is to that dilemma since educating the public
> seems an impossible task, and coming up with new
> terminology appears equally as daunting.
I would say this, about that. If an artist has invested in a Canon,
Epson, HP etc. home printer that punches out decent prints with
pigmented inks on archival paper, it's a pretty good deal...about 4 or 5
bucks each in overhead, which is probably a bit cheaper that, say,
commissioning Tamarind of another "art print" house, on an Iris print
house, on a per unit basis. In fact, the home printer is probably
exempt from the old rule of mass production=lower unit cost. It's
pretty static - of course the cost will go down slightly because the
initial cost of the printer will distribute over the number of prints
the printer makes, but you will still be paying a static price for paper
and ink.
If you don't do it yourself, you have to tack labor cost onto the
production costs. So that means that you want to plan the production
all at once, so you won't have to pay set-up fees, inking fees, color
change fees, and cleaning fees throughout the edition - just one time.
An old 36" Harris will belt out 6K per hour when tuned-up, and I'm sure
the modern presses are considerably faster. Art print houses typically
use either high-quality proof presses or fine art presses, which are
much slower, thus the unit price goes through the roof due to the labor
factor, but you do get an outstanding image which most high-speed
presses would have trouble duplicating. But the big problem for an
artist with either technology is that if you take advantage of cost
saving of printing and entire edition at once, you'll be collecting
"inventory" that the IRS just loves. So when you file your taxes, you
have to pay taxes on all that inventory.
But if you go the Iris (and there are four or five other printers that
would match Iris quality) you can pay the initial set-up fees, and order
part of an edition, five or six prints, for example, and order more as
your marketing needs dictate, and avoid inventory taxes altogether. It
makes a lot of sense in that respect.
But you have all the advantages with the developing consumer and
"prosumer" technologies. The ability to "print on demand" is pretty
awesome, assuming that you can print with the quality that sustains your
artistic vision. That's one caveate that bears consideration, in my
opinion. It might be possible, for example, to digitally reproduce the
characteristic of drypoint etching - but I'm guessing to reproduce that
in a print would require printing resolutions far beyond the
capabilities of ink-jet printers, Iris included. So you're probably not
going to have that capability in another technology. But also, if you
engrave a zinc plate with drypoint tool you'll be lucky to get 9 or 10
impressions before the micro-burrs on the edges of the engraved line,
which gives drypoint it's magical quality, flattens out into a
run-of-the-mill engraved line. Maybe if you engraved in high-carbon
steel with a diamond tool you could get thirty impressions before the
lines lost their magic. I don't know...but the point is that techniques
such a drypoint, and stone lithographly, for that matter, are likely to
be irreplacable.
But that's the exciting thing about new technologies. It's great to
witness what artists do with it. So you're not going to reproduce the
feathery drypoint line on your epson - I'll tell you (and I have
considerable experience in commercial printing) there are some things
that ink-jets will do that are unique, or hard to duplicate with other
technologies. What I've seen so far is that flats and gradations are
superb with inkjet, only comparable with the best seriography I've seen
over the years. But the way it's always been with any printing
technology...artists work with it and discover the intrinsic merits of a
specific technology and exploit it.
I think Inkjet gets poo-pooed because it's mass marketed, a consumer
technology. You know, we artists are such elitists (shame, shame,
shame). But Gawd, well...as an old radical of the mimiograph age, I
keep thinking if we had computers in the '60s would the world be
radically different. Anyway, an artist today can invest a thousand
bucks and make archival (100 year) prints. What power!
Erik
>
>
Erik A. Mattila
You know what's funny, Slick? I worked for Last Gasp Eco-Funnies in the
early seventies on a 36" Harris press that would shit out impressions at
thousands per hour. Almost 20 years later I worked in the print labs at
UC Davis making lithographs, etchings, engravings etc. But every damm
time I was hand-cranking a press, after spending an hour inking up a
plate by hand, I would remember the clickety click click of that ole
Harris press. What a machine. I would think "Why am I doing all this
work for an image?"
Well, that's got to be it. The artist has to suffer to make art...right?
But to tell you the truth, my 1280 causes a lot of work too. But within
it's range of capabilities, it does just as good as the hand-cranked
images. But on a cost/labor scale, the 1280 rocks.
Erik
Erik A. Mattila
Apparently. Actually, I got on the waiting list for one retailer that
didn't require a deposit, and they emailed me that there are 44 folks
ahead of me. If I gave them a hundred dollars, there would be only 17
ahead of me. My gripe is that how do I know this company is going to
offer the best street price?
Another thing they said...the "Graphic Arts" edition, which I am
interested because of the RIP and Profile software, won't be released at
the same time as the basic model. Decisions, decisions,
decisions...drives me nuts.
Here's the company, in case you're interested: http://www.dtgweb.com/
Erik
Dilbert Firestorm
whatever the artist's eye?
does this make it more valuable?
Dilettante
Finally, Karin is wrong
> about "editions/signatures" since it is a discretionary decision made by
> an artist or publisher to limit an edition to increase the unit value.
Some of the older printing methods that use stone or metal plates
wear down a little with each impression because of pressure, chemical
treatment, or both. Therefore the higher the number of a print coming
from such a process, the lower its quality. Total edition numbers are
limited to maintain a standard of quality for the entire edition, and
individual prints are numbered to determine the relative quality of
individual prints, i.e., the lower the number, the higher the quality.
The main problem with prints is that subtle colours cannot be
reproduced. Perhaps if only primaries or secondaries are used, closer
correspondence can be achieved, but subtly mixed colours will simply
be lost. Bright green may turn to dull olive, orange may turn to
maroon, etc.
Dilettante
Erik A. Mattila
Dilettante wrote:
> "Erik A. Mattila" <emat...@oco.net> wrote in message
>
>
> Finally, Karin is wrong
>
>>about "editions/signatures" since it is a discretionary decision made by
>>an artist or publisher to limit an edition to increase the unit value.
>
>
> Some of the older printing methods that use stone or metal plates
> wear down a little with each impression because of pressure, chemical
> treatment, or both. Therefore the higher the number of a print coming
> from such a process, the lower its quality. Total edition numbers are
> limited to maintain a standard of quality for the entire edition, and
> individual prints are numbered to determine the relative quality of
> individual prints, i.e., the lower the number, the higher the quality.
But what are you talking about? "Limited Edition" as we know of it
didn't appear until the late 19c. as a market ploy aimed to counter the
mass production trend of the day. Besides art prints, furniture, boats,
Chinaware and all sorts of stuff was producded in "limited edition" and
the price inflated accordingly. A copper-plate etching, however, is
good for about 10k impressions. It would be a difficult argument to
make, with any credibility, that there would be a perceptual diminishing
of "quality" between impression #5 and impression #50. A drypoint, as
I've stated in another post, is the reverse - you'll see a degradation
of "quality" through each individual impression.
If you check out the Bartsch catalog, you can see that whole editions
of, say, 16th c. book illustrations can be identified by plate wear, but
to try to number the impressions, even grossly, within one printing is
not really possible. I think your "lower number, higher value" is
marketing, not any objective measure. Of course there are exceptions.
>
> The main problem with prints is that subtle colours cannot be
> reproduced. Perhaps if only primaries or secondaries are used, closer
> correspondence can be achieved, but subtly mixed colours will simply
> be lost. Bright green may turn to dull olive, orange may turn to
> maroon, etc.
True, but why is that a problem? Any artist knows how to design to the
medium. You wouldn't want to get the subtle texture and gradation of a
finger-painting with a linoleum cut. You look for the virtues of the
materials and technologies you are using, and exploit them - push the
envelop as far as you can. Each technology, including modern inkjet,
has hidden virtues and astounding promise.
Erik
>
> Dilettante
Dr. Slick
>
> You know what's funny, Slick? I worked for Last Gasp Eco-Funnies in the
> early seventies on a 36" Harris press that would shit out impressions at
> thousands per hour. Almost 20 years later I worked in the print labs at
> UC Davis making lithographs, etchings, engravings etc. But every damm
> time I was hand-cranking a press, after spending an hour inking up a
> plate by hand, I would remember the clickety click click of that ole
> Harris press. What a machine. I would think "Why am I doing all this
> work for an image?"
>
> Well, that's got to be it. The artist has to suffer to make art...right?
>
> But to tell you the truth, my 1280 causes a lot of work too. But within
> it's range of capabilities, it does just as good as the hand-cranked
> images. But on a cost/labor scale, the 1280 rocks.
>
> Erik
You have the 1280, cool. I was considering that one, or the
2200, but then i saw the 4000. The 2200 and the 4000 use the same
archival pigment inks, right? Except the 4000 should be cheaper per
square inch, on the whole.
And 17" wide is going to rock!
Slick
Dr. Slick
>
> Apparently. Actually, I got on the waiting list for one retailer that
> didn't require a deposit, and they emailed me that there are 44 folks
> ahead of me. If I gave them a hundred dollars, there would be only 17
> ahead of me. My gripe is that how do I know this company is going to
> offer the best street price?
>
I don't think you will be getting the best price at the release,
you might wanna wait a few months perhaps?
> Another thing they said...the "Graphic Arts" edition, which I am
> interested because of the RIP and Profile software, won't be released at
> the same time as the basic model. Decisions, decisions,
> decisions...drives me nuts.
>
> Here's the company, in case you're interested: http://www.dtgweb.com/
> Erik
Ok, so the different software packages will all still use the same
hardware, in other words, you could get the basic model and simply
upgrade the
software with a new CD, right?
I have also heard that archival pigment based inks like that use
with the 2200 and the 4000 (the 1280 uses dye based) can have what is
called a "bronzing" effect on Premium Glossy paper, where the ink sits
on top of the
gloss and looks a bit funny at certain angles. But that with matte
papers, the pigment inks are great.
Slick
Erik A. Mattila
Yes, Epson's Ultrachrome pigmented ink, rated (by Epson) at 80 years.
The difference is that it's a full 8 color rig - the 2200 required you
to manually change the Photo Black and Matte Back Cartridges when you
switch between glossy and matte papers. It's all automatic w/ the 4000.
The 3.5 picoliter print head is an improvement also, and the speed.
Bigger cartridges - but the ink's going to be expensive, so that should
be in your plan. It's faster than the 7600, and Epson engineers have
done a really clever thing with "edge detailing" to compensate for
resolution, giving a sharper looking print w/o and increase in actual
resolution.
Here's another review - a little better than the one I cited already:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/printers/epson-4000.shtml
The 1280 IS cool, actually. I'll keep using it. I had a bad experience
with a continuous inking system, though (The Niagara II system). It's
poorly engineered, unfortunately. Very touchy, and you'll be right in
the middle of a print when a color stops and ruins everything. You can
get them to work, but Jaysus, it's a lot of work and it really gets
expensive. So I retired the system for a while. I wouldn't reccommend
it. Is there a lesson? Maybe. I think these machines are manufactured
to such tight tolerances that modification is really risky.
Erik
Erik A. Mattila
Dr. Slick wrote:
> "Erik A. Mattila" <emat...@oco.net> wrote in message news:<3FE92728...@oco.net>...
>
>>Apparently. Actually, I got on the waiting list for one retailer that
>>didn't require a deposit, and they emailed me that there are 44 folks
>>ahead of me. If I gave them a hundred dollars, there would be only 17
>>ahead of me. My gripe is that how do I know this company is going to
>>offer the best street price?
>>
>
>
>
> I don't think you will be getting the best price at the release,
> you might wanna wait a few months perhaps?
Yes, you're right. But I may punt anyway. What's a few hundred bucks
next to obsession?
>
>
>
>>Another thing they said...the "Graphic Arts" edition, which I am
>>interested because of the RIP and Profile software, won't be released at
>>the same time as the basic model. Decisions, decisions,
>>decisions...drives me nuts.
>>
>>Here's the company, in case you're interested: http://www.dtgweb.com/
>>Erik
>
>
>
> Ok, so the different software packages will all still use the same
> hardware, in other words, you could get the basic model and simply
> upgrade the
> software with a new CD, right?
Yes, but it is likely to be more expensive purchased separately. It's
not a great big issue, though. I would go for the basic model, if I
were me.
>
> I have also heard that archival pigment based inks like that use
> with the 2200 and the 4000 (the 1280 uses dye based) can have what is
> called a "bronzing" effect on Premium Glossy paper, where the ink sits
> on top of the
> gloss and looks a bit funny at certain angles. But that with matte
> papers, the pigment inks are great.
I've read most of the reviews I could find, and bronzing is discussed
and will happen with the SP4000. It's only an issue with the Photo
Black ink, apparently. But you know, it's a very subtle defect. I've
used pigment inks on the 1280 but only on matte stock. So I don't have
any experience with this.
Erik
>
>
> Slick
Dilbert Firestorm
>Dilbert Firestorm <scanb*nospam*31XXX@nospam*i-55*nospam*.com> wrote:
>
>
>>so, the artist proof is nothing more than a test print that meets
>>whatever the artist's eye?
>>
>>does this make it more valuable?
>>
>>
>
>No, it has the same value as the others, as with HP (hors commerce - to the
>trade) prints.
>
>Prints are sometimes pulled from the defaced plate, and they have much less
>value. There is a Giacometti etching around like this. Pulled posthumously,
>obviously not signed. Worth about $300., whereas a print in that edition
>(signed and numbered) could cost five or even six figures.
>
>
ok, I was wondering...
I think that kinda me out a little bit in the decision making dept. I'm
interested in the one of the prints which offers the giclee print & the
artist proof at the whelan website. incidentally, the proof cost more
than the giclee print tho.
Dr. Slick
> >
> > Ok, so the different software packages will all still use the same
> > hardware, in other words, you could get the basic model and simply
> > upgrade the
> > software with a new CD, right?
>
> Yes, but it is likely to be more expensive purchased separately. It's
> not a great big issue, though. I would go for the basic model, if I
> were me.
>
The profiling might be important in certain cases, but yeah, it
doesn't sound ultra critical, and you maybe could get the upgrade for
"free".
>
> I've read most of the reviews I could find, and bronzing is discussed
> and will happen with the SP4000. It's only an issue with the Photo
> Black ink, apparently. But you know, it's a very subtle defect. I've
> used pigment inks on the 1280 but only on matte stock. So I don't have
> any experience with this.
>
> Erik
Yeah, and some people like the 2200 fine with premium glossy, so
not everybody is having a problem with it. It really depends on your
taste too.
Slick
Dr. Slick
>
> Yes, Epson's Ultrachrome pigmented ink, rated (by Epson) at 80 years.
> The difference is that it's a full 8 color rig - the 2200 required you
> to manually change the Photo Black and Matte Back Cartridges when you
> switch between glossy and matte papers. It's all automatic w/ the 4000.
> The 3.5 picoliter print head is an improvement also, and the speed.
> Bigger cartridges - but the ink's going to be expensive, so that should
> be in your plan. It's faster than the 7600, and Epson engineers have
> done a really clever thing with "edge detailing" to compensate for
> resolution, giving a sharper looking print w/o and increase in actual
> resolution.
>
> Here's another review - a little better than the one I cited already:
> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/printers/epson-4000.shtml
>
Yeah, i wouldn't mind having to go to my big time digital printer
(who has a 7600), only when i need something wider than 17". Anything
under that i could do myself, with the same if not better quality?
Hot damn!
And i don't have to pay the prices he is asking? Great...well, I
understand... he has to pay for the printer and the rent and such.
But it would be great to have more control over the process.
> The 1280 IS cool, actually. I'll keep using it. I had a bad experience
> with a continuous inking system, though (The Niagara II system). It's
> poorly engineered, unfortunately. Very touchy, and you'll be right in
> the middle of a print when a color stops and ruins everything. You can
> get them to work, but Jaysus, it's a lot of work and it really gets
> expensive. So I retired the system for a while. I wouldn't reccommend
> it. Is there a lesson? Maybe. I think these machines are manufactured
> to such tight tolerances that modification is really risky.
>
> Erik
>
Yeah, the clogging issue is greater if you use third party inks
and such.
So Erik, do you use your 1280 mainly for making prints of your
paintings and art? If so, how much do you charge for what size print?
Do you sell them
as Giclees?
Slick
Erik A. Mattila
> Yeah, the clogging issue is greater if you use third party inks
> and such.
>
> So Erik, do you use your 1280 mainly for making prints of your
> paintings and art? If so, how much do you charge for what size print?
> Do you sell them
> as Giclees?
> Slick
I'm trying to shift away from web-design and print design to producing
prints. So it's a new venture. So far, the only tangible product from
the 1280 is a small print that will be in an exhibit in January. But
in most markets, I think, 75 bucks would be a good starter price for a
12x18 print in an edition of 100 or so. I'm just saying off the top of
my head. I think you really have to guage the market.
I have an old friend who's doing quite well with this sort of thing. He
has a gallery in San Luis Obispo now, and his wife does all the framing
etc. She actually the business head in the organization. Check it out:
http://www.johnramos.com
Not too artsy-fartsy - but it's really a matter of the business part.
He's carefully developed a mailing list and cadre of loyal collectors of
his work over the years, and it has paid off.
Erik
Dr. Slick
>
> I'm trying to shift away from web-design and print design to producing
> prints. So it's a new venture. So far, the only tangible product from
> the 1280 is a small print that will be in an exhibit in January. But
> in most markets, I think, 75 bucks would be a good starter price for a
> 12x18 print in an edition of 100 or so. I'm just saying off the top of
> my head. I think you really have to guage the market.
>
> I have an old friend who's doing quite well with this sort of thing. He
> has a gallery in San Luis Obispo now, and his wife does all the framing
> etc. She actually the business head in the organization. Check it out:
> http://www.johnramos.com
>
> Not too artsy-fartsy - but it's really a matter of the business part.
> He's carefully developed a mailing list and cadre of loyal collectors of
> his work over the years, and it has paid off.
>
> Erik
That's was pretty cool stuff, but i'd like to get a closer look at
the work, it looks like it might be oil pastel or something like that.
If/when i get the 4000, i think i'm gonna shy away from the limited
edition stuff. I'm thinking of saving that for the canvas prints, and
for the regular prints on paper, it's going to be unlimited. I just
don't see that mattering too much to most people, and even $75 for a
12x18 would be a bit steep for many people. So i guess i'm gonna go
for volume instead, perhaps $30 a print or so?
Slick