giclee printing info
Carol
interest and need) which provides in depth information on fine art
giclee printing. Everything from what it is to how to set up your own
business to print giclees. I own a full scale fine art giclee
printing company (Iris & Roland machines), an art gallery and custom
framing shop and get calls almost every day for technical & business
advice. Any true interest out there for this??? Please email me with
your suggestions on what you would like to see in an information based
site. Thanks!
Gene Palmiter
the new cameras is to go larger with prints...so the need will become
greater.
Right now I need to know the FAQ on how long they last and what we have to
do to prepare files for the process. I would like to know if Genuine
Fractals really makes a difference...although I am about to test it at a
local college.
"Carol" <caro...@directvinternet.com> wrote in message
news:bb951513.02100...@posting.google.com...
Lately Dyas
of the bullshit term "GICLEE"
Its *INKJET*, people!
Obviously its a scam if you are too embarassed of the
process to call it by its proper name in your own language
and have to resort to the ridiculous technique of using the French...
Photobob
You're right!!! We should banish ALL words from the English vocabulary
that are foreign in origin and are not "Her Majesty's English"! We need to
effectively "seal the borders" on the American tongue and oust all foreign
influence. Next thing you know, people will be bringing in new ideas,
concepts and ideologies that go against our own, for god's sake! Then
what?!?! First the language gets a foothold, then, before you know it,
people will be showing up ON OUR SOIL, bringing with them their own customs,
traditions and *gasp* god, forbid, VALUES!!! Then where will we be!?!?
Won't be a decent place for a "Merican" to live!
"Lately Dyas" <wh...@doulive.com> wrote in message
news:angael$jdb$1...@eeyore.INS.cwru.edu...
Jeff Novick
"Lately Dyas" <wh...@doulive.com> wrote in message
news:angael$jdb$1...@eeyore.INS.cwru.edu...
Tony Spadaro
U.S. but especially not in the arts -- except for "plaster of Paris"
naturally.
I think I'll just banish you. The killfile is a wonderful device, like a
toilet that never overflows -- Bye bye.
--
http://chapelhillnoir.com
and partial home of
The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Links are at
http://home.nc.rr.com/tspadaro/links.html
"Lately Dyas" <wh...@doulive.com> wrote in message
news:angael$jdb$1...@eeyore.INS.cwru.edu...
Tom
> "Tony Spadaro" <tspa...@ncmaps.rr.com> wrote:
> > Yes, as everyone knows we never use French words in any form here in
> > the U.S. but especially not in the arts -- except for "plaster of Paris"
> > naturally.
> > I think I'll just banish you. The killfile is a wonderful device,
like
> > a toilet that never overflows -- Bye bye.
You got your panties in a wad over this?!
What a maroon.
Tom
Gene Palmiter
industry standards are a bit slow on the update. Certainly a inkjet doesn't
put out a unique item each time it puts ink on paper. While it might be
somewhere between commercial printing and painting...its closer to
commercial than not.
AS for serigraphy...you are correct...a fancy word for silk-screening. It is
not, however a fancy word for screen-printing...that is the industry word. I
have not seen industry using silk....so for them its called neither
silk-screening or serigraphy.
"Dan Fox" <danf...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:20021003090638.153$P...@newsreader.com...
> Tony -
>
> I understand your point. In fairness, however, it appears to me that the
> term 'giclee' can be and is used to make a humble-sounding method of
> reproduction sound more exotic. In the same way, the commercially based
> silkscreen process became 'seriography.'
>
> In addition, it's good to note that giclees are, like other
> photography-based methods, reproductions and not prints at all. I've
> explained the definition of a print (industry standard definition, not my
> creation) here a couple of times but will repeat it if anyone is
> interested. (Also I'm sure Mani has the posts in his folder with my name
on
> it.)
> --
> Dan
> www.danfoxart.com
> "Art is what the Trust Fund Kids say it is."
Jeff Novick
I'd like to see that defintion you mentioned in your post. But, for
argument's sake, isn't any 2nd attempt at recreating an image, a
reproduction? After all, there is the original, be it, traditional or
digital, and then the copies. It seems the public ultimately decides what is
acceptable as far as reproducing an image. And, the industry definition
changes, over time. Museums are even buying giclees (oops, Inkjets). I don't
really see much difference in whether 50 inkjets or 50 traditional prints
are made except in the boredom of having to reproduce so many prints.
Jeff
"Dan Fox" <danf...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:20021003090638.153$P...@newsreader.com...
> Tony -
>
> I understand your point. In fairness, however, it appears to me that the
> term 'giclee' can be and is used to make a humble-sounding method of
> reproduction sound more exotic. In the same way, the commercially based
> silkscreen process became 'seriography.'
>
> In addition, it's good to note that giclees are, like other
> photography-based methods, reproductions and not prints at all. I've
> explained the definition of a print (industry standard definition, not my
> creation) here a couple of times but will repeat it if anyone is
> interested. (Also I'm sure Mani has the posts in his folder with my name
on
> it.)
>
> "Tony Spadaro" <tspa...@ncmaps.rr.com> wrote:
Gene Palmiter
posts!?!?!??!?!
<g>; "Gregory W Blank" <"-)b?????????????????? wrote in message
news:g;-)blank-03100...@pool-151-196-175-92.balt.east.verizon.net...
> Gene ;
>
> In part I aggree with your original post, although think you could have
> been a little less emotional,
> and certainly less angry sounding (don't feel to bad as sometimes I have
> to watch myself as well).
>
> My agreement is that the term Giclee is an afront (as are other things);
> we as traditional imaging professionals
> certainly have the power to decide what media our work appears upon,
> whether it be digital, platinum, silver based
> ink based or whatever. Art is art!!!! By the same token, no wants their
> proverbal arm twisted to use one or the other
> media to express ones self ( or for that matter misrepresented).
> So some may follow the path of hyped production methods that are current
> at the time, I cannot judge
> others work based on the decision to follow a given path (less I fall from
> grace and follow some given path myself).
>
> Words, and terms are inadequate to describe the world for a vision
> oriented photographer (so we must bare that in mind)
> the core issue to me is quality,....whether the media implements or
> conveys the vision one chooses to represent them.
> Does Yours? that is a question only one can find for one self....whether
> imagery is massed produced, singly printed or otherwise
> if the media does not convey the vision then it is not successful. Just
> because an image is not or is produced for commercial use
> should not imply whether the image ends or began as art.....hopefully we
> all keep this in mind.
>
> Kind regards
> Gregory
>
>
> In article <F5_m9.33642$CN2....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>, "Gene Palmiter"
> <palmit...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Does what we do fit any industry standard for being photography? Maybe
> > industry standards are a bit slow on the update. Certainly a inkjet
doesn't
> > put out a unique item each time it puts ink on paper. While it might be
> > somewhere between commercial printing and painting...its closer to
> > commercial than not.
> >
> > AS for serigraphy...you are correct...a fancy word for silk-screening.
It is
> > not, however a fancy word for screen-printing...that is the industry
word. I
> > have not seen industry using silk....so for them its called neither
> > silk-screening or serigraphy.
>
> Photographic website @
> http://members.bellatlantic.net/~gblank
Thor Lancelot Simon
Dan Fox <danf...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Tony -
>
>I understand your point. In fairness, however, it appears to me that the
>term 'giclee' can be and is used to make a humble-sounding method of
>reproduction sound more exotic. In the same way, the commercially based
>silkscreen process became 'seriography.'
I agree completely -- it's like calling a Ciba print a "dye destruct" or
a conventional photographic print a "gelatin silver", only worse because
it uses a word from a foreign language to further obscure that the process
in question is, in fact, entirely pedestrian, ordinary, and can be quite
easily practiced by the masses.
This sort of obfuscation of photography in the name of making it more
"artistic" -- read "less accessible" -- has irritated me since I was an
art-school student long ago. At the time, many of us refused to caption
our prints with the bullsh*t "fancy" names; later, we discovered that
galleries would often simply force the issue or surreptitiously switch
out the captions after an opening, or when describing the work to a
prospective buyer.
The work needs to stand on its own. Trying to trick people into thinking
they should buy it because they don't know what a "giclee" is and thus
couldn't make one themselves is a load of crap.
I have very little respect for artists or artisans who insist on calling
the proceseses they use by such made-up names, when plain words will serve
just fine.
--
Thor Lancelot Simon t...@rek.tjls.com
But as he knew no bad language, he had called him all the names of common
objects that he could think of, and had screamed: "You lamp! You towel! You
plate!" and so on. --Sigmund Freud
Mike Schuler
Generally I call bullshit on people who are to chicken to use real
email address.
But on the issue itself, I have to agree: the only purpose for using
the term "giclee" is marketing. At a recent Robert Weingarten
exhibition in Seattle the Benham Gallery passed out flyers describing
Giclee and pretty much called it ink-jet, because (I assume) most
patrons couldn't figure it out without a description. Unfortunately
they didn't include the pronounciation.
A similar historical case (quote from
http://www.baileynelsongallery.com/serigrap.htm)
"The process of serography at its most elementry level is quite a
simple and ancient process. The process is often referred to as silk
screen, however, silk is rarely uses anymore for the screening so the
term serigraph has been
adopted."
Actually the term "serography" was coined by staff who worked in the
WPA's art division to differentiate their fine art silkscreens from
commercial ones - it had nothing to do with the silk itself, as they
were still using silk. This is another case of marketing.
Mani Deli
>In addition, it's good to note that giclees are, like other
>photography-based methods, reproductions and not prints at all.
Prints are reproductions.
I've
>explained the definition of a print (industry standard definition, not my
>creation) here a couple of times but will repeat it if anyone is
>interested. (Also I'm sure Mani has the posts in his folder with my name on
>it.)
Fox's definition isn't an industry definition. His narrow idea of what
constitutes a print comes from an opinion by a group of collectors. It
reminds me of a Mickey Mouse collector who insisted that the only
genuine Mickey was the one in short pants with the two buttons.
A print or printed matter consists of ink on paper usually by means
offsetting it from a surface. Newspaper and Magazines are prints and
are collected as such. So are Warhol's silk screens with the addition
of some added oil schmier just like Kinkade and lots of others, so is
a soup can label.
Ink jet etc. can be considered print done in a somewhat new way. They
are ink on paper offset by another method. Arguing about exactly how
to label it is a waste of time.
...no skill no art!
Want to get away from the indecipherable imbecilities and absurd pretensions of the modern art establishment?
Check out my web page http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/
Bit Bucket
news:ani781$9in$1...@panix5.panix.com...
<snip>
> I have very little respect for artists or artisans who insist on calling
> the proceseses they use by such made-up names, when plain words will serve
> just fine.
>
All names, even the plain ones, are made-up. ;-)
--
Visit Terry and the Pixels at
http://home.earthlink.net/~terryleedawson/
Tom
"Mike Schuler" <sch...@drizzle.com> wrote in message
news:a388fcc3.02100...@posting.google.com...
> But on the issue itself, I have to agree: the only purpose for using
> the term "giclee" is marketing. At a recent Robert Weingarten
> exhibition in Seattle the Benham Gallery passed out flyers describing
> Giclee and pretty much called it ink-jet, because (I assume) most
> patrons couldn't figure it out without a description. Unfortunately
> they didn't include the pronounciation.
I'll bet THAT was a funny crowd to listen to for a while... especially as
the word itself is not immediately identifiable as French. It could, after
all, be assumed to be the name of the inventor of the process (for example).
>
> A similar historical case (quote from
> http://www.baileynelsongallery.com/serigrap.htm)
>
> "The process of serography at its most elementry level is quite a
> simple and ancient process. The process is often referred to as silk
> screen, however, silk is rarely uses anymore for the screening so the
> term serigraph has been
> adopted."
>
> Actually the term "serography" was coined by staff who worked in the
> WPA's art division to differentiate their fine art silkscreens from
> commercial ones - it had nothing to do with the silk itself, as they
> were still using silk. This is another case of marketing.
Marketing and a highly pretentious attitude.
Tom
Ali Yupe
sch...@drizzle.com says...
>Actually the term "serography" was coined by staff who worked in the
>WPA's art division
Reference: Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 10th Edition
There is no word "serography" or "seriography" listed.
Serigraph is the product. Serigraphy the process.
Jeff Novick
Thanks for putting forth some of the definitions associated with what
constitutes a print. Certainly, Pulin's statement of a work of art copied in
another medium is apropos. I think there is room for more interpretation in
the Imaging medium since digital has become an artistic path for many
creative people. In a sense, it is a mixed media, using photography as part
of its process.
Because the art world is primarily driven by commerce, a demand for more
affordable 'art works' have given birth to the 'print', 'series', 'limited
edition'. It's a way of making money and has nothing to do with the original
work, be it a photo, or, a painting. I think we've been conditioned to think
that somehow, a traditional print, #35 in a series of 50, is somehow worth
more than #35/50 in a giclee print. I understand the way the art world
works. And, you could call it reality. But, because profits will always win
out in this game, the rules change over time. For me, only the original
print is the work of art. Everything else, is a copy. But, people want to
buy copies. So, there you have it.
And, we've got to pay the rent!
Jeff
"Dan Fox" <danf...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:20021003175844.637$a...@newsreader.com...
> Hi, Jeff -
>
> The definition of a print is standard and can be found on the web and in
> books on printmaking. Here are a few points as stated by the International
> Congress of Plastic Arts :
>
> The Edition
> The concept of "edition" is basic to the world of
> serial art. It is the "limited edition" which permits
> printmakers and collectors to agree upon what is an
> original art print and what is a mere reproduction.
>
> Multiple Originals
> A 1960 resolution of the International Congress of
> Plastic Arts states: The above principles apply to
> graphic works which can be considered originals, that
> is to say, prints for which the artist made the
> original plate, cut the woodblock, worked on the stone
> or any other material. Works that do not fulfill these
> conditions must be considered "reproductions."
>
> Carol Pulin, director of the American Print Alliance
> adds, "A copy of a work of art done in another medium
> is a reproduction, no matter how limited the number of
> reproductions made and no matter whether the copy is
> made by photomechanical or other means."
>
> A print is a 'serial original'; each pressing is considered an original
> work of art. Carol Pulin's statement puts the difference succinctly - a
> reproduction is a copy of a work done in another medium.
>
> You bring up the excellent point: so what? One of the main points is
value.
> A print limited to, say, 200 (about the max for a real limited edition)
has
> a value based on the reputation of the artist and the current marketplace.
> The fact that the supply is limited is a major point - also that the print
> is by the artist's hand, signed by him, and there is no 'original
> painting'.
>
> Look at it this way: There are a few genuine Dali prints on the market. In
> a small edition especially, these prints are worth a lot of money and have
> high artistic value. On the other hand, Dali 'prints' are sold by the
> boatload to unsuspecting people for ridiculous prices. They are
> reproductions (photos of a painting) and thus worth about as much as a
> poster you buy in a bookstore. The 'limitation' of a repro is a lie, since
> they can always print more. The signature is worthless as well (last I
> checked a Dali signature, if genuine, is by itself worth about 8 dollars.)
>
> Why is this important? People are paying their money for worthless junk,
> thinking they are getting valuable 'prints.'
>
> I see that Mani has responded to my prior post on this (he averages about
> 1-2 hours time to attack me whenever I post - he lives at the computer, I
> guess). His assertion that any reproduction is a print is true in his
mind,
> but that's it. It has no basis in reality. I don't think he has ever had
> any contact with any phase of the art world. But making up his own
> definitions doesn't make them true.
Jeff Novick
I could care less what someone calls these prints. But, bare in mind, that
the term giclee is usually associated with 'high end' inkjets whose
technology and costs are way beyond our Epson desktop printers and are also
capable of much larger sizes. They are also associated with longevity as in
'archival'. This is the only thing that distinguishes the 2 in my mind.
Other than that, I'm happy to use inkjet.
Jeff
"Mike Schuler" <sch...@drizzle.com> wrote in message
news:a388fcc3.02100...@posting.google.com...
Mani Deli
>Hi, Jeff -
>
>The definition of a print is standard and can be found on the web and in
>books on printmaking. Here are a few points as stated by the International
>Congress of Plastic Arts :
You said I quote "I've explained the definition of a print (industry
standard definition, not my creation) here a couple of times but will
repeat it if anyone is interested.
As I said,
Fox's definition isn't an INDUSTRY definition. His narrow idea of
what constitutes a print comes from an opinion by a group of
collectors. It reminds me of a Mickey Mouse collector who insisted
that the only genuine Mickey was the one in short pants with the two
buttons.
The Congress of plastic arts isn't the print industry. The fact is
that there is no hard edged definition. That's my point.
>I see that Mani has responded to my prior post on this (he averages about
>1-2 hours time to attack me whenever I post - he lives at the computer,
I think you are a first class jerk who can't support you stupid points
and gets pissed every time you are contradicted.
>guess). His assertion that any reproduction is a print is true in his mind,
>but that's it. It has no basis in reality. I don't think he has ever had
>any contact with any phase of the art world. But making up his own
>definitions doesn't make them true.
>
I collected prints before you ever got your pedigree and became a
pompous ass. I own Japanese prints and Daumier to name a few. I
collected Dore', Granville, Hogarth and lots of guys you never head of
along with steel engravings and studied the various methods of
classical art printing.
Tony Spadaro
--
http://chapelhillnoir.com
and partial home of
The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Links are at
http://home.nc.rr.com/tspadaro/links.html
"Tom" <seas...@removethis.attbi.com> wrote in message
news:EzZm9.27550$DN4.4178@sccrnsc01...
Tony Spadaro
silver print) for what is actually enlarging paper? Why do you suppose the
photographers wanted to distinguish themselves from the prints your
neighbours get back from the drug store? I call my inkjet prints "inkjet
prints" but I reserve the right to use any name that is generally accepted
and giclee is just that.
The language police (who are actually worse in France than in the US)
feel they have a moral obligation to prevent the evolution of language.
By far the greatest number of complaints I get about my website are from
people who dislike the fact that I have a link to the "computer darkroom"
site - they feel that because they dislike the term (a term I don't
personally use) I should refuse to link to the site, which happens to be of
tremendous value to any photographer working digitally, no matter what it is
called.
--
http://chapelhillnoir.com
and partial home of
The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Links are at
http://home.nc.rr.com/tspadaro/links.html
news:20021003090638.153$P...@newsreader.com...
> Tony -
>
> I understand your point. In fairness, however, it appears to me that the
> term 'giclee' can be and is used to make a humble-sounding method of
> reproduction sound more exotic. In the same way, the commercially based
> silkscreen process became 'seriography.'
>
> In addition, it's good to note that giclees are, like other
> explained the definition of a print (industry standard definition, not my
> creation) here a couple of times but will repeat it if anyone is
on
> it.)
>
> "Tony Spadaro" <tspa...@ncmaps.rr.com> wrote:
Tony Spadaro
made up of pieces of made up names. What is in a name?
--
http://chapelhillnoir.com
and partial home of
The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Links are at
http://home.nc.rr.com/tspadaro/links.html
"Bit Bucket" <bitbu...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:5Y2n9.7155$OB5.6...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Alison A Raimes
> a conventional photographic print a "gelatin silver", only worse because
> it uses a word from a foreign language to further obscure that the process
> in question is, in fact, entirely pedestrian, ordinary, and can be quite
> easily practiced by the masses.
Nonsense. You try going into a printer and asking them to do a
Cibachrome print from a transparency. Cibachrome - or Ctypes are done
from colour negatives. Transparencies are done as Rtype prints, which
is also the format for digital printing now.
A friend who works in the printing industry - producing magazines such
as Cosmo,Tatler,World of interiors,Top gear, Loaded, Homes and
Gardens, Marie Clair told me this about Giclée (sometimes known as an
Iris Printer). It is basically an Inkjet but can diffuse the ink
sometimes finer and sometimes further than a basic inkjet so it can
print on different substraights (or paper!). Paper for regular inkjets
is pretty smooth, coated but Giclée can print on canvas type
materials, silk, velvet, tracing paper and various other materials. A
good inkjet will give you good reproduction especially if it can
handle specials (special colours). Scans for hi res work should be
12dpm or 300dpi. That's 12 dot per mm or 300 dot per inch. That's the
resolution used for standard quality printing.
Alison A Raimes
New Cibachrome and R-type prints at
http://raimes.com
John
>Nonsense. You try going into a printer and asking them to do a
>Cibachrome print from a transparency. Cibachrome - or Ctypes are done
>from colour negatives
Well doggone it ! I guess we had better tell Ilford that their Cibas just ain't no good for making then there pitchers from slides !
BTW;
"The ILFOCHROME CLASSIC family of products define the standard for color brilliance and image quality. While other materials generate their dye image during processing, ILFORD's renowned silver dye bleach technology uses pure and highly stable azo dyes which are incorporated during manufacturing of the material. Then, during the processing, the negative image area is selectively bleached away. The result is a richer, more colorful, more saturated and more permanent image. Now you can get more accurate color renditions, first generation sharpness - and faster turnaround because no internegative is ever required. "
Regards,
John S. Douglas
http://www.darkroompro.com
for7
Sherman
news:f6243c1f.02100...@posting.google.com...
> t...@panix.com (Thor Lancelot Simon) wrote in message
news:<ani781$9in$1...@panix5.panix.com>...> I agree completely -- it's like
calling a Ciba print a "dye destruct" or
> > a conventional photographic print a "gelatin silver", only worse because
> > it uses a word from a foreign language to further obscure that the
process
> > in question is, in fact, entirely pedestrian, ordinary, and can be quite
> > easily practiced by the masses.
>
> Nonsense. You try going into a printer and asking them to do a
> Cibachrome print from a transparency. Cibachrome - or Ctypes are done
> from colour negatives. Transparencies are done as Rtype prints, which
> is also the format for digital printing now.
... stuff snipped....
> Alison A Raimes
> New Cibachrome and R-type prints at
> http://raimes.com
>
Damn! I've been making them wrong for 20 years!
Sherman
http://www.dunnamphoto.com
Niko Warez
alison...@yahoo.co.uk says...
> t...@panix.com (Thor Lancelot Simon) wrote in message news:<ani781$9in$1...@panix5.panix.com>...> I agree completely -- it's like calling a Ciba print a "dye destruct" or
> > a conventional photographic print a "gelatin silver", only worse because
> > it uses a word from a foreign language to further obscure that the process
> > in question is, in fact, entirely pedestrian, ordinary, and can be quite
> > easily practiced by the masses.
>
> Nonsense. You try going into a printer and asking them to do a
> Cibachrome print from a transparency. Cibachrome - or Ctypes are done
> from colour negatives. Transparencies are done as Rtype prints, which
> is also the format for digital printing now.
>
I believe you got the backwards. Cibachromes are done from
transparencies. Ciba-Geigy Corporation of Switzerland invented this
process which was later bought out from Illford, and the name changed to
Illfochrome. Type-R prints are done from negatives using RA chemistry.
Due to the fact that photolabs are printing from negatives these days,
the new digital photolab also prints Type -R allowing the use of one
machine for both.
> A friend who works in the printing industry - producing magazines such
> as Cosmo,Tatler,World of interiors,Top gear, Loaded, Homes and
> Gardens, Marie Clair told me this about Giclée (sometimes known as an
Magazine printing and Giclée printing are not the same, but perhaps they
also do that in the same company.
> Iris Printer). It is basically an Inkjet but can diffuse the ink
> sometimes finer and sometimes further than a basic inkjet so it can
> print on different substraights (or paper!). Paper for regular inkjets
> is pretty smooth, coated but Giclée can print on canvas type
> materials, silk, velvet, tracing paper and various other materials. A
> good inkjet will give you good reproduction especially if it can
> handle specials (special colours). Scans for hi res work should be
> 12dpm or 300dpi. That's 12 dot per mm or 300 dot per inch. That's the
> resolution used for standard quality printing.
Again, you are comparing press printing with inkjet printing.
The scan should be 300dpi if going to press, 304 if going to digital
type R printer, and around 150 dpi at image size when going to injet
based "Giclée", "Iris" or what ever name you want to use for what is
typically known as a plotter.
Tom Monego
yes Epson printers. Who wanted to diffferentiate from folks who were making
signs and POP displays with their printers. The difference, usually the
printer's clientele is fine art oriented. The systems are color corrected, the
paper archival and the original inks were, some still are dye based and only
archival by a long stretch of the imagination. Roland and Epson have made
strides in archival inks to almost an absurd level. The new Epson printers
C-80, 2200, 7600, 9600 are all reproduction level printers. I'd put their
output up against other printing methods anytime (they will last longer than
any photographic printing method).
Tom
In article <OR4n9.1679$ZR3.38...@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>,
jhno...@pacbell.net says...
Don Stauffer
printing press. When we say in digital photography that we 'print' a
picture that usually means we make a single copy or just a few.
In a more general sense, before you are printing something, not too long
ago people would think you were giving material to a printing concern to
put on presses and run lots of copies via printing press.
So now we have prints as the output of a printing press, the outcome of
a photographic process, or the output of a computer printer :-(
For that matter, there is also the art print, similar to what comes from
a printing press, but done by hand and in a limited number of copies!
Sometimes I think maybe the French are right to have a government agency
to control the language. Then again, at second thought, I believe we
are better off the way English is now.
Dan Fox wrote:
>
> In addition, it's good to note that giclees are, like other
> photography-based methods, reproductions and not prints at all. I've
> explained the definition of a print (industry standard definition, not my
> creation) here a couple of times but will repeat it if anyone is
> interested.
--
Don Stauffer in Minnesota
stau...@usfamily.net
webpage- http://www.usfamily.net/web/stauffer
Chris Ellinger
rec.photo.darkroom?
Chris Ellinger
Ann Arbor, MI
lee carmichael
That is what it is really called anyway.
lee\c
"Don Stauffer" <stau...@usfamily.net> wrote in message
news:3D9DA56F...@usfamily.net...
Dave Martindale
>A friend who works in the printing industry - producing magazines such
>as Cosmo,Tatler,World of interiors,Top gear, Loaded, Homes and
>Gardens, Marie Clair told me this about Giclée (sometimes known as an
>Iris Printer). It is basically an Inkjet but can diffuse the ink
>sometimes finer and sometimes further than a basic inkjet so it can
>print on different substraights (or paper!). Paper for regular inkjets
>is pretty smooth, coated but Giclée can print on canvas type
>materials, silk, velvet, tracing paper and various other materials.
The IRIS printers have been around for quite a while now. They are
indeed more flexible in what they can print on than a regular inkjet
printer. There is often one of them present at the SIGGRAPH conference.
The funny thing is that it used to be called just an inkjet printer; the
term "giclee" seems to have appeared only recently. It is just a fancy
name for a particular type of inkjet printing.
Whether IRIS prints ought to be called "inkjet" or "giclee" seems to
depend on whether you want to emphasize the ways in which the IRIS is
like other printers, or the ways in which it is different. If you're a
computer person, the IRIS falls nicely into the "inkjet" category. If
you're an artist trying to distance what you do from what someone can do
on a cheap inkjet at home, "giclee" is better.
Dave
enaitee
news:bb951513.02100...@posting.google.com:
> I am considering starting an e-zine/website/e-book (??depending on
> interest and need) which provides in depth information on fine art
> giclee printing. Everything from what it is to how to set up your own
> business to print giclees. I own a full scale fine art giclee
> printing company (Iris & Roland machines), an art gallery and custom
> framing shop and get calls almost every day for technical & business
> advice. Any true interest out there for this??? Please email me with
> your suggestions on what you would like to see in an information based
> site. Thanks!
Hi...I almost hesitate to post this since it seems to follow on the heels
of yet another heated discussion over things that neither interest nor
concern me. However to address your inquiry about interest, my
particular needs are as follows. I have in the last few months managed
to put up a web site of my art work and have been tempted to try and
offer giclee reproductions. I would imagine this to be a not uncommon
situation and neither is not having much cash to follow up on the idea.
My web searches have turned up plenty of printer sites that offer image
prep and small batch prices that would be a very risky gamble for me at
least. Perhaps they are a wonderful investment for a successful artist;
like one of those real oak easels with lots of cranks and shiny brass
fittings and white wall casters! So, I propose part of your target
audience be readers who, like myself, would like to take that precarious
first step but are very, very cautious and are haunted by nightmares of
sitting on 500 unsold copies of "The Great American Painting" which cost
the rent for the next six months...not a nice vision. Would it be
possible to have a fast enough turn around to get some orders before
actually doing the printing? Or is a "part way" commitment possible like
having the image prep done and paid for but holding back on the printing
until some orders are generated? My point is you've got to "think
poverty" if this audience is sought which likely rules us out right
at the start. Alas, printers like all who prosper in buiness are bound
by that firghtful maxim, "Fish where the fish ARE!" Still, I thought
it couldn't hurt to suggest the idea.
Regards, Nick ena...@nickataylor.com
John
Nada. Just another bunch of digi-twits crossposting all over the USENET
as usual.
Regards,
john @ www.darkroompro.com
Hank Werdy
> Inkjet is a made up name. Digital is a made up name. Photograph is a name
> made up of pieces of made up names. What is in a name?
>
The point is not that the name is made up, but that the name in many
cases is used for the express purpose of deceiving members of the
public who are not familiar with technical processes into believing
that there is something special and therefore more valuable about the
final product.
This point of view I think applies more when it refers to "art prints"
rather than photo reproductions ...
Many less than reputable (read "cheesy") art galleries sell giclee
prints for many hundreds of dollars and do so by making giclee seem
"special". I have also seen hand-embellished giclee offered for sale,
where the artist(or someone) will dab few strokes of paint on the
final print to give it a bit more uniqueness. Devils advocates can
apologize for this all day long, but I think its pretty obvious that
these are all commercial techniques designed to add perceived value
where there may be none.
Tony Spadaro
the "real" stuff it purports to be. Woolworths sold "original oil
paintings", and now that they are gone some company goes from Holiday Inn to
Holiday Inn with one day sales of "original oil paintings". There is no way
to tell the crap from the cream other than knowing the difference.
Giclee was "invented" to distinguish quality printing from the usual run
of trash, so of course the trash producers will use the term giclee, it's
the nature of business, and it's the nature of people.
--
http://chapelhillnoir.com
and partial home of
The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Links are at
http://home.nc.rr.com/tspadaro/links.html
"Hank Werdy" <aardva...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:98eb6d05.02100...@posting.google.com...
Ali Yupe
>
>why don't we call the process of using printing presses "offset printing"?
>That is what it is really called anyway.
Offset printing is a specific process
involving an "original" plate and a
rubber blanket. The plate is inked,
that inked image is "offset" to a rubber
"blanket" and from the blanket it's
printed onto the paper - thereby giving
it the name "offset printing."
This is a distinction from prints that
are made directly from a plate, stone,
piece of linoleum, wood or silk screen.
Giclee, inkjet and similar processes
also are "direct" in that the image is
reproduced by application of ink directly
to a support from the inking applicator.
Hamish Reid
alison...@yahoo.co.uk (Alison A Raimes) wrote:
[...]
> Nonsense. You try going into a printer and asking them to do a
> Cibachrome print from a transparency. Cibachrome - or Ctypes are done
> from colour negatives. Transparencies are done as Rtype prints, which
> is also the format for digital printing now.
I can't tell if you're genuinely confused, a troll, or just made a super
typo. As someone who's made many a Cibachrome, and had many Cibachromes
made for him by professional printers, they're most definitely made from
transparencies. That's kinda the *whole point* of Cibachromes. C-types,
as commonly understood, are made from negatives.
Since you claim to be showing new Cibachrome and R-type prints at your
web site, I'll charitably assume you made a thinko here.
Hamish
lee carmichael
are made directly from a plate, stone,
piece of linoleum, wood or silk screen."
Would that not be called "lithography". Also, if you will notice I made
reference to offset printing presses. Both are called lithography but what
I spoke of is offset lithography printing. And no it is not Giclee, inkjet
and similar processes.
One of the reasons for naming all the different types of processes is so
that there is no mistaking what the process is. Gelatin Silver separates
the other processes from what most of us know as black and white
photography. It may not be important to any of you guys but it is to
gallery owners and museum curators. The fact that some unscrupulous gallery
owner may use this term Giclee as a marketing tool is something we have no
control of.
lee\c
"Ali Yupe" <al...@noemailever.com> wrote in message
news:3d9e1...@oracle.zianet.com...
Tom
Oh NO! PLEEEEEZZZZZEE don't killfile me PLEEEEZE!
This would ruin my entire next 60 seconds (provided it takes that long to
type this).
Now I'll have to go beat the kids and kick the dog... damn.
Are you SURE you won't reconsider....
Marooooooon!
Tom
Alison A Raimes
> made for him by professional printers, they're most definitely made from
> transparencies. That's kinda the *whole point* of Cibachromes. C-types,
> as commonly understood, are made from negatives.
>
> Since you claim to be showing new Cibachrome and R-type prints at your
> web site, I'll charitably assume you made a thinko here.
>
> Hamish
I certainly did! I was trying to point out that prints have different
names for different reasons - a Giclee is not an inkjet print.
Actually it is really difficult to get a Cibachrome print in London
now. But Ctype is from negatives not transparency - at least in London
it is at Metro in London where I get my prints
http://www.metroimaging.com/prices/pcolour.htm
I also used Joe's Basement in Soho http://www.joesbasement.co.uk/ for
three Rtype prints last week - 20"x30" laminated and mounted onto 3mm
foamboard - cost 100 pounds each (about 150 US dollars). I'm
interested in comparible prices in the States.
Cheers
Alison
Ali Yupe
>Would that not be called "lithography". Also, if you will notice I made
>reference to offset printing presses. Both are called lithography but what
>I spoke of is offset lithography printing. And no it is not Giclee, inkjet
>and similar processes.
You didn't use the term lithography in
your question:
>why don't we call the process of using printing presses "offset printing"?
>That is what it is really called anyway.
If you really want to learn the various
means of printing images to paper, I guess
you can do your own research. I have no
idea why "lithography" applies to more than
one process other than to say that the term
evolved along with the modernization of
the lithography process. Those who run galleries
and such know which printing process produces
which kind of print - or they should!
lee carmichael
the printing industry, I think I know, without more research, something
about the terms used in that industry. Actually, this is rather wide of
field of the original statement. If you don't want to call it what other
people call it, far be it from me to rain on your parade.news:3d9ef...@oracle.zianet.com...
Dave Martindale
>I certainly did! I was trying to point out that prints have different
>names for different reasons - a Giclee is not an inkjet print.
But it is! It's printed by a printer using a technology whose overall
name is "inkjet". That, in turn, is because the printer squirts
controlled amounts of ink at the paper from nozzles.
The only thing special about Giclee seems to be that it's done on fairly
expensive and specialized inkjet printers, and on high-quality media.
You can certainly argue that not all inkjet printers are capable of
giclee printing, and not all inkjet prints are giclee, so the terms
"inkjet" and "giclee" are not synonyms.
But as far as I can see giclee is a proper subset of inkjet - all giclee
printers are inkjet printers, and all giclee prints *are* inkjet prints.
Dave
Thor Lancelot Simon
Alison A Raimes <alison...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>Hamish Reid <hami...@panxyzdemoniazyx.com> wrote in message news:<hamishxyz-> I can't tell if you're genuinely confused, a troll, or just made a super
>> typo. As someone who's made many a Cibachrome, and had many Cibachromes
>> made for him by professional printers, they're most definitely made from
>> transparencies. That's kinda the *whole point* of Cibachromes. C-types,
>> as commonly understood, are made from negatives.
>>
>> Since you claim to be showing new Cibachrome and R-type prints at your
>> web site, I'll charitably assume you made a thinko here.
>>
>> Hamish
>
>I certainly did! I was trying to point out that prints have different
>names for different reasons - a Giclee is not an inkjet print.
Yes, it is. You can pretend it's not all you want to, but even the
printers whose manufacturers actually have little enough shame to sell
them as "Giclee" printers work *exactly like* the consumer-grade
inkjet printers you can buy at the local Staples. Oh, the paper
transport may be a little wider, to handle "art" media like canvas,
and the quality-control on the positioning mechanism for the paper and
head may be a little finer, and _some_ people who choose to call their
prints "Giclee" prints may use archival pigment inks.
However, these are all things that anyone even moderately careful and
moderately concerned with the quality of the final product takes care
of when doing a photographic print on a $300 inkjet printer from the
local big-box store: check the alignment of the print head, buy the
archival ink cartridge, etc.
Ultimately, the only real difference between that consumer-grade $300
inkjet and the $10,000 Iris printer is that the Iris printer can
handle wider paper. Would you like to pretend that a RA-4 print I
process in my Jobo drum at home, which is limited to paper that's
11" wide at most, is somehow inherently different from one that I
process in the 42" wide machine at the local rent-a-lab? Uh, sure...
--
Thor Lancelot Simon t...@rek.tjls.com
But as he knew no bad language, he had called him all the names of common
objects that he could think of, and had screamed: "You lamp! You towel! You
plate!" and so on. --Sigmund Freud
THP
> And bye bye to you too, dork.
<Grin>
ROTFLMAO
BBA
Ali Yupe
>If you don't want to call it what other
>people call it, far be it from me to rain on your parade.
Well, you just left me in the dust
with that last remark. Toodle-oo.
Alison A Raimes
> printers whose manufacturers actually have little enough shame to sell
> them as "Giclee" printers work *exactly like* the consumer-grade
> inkjet printers you can buy at the local Staples. Oh, the paper
> transport may be a little wider, to handle "art" media like canvas,
> and the quality-control on the positioning mechanism for the paper and
> head may be a little finer, and _some_ people who choose to call their
> prints "Giclee" prints may use archival pigment inks.
That is the main point - the *person in the street* thinks an inkjet
print is what they print off their HP/Epsom at home. But if you put
that print next to a Giclee in bright sunshine for a couple of weeks
you will soon find that the inkjet print will have deteriorated very
fast - how many people buty archival inks for their home machine? An
Iris printer (inkjet printer) uses archive inks; can print very large
digital files into large dimensions and can print onto substraights
.... try doing that on your $300 HP machine..... and it is bloody
expensive to get a Giclee print because the machines are bloody
expensive! So why not call it something that tells the *person on the
street* that it is more specialised than just printing off at home so
they know that they are getting something better than an inkjet print
from a home machine?
Enough on this very boring subject!
Alison
Thor Lancelot Simon
>print is what they print off their HP/Epsom at home. But if you put
>that print next to a Giclee in bright sunshine for a couple of weeks
>you will soon find that the inkjet print will have deteriorated very
>fast - how many people buty archival inks for their home machine? An
Most of them -- the standard manufacturer inks used by several of the
more popular manufacturers of cheap inkjet printers are, in fact,
archival, pigment-based inks.
Not to mention that it's hardly hard to find someone with an Iris
machine who does *not*, in fact, run good-quality pigment inks. In
other words, there is really no difference upon which you can rely;
the "giclee" name is, really, pure scam.
Wouldn't you rather people bought your art because of what it was,
not because of the trick name you called it by?
for7
>print is what they print off their HP/Epsom at home. But if you put
>that print next to a Giclee in bright sunshine for a couple of weeks
>you will soon find that the inkjet print will have deteriorated very
>fast - how many people buty archival inks for their home machine? An
You are behind a bit on current inkjet technology. Many inkjets today designed
for printing photos, like Epson "Photo" series, already have respectable
archival inks, including the very archival 2XXX series.
>Iris printer (inkjet printer) uses archive inks; can print very large
>digital files into large dimensions and can print onto substraights
>.... try doing that on your $300 HP machine..... and it is bloody
>expensive to get a Giclee print because the machines are bloody
>expensive! So why not call it something that tells the *person on the
>street* that it is more specialised than just printing off at home so
>they know that they are getting something better than an inkjet print
>from a home machine?
That's fine if you just want to impress with semantics. What's wrong with
calling them an inkjet print?
>
>Enough on this very boring subject!
>
>Alison
>
E.T.
fo...@aol.com
Michael Quack
Tony Spadaro says...
> And bye bye to you too, dork.
Add me as well. The request to call things what they are
was in no way xenophobic or meant to outcast any special
language or culture.
--
Michael Quack <mic...@photoquack.de>
Fast, reliable, cheap. Pick any two of the three.
Jeff Novick
way to distinguish the high end printers from your home desktop. At $80,000,
wouldn't you think there was some kind of difference? Sure the desktops have
made great strides. Archival inks and all. But, they are not going to
produce the size and quality at this point that the more expensive machines
do. I'm happy to call them inkjet, but, there is a difference. That's all.
Jeff
"for7" <fo...@aol.comnnnnnn> wrote in message
news:20021006045048...@mb-fb.aol.com...
Michael Quack
Jeff Novick says...
> the term giclee is usually associated with
> 'high end' inkjets
No. It is widely used in the attempt to make something
simple sound more impressive.
> whose technology and costs are way beyond our Epson
> desktop printers and are also capable of much larger
> sizes.
I subscribe to the higher cost and larger possible format
of an Iris proofer, but I disagree on the technology,
looking at an Epson 2100/2200 for example.
> They are also associated with longevity as in 'archival'.
They should be, but people sell all sorts of inkjet
prints as "giclee" (squirted).
Michael Quack
Alison A Raimes says...
> You try going into a printer and asking them to do a
> Cibachrome print from a transparency.
If this fails then because few people are left to do Cibas today.
Other than that, the Cibachrome technology as invented by Swiss
company Ciba-Geigy and later sold to Ilford (renamed Ilfochrome
then) was exclusive for prints from transparencies.
It always had the backdrafts of very high contrast, high saturation
and a carrier that not everybody liked. It was ten years ago
after the discontinued dye transfer process the most archival
color printing technology available. However, the high contrast
often required silver masks with additional highlight masks to be
used in printing, making it a very costly process.
In the wake of Fuji Frontier labs with Fuji crystal archive
paper there is not much use for Cibachrome anymore, I expect
it to die very soon, just like Kodachrome will die next year
the latest.
> Cibachrome - or Ctypes are done from colour negatives.
Nope. C-Prints ("color prints") are prints from color
negatives, but the C stands for color and not for Cibachrome.
> Transparencies are done as Rtype prints, which
> is also the format for digital printing now.
R-prints are either "Rush-prints" skipping internegatives
or "Reversal prints", depending on the terminology your
lab uses.
> Giclée (sometimes known as an Iris Printer).
An Iris proofer is nothing but a continuous flow inkjet
printer with better paper handling capabilities than most
other printers. It can be quite nicely calibrated to
proof print in the prepress arena. Nothing big.
The latest Epson printers of the 5xxx, 7xxx and
10xxx series are easily up to par. And with pigmented
ink certainly more archival than Iris proofs.
Tony Spadaro
--
http://chapelhillnoir.com
and partial home of
The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Links are at
http://home.nc.rr.com/tspadaro/links.html
"Michael Quack" <mic...@photoquack.de> wrote in message
news:MPG.180a677ee...@news.cis.dfn.de...
Michael Quack
Alison A Raimes says...
> ..a Giclee is not an inkjet print.
Yes it is. Even if the original intent was to make up
a nice marketing name for Iris prints, it is currently
in inflationary use for all sorts of ink squirted prints.
Which is what the name was derived from, giclee means
nothing more than simply "squirted".
> Actually it is really difficult to get a Cibachrome print
> in London now.
Yes, and that is due to the fact that scans and prints
from a Fuji Frontier are the superior technology with
better archival stability than Cibachrome/Ilfochrome
and it does not suffer from the extreme contrast and
saturation. The Fuji Frontier successfully killed the
R3/R3000 process in reversal prints from transparencies,
and Ciba would be the only non-RA-4 process left over
in printing. With better technologies available and such
an amount of drawbacks, Ciba is next to extinction.
> But Ctype is from negatives not transparency - at
> least in London it is at Metro in London
Which is right. Color prints, or C-prints as they are
abbreviated. Plain old RA-4.
Mark Westling
"Michael Quack" <mic...@photoquack.de> wrote in message news:MPG.180aa14f...@news.cis.dfn.de...
Michael Quack
Alison A Raimes says...
> .. the *person in the street* thinks an inkjet
> print is what they print off their HP/Epsom at home.
And an enormous percentage of the so-called giclee
prints sold at various galleries or from various
photographers is just that. Printed on an Epson 1290
(including orange shift problem....) and sold as
squited ("giclee").
> Iris printer (inkjet printer) uses archive inks;
Not as archival as one might think. They do fade as well,
and what was considered archival state of the art only
three years ago is now mere average.
To avoid clogging and assure the proper flow of ink IRIS
printers use water-soluble vegetable dyes. Vegetable dye
inks have, historically, been unstable and fugitive.
Advancement in the state of vegetable dye inks was necessary
to provide the output of IRIS printers with archival qualities.
In 1997 significant breakthroughs occurred in this regard. IRIS
Graphics Equipoise inks and Lyson Fine Arts inks from England were
placed on the market. These inks have been tested by Wilhelm Imaging
Research, Inc. of Grinnell, Iowa, a nationally recognized expert
on the effects of light on digital and photographic materials.
They were found to last 32 to 36 years on Arches cold press paper
in 450 lux of light, twelve hours per day, before noticeable fading
occurs. It has been estimated that in museum lighting conditions
of 50 to 100 lux these ink sets will last 100 years or more.
Which is approximately what the Epson 2000 P does.
> can print very large digital files
It is a line printer, not a page printer. What it can print
is more dependant on the printing software, the RIP and
the operators color management.
> into large dimensions
The big Epsons do that for much less money.
Iris is on its way down very fast. I wouldn't
invest in Iris shares, if you ask me.
> So why not call it something that tells the *person on the
> street* that it is more specialised than just printing off
> at home so they know that they are getting something better
> than an inkjet print from a home machine?
No objections, but what is wrong with "Iris print", then?
Michael Quack
Mark Westling says...
> Could you please explain what a Fuji Frontier print is?
A print made on a modular minilab by Fuji, the "Frontier".
It can be outfitted with a scanner for all sorts of film
formats, can be linked to a network of computers as a high
end output device and is currently capable of printing up
to 30 x 40 centimeters in size, with 25x38 centimeters being
the typical max size for Frontier mk III machines.
The Frontier outputs to RA-4 paper in 300 dpi resolution.
It starts with 180.000 USD for the smallest version and goes
up to more than 250.000 USD for the top notch machine with
all accessories. Which is due to extra possibilities often
cheapwer than the mono-purpose Iris printers, which also
start around 100.000 USD.
If you need bigger prints you will have to go for a Durst
Lambda or a Techlab PLL machine, which are close to the Fuji
in quality.
Jeff Novick
Giclee usuallly is associated with high end inkjet printers. There's nothing
simple about the technology that goes into making the machines. Try getting
a 20"x24" print out of an Epson 2200. You had better be good with your glue
to hide the seams!
Why argue this simple point? You know as well as I know what is meant by a
Giclee print. It's amazing to me there can be this kind of discussion about
a word.
Please, no need for a reply.
Jeff
"Michael Quack" <mic...@photoquack.de> wrote in message
news:MPG.180a98cf2...@news.cis.dfn.de...
for7
>I don't know what world you occupy, but here in San Francisco, the term
>Giclee usuallly is associated with high end inkjet printers. There's nothing
>simple about the technology that goes into making the machines. Try getting
>a 20"x24" print out of an Epson 2200. You had better be good with your glue
>to hide the seams!
>
>Why argue this simple point? You know as well as I know what is meant by a
>Giclee print. It's amazing to me there can be this kind of discussion about
>a word.
>
>Please, no need for a reply.
No more complicated than the latest Epson but only bigger. Just because
something is bigger doesn't necessarily mean it is more technologically
advanced, or better. On the contrary, when it comes to electronics smaller is
usually associated with some type of technological advancement.
E.T.
fo...@aol.com
Erik A. Mattila
Heck, Dano...you know I always agree with you, so I don't know what's
going on here. But....
> Hi, Jeff -
>
> The definition of a print is standard and can be found on the web and in
> books on printmaking. Here are a few points as stated by the International
> Congress of Plastic Arts :
>
> The Edition
> The concept of "edition" is basic to the world of
> serial art. It is the "limited edition" which permits
> printmakers and collectors to agree upon what is an
> original art print and what is a mere reproduction.
So would individual cells of an animated movie, Mickey Mouse, qualify?
they are hand-made by the artist(s), each is unique, the total is
limited (125,OOO or so?).
>
> Multiple Originals
> A 1960 resolution of the International Congress of
> Plastic Arts states: The above principles apply to
> graphic works which can be considered originals, that
> is to say, prints for which the artist made the
> original plate, cut the woodblock, worked on the stone
> or any other material. Works that do not fulfill these
> conditions must be considered "reproductions."
That's an interesting concept. "Simulacra" is Baudrillard's idea of the
endless reproduction of things that have no original. Spin-offs, if you
will. Godzilla the third battles Rambo the 18th.
> Carol Pulin, director of the American Print Alliance
> adds, "A copy of a work of art done in another medium
> is a reproduction, no matter how limited the number of
> reproductions made and no matter whether the copy is
> made by photomechanical or other means."
About this time I need to mention Walter Benjamin's classic 1938 essay
"The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction." Have you read
it? It addresses just about every issue mentioned in this thread. It's
freely available on the web:
http://homepage.mac.com/philosophicalsociety/readings/Work_of_Art.html
Here's a teaser - the opening quote from Paul Valery's "The Conquest of
Ubiquity."
"Our fine arts were developed, their types and uses were established, in
times very different from the present, by men whose power of action upon
things was insignificant in comparison with ours. But the amazing growth
of our techniques, the adaptability and precision they have attained,
the ideas and habits they are creating, make it a certainty that
profound changes are impending in the ancient craft of the Beautiful. In
all the arts there is a physical component which can no longer be
considered or treated as it used to be, which cannot remain unaffected
by our modern knowledge and power. For the last twenty years neither
matter nor space nor time has been what it was from time immemorial. We
must expect great innovations to transform the entire technique of the
arts, thereby affecting artistic invention itself and perhaps even
bringing about an amazing change in our very notion of art."
> A print is a 'serial original'; each pressing is considered an original
> work of art. Carol Pulin's statement puts the difference succinctly - a
> reproduction is a copy of a work done in another medium.
Well, Dürer and his colleagues would typically execute a finely rendered
drawing and then hand it to a carpenter to carve the woodblock, who
would hand it to a pressman to squeeze out the print...er, reproduction,
er...print???????
> You bring up the excellent point: so what? One of the main points is value.
> A print limited to, say, 200 (about the max for a real limited edition) has
> a value based on the reputation of the artist and the current marketplace.
> The fact that the supply is limited is a major point - also that the print
> is by the artist's hand, signed by him, and there is no 'original
> painting'.
I agree there. One of the thing Benjamin mentioned (67 years ago) was
the declining cultural value in the uniqueness of the work of art. It
makes sense for artists to organize as best they can and prozelytize
standards that would provide greater income for their efforts. It's a
labor issue, not an aesthetic issue.
> Look at it this way: There are a few genuine Dali prints on the market. In
> a small edition especially, these prints are worth a lot of money and have
> high artistic value. On the other hand, Dali 'prints' are sold by the
> boatload to unsuspecting people for ridiculous prices. They are
> reproductions (photos of a painting) and thus worth about as much as a
> poster you buy in a bookstore. The 'limitation' of a repro is a lie, since
> they can always print more. The signature is worthless as well (last I
> checked a Dali signature, if genuine, is by itself worth about 8 dollars.)
Yes, but many artists sell photolithos in "limited editions" of 2K or
3K...and they sign and number them. (I wonder if they prorate the
signing time into the overall expense, and at what rate?
> Why is this important? People are paying their money for worthless junk,
> thinking they are getting valuable 'prints.'
Here's where I think you may be off a bit, Dan. The market is huge for
these sorts of things. So big, in fact, that it's hard to conceptualize
with our little minds. And the market is diverse. I think people who
pay 200 bucks for a framed print or reproduction would never pay 5K for
a painting...I mean they are discrete markets, not competitive.
> I see that Mani has responded to my prior post on this (he averages about
> 1-2 hours time to attack me whenever I post - he lives at the computer, I
> guess). His assertion that any reproduction is a print is true in his mind,
> but that's it. It has no basis in reality. I don't think he has ever had
> any contact with any phase of the art world. But making up his own
> definitions doesn't make them true.
I thought the thread on fancy french terms was great. I got thinking if
I should abandon "toilet" altogether, and settle for 'the can' 'the
shitter' and so on. And "toilet paper" -- what pretension. I like the
guy who came out with three lines of toilet paper just after the 2000
election: Bush Wipes, Dick Wipes and Colin Wipes - each illustrated
appropriately by a fine art reproduction on each sheet. Actually, the
sophisticates call it "toilet tissue" creating a double entendre, er,
double french on it.
Finally, you can't speak English without speaking French, thanks to
William the Conqueror and friends - one of the quirks of history. In
artspeak it is even more unavoidable, since the French worked so hard to
quantify and qualify art and art history. So what would you call
"Canson" paper or "Trompe 'l oiel"? "Blocky-textured papier" and
"realistic"? I don't know. Everything is so stereotyped...oops,
another fancy French word. They're everywhere, surrounding us.
Erik (why do I feel like Andy Rooney?)
Tom Phillips
> You're right!!! We should banish ALL words from the English vocabulary
> that are foreign in origin and are not "Her Majesty's English"! We need to
> effectively "seal the borders" on the American tongue and oust all foreign
> influence. Next thing you know, people will be bringing in new ideas,
> concepts and ideologies that go against our own, for god's sake! Then
> what?!?! First the language gets a foothold, then, before you know it,
> people will be showing up ON OUR SOIL, bringing with them their own customs,
> traditions and *gasp* god, forbid, VALUES!!! Then where will we be!?!?
> Won't be a decent place for a "Merican" to live!
>
> "Lately Dyas" <wh...@doulive.com> wrote in message
> > What I would desparately like to see is the banishment
> > of the bullshit term "GICLEE"
> >
> > Its *INKJET*, people!
I'm just poor 'ol "Merican" with a background in English and photography and a
penchant for word morphology. So let's see, Giclee, hmm...
My search says the term giclee originated in 1991 with Jack Duganne who coined
it to refer to prints created with digital output and intended to be added to
printmaking lexicon expressly in the vocabulary of fine art printmakers....(In
otherwords a giclee is reproduction, since an art "print" is not an
original...Nor is it a *photograph*...) It’s derivation is from the word
"gicleur," french for "nozzle." Gicler is the french verb "to spray" (as from
a nozzle) and thus the direct object of "spraying nozzle" is giclee, as most
digital printers today use nozzles to direct ink onto a substrate.
Hmmm...to spray, nozzel...is that like "airbrush"? O.K., now a definition in
plain "merican" vernacular so all the rest of us (besides Photo "multilingual"
bob and Tony "sputter" Spadaro) can grasp:
"giclee - French for "sprayed ink." A sophisticated printmaking process, today
typically produced on an IRIS ink-jet printer...A print resulting from this
process, also called an Iris print. Giclees are often made from photographic
images of paintings in order to produce reproductions of them." (from Art
Dictionary http://www.artlex.com )
So yep, it's sprayed ink. And a reproduction. And being arcane fancy jargon
made up by the digital art world to sound fancy to us "mericans," in french
it's "giclee" but in English it's just plain 'ol "inkjet." :)
Mani Deli
Very little of what Fox ever says is supported by fact.
> I think that the crucial point is that there is no
>original work other than the plate or stone or other basis for printing.
i.e. Durer's and all Japanese woodcuts and Breughel's etching
contradict this.
>The prints ARE the originals. The plate is defaced after the edition is
>printed, limiting it. The artist signs each print, signifying his approval.
Lots of plates done by great artists still exist.
>When an original painting or other work exists and is photographed, then,
>the photographs are copies of something else. The definition holds whether
>I print two copies of the object or 10,000. I could limit the 'edition' of
>reproductions by destroying both the object photographed and the negative,
>but the edition is still made up of photomechanical reproductions, not
>works of art.
Whether they are works of art is a matter of opinion.
>Photographs per se are another matter. If Ansel Adams makes a print from
>one of his negatives, it is worth more than if someone else prints it,
>because the printing process requires skill and artistic ability, and of
>course because of his name. Photos are generally not printed as 'editions'
>because the negatives are not destroyed.
I see, now if the neg was destroyed would it then become a print?
.
>> Well, Dürer and his colleagues would typically execute a finely rendered
>> drawing and then hand it to a carpenter to carve the woodblock, who
>> would hand it to a pressman to squeeze out the print...er, reproduction,
>> er...print???????
>
>These are prints - since they are not copies of a work done in another
>medium. They may not be signed, limited editions, but they are still
>prints.
>
Artworks from the 17th to the 19th C. were copied and printed and
are collected as prints.
Examples: Breughel, Hogarth, Van Dyke, Victorian painters, Dore'
etc.Durer did the originals in black water color.
>> > You bring up the excellent point: so what? One of the main points is
>> > value. A print limited to, say, 200 (about the max for a real limited
>> > edition) has a value based on the reputation of the artist and the
>> > current marketplace. The fact that the supply is limited is a major
>> > point - also that the print is by the artist's hand, signed by him, and
>> > there is no 'original painting'.
Supply and demand!
>> Yes, but many artists sell photolithos in "limited editions" of 2K or
>> 3K...and they sign and number them. (I wonder if they prorate the
>> signing time into the overall expense, and at what rate?
>
>Indeed they do, and the 'editions' are not limited because the original
>artwork and photo negative are not destroyed. 'Editions' this large would
>be worth little even for real prints, because they are so large. All of
>Warhol's prints were in editions of from about 10 - 200, with the exception
>of one (the basis photo was of the remains of a dinner), which was an
>edition of 1000. It sells for far less than the smaller editions.
Supply and demand. Most modern Academic prints are numbered and
limited by artists who have no signature value. They aren't worth
beans and you can pick them up in yard sales..
> But I
>know very well that people are being sold 'prints' for 5000 bucks that are
>just repros. And we're not even talking about the fraud end of it here
>(although this whole business of selling a repro as a print is not illegal,
>but it smacks of fraud to me). People are misled by unscruplous gallery
>owners into buying 'art' that they are told is sure to go up in value, and
>of course repros have no value.
A gallery owner says anything he sells will go up in value.
>> > I see that Mani has responded to my prior post on this
And you haven't answered my points.
>>> I don't
>> > think he has ever had any contact with any phase of the art world. But
>> > making up his own definitions doesn't make them true.
>>
As I said,
Fox's definition isn't an INDUSTRY definition. His narrow idea of
what constitutes a print comes from an opinion by a group of
collectors. It reminds me of a Mickey Mouse collector who insisted
that the only genuine Mickey was the one in short pants with the two
buttons.
All his points are contradicted by facts.
The Congress of plastic arts or any other organization isn't the print
industry. The fact is that there is no hard edged definition. That's
my point.
>guess). His assertion that any reproduction is a print is true in his mind,
>but that's it. It has no basis in reality. I don't think he has ever had
>any contact with any phase of the art world. But making up his own
>definitions doesn't make them true.
>
I collected prints before Fox ever got his university pedigree and
became a pompous ass. I own Japanese prints and Daumier to name a
few. I collected Dore', Granville, Hogarth and lots of guys you never
heard of.
I doubt that Fox earns enough from his 1950's furniture abstractions
to collect much of anything.
...no skill no art!
Want to get away from the indecipherable imbecilities and absurd pretensions of the modern art establishment?
Check out my web page http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/
Sandy King
Novick" <jhno...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> I don't know what world you occupy, but here in San Francisco, the term
> Giclee usuallly is associated with high end inkjet printers. There's nothing
> simple about the technology that goes into making the machines. Try getting
> a 20"x24" print out of an Epson 2200. You had better be good with your glue
> to hide the seams!
>
> Why argue this simple point? You know as well as I know what is meant by a
> Giclee print. It's amazing to me there can be this kind of discussion about
> a word.
>
> Please, no need for a reply.
That may be so in San Francisco but in most parts I believe that Giclee is
usually associated only with output from the Iris inkjet printer. There
are very high end Epson printers (the 9000 for example) capable of
printing as large as the Iris printers, and with archival pigments, but
people do not routinely call prints from the high end Epson Giclee.
Sandy King
Jeff Novick
been defunct for a number of years now?
"Sandy King" <san...@clemson.edu> wrote in message
news:sanking-1010...@230-246.generic.clemson.edu...
Erik A. Mattila
> There are other high end inkjet printers beside Iris. In fact, hasn't Iris
> been defunct for a number of years now?
No, they're going strong. It's an Israeli corporation:
You have to remember that the original Iris was manufactured as a
proofing press for the printing industry. There is stiff compitition in
this field, subsequently there are many printers that do as well and
better than Iris at fine art printing. It all boils down to money - you
can spend 45K on a Iris, but to get a better printer, you'll spend more.
EAM
Tom Phillips
Alison A Raimes wrote:
> I certainly did! I was trying to point out that prints have different
> names for different reasons - a Giclee is not an inkjet print.
Yes, that's exactly what a giclee is. The word literally means "sprayed ink. Inkjets can be a giclee, IRIS, etc.
Prints usually have different names because those names describe the process. But they also have different names which are absolutely meaningless and are
so-named only to be "different." Such is "Giclee."
Tom Phillips
Jeff Novick wrote:
> You still don't get it. I think Alison explained it quite well. It's just a
> way to distinguish the high end printers from your home desktop.
The term "Giclee" does not distingush the type of printer any more than
Cibachrome distingushes the type of enlarger. Nor is giclee a printing process.
> At $80,000,
> wouldn't you think there was some kind of difference?
In the equipment. But to my knowledge there's no such thing as a "giclee"
printer.
There's nothing inherently "high end" about the word giclee anymore than
Cibachrome necessarily means "high end." "Ciba" is simply a brand name (that
is, from the company Ciba-Geigy.) There are different types of cibachromes (or
ilfochrome, as they are now officially, for Ilford.) However, all cibachromes
*are* Type-R prints -- color reversal or direct positive as opposed to Type-C,
a negative to positive process..
All giclee means is "sprayed ink." It literally comes from two words meaning
nozzel and spray. It doesn't mean "high end," "archival," or anything else
anyone imagines. Instead it refers to the inkjet *process*. Insisting that by
virtue of it's name giclee refers to anything other than inkjet is in reality
like insisting there's a meaningful difference between saying "bonjour!"and
saying "well, hi there!" You sound fancier, more sophisticated, but it means
the exact same thing.
Jeff Novick
"Tom Phillips" <nosp...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:3DA91D3A...@aol.com...
Tom Phillips
Michael Quack wrote:
> In the wake of Fuji Frontier labs with Fuji crystal archive
> paper there is not much use for Cibachrome anymore, I expect
> it to die very soon, just like Kodachrome will die next year
> the latest.
Just to be clear, Kodak's motive in discontinuing products or films has
nothing to do with their being replaced by something better (as is
implied in your post.) It's strictly economics on Kodak's part.
Kodachrome was/is, in fact, the best color film ever made and simply
cannot be replaced by inferior digital technology.
Michael Quack
Tom Phillips says...
> > In the wake of Fuji Frontier labs with Fuji crystal archive
> > paper there is not much use for Cibachrome anymore, I expect
> > it to die very soon, just like Kodachrome will die next year
> > the latest.
>
> Just to be clear, Kodak's motive in discontinuing products or films has
> nothing to do with their being replaced by something better (as is
> implied in your post.) It's strictly economics on Kodak's part.
If everybody is buying something better, what do you figure
for Kodak's economics, then? They already don't have enough
throughput to run K-14 in more than two European countries
on a daily basis.
> Kodachrome was/is, in fact, the best color film ever made and
> simply cannot be replaced by inferior digital technology.
Ho-hum. I'd expect the best color film ever made not to
have one roll out of a pack of twenty to be 20 cc blue
against the others shot the same day in a row and developed
in one go, I'd expect the best color film ever made not
to dramatically fade in projections, so I don't have to
replace slides after three weeks of 6 hours daily projection
in an 80 slide magazine with 15 sec for each slide per turn.
I'd also expect the best color film ever to be processed
faster than the current one week turn, and I'd expect it
not to turn magenta, when processed in Lausanne because
the machine in Stuttgart is out of service yet another time.
Sorry, but what you consider the best color film ever sucks
big time. Kodak is selling so little of it, that it is a pure
prestige thing to still have it in their portfolio.
Professionally, Kodachrome is irrelevant now.
There might be some fans of it (for whatever reason), but
that is by far not enough to keep this product alive.
Running K-14 is not affordable anymore, not even for Kodak.
Mark Miwird
>Kodachrome was/is, in fact, the best color film ever made and simply
>cannot be replaced by inferior digital technology.
BUT! Polaroid is a more archival color process!
I am wondering why Polaroid isn't jumping on the
digital-to-print band wagon? Or maybe they are?
I can see where Polaroid's instant print technology
and the archival aspect of the Polaroid process
would lend itself to the current trend toward
in-store printers that convert digital to paper
prints.
Jørgen Angel
> I am considering starting an e-zine/website/e-book (??depending on
> interest and need) which provides in depth information on fine art
> giclee printing. Everything from what it is to how to set up your own
> business to print giclees. I own a full scale fine art giclee
> printing company (Iris & Roland machines), an art gallery and custom
> framing shop and get calls almost every day for technical & business
> advice. Any true interest out there for this??? Please email me with
> your suggestions on what you would like to see in an information based
> site. Thanks!
I for one would love to visit the kind of site you mention!
Jørgen Angel
Tom Phillips
Michael Quack wrote:
> In article <3DA9E18A...@aol.com>,
> Tom Phillips says...
>
> > > In the wake of Fuji Frontier labs with Fuji crystal archive
> > > paper there is not much use for Cibachrome anymore, I expect
> > > it to die very soon, just like Kodachrome will die next year
> > > the latest.
> >
> > Just to be clear, Kodak's motive in discontinuing products or films has
> > nothing to do with their being replaced by something better (as is
> > implied in your post.) It's strictly economics on Kodak's part.
>
> If everybody is buying something better, what do you figure
> for Kodak's economics, then?
????
> They already don't have enough
> throughput to run K-14 in more than two European countries
> on a daily basis.
>
> > Kodachrome was/is, in fact, the best color film ever made and
> > simply cannot be replaced by inferior digital technology.
>
> Ho-hum. I'd expect the best color film ever made not to
> have one roll out of a pack of twenty to be 20 cc blue
> against the others shot the same day in a row and developed
> in one go,
Not in my experience, and I shot Kodachrome 25 for years and years. Such a
claim requires long term documentation of a status A nature plus processing
analysis to show said claim is not (1) batch related (2) processing related
(which it like was.) Otherwise it's meaningless. Sorry, "ho-hum" is not an
argument.
> I'd expect the best color film ever made not
> to dramatically fade in projections, so I don't have to
> replace slides after three weeks of 6 hours daily projection
> in an 80 slide magazine with 15 sec for each slide per turn.
non sequitur. Light fades color dyes, period. And a high intensity
projection lamp will likely fade anything known to man except gold :) If
you had any sense, you'd have had good quality dupes made for *projection.*
Factually, given normal storage conditions Koadachrom is the most stable
color dye film known.
> I'd also expect the best color film ever to be processed
> faster than the current one week turn,
Again, non sequitur.
> and I'd expect it
> not to turn magenta, when processed in Lausanne because
> the machine in Stuttgart is out of service yet another time.
>
> Sorry, but what you consider the best color film ever sucks
> big time.
Good scientific reasoning, there...
> Kodak is selling so little of it, that it is a pure
> prestige thing to still have it in their portfolio.
>
> Professionally, Kodachrome is irrelevant now.
>
> There might be some fans of it (for whatever reason), but
> that is by far not enough to keep this product alive.
> Running K-14 is not affordable anymore, not even for Kodak.
Like I said, economics. Thanks for proving my point.
Unclaimed Mysteries
When I think back
On all the crap I learned in rec.photo.digital
It's a wonder
I can think at all
And though my lack of mad darkroom skillz
Hasn't hurt me none
I can read the res chart on the wall
C-C-Deeeeees
They give us those nice bright colors
They give us the #00FF00 of summers
Makes you think all the world's a sunny day, Oh yeah
I got a Nikanonylympus camera
I love to take a RAW image
So mama don't take my C-C-Deeeeees away
If you took all the girls I photographed
When I was single
And scanned them all together for one night
I know they'd never appreciate
my infalliblilty
And everything looks worse in j-p-g
C-C-Deeeeees
They give us those nice hot pixels
They give us the psycho reds of Sony
Makes you think all the world's on LSD, Oh yeah
I got a D1H camera
I love to take 5ive pics/second
So mama don't take my C-C-Deeeeees away
($1 to Paul Simon)
Corry
--
You have been blessed with another message from C. L. Smith's Unclaimed
Mysteries.
http://www.unclaimedmysteries.net/
Paul Wesley Dunn <wpd...@ipa.net> wrote in alt.thought.southern: "how about
It Came From C. L. Smith's Tiny Little Mind."
Andrew D
<wh...@doulive.com> wrote:
+What I would desparately like to see is the banishment
+of the bullshit term "GICLEE"
+Its *INKJET*, people!
Inkjet and bubblejet cover everything from giclee right down to the
printers given away "free" with new computers. The difference *should be*
in the ink used, the paper/canvas used and some guarantee of quality.
Giclee should be an entire process, not just ink on paper.
And besides, if we can paint 'en plein air' when we really mean
'outdoors', why not have giclee prints instead of inkjets? ;)
Andy D.
"I'm a great speller - but a hopless tpyist!"
Andrew D
Fox) wrote:
+Tony -
+
+I understand your point. In fairness, however, it appears to me that the
+term 'giclee' can be and is used to make a humble-sounding method of
+reproduction sound more exotic. In the same way, the commercially based
+silkscreen process became 'seriography.'
...and artistic inability and the spillage of paint became "expressionism"
eh Dan?
Tom Phillips
Andrew D wrote:
> Giclee should be an entire process, not just ink on paper.
Should, would, could. The fact is giclee is no "process" at all.
> And besides, if we can paint 'en plein air' when we really mean
> 'outdoors', why not have giclee prints instead of inkjets? ;)
because it's stupid?
Tom Phillips
Unclaimed Mysteries wrote:
> "Tom Phillips" <nosp...@aol.com> wrote in message
> >
> > Michael Quack wrote:
Guess I should apologize to the generally intelligent folks in rec.darkroom,
for my not realizing this nonsense was crossposted by the thoughtless
originator of this thread (caro...@directvinternet.com)
quack quack
DanKPhoto
there's the guilty pleasure of being corrected by someone who knows it all.
(Now could we please have a fancy term for resin coated?)
Regards,
Dan Kapsner
Gregory W Blank
In article <20021014040907...@mb-fc.aol.com>,
dank...@aol.com (DanKPhoto) wrote:
--
Photographic website @
http://members.bellatlantic.net/~gblank
brookmartin
black and white printing"
Brook
DanKPhoto
<< Pronounce it "Rahsin" :-) That should be good enough.>>
> "Giclee" doesn't sound so pretentious if you pronounce it "gickle." And then
Charles Eicher
>
>Jeff Novick wrote:
>
>> There are other high end inkjet printers beside Iris. In fact, hasn't Iris
>> been defunct for a number of years now?
>
>No, they're going strong. It's an Israeli corporation:
>
>www.scitexdpi.com/
>
>You have to remember that the original Iris was manufactured as a
>proofing press for the printing industry.
This is a point that bears repeating. I've been repeating this ever since I was
one of the first Iris operators in the USA.
Iris printers are intended for producing proofs. NON-ARCHIVAL proofs. If you ask
Scitex/Iris, they will specifically say that they have never endorsed any of
their products as archival, and do not endorse any 3rd party ink sets as
archival. I pushed and pushed, and the best any Scitex rep would commit to was
that Iris inks were guaranteed stable for one hour.
It is technically impossible to produce an archival color inkjet print of any
kind. There is no known set of archival color dyes that will work in any inkjet
technology today. Inkjet prints that claim to be archival are produced with dyes
that have a rated life of about 50 years, in dim lighting conditions. Truly
archival works like lithography and oil painting have survived in tough
conditions with little image fading after hundreds of years. You can print Iris
on archival paper, hang it on your wall, and in 100 years you will have a very
nice piece of blank archival paper hanging on your wall.
The term "giclee" is just a pseudo-art historical term invented by inkjet
printers to dupe people into believing it is an accepted fine art medium. It is
not. There is not one single curator or archival expert on earth that will
certify inkjet prints as archival.. except ONE. His entire income is derived
from certifying inks as archival. This is a common pattern in the "giclee"
industry. The only people who are calling these prints archival are people who
can make money by duping people into believing these prints are archival.
I am appalled at the thought of an entire generation of photographers having
their work lost to future generations, because they used impermanent media. And
make no mistake, that is precisely what they are doing.
>There is stiff compitition in
>this field, subsequently there are many printers that do as well and
>better than Iris at fine art printing. It all boils down to money - you
>can spend 45K on a Iris, but to get a better printer, you'll spend more.
What the HELL are people thinking? for $45k, I'll build you a world-class color
darkroom and stock it with enough chems and paper for a several years of work.
Jeff Novick
that are supposed to be long lasting? All the high end inkjets that I know
of use pigment based colors.
You are making very sweeping statements that might or might not be true.
There is not just 'one' person who thinks 'Iris' prints are archival. And,
what do you mean by 'archival'? What is the difference between
'long-lasting' and 'archival'? Are there any color prints made with
traditional means that are 'archival'?
Jeff
"Charles Eicher" <cei...@Inav.net> wrote in message
news:aof8p...@drn.newsguy.com...
Mark Miwird
THE Charles Eicher who has so long been
absent from R.A.F.??? I want to see some
proof - like a valid artist's license.
With photographic I.D.
Charles Eicher
Yes, it's really me. Would my BFA diploma be adequate?
You know it's me, only my well-known pet peeve, "archival" inkjet prints, would
drag me back.
Andrew D
+Andrew D wrote:
+
+> Giclee should be an entire process, not just ink on paper.
+
+Should, would, could. The fact is giclee is no "process" at all.
+
+> And besides, if we can paint 'en plein air' when we really mean
+> 'outdoors', why not have giclee prints instead of inkjets? ;)
+because it's stupid?
It's stupid to call a mess "expressionism" but it happens.
DanKPhoto
:-P
Dan Kapsner
for7
for7
So what are you saying, that Epson and independent firms that have tested their
papers have lied about their claim of archivabilty? It could be argued that
since the newset inkjets have not been around for "100 years" that they, and
you, could not really know for sure.
E.T.
fo...@aol.com
Mark Miwird
>You know it's me, only my well-known pet peeve, "archival" inkjet prints,
would
>drag me back.
Whatever the irritant, WELCOME BACK,
and stick around awhile woncha!
Thor Lancelot Simon
for7 <fo...@aol.comnnnnnn> wrote:
>
>So what are you saying, that Epson and independent firms that have tested their
>papers have lied about their claim of archivabilty? It could be argued that
>since the newset inkjets have not been around for "100 years" that they, and
>you, could not really know for sure.
No. He's saying that a "100 year" lifetime is much, much less than that of
other works of art, does not meet archival document standards, and is not
considered "archival" by anyone but a few individuals (e.g. "giclee"
printers) with a clear economic interest in pretending that it is.
Furthermore, the validity of "accelerated aging" tests as a means of
establishing the permanence of art materials has been widely questioned, and
even the 50-year claim for inkjet prints is based essentially only on that
methodology.
Even standard color photographic materials, *including Cibachrome and
Crystal Archive*, are not generally considered to be archival, though they
have been around for decades and there is wide experience with their
permanence both in cold, dark storage (more or less okay) and on display
(not good at all). Essentially, there is no archival process for color
photographic output except, possibly, one of the pure pigment processes
such as Quadrichrome or its modern equivalents.
Of course, those pigment processes cost a lot more to do, so scamster
artists like to pretend that they can make "archival" "giclee" prints
with their inkjet printers. This is, basically, a fraud on the art-buying
public; it makes all digital output suspect in the eyes of galleries,
museums, and private buyers, and thus harms us all.
--
Thor Lancelot Simon t...@rek.tjls.com
But as he knew no bad language, he had called him all the names of common
objects that he could think of, and had screamed: "You lamp! You towel! You
plate!" and so on. --Sigmund Freud
Charles Eicher
was targeted at the rec.photo crowd as well, so I am reposting it with proper
followups.
In article <20021015100529...@mb-dh.aol.com>, won...@aol.comnojunk
says...
>I don't know where *you've been*, but you've apparently not been keeping up
>with new technology while you were there. Pigment inks for inkjet printers
>have been around awhile now, with a metamarism problem that has finally been
>worked out. The new Epson 2200/2100 is so popular that there are shortages in
>many countries, waiting list in Germany, sell out the day they hit the shelves
>in US. Here's a bit of background to catch you up (info is from inkjetmall,
>which of course is about the alternative inksets, which is what they sell.
>There is far more info on Epson inks themselves but this is first I came to in
>quick google):
>
>Understanding inks and media longevity
Doesn't anyone read a word I say? You can NOT trust "archival" information that
is promoted by ink manufacturers. They have a financial incentive to lie about
the quality of their inks.
>There is much we do not know yet about the longevity of the inks and media that
>are being offered. At the same time, there is much we do know. The Iris inkjet
>printer has been studied extensively in regards to inks and media longevity.
>The Epson printer has been studied only slightly in comparison. What we have
>learned about media is that it has an extraordinary effect on the longevity of
>inks. No longer can we think in terms of ink alone. Recent testing by Wilhelm
>Research has reversed prior tests, creating recent uncertainty about longevity
>testing. What we have learned about Longevity testing is that results stating
>"years" need to be taken with grains of salt...
Gosh, what a surprise, the "archival" inks tested by the ink industry's paid
stooge, Wilhelm, are turning out to be incorrect. Which is exactly what I've
been saying for YEARS. The evidence finally turned out to be so overwhelming
that even the paid stooge had to reverse himself. Those "75+ year archival"
epson prints didn't even last a few weeks without turning color.
>Still much is certain. Archival dye inks are stronger than ordinary dye inks,
>except when used on coated papers. Pigmented inks have greater fade resistance
>than either and are not affected adversely by inkjet coatings. Pigment inks
>which have zero dye components offer the most stability.
>
>Archival inkjet inks available for EPSON printers fall into three categories:
>dye, archival dye based,archival pigmented, and archival pigment.
>
>Dye inks are available from EPSON. They are the standard inks which come with
>new printers. They fade rapidly but are very colorful. ConeTech offers an
>alternative dye ink called DarnGoodInk! which costs about 75% less than EPSON's
>ink and delivers the same performance.
Now hold it right there. Jon Cone is the biggest liar of them all. I've battled
Cone on numerous occasions in the past, and every single time, he's fled with
his tail between his legs. I particularly remember the last time, when he tried
to assert his "authority" by claiming to be a Master Printer. He was so
unacquainted with the Fine Arts world that he was not aware that to claim you
are a Master Printer, you must be certified with specific printmaking studies
beyond an MFA. Cone conferred the title upon himself.
Once again, I admonish people NOT to trust fraudsters like Cone, who have a
financial interest in falsely promoting their inks as archival.
>Archival Dye inks: The first classification of archival ink was offered by
>Lyson, a UK firm. Their Lysonic E and later, their Fotonic ink were the only
>choices until a few years ago. While they improve the fade characteristics of
>inkjet prints over regular dye based inks - the color gamut (the range of
>printable color) was extremely weak in the Lysonic E. Although color saturation
>improved with the Fotonic ink, longevity did not fair much better than standard
>EPSON inks. Luminos Platinum and Luminos Silver are repackaged Lysonic E and
>Lyson Fotonic. The best attributes of these inks, their ability to print on
>glossy surfaces, is also their greatest weakness. Printing archival dye inks on
>glossy surfaces destroys their ability to withstand fading.
Notice that last statement. The archival inks fade if printed on the wrong
surface. So it's not really archival after all. If I paint carbon black oil
paint on the wrong surface, it may peel off, but it sure won't fade. That's what
archival means. Are people starting to get the impression that these ink
manufacturers have been playing fast and loose with the term "archival"...???
>Many artists have
>printed on coated papers in order to improve their color gamut. Unfortunately,
>this also destroys their ability to withstand fading.
>
>Pigmented inks offered by several vendors are an attempt to join the extreme
>lightfastness of pigment with the brightness of ordinary dye. These inks print
>on all but the glossiest surfaces. However, often pigmented inks are known to
>produce mottle on some surfaces. This is caused by the uneven absorption of the
>dye and pigment components. Another limitation of pigmented inks is an extreme
>amount of metamerism caused by varying absorption and reflection of spectral
>information due to the dye/pigment components.
Another person with an extremely weak understanding of the difference between a
pigment and a dye. I'm still waiting for ANYONE to offer their explanation of
the difference. Hint: there are two essential ingredients for something to be
usable as a pigment, the crucial one is noticably absent from inkjet printers.
>Pigment inks: The newest archival ink is made from 100% pigment; hence the name
>Pigment Ink.
There is only one flaw in this assertion: no inkjet head can project 100%
pigment inks. It is impossible. It is beyond the laws of physics.
>Dye is unnecessary to create color brightness because a unique
>micro-dispersion of extremely fine pigment particles allows an extraordinary
>amount of colorant to be used. These inks have been released by ConeTech under
>the name Piezography™Color archival pigment inks. They are the only 100%
>pigment ink available for EPSON printers. They print with practically no
>metamerism, and offer the best combined longevity and color gamut. Because
>pigment inks are not affected by color enhancement papers in the way that dye
>inks are - your best combination of longevity and color gamut is the new
>archival Color pigmented inks and ConeTech PhotoArts papers.
Thank you for reprinting this Jon Cone press release, it is always amusing to
see Jon up to the same old stupid lies. No, things haven't changed one bit.
Alan J. Rubin
Giclee is widely defined in the trade as an inkjet process using pigment
inks on canvas or watercolor paper......it implies an archival process
for the art market. Subtle definitions are widely, and appropriately used
for many reasons but usually to make fine distinctions as in this case
Alan
"Andrew D" <right@the_end.of.my_tether> wrote in message
news:right-14100...@i165-076.nv.iinet.net.au...
Tom Phillips
ambiguous term for an inkjet output, not a process.
Charles Eicher
says...
>
>Charles Eicher wrote:>I see some wag removed the multinewsgroup reply-to from
>this thread. My
>>writing
>>was targeted at the rec.photo crowd as well, so I am reposting it with proper
>>followups.
>>In article <20021015100529...@mb-dh.aol.com>,
>>won...@aol.comnojunk
>>says...
>>
>>>I don't know where *you've been*, but you've apparently not been keeping up
>>>with new technology while you were there. Pigment inks for inkjet
>>
>> Those "75+ year archival"
>>epson prints didn't even last a few weeks without turning color.
>
>south windows, hot car rear windows, etc. for months with absolutely no fading
>at all. Of course, maybe in a few years they'll fade, but no one usually keeps
>their prints taped facing out in sunny windows for display purposes.
Yeah right. A friend of your cousin's brother told you this? Have you seen this
for yourself? Are your eyes capable of judging subtle shifts in color? Kodak
makes a nice little test swatch to check your color vision. If you take it
outside into sunlight, it looks solid, if you take it inside under color
controlled lights, it looks like four squares. About 60% of all people cannot
see the difference, they are genetically unsuitable for color work.
>
>>Now hold it right there. Jon Cone is the biggest liar of them all. I've
>>battled
>>Cone on numerous occasions in the past, and every single time, he's fled with
>>his tail between his legs.
>
>Oh?
Check Google, that's what it's for.
>
>(snip)
>>Another person with an extremely weak understanding of the difference between
>>a
>>pigment and a dye. I'm still waiting for ANYONE to offer their explanation of
>>the difference. Hint: there are two essential ingredients for something to be
>>usable as a pigment, the crucial one is noticably absent from inkjet
>>printers.
I guess you still have no clue what's the difference between a pigment and a
dye. I give up.
>
>So you're saying Epson is also lying? Are you the only one who's in on their
>dirty little secret? Epson states in regard to the 2200:
No, the epson inks aren't pigment-based. They're dyes. They're ALL dyes. They
lack the one crucial ingredient that makes a pigment usable, the one ingredient
that is impossible to use in any current inkjet technology. You could find this
simple fact in almost any book on artists' materials. Go study.
>I'm no expert on inkjet,
I am.
>just wanted a nice archival printer and have waited
>about 5 years till one that had individual inks, larger format, archival
>pigment waterproof inks, full photo quality printing, fast and able to print on
>numerous papers. The 2200 sounds pretty good to me, hope it's as good as
>everyone who has one sez. Now off to unpack mine from the box.....
Good luck, you'll need it. I hope you don't live in a big city with serious
ozone air pollution, your prints will start fading even faster than usual.
for7
>other works of art, does not meet archival document standards, and is not
>considered "archival" by anyone but a few individuals (e.g. "giclee"
>printers) with a clear economic interest in pretending that it is.
>Furthermore, the validity of "accelerated aging" tests as a means of
>establishing the permanence of art materials has been widely questioned, and
>even the 50-year claim for inkjet prints is based essentially only on that
>methodology.
I could've sworn he was saying 100 years could be considered archival by the
way he was writing. Oh well.
>Essentially,
You point out that "accelerated aging" is widely questioned and yet you say
"there is no archival process for color photographic output except, possibly,
one of the pure pigment processes such as Quadrichrome or its modern
equivalent." How do you know? Accelerated aging tests? Can't do that since you
say they are widely questioned. Have those processes been around around for
more than 100 years? Your argument leaves plenty of wiggle room to accept the
possibility that pigment based inkjets are, or can be just as long lasting.
Anyway, nothing is archival. Even the pyramids of Egypt look like crap up
close. :)
E.T.
fo...@aol.com
DanKPhoto
:-)
Dan Kapsner
<< (Now could we please have a fancy term for resin coated?)>>
Plastic? :) >>