WetCanvas
Home Member Services Content Areas Tools Info Center WC Partners Shop Help
Channels:
Search for:
in:

Welcome to the WetCanvas forums. You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions, articles and access our other FREE features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload your own photos and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please visit our help center.

Go Back   WetCanvas > The Learning Center > Computers and Technology for Artists
User Name
Password
Register Mark Forums Read

Salute to our Partners
WC! Sponsors

Our Sponsors
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Bad Post  
Old 08-10-2003, 01:20 PM
LarrySeiler's Avatar
LarrySeiler LarrySeiler is offline
A WC! Legend
NE Wisconsin Nicolet National Forest
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 36,446
 
Hails from United States
Question Suggestions on what might be a good giclee printer?

I just got this grant writing idea for my art department where I teach...for a printer that would use archival inks to produce giclee prints.

We could do student works in the form of greeting cards, fundraisers...and I could purchase some inks aside for myself to put out a few of my own prints.

In the classroom, I have an iMac with Photoshop 7.0...Power Point, and teach computer graphic arts as one of my classes. Its a basic intro and premer...and I have one advanced group. I've been using Epson.. the 900G series for basic prints.

I've heard Epson makes a pretty decent giclee printer.

anyone have experiences with this....and suggestions, links?

Next...I need to find a technology grant out there somewhere... but such things are first birthed with greater insight and a drive to obtain. Thanks....

Larry
__________________
Larry Seiler- Signature Member IPAP
"My Painting From Life" blog
Main website!
  #2   Report Bad Post  
Old 08-10-2003, 11:01 PM
Greg C.'s Avatar
Greg C. Greg C. is offline
Senior Member
Raleigh, North Carolina
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 215
 
Hails from United States
How wide do you want to print? What are your archival requirements? (20-30 years, or 100 years?) ...and what sorts of paper (or other substrate) do you want to print on?

Other things to keep in ming - You could get a used printer, either from an auction or perhaps a local photographer/artist who is upgrading. Perhaps someone would even be willing to donate! You could probably get a great deal on an older Epson 2000p for example (although getting good prints from some archival printers would be a class in and of itself!).

Whatever you decide on, I would highly recommend Harald Johnson's book, "Mastering Digital Printing"....actually, I would consider it required reading before you even attempt to buy a printer! Another good text (a little older but still very relevant info) is a small book called "Creative Digital Printmaking" by Theresa Airy....it's geared more towards the beginner, but is very well written and has a great deal if useful information.
__________________
www.digitalprintmaking.net - A resource for fine art digital printmaking
  #3   Report Bad Post  
Old 08-11-2003, 05:01 AM
LarrySeiler's Avatar
LarrySeiler LarrySeiler is offline
A WC! Legend
NE Wisconsin Nicolet National Forest
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 36,446
 
Hails from United States
good suggestions Greg...and further confirmation on how great it is to have our community here online!

I understand that most typical printer inks have about a 2-3 year archival time...but that giclee more about 50 years. Just from what I've heard.

There was a great deal of discussion on this in other threads where Kinkade has become widely known for selling large giclees for great sums of money. I personally have seen one series of a special 20 edition number of adhesive backed giclees adhered to canvas. The uniqueness was his applying dabs of paint personally onto the print to give a look of impasto which only originals have. These were set to retail at $20,000 each.

Knowing the inks will fade....brought up much discussion on the ethics of all that certainly.

For myself....if I were to sell an 8" x 10" or a 11" x 14" print of one of my more expensive paintings to a patron that understood it was a print, and sold it very affordably...I'd see the 20-30 years you describe as more than adequate. People buying such images would no doubt redecorate their decor or interiors in time where they would feel less having been invested easier to replace with new things.

Certainly am not thinking large prints or posters....as realistically that is just not in the ball park of what we could afford. Of course, that would depend on the success of a grant....but small sums of grant monies are available versus the large.

Thanks for sharing Johnson's book...will have to pick that up for sure!

Larry
__________________
Larry Seiler- Signature Member IPAP
"My Painting From Life" blog
Main website!
  #4   Report Bad Post  
Old 08-11-2003, 08:03 AM
bruin70's Avatar
bruin70 bruin70 is offline
A WetCanvas! Patron Saint
manhattan,ny
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Posts: 3,448
 
Hails from South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands
all i know is this.....i've seen giclees by the supposed best in the country,,,nash editions.

i walked away totally unimpressed. the detailing was not near what i was told to expect. giclees print at 300dpi. my cheap epson c60 does better print resolution. so i don't know what the big deal is.

email or call a representative of a good paper supplier or ink supplier. there are compatability issues with certain inks and certain papers. then of course there are certain printers that use certain inks. since you have the printer, find out what inks it can use, then find the papers that go best with the inks.

if you go to a giclee newsgroup, you will not like what you read. the basic consensus is that archival is a lot of bullhooey. those who are involved with the process, either from a retail point or a development point are at odds with the posters at the newsgroup, who tend to be digital photographers and others who have studied the chemistry of compatabilities. they all tend to say that archival inks and giclees are a money making schemes involving museums,high end artists, and the print industry. inks touted to be archival a decade ago, are no longer.

one for instance....high end, white, archival papers sold by major paper manufacturers.......they are white because they are bleached, and the bleach chemistry breaks down "archival inks". make ssense to me.

i know nothing of this, but what i briefly read a year ago.

do a search in google groups for "giclee". you'll get fast answers to your posts. whether they are skewed or not i have no idea, and some of them are snotty photographers, but you can assume some people will have an ax to grind.
__________________
"it's alright to be judgmental,,,,,,,,if you have taste"...MILT

Last edited by bruin70 : 08-11-2003 at 08:23 AM.
  #5   Report Bad Post  
Old 08-11-2003, 11:34 AM
DaveLeeArt DaveLeeArt is offline
New Member
Indianapolis
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 14
 
Hails from United States
A great source of unbiased information about Giclee printing can be found at http://www.fineartgicleeprinters.org...eprinters.html

Dave
  #6   Report Bad Post  
Old 08-11-2003, 12:34 PM
LarrySeiler's Avatar
LarrySeiler LarrySeiler is offline
A WC! Legend
NE Wisconsin Nicolet National Forest
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 36,446
 
Hails from United States
thanks Milt...and Dave....I guess I have some reading and a learning curve to attain.

I simply would like to offer a few smaller affordable prints to area galleries that carry my pricier originals. A request they have made in fact.

Yet do so...without having to go the inventory route of mass four color separation prints. I already have one closet full of such prints of mine from my wildlife art era.

I think if a print lasts 15-30 years...and the artist is honest, and the buyer is only looking for enjoyment within that time frame or even less...then there is no integrity problem.

Unfortunately...as I spoke with one gallery framer two days ago whom had her own Kinkade gallery at one time, Kinkade buyers of his giclees often thought because of the canvas texture and the simulation texture of actual dabs of paint applied to the print surface they had in fact purchased originals. I know that happens because I've had people refer to my originals as prints. The public often simply doesn't understand.

Imagine thinking they own an original paying out $2400 for one of Kinkade's typical giclee transfers...and as they watch the inks fade before it is handed down to the next generation!

thanks for the links....I'll check them out!

Larry
__________________
Larry Seiler- Signature Member IPAP
"My Painting From Life" blog
Main website!
  #7   Report Bad Post  
Old 08-11-2003, 09:04 PM
Greg C.'s Avatar
Greg C. Greg C. is offline
Senior Member
Raleigh, North Carolina
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 215
 
Hails from United States
Quote:
Originally posted by bruin70
all i know is this.....i've seen giclees by the supposed best in the country,,,nash editions.

i walked away totally unimpressed. the detailing was not near what i was told to expect. giclees print at 300dpi. my cheap epson c60 does better print resolution. so i don't know what the big deal is.


That is not true at all...the prints you looked at may have been many years old and come from one of the original Iris printers (Nash Editions has been around since 90-91). You have to remember that Digital printmaking is a constantly evolving process... inks, papers and printers get better almost everyday. Trust me, today's printers print much better than 300 dpi!

Also, despite people like Kinkade, digital printing is not a "money making scheme". There are legit artists who are pushing this technology to its limits. (for example...) It's like any new technology...don't put too much stock in what the naysayers have to say, but don't buy into everything the enthusiasts do either!

I'm not sure where you got the idea that "archival" papers are bleached? (what newsgroup are you referring to?) Even if some are, I have never seen any evidence that it would somehow interfere with an archival, pigment based ink. Besides, you can print onto many common watercolor papers as well as the manufacturer's papers... Arches makes a great paper specifically for inkjet.

Larry,

The best resource for this sort of info on papers and inks is Wilhelm Imaging Research Take a look at some of the articles there and I think you will be pleasantly surprised at just how permanent some of the new inks are.

My advice, if you have limited funds, would be to get an Epson 2200. It will allow you to print with pigment inks onto a wide variety of papers and make prints up to 13" wide by 44". The Ultrachrome inks that come with this printer are rated between 65-100 years when the prints are displayed under glass.
__________________
www.digitalprintmaking.net - A resource for fine art digital printmaking
  #8   Report Bad Post  
Old 08-11-2003, 09:18 PM
bruin70's Avatar
bruin70 bruin70 is offline
A WetCanvas! Patron Saint
manhattan,ny
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Posts: 3,448
 
Hails from South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands
Quote:
Originally posted by LarrySeiler
thanks Milt...and Dave....I guess I have some reading and a learning curve to attain.

,,,I think if a print lasts 15-30 years...and the artist is honest, and the buyer is only looking for enjoyment within that time frame or even less...then there is no integrity problem.
,,,dabs of paint applied to the print surface they had in fact purchased originals. I know that happens because I've had people refer to my originals as prints. The public often simply doesn't understand.



thanks for the links....I'll check them out!

Larry

yes,,,,the public DOES NOT KNOW, nor understand, and from what i have gathered, that is precisely the avenue that retailers are taking. it has become an integrity issue.

you have other problems though,,,,,,,,,,how will the giclees affect your originals? how will the giclees be presented by your gallery owner? there is a bottom line price target on giclees done commercially. when done right, it is somewhat of an art form. thus the expense,,,,and it is expensive. so then the question becomes,,,,if the botom price point is $300, does this price conflict with your originals? are people, unable to meet your price of originals, be willing to pay $300 for the giclee.

i think to make it reasonable, you certainly will have to do it yourself. that way, you may attain a price point agreeable with you, the gallery, and your originals. and i would caution about the archival issue when they are sold to buyers.
__________________
"it's alright to be judgmental,,,,,,,,if you have taste"...MILT
  #9   Report Bad Post  
Old 08-11-2003, 11:28 PM
bruin70's Avatar
bruin70 bruin70 is offline
A WetCanvas! Patron Saint
manhattan,ny
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Posts: 3,448
 
Hails from South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands
Quote:
Originally posted by Greg C.


That is not true at all...the prints you looked at may have been many years old and come from one of the original Iris printers (Nash Editions has been around since 90-91). You have to remember that Digital printmaking is a constantly evolving process... inks, papers and printers get better almost everyday. Trust me, today's printers print much better than 300 dpi!

Also, despite people like Kinkade, digital printing is not a "money making scheme". There are legit artists who are pushing this technology to its limits. (for example...) It's like any new technology...don't put too much stock in what the naysayers have to say, but don't buy into everything the enthusiasts do either!

I'm not sure where you got the idea that "archival" papers are bleached? (what newsgroup are you referring to?) Even if some are, I have never seen any evidence that it would somehow interfere with an archival, pigment based ink. Besides, you can print onto many common watercolor papers as well as the manufacturer's papers... Arches makes a great paper specifically for inkjet.

Larry,

The best resource for this sort of info on papers and inks is Wilhelm Imaging Research Take a look at some of the articles there and I think you will be pleasantly surprised at just how permanent some of the new inks are.

My advice, if you have limited funds, would be to get an Epson 2200. It will allow you to print with pigment inks onto a wide variety of papers and make prints up to 13" wide by 44". The Ultrachrome inks that come with this printer are rated between 65-100 years when the prints are displayed under glass.

the nash print i saw was november 2002 at my gallery that represents donald roller wilson. they carry his giclees and originals. i also saw samples from three print houses, including colleville, who were trying to sign me on. with previous talk about how incredible giclees are and how realistic,,,i found them all to be seriously lacking. colleville sent a sample of a dan gerhartz who has a painterly style. the other printers also sent me samples of artists they thought might be similiar to me as painterly artists... from what i have seen, water media repros seem to work better, since the illusion of a print on paper is similiar in look and feel. oils repro'ed on paper suck( as with the nash run of wilson's and other samples),,,,,oils repro'd on canvas makes sense in that the canvas texture lends reality to the illusion, and will hide the imperfections. giclee on canvas can also be varnished, which adds to the illusion.

my conclusion from what limited samples i saw lead me to believe that giclees have strengths and weaknesses. their weakness is in representing painterly oils on archival paper. the washy media prints are dead on. drawings, i would surmise, would probably be right on the nuts as well.

the notion that WHITE papers are bleached came from a printer....that the natural color of paper is off white or buff.

i have limited knowledge of all this and the newsgroups are loaded with pertinent experiences.

i can offer larry my observations, which are pertinent because larry has a painterly style....as i do, and so there are things i expect if i expect to sell giclees at $700 a pop. this is no small investment, so the sales pitch is important. why? well,,,,how do you sell a buyer on the idea of shelling out $700 ON A PRINT. archival is one,,,,that it looks like the real thing is another. well,,,painterly oils on paper looks like your everyday art print blown up to full size. i wouldn't spend more than $20, the same as i would on a poster. if you want to sell a buyer on the illusion of the real thing, then a painterly oil is best represented by printing on canvas,,,,the texture enriches the illusion, paper doesn't.

the issue of archival quality inks?....that's for the big boys to battle on. btw,,,,i passed on the giclee thing. i was left with doubt about archival issues, so why take the chance.

the print industry has been hit major for a few years now. the economy affects those very people who cannot afford originals but can invest in giclee.

larry,,, i know you will present your prints properly and with integrity, so the issue may all boil down to economics. what you can sell them for will affect how much you invest in overhead. if you were to print on canvas, which i think is the only way to go if you want to "sell the idea of giclee", then i'm guessing you will have to have a printer do it for you......there goes your overhead.
__________________
"it's alright to be judgmental,,,,,,,,if you have taste"...MILT

Last edited by bruin70 : 08-11-2003 at 11:37 PM.
  #10   Report Bad Post  
Old 08-12-2003, 10:25 PM
Greg C.'s Avatar
Greg C. Greg C. is offline
Senior Member
Raleigh, North Carolina
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 215
 
Hails from United States
I do agree that if I had a painterly style, a Giclee is not going to give the same effect...but what is? No one has yet created a printer that spits out perfect impasto oil paintings!

I was taking the point of view that this printer would be meant for a computer art/graphics class, in which case a high quality inkjet printer would be a fantastic tool and Larry could probably make some decent prints of his own work as well.

Regardless, a well made print using archival inks, is going to result in a much better image that a 4-color process poster. I have done more than enough printing and research to know what the capabilities are of modern inksets, and the archival qualities are actually very good in many cases...Certainly on par with traditional photo chemistry, if not better. A true archival ink uses pigments rather than dyes...hence, the very molecular nature of such inks makes them much more resistant to fading. As long as you pair such inks with good quality papers (like Arches, Crane, Hahnemuhle, etc... ) the resulting prints should hold up very well.

One other thing...a bit outside the scope of this thread... Giclees, or high-end inkjets prints are NOT just for reproducing existing artwork. There is a growing group of artists (myself included) who are using these tools as a new form of printmaking...and creating art that only exists as digital prints, not reproductions of some existing image. I may come across as sounding like some sort of digital crusader, but it really ticks me off to hear about someone like Kinkade selling Giclees as though they are original oil paintings, or anyone who sells such work without explaining the archival qualities of the print and care needed to display it...all that does is give a bad name to an emerging medium that a lot of legitimate artists are working in and pushing the boundaries of.
__________________
www.digitalprintmaking.net - A resource for fine art digital printmaking

Last edited by Greg C. : 08-12-2003 at 10:28 PM.
  #11   Report Bad Post  
Old 08-13-2003, 02:32 AM
bruin70's Avatar
bruin70 bruin70 is offline
A WetCanvas! Patron Saint
manhattan,ny
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Posts: 3,448
 
Hails from South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands
Quote:
Originally posted by Greg C.
,,,,like some sort of digital crusader, but it really ticks me off to hear about someone like Kinkade selling Giclees as though they are original oil paintings, or anyone who sells such work without explaining the archival qualities of the print and care needed to display it...all that does is give a bad name to an emerging medium that a lot of legitimate artists are working in and pushing the boundaries of.

this issue and the like also turned me off. it seemed at the time that i was looking into it, that the giclee market was imploding from all the false hype. kincade is a perfect example. the newsgroups are expecting it but the established art community has always been good at maintining the hype,,,,until maybe if the prints start to fade.

larry does mostly oils, i think, so i thought it was pertinent to mention the drawbacks in replicating painterly oil techniques. if larry does watercolors,,,i think that's absolutely the best media to repro.
__________________
"it's alright to be judgmental,,,,,,,,if you have taste"...MILT
  #12   Report Bad Post  
Old 08-13-2003, 03:20 AM
Ivyleaf's Avatar
Ivyleaf Ivyleaf is offline
A Local Legend
Indiana
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 5,453
 
Hails from United States
Larry,

Have you considered a Canon printer? I have their new one on order, should be delivered in the next day or two...they are hard to find, I talked to Canon direct and they are in extremely high demand right now. I got mine for around $430, plus then of course had to add on extra papers and stuff...lol. All told under $550. It's a Canon i9100, it rivals Epson in all the reviews I have read, has 25 year archival-ness for prints...(if there is such a word) and it's supposed to be faster and quieter than an Epson...as well it's much much cheaper. The comparable Epson I was looking at was $700!

It can do prints up to 13 x 19 inches...here is the link to it if you'd like to take a peek at it...

http://www.usa.canon.com/html/conCpr...on=10199#specs

An independent review of that printer can be found here:

http://www.steves-digicams.com/2003_...non_i9100.html

It's only downfall that I can see so far is you need to supply a USB cable for it...that's it!

If you'd like I can give you more information on it after I actually receive it and test it out.


Ivy
  #13   Report Bad Post  
Old 08-13-2003, 09:10 AM
meriadoc's Avatar
meriadoc meriadoc is offline
Immortalized
Denver, Colorado (finally!)
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 4,163
 
Hails from Australia
yeah, but ivy, is that dye based inks or pigment inks? The epson you were looking at was probably the 2200 and it is dye based inks... from the specs of the canon, it looks like a dye-based printer...

I've got an Epson stylus photo 1280, I paid $450 for it (there is also a mail-in rebate of $100 up till the end of the month - so it equals out to $350 depending on where you get it), and although mine does 2880 dpi, you don't see any noticeable difference above 1440, so you're printing at 4880 or whatever the canon one was - and you'll be wasting ink

the lightfastness on my epson is 25 years, but what they don't tell you is is the conditions on which they rate the lightfastness...

and lightfastness also depends on the paper you're using.. If you're going to be using a paper that isn't archival or acid free - naturally the print is going to not last as long...

I use ilford papers, a resin based photopaper, that has a layer that protects the image... I've seen an ilford paper get wet and the dye hasn't run... soo....

I guess its all up to the individual. My 1280 does 13x19 and up to 13x44 panoramas if I so desire , not that I want to do panoramas on a frequent basis mind you, thats just too much ink for my liking.

My only other complaint is that with the higher-end canons (at least in my experience) they take their sweet time in actually printing. So do the epsons, but nowhere near as long as the canons i've dealt with. I used a friends canon, and it took 10! minutes (i'm not exaggerating here) to start to print. All it was doing was aligning/cleaning the cartridges, spooling about 5 sheets of paper through before finally printing (which took a further 10 minutes) and the results weren't that special.

I'm not critisizing you, just making observations. I haven't tested the canons - I don't particularly like them. I just prefer epsons
__________________
www.silver-pixels.net | flickr
20D | 30D | Sigma 12-24 EX | Sigma 24-60 2.8 EX | Canon 70-200 2.8L | Canon 580 EX II Speedlight with lumiquest mini softbox & Gary Fong lightsphere | Lensbaby 2.0 with macro kit | Holga | Lomo Actionsampler | Canon Rebel G | Canon Rebel 2000 | Canon Rebel S | Nikon FG & 50mm 1.4 for IR work | Seagull TLR | Canon Powershot S80 | Canon Powershot SD950IS. Some mine, some my business partners but we share so they are more ours
  #14   Report Bad Post  
Old 08-13-2003, 10:12 AM
LarrySeiler's Avatar
LarrySeiler LarrySeiler is offline
A WC! Legend
NE Wisconsin Nicolet National Forest
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 36,446
 
Hails from United States
I'm still here....gleaning, reading....

Have been spending time on all that info of Dave's link above at fineartgliceeprinters....and ssheesh I can see what Milt was saying at the confusion.

It does seem that some good time has to be spent reading and understanding the difference between pigments and dyes.

It seems hands down right now the Epson 7600 is the preferred, but is $3000....there is also the Epson 5500...

again, of course that depends on any success I have writing up a grant. Naturally something around $1000 or less would be easier to attain.

I originally thought the big thing was the IRIS giclee...at least that was the hoopla, but turns out that they use dyes...and the hype on the archival'ness of dyes is just that. You have to get it under UV protected/expensive glass...hang it in display where little to no outside sunlight gets into the room. Egads...!!!!

To answer questions on my media...the past was near 20 years using acrylics, I do my share of watercolors, but my bread and butter has been these past 6-7 years my oils.

The thing is...I'm looking for the versatility where students could produce professional looking greeting cards, smaller poster-like images, build a portfolio of their work...and where I could do an occasional print of one of my landscapes using the digital equipment I have for photographing.

Here in the midwest...we have basically a ceiling for just how much tolerance there is going to be for originals unless you have the absolute largest name in the art business. Even then prices seem to have a ceiling.

My plein airs range from $450 for a 6"x9" oil to $6700 for a 36"x 42"....

I know....that if I moved to perhaps Jackson Hole, WY or a few other areas like perhaps Sedona, AZ or Taos...whatever, I might see my work sell more. Its relative to what an area can support and probably relates to the size and average costs of building a rather large home.

So...if I were to make a giclee of a 12" x 16" plein air that has shown galleries a great deal of interest but folks just weren't loosening their purse strings at $1400....it would be nice to have a print option where the print might be about $145 at 11" x 14"...then matted and framed perhaps $350. Smaller print sizes, around 8" x 10" matted and framed at $185-$225 ...and so forth.

These are not requiring a sense of a monetary sacrifice on blue collar workers in a football/beer economy. Yep! That describes Wisconsin....a football/beer economy.

I'd want a print on perhaps a watercolor paper or something relatively stiffer and smooth for capturing detail...acid free, where color is not likely to quickly bleed.

The print would not in any way suggest to have value that an original would have, and the managers of the galleries would be willing to let the buyer understand such a print will not be permanent like an original. I imagine...those that would buy would like the image, and be satisfied that it could dress up a wall space for a number of years before they'd re-decorate a room again. A less affordable print is not as difficult to disgard or toss aside when such re-decoration time arrives.

A number of galleries my plein airs are in have mentioned several times they'd like to see me produce a few prints which they could sell. The suggestion is they could sell quite a few to people that have liked my work but just couldn't afford a piece.

Just yesterday...a gallery called me to say a former employee of theirs from a year or so ago really loved a 6" x 9" of mine called "Bradley's Secret" but that $495 was just not in their budget. I could tell the manager really wanted to sell this piece to this person...and considering how good this gallery has been to me, we agreed on $100 less....

Now...sure, a former employee no doubt values original art, so probably would have been less interested in a print. However, there are many whom are simply moved by an image. It touches their soul...a place they remember.

I'm not looking to make a killing on prints...heavens no. Yet...if a gallery in addition to selling originals could perhaps average one or two sales of prints a week, it gets your name out there and makes the gallery owner smile as well.

The option was another gallery I'm in in that same area, a wildlife art gallery. The owner/artist has giclees done by someone in the area that is a print maker...and would cost about $500 per image to digitalize, get set up and produce three or six first prints (don't remember which). The image then is kept on file and orders can be made thereafter.

He sells his own prints at about $165 for a 17" x 22"....plus extra for framing.

Thing is...I don't know if these are pigment inks or dyes. Plus $500 for each image is an investment too...and I lose sense of having control over the process.

bottom line....I have much to learn first...

take care, and I'll continue lurking to read thoughts if there are any more...
thanks,

Larry
__________________
Larry Seiler- Signature Member IPAP
"My Painting From Life" blog
Main website!

Last edited by LarrySeiler : 08-13-2003 at 10:15 AM.
  #15   Report Bad Post  
Old 08-13-2003, 10:23 AM
LarrySeiler's Avatar
LarrySeiler LarrySeiler is offline
A WC! Legend
NE Wisconsin Nicolet National Forest
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 36,446
 
Hails from United States
I should mention that my association of plein air painters I belong to...NAPPAP had a few months ago a discussion via listserv on the ethics of producing prints that looked too much like originals.

You want the print obviously to have a high level of quality to it, but at the same time some guys like Kinkade have gone so far as to spoof the public to dress up the prints not only with the canvas transfer but dabs of paint. It is difficult for some to understand the difference between a print and original.

Now...that might not have been too terrible, but seeing the public go for it...they kept raising prices to where people could have bought another reputable artist's originals instead of some print with controversial archival issues.

Some on NAPPAP felt that enough distinction should be obvious and understood that separates a print from an original so THAT the prestige of owning an actual original is not lost to the public.

So...I'm inclined to personally for that reason stay away from the canvas textured transfer look. For integrity sake...the print should be as fine as possible for what the public is expected to pay, the value they deserve to get...but yet leave the buyer of an original the satisfaction of the better value they have invested in in purchasing in original.

I would imagine most would agree....???

Larry
__________________
Larry Seiler- Signature Member IPAP
"My Painting From Life" blog
Main website!

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:21 AM.


© 2014 F+W All rights reserved.