[elwheel]

Does anyone else have the same issues I have with giclee prints, in that I won't buy them because I see no value in the process of their production.

I know it's probably a very dated stance, but at least with screenprinting there are an array of skills and processes involved, a human interaction with the paper and the ink. Should I re-educate myself? Can anyone convince me otherwise? I think I have one giclee in my collection, a byrogyphics (which I will giveaway soon on this forum) and to me it's just a poster. There have been some really nice images and pieces brought to my attention on this forum , like a few of the pahnl pieces, which I would've purchased except that they were giclees. Give me screenprints, etchings, linocuts, woodcuts, but giclee? Noooooooooooooooooo.....

Any thoughts?

[fingerz]

what about a giclee that has been hand finished ... ?

[misterx]

I feel the same way.

But there are exceptions...would love a certain David Choe print and I think thats a giclee, but your basic premise is true,as old school as that may be!

[bigtlt]

I feel the same too.

I've always felt there's nothing to stop me finding a Hi-Res image from the internet and printing it myself at home.

Don't think the quality would be that far apart.

With screenprints you can actually imagine the work that has gone into producing them.

[elwheel]

^ Totally - with the advance of modern laser printers, surely some of these giclees could be very easily forged (if they had a worthwhile monetary value).

[Zippy]

Agree with you 100%.

We have large format GMG Epsons at work which we use for proofing jobs. This is what a lot use for Glicee's. They are expected to fade in sunlight and only have a maximum lifespan of 25 years.

I am sure some will come back saying a silkscreen can also fade etc.. but I still believe a silkscreen is a traditional process that requires some effort and skill instead a push of the 'print' button.

[Deleted]

Jan 23, 2012 12:02:42 GMT 1 Zippy said:

Agree with you 100%.

We have large format GMG Epsons at work which we use for proofing jobs. This is what a lot use for Glicee's. They are expected to fade in sunlight and only have a maximum lifespan of 25 years.

I am sure some will come back saying a silkscreen can also fade etc.. but I still believe a silkscreen is a traditional process that requires some effort and skill instead a push of the 'print' button.

Got an email yesterday saying "We use an indigo press to do our digital printing and this is an ink based machine rather than toner like all the other digital presses. The benefit of ink over toner is that ink last longer, does not fade and does not crack like toner printers do. In addition an ink press can print on unusual substrate papers whereas toner machines struggle with textured papers."

What do you think ? Is ink based digital poster better than digital poster ? What about the lifetime ?

[James Baker]

I don't think its as easy as saying one is better than the other. I believe it comes down to the integrity of the artist and their justification in choosing the said medium. When the medium and its process directly relates to the artist work then it can be argued to be the valid choice. For example peter blake makes work that is designed to celebrate the medium of screenprint and Banksy's reflect stencil work (silkscreen is stencil). But would you expect Peter Doug to create a painting that can then be screenprinted? Would that not question the integrity of his practise? Like lithograph, Archival Giclee is a fantastic and justified medium for reproducing paintings. That's how I see it. Although this comes from an artist who uses silkscreen in his paintings.

[Zippy]

Jan 23, 2012 12:09:16 GMT 1 @thebigboss said:

Jan 23, 2012 12:02:42 GMT 1 Zippy said:

Agree with you 100%.

We have large format GMG Epsons at work which we use for proofing jobs. This is what a lot use for Glicee's. They are expected to fade in sunlight and only have a maximum lifespan of 25 years.

I am sure some will come back saying a silkscreen can also fade etc.. but I still believe a silkscreen is a traditional process that requires some effort and skill instead a push of the 'print' button.

Got an email yesterday saying "We use an indigo press to do our digital printing and this is an ink based machine rather than toner like all the other digital presses. The benefit of ink over toner is that ink last longer, does not fade and does not crack like toner printers do. In addition an ink press can print on unusual substrate papers whereas toner machines struggle with textured papers."

What do you think ? Is ink based digital poster better than digital poster ? What about the lifetime ?

Indigo presses are currently used for short run Digital / full personalisation.

For example, if we need to fully personalise a piece with name and address and other information, we put it on an Indigo press. It's 4 colour with full personalisation.

However, solid colours are awful and run 'streaky' and it should never be used for printing a piece of art to hang on a wall. Colours are flat and not accurate to the original file.

They are clever to compare it to a toner machine but they are only used for running A4 letters etc.. in an Office.

[Zippy]

Jan 23, 2012 12:16:11 GMT 1 James Baker said:

I don't think its as easy as saying one is better than the other. I believe it comes down to the integrity of the artist and their justification in choosing the said medium. When the medium and its process directly relates to the artist work then it can be argued to be the valid choice. For example peter blake makes work that is designed to celebrate the medium of screenprint and Banksy's reflect stencil work (silkscreen is stencil). But would you expect Peter Doug to create a painting that can then be screenprinted? Would that not question the integrity of his practise? Like lithograph, Archival Giclee is a fantastic and justified medium for reproducing paintings. That's how I see it. Although this comes from an artist who uses silkscreen in his paintings.

James,
From an Artists point of view you are right to say I believe it comes down to the integrity of the artist and their justification in choosing the said medium.
However, from a print point of view, I have never heard of 'Archival Gilcee' nor can I understand how that is possible?
A gilcee is not created for lasting as the Inks fade.

[remirough]

personally I think if an image is great, an image is great, should matter what process went into making it. The process of design painting or illustration has still gone into it... The image has still been created.

I do prefer the art of the screen print, but I have an amazing James White Giclee which I love dearly and I don't look at it and lament it's process, because I know the painting that it's been reproduced from, from an amazing photograph. So really the same amount of process goes into that creation.
imho.

[Zippy]

This is the current information about gilcee's....

About Giclee Prints

The Definition : Giclee (zhee-klay) - The French word "giclée" is a feminine noun that means a spray or a spurt of liquid. The word may have been derived from the French verb "gicler" meaning "to squirt".

The Term : The term "giclee print" connotes an elevation in printmaking technology. Images are generated from high resolution digital scans and printed with archival quality inks onto various substrates including canvas, fine art, and photo-base paper. The giclee printing process provides better color accuracy than other means of reproduction.

The Process : Giclee prints are created typically using professional 8-Color to 12-Color ink-jet printers. Among the manufacturers of these printers are vanguards such as Epson, MacDermid Colorspan, & Hewlett-Packard. These modern technology printers are capable of producing incredibly detailed prints for both the fine art and photographic markets. Giclee prints are sometimes referred to as Iris prints, which are 4-Color ink-jet prints from a printer pioneered in the late 1970s by Iris Graphics.

The Advantages : Giclee prints are advantageous to artists who do not find it feasible to mass produce their work, but want to reproduce their art as needed, or on-demand. Once an image is digitally archived, additional reproductions can be made with minimal effort and reasonable cost. The prohibitive up-front cost of mass production for an edition is eliminated. Archived files will not deteriorate in quality as negatives and film inherently do. Another tremendous advantage of giclee printing is that digital images can be reproduced to almost any size and onto various media, giving the artist the ability to customize prints for a specific client.

So, it has its advantages for an Artist to reduce their upfront costs and print on demand.
But from a Collector's view - it has less skilled input and is a print out from a hi res scan.

[sohohoho]

I only not buy giclee when I know the artwork could have been reproduced as silkscreen.
It riles me when artists like Kenny Random opt for giclee when silkscreen or even hand-stencil would obviously have been possible. The editions would hold more artistic merit and the asking prices would be a little more justifiable.
Some artwork is just not possible to reproduce as silkscreen though.
Take Dave Choe for example.

[Rourke]

I do both, Giclee and screenprint ocasionally
if somebody likes an image, but can't shed out for Orig.
then fair do's
end of day, it is a reproduction,
and gliclee does me fine for a accurate reproduction of my originals
The original is flatbed scanned, so it reproduces every minute details of the original.
then printed with the right inks, on mainly 315g paper
INK Life expectancy is excess of 100 years.

[Deleted]

Jan 23, 2012 12:24:17 GMT 1 @remirough said:

personally I think if an image is great, an image is great, shouldn't matter what process went into making it.

100% agree. If a person is more woried about the creation of the image than the image, then they're spectacularly missing the point (only in my negative and not so humble opinion).

[elwheel]

So, technically speaking (and I am a tecno-pterodactyl), if a gallery inadvertently uses a hi-res image of an artwork on their website, and i knew the exact dimensions of the print and type of paper of the original giclee, I could use that hi-res image and one of Zippys printers to produce an identical version? Thats part of my problem with this format - even a dunce like me could create one. On the other hand I completely realise the important point James is making.
sohohoho - could the choe not be screenprinted using colour-seperations (though what would be the point , I know).

[elwheel]

Jan 23, 2012 12:34:49 GMT 1 @deputydawg said:

Jan 23, 2012 12:24:17 GMT 1 @remirough said:

personally I think if an image is great, an image is great, shouldn't matter what process went into making it.

100% agree. If a person is more woried about the creation of the image than the image, then they're spectacularly missing the point (only in my negative and not so humble opinion).

But I think you can equally appreciate the craft and the aesthetics, like a nice piece of carved furniture.

[Rourke]

Had another thought

donkey years ago, I use to work at a run of the mill printers

anyway

We use to, when a job come in,
the appropriate process for printing that job was chosen on what was best for the image.
eg. Screenprinting - you coundnt get better on solid areas. so ideal for stencils
Litho and or now Giclee - would be best for halftones
so basically you chose thes best printing process, which will give you the best result
just my two penith

[Deleted]

Jan 23, 2012 12:42:04 GMT 1 elwheel said:

Jan 23, 2012 12:34:49 GMT 1 @deputydawg said:

100% agree. If a person is more woried about the creation of the image than the image, then they're spectacularly missing the point (only in my negative and not so humble opinion).

But I think you can equally appreciate the craft and the aesthetics, like a nice piece of carved furniture.

if we were discussing an original then yes that can be appreciated, that connection is diminished for me once we're into the realm of a reproduction, as long as it captures the essense of the piece that's what I'm after

[remirough]

Jan 23, 2012 13:00:05 GMT 1 @deputydawg said:

Jan 23, 2012 12:42:04 GMT 1 elwheel said:

But I think you can equally appreciate the craft and the aesthetics, like a nice piece of carved furniture.

if we were discussing an original then yes that can be appreciated, that connection is diminished for me once we're into the realm of a reproduction, as long as it captures the essense of the piece that's what I'm after

Exactly, it's like you're saying an image is worthless? it may have taken that artist 18 years to produce that image... the image is what we're talking about surely, some screenprints are bloody awful, poor registration, squidgee marks, badly cropped etc... most giclees done well and on great paper, signed and proofed by the artist themselves look fantastic.

But like I said, what do I know.

[Simococo]

is screen printing that more complex that digital printing?

[m00man]

Giclee's of fine art should be cheap, I find it very difficult to justify the price tag on a lot of the giclee copies of work. Mondo pumps out silkscreens for $40 that put most of the $300 giclee's to shame. If its about the piece of art and not the process then yeah, may as take the image down to staples and get it printed off than paying $300 for a giclee. Thats my problem with them.

[Deleted]

To all, sure Giclee must be cheap ! 20 to 40 USD max!

Jan 23, 2012 12:19:56 GMT 1 Zippy said:

Jan 23, 2012 12:09:16 GMT 1 @thebigboss said:

Got an email yesterday saying "We use an indigo press to do our digital printing and this is an ink based machine rather than toner like all the other digital presses. The benefit of ink over toner is that ink last longer, does not fade and does not crack like toner printers do. In addition an ink press can print on unusual substrate papers whereas toner machines struggle with textured papers."

What do you think ? Is ink based digital poster better than digital poster ? What about the lifetime ?

Indigo presses are currently used for short run Digital / full personalisation.

For example, if we need to fully personalise a piece with name and address and other information, we put it on an Indigo press. It's 4 colour with full personalisation.

However, solid colours are awful and run 'streaky' and it should never be used for printing a piece of art to hang on a wall. Colours are flat and not accurate to the original file.

They are clever to compare it to a toner machine but they are only used for running A4 letters etc.. in an Office.

Hey Zippy, thanks for your answer.

Then, can you tell me what's currently the best printer to print digital art (a standard/common one; not the latest very expensive) ? Which printer should be use to print a piece of art to hang on a wall ??

Thanks

[Cedric Mnich]

Some more info about "giclees". Since a few years, a new technology has appeared, called "Digigraphy" (TM by Epson). This is the process I use for my prints. It has two advantages :
1. the fact that you can produce prints per unit, on demand, avoiding the potential one-shot heavy cost of screenprinting for a series.
2. the digigraphy print, which is a "giclee" is done with a combination of a few papers with specific ink from Epson. Their combination has been chemically studied in order to have a lasting for up to 100 years, hence the "archival status".

Now, I can understand some people may prefer the screenprinting process, which implies craft knowledge, sometimes hand-pulling if it is crafting and not done by machines. But visually, unless the screenprinting uses specific inks (silver, gold etc) or transparency effects, there is not a big visual difference from what I saw. And all the above mentioned techniques cannot render as many colors as possible...

www.digigraphie.com/int/index.htm

[sohohoho]

Funny you should chip in Cedric.
I couldn't believe what I was reading when you said this was a giclee.

[magi]

Jan 23, 2012 12:31:48 GMT 1 sohohoho said:

I only not buy giclee when I know the artwork could have been reproduced as silkscreen.
It riles me when artists like Kenny Random opt for giclee when silkscreen or even hand-stencil would obviously have been possible. The editions would hold more artistic merit and the asking prices would be a little more justifiable.

I Agree. Too many releases and too expensive over the last year.. And not the first time this is pointed out..
urbanartassociation.com/index.cgi?board=europeartist&action=display&thread=88073&page=2

[Cedric Mnich]

Jan 23, 2012 14:16:48 GMT 1 sohohoho said:

Funny you should chip in Cedric.
I couldn't believe what I was reading when you said this was a giclee.

It is not a giclee. This one is my only screenprint, made in England by Sideline Screenprinting and from a series of 25.
Regarding the cost, the shipping cost from England to France cancelled the economy I could make.
I would add that screenprinting is not as common here in France as it seems to be in UK or USA. I don't know why but far easier to find a digigraphy printer than a screenprinter.

[sohohoho]

Jan 23, 2012 14:26:39 GMT 1 Cedric Mnich said:

It is not a giclee. This one is my only screenprint, made in England by Sideline Screenprinting and from a series of 25.

It is now!

urbanartassociation.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=europeartist&thread=87441&page=1

[Cedric Mnich]

I am not sure to understand why you are linking to that old thread ?
I am transparent about all the techniques I use. So I don't really see the point.
That pic is available both as a screenprint (pic above) and as a giclee digigraphy (pic herebelow).


I use digital printing for all my prints. There is nothing new here.

[cassiuslegrande]

Great thread this...

As i understand it Giclee prints should always be pigment based inks which is a natural substance found in most natural colour. I believe a lot prints are sold as Giclee but infact are not! Digital prints are dye based inks and not light fast.

My feeling is the screen-printing comes down to belief. If an artist or gallery really believes in an image then they will commit to the whole run.

I also cannot bring myself to buy Giclee's, its like a girl with really hairy thighs - its just a bit of a turn off!

love live the artisan screenprinter!