Deleted
Posts โข 0
Likes โข
January 1970
|
Giclee prints, by Deleted on Aug 11, 2018 14:30:04 GMT 1, What are people's opinions of Giclee prints? I've always considered them to be on the bottom of the hierarchy of art printing processes but perhaps I am wrong. I've never been all that keen on digital prints generally. Isn't this basically the same process you would use at home printing off a page from the internet?
What are people's opinions of Giclee prints? I've always considered them to be on the bottom of the hierarchy of art printing processes but perhaps I am wrong. I've never been all that keen on digital prints generally. Isn't this basically the same process you would use at home printing off a page from the internet?
|
|
Dibbs 45
Junior Member
Posts โข 3,902
Likes โข 4,851
October 2012
|
Giclee prints, by Dibbs 45 on Aug 11, 2018 17:55:28 GMT 1, Gicleeโs are prints from a half decent printer. But an inkjet nonetheless. A lot of people (Laz being one of these) add a layer varnish or gloss to the print. Indeed a lot Galleries are doing it now. And call it Archival inks to throw people off the digital tag.
Arguably screen prints are better, simply because of a more complex process involving layers. I prefer screen prints because of this. However your giclee can be effective for artwork that has lots of detail, which a screen print would struggle with sometimes. They should be a lot cheaper as well ยฃ100-ยฃ150 or less, unless an artist is having a good popular run and milks it.
Most artists have cottoned on to a desire for HF now. So they bang out a giclee in five minutes from the original image and then add a splat of acrylic, and bobs your uncle and fannies your aunt. They give you the impression your getting something good and your not.
Iโd rather pay more for a screen print. Also Iโve found a sold out giclee is somehow available when you email a gallery, as they decide to turn the copier on again.
Gicleeโs are prints from a half decent printer. But an inkjet nonetheless. A lot of people (Laz being one of these) add a layer varnish or gloss to the print. Indeed a lot Galleries are doing it now. And call it Archival inks to throw people off the digital tag.
Arguably screen prints are better, simply because of a more complex process involving layers. I prefer screen prints because of this. However your giclee can be effective for artwork that has lots of detail, which a screen print would struggle with sometimes. They should be a lot cheaper as well ยฃ100-ยฃ150 or less, unless an artist is having a good popular run and milks it.
Most artists have cottoned on to a desire for HF now. So they bang out a giclee in five minutes from the original image and then add a splat of acrylic, and bobs your uncle and fannies your aunt. They give you the impression your getting something good and your not.
Iโd rather pay more for a screen print. Also Iโve found a sold out giclee is somehow available when you email a gallery, as they decide to turn the copier on again.
|
|
hui
New Member
Posts โข 289
Likes โข 206
October 2017
|
Giclee prints, by hui on Aug 11, 2018 18:52:40 GMT 1, Craftsmanship vs Autommatic? Tailored vs mass production?
Craftsmanship vs Autommatic? Tailored vs mass production?
|
|
lg2771
New Member
Posts โข 523
Likes โข 329
December 2017
|
Giclee prints, by lg2771 on Aug 11, 2018 19:25:46 GMT 1, My opinion is: itโs ok if the intention is to reproduce an original painting, but not ok if itโs the only iteration of a work (no painting and created solely to print). Price doesnโt really matter to me. An artist prices what they want.
My opinion is: itโs ok if the intention is to reproduce an original painting, but not ok if itโs the only iteration of a work (no painting and created solely to print). Price doesnโt really matter to me. An artist prices what they want.
|
|
fonebone45
New Member
Posts โข 343
Likes โข 261
August 2014
|
Giclee prints, by fonebone45 on Aug 11, 2018 21:01:58 GMT 1, What are people's opinions of Giclee prints? I've always considered them to be on the bottom of the hierarchy of art printing processes but perhaps I am wrong. I've never been all that keen on digital prints generally. Isn't this basically the same process you would use at home printing off a page from the internet? I basically feel the same way. At least with screen prints there's deterioration and slight differences as you go from #1 - #100. Giclee just seems like you're producing a "product" instead of a work of art.
That being said, I do digital illustration pieces, and giclee colours come out really nicely. Also something created digitally needs a way to physically exist sometimes...
What are people's opinions of Giclee prints? I've always considered them to be on the bottom of the hierarchy of art printing processes but perhaps I am wrong. I've never been all that keen on digital prints generally. Isn't this basically the same process you would use at home printing off a page from the internet? I basically feel the same way. At least with screen prints there's deterioration and slight differences as you go from #1 - #100. Giclee just seems like you're producing a "product" instead of a work of art. That being said, I do digital illustration pieces, and giclee colours come out really nicely. Also something created digitally needs a way to physically exist sometimes...
|
|
kalm
Junior Member
Posts โข 1,005
Likes โข 354
November 2010
|
Giclee prints, by kalm on Aug 11, 2018 22:06:52 GMT 1, Nothing worse than someone rehashing a masters style/work in giclee, adding a few splotches of paint and then charging hundreds...people are really dumb and will pay though so more power to them I guess.
Nothing worse than someone rehashing a masters style/work in giclee, adding a few splotches of paint and then charging hundreds...people are really dumb and will pay though so more power to them I guess.
|
|
|
lg2771
New Member
Posts โข 523
Likes โข 329
December 2017
|
Giclee prints, by lg2771 on Aug 11, 2018 23:32:07 GMT 1, My opinion is: itโs ok if the intention is to reproduce an original painting, but not ok if itโs the only iteration of a work (no painting and created solely to print). Price doesnโt really matter to me. An artist prices what they want. Yeah but...what if the image was created in PS or Illustrator or whatever, basically created on a computer...which is as valid a way of making art as any way..(Picasso would have been excited to create this way of course, anyone creative is always excited to use new techniques..) so then you have a file and need to output in the best way to get a good physical image..can be what is now called C-type, used to be Lambda..which is photographic paper exposed by computer driven led s and processed chemically...arguably better than giclee..or giclee. Neither used as a reproductive process, being used to create an original print. I prefer screenprints, as a screenprinter, but if the original idea was created on a computer with no conception of screenprinting then the obvious way to print is digital..I was round a v wealthy friend recently who had a big Hockney digital print hanging in their living room and I have to say it looked fantastic.
I should add digital compositions to my criteria as well. I hadnโt really thought of them but yeah I agree. I donโt even know how a screenprint would be possible for a digital work. I think screen prints look the best, but I feel that they can only be created when the artist creates the original art with the sole thought of transferring it to a screen print if that makes sense.
If thereโs a painting with an immense amount of thickness or layers a screenprint canโt really capture that.
My opinion is: itโs ok if the intention is to reproduce an original painting, but not ok if itโs the only iteration of a work (no painting and created solely to print). Price doesnโt really matter to me. An artist prices what they want. Yeah but...what if the image was created in PS or Illustrator or whatever, basically created on a computer...which is as valid a way of making art as any way..(Picasso would have been excited to create this way of course, anyone creative is always excited to use new techniques..) so then you have a file and need to output in the best way to get a good physical image..can be what is now called C-type, used to be Lambda..which is photographic paper exposed by computer driven led s and processed chemically...arguably better than giclee..or giclee. Neither used as a reproductive process, being used to create an original print. I prefer screenprints, as a screenprinter, but if the original idea was created on a computer with no conception of screenprinting then the obvious way to print is digital..I was round a v wealthy friend recently who had a big Hockney digital print hanging in their living room and I have to say it looked fantastic. I should add digital compositions to my criteria as well. I hadnโt really thought of them but yeah I agree. I donโt even know how a screenprint would be possible for a digital work. I think screen prints look the best, but I feel that they can only be created when the artist creates the original art with the sole thought of transferring it to a screen print if that makes sense. If thereโs a painting with an immense amount of thickness or layers a screenprint canโt really capture that.
|
|
moron
Junior Member
Posts โข 2,711
Likes โข 1,050
September 2017
|
Giclee prints, by moron on Aug 11, 2018 23:42:38 GMT 1, Craftsmanship vs Autommatic? Tailored vs mass production? So an artist who just rips off a photo from google or somewhere else and puts it in photoshop and creates some sort of slick soulless image.
Then gets it reproduced by screen printing is better than an artist who hand paints something very realistic and reproduces it digitally and hand finishes the digital print?
Craftsmanship vs Autommatic? Tailored vs mass production? So an artist who just rips off a photo from google or somewhere else and puts it in photoshop and creates some sort of slick soulless image. Then gets it reproduced by screen printing is better than an artist who hand paints something very realistic and reproduces it digitally and hand finishes the digital print?
|
|
fonebone45
New Member
Posts โข 343
Likes โข 261
August 2014
|
Giclee prints, by fonebone45 on Aug 11, 2018 23:53:17 GMT 1, Yeah but...what if the image was created in PS or Illustrator or whatever, basically created on a computer...which is as valid a way of making art as any way..(Picasso would have been excited to create this way of course, anyone creative is always excited to use new techniques..) so then you have a file and need to output in the best way to get a good physical image..can be what is now called C-type, used to be Lambda..which is photographic paper exposed by computer driven led s and processed chemically...arguably better than giclee..or giclee. Neither used as a reproductive process, being used to create an original print. I prefer screenprints, as a screenprinter, but if the original idea was created on a computer with no conception of screenprinting then the obvious way to print is digital..I was round a v wealthy friend recently who had a big Hockney digital print hanging in their living room and I have to say it looked fantastic. I should add digital compositions to my criteria as well. I hadnโt really thought of them but yeah I agree. I donโt even know how a screenprint would be possible for a digital work. I think screen prints look the best, but I feel that they can only be created when the artist creates the original art with the sole thought of transferring it to a screen print if that makes sense. If thereโs a painting with an immense amount of thickness or layers a screenprint canโt really capture that. re: "I donโt even know how a screenprint would be possible for a digital work. "
You'd just print the different parts of the file on different screens using transparency paper. One for each colour. Works well for flat vector files.
Yeah but...what if the image was created in PS or Illustrator or whatever, basically created on a computer...which is as valid a way of making art as any way..(Picasso would have been excited to create this way of course, anyone creative is always excited to use new techniques..) so then you have a file and need to output in the best way to get a good physical image..can be what is now called C-type, used to be Lambda..which is photographic paper exposed by computer driven led s and processed chemically...arguably better than giclee..or giclee. Neither used as a reproductive process, being used to create an original print. I prefer screenprints, as a screenprinter, but if the original idea was created on a computer with no conception of screenprinting then the obvious way to print is digital..I was round a v wealthy friend recently who had a big Hockney digital print hanging in their living room and I have to say it looked fantastic. I should add digital compositions to my criteria as well. I hadnโt really thought of them but yeah I agree. I donโt even know how a screenprint would be possible for a digital work. I think screen prints look the best, but I feel that they can only be created when the artist creates the original art with the sole thought of transferring it to a screen print if that makes sense. If thereโs a painting with an immense amount of thickness or layers a screenprint canโt really capture that. re: "I donโt even know how a screenprint would be possible for a digital work. " You'd just print the different parts of the file on different screens using transparency paper. One for each colour. Works well for flat vector files.
|
|
hui
New Member
Posts โข 289
Likes โข 206
October 2017
|
Giclee prints, by hui on Aug 11, 2018 23:54:39 GMT 1, Hey moron,
I thought what was being debated was the reproduction process of an image - not the image itself. One process is more labor intensive, which of course, would somewhat limited the result itself and cost a bit more.
The other is more efficient and somewhat limitless.
Occasionally, I shell out a bit and pay for custom made leather shoes. Sometimes I just got to the store and get somet off the rack.
I don't understand your point.
Hey moron,
I thought what was being debated was the reproduction process of an image - not the image itself. One process is more labor intensive, which of course, would somewhat limited the result itself and cost a bit more.
The other is more efficient and somewhat limitless.
Occasionally, I shell out a bit and pay for custom made leather shoes. Sometimes I just got to the store and get somet off the rack.
I don't understand your point.
|
|
moron
Junior Member
Posts โข 2,711
Likes โข 1,050
September 2017
|
Giclee prints, by moron on Aug 11, 2018 23:55:49 GMT 1, I should add digital compositions to my criteria as well. I hadnโt really thought of them but yeah I agree. I donโt even know how a screenprint would be possible for a digital work. I think screen prints look the best, but I feel that they can only be created when the artist creates the original art with the sole thought of transferring it to a screen print if that makes sense. If thereโs a painting with an immense amount of thickness or layers a screenprint canโt really capture that. re: "I donโt even know how a screenprint would be possible for a digital work. " You'd just print the different parts of the file on different screens using transparency paper. One for each colour. Works well for flat vector files. Fairey does it all the time
I should add digital compositions to my criteria as well. I hadnโt really thought of them but yeah I agree. I donโt even know how a screenprint would be possible for a digital work. I think screen prints look the best, but I feel that they can only be created when the artist creates the original art with the sole thought of transferring it to a screen print if that makes sense. If thereโs a painting with an immense amount of thickness or layers a screenprint canโt really capture that. re: "I donโt even know how a screenprint would be possible for a digital work. " You'd just print the different parts of the file on different screens using transparency paper. One for each colour. Works well for flat vector files. Fairey does it all the time
|
|
lg2771
New Member
Posts โข 523
Likes โข 329
December 2017
|
Giclee prints, by lg2771 on Aug 12, 2018 0:07:40 GMT 1, I should add digital compositions to my criteria as well. I hadnโt really thought of them but yeah I agree. I donโt even know how a screenprint would be possible for a digital work. I think screen prints look the best, but I feel that they can only be created when the artist creates the original art with the sole thought of transferring it to a screen print if that makes sense. If thereโs a painting with an immense amount of thickness or layers a screenprint canโt really capture that. re: "I donโt even know how a screenprint would be possible for a digital work. " You'd just print the different parts of the file on different screens using transparency paper. One for each colour. Works well for flat vector files.
I always thought a screenprint needed an etching of some sort but I guess that makes sense. Does a screenprint original have to be fairly flat? Would a collage translate to a screenprint?
I should add digital compositions to my criteria as well. I hadnโt really thought of them but yeah I agree. I donโt even know how a screenprint would be possible for a digital work. I think screen prints look the best, but I feel that they can only be created when the artist creates the original art with the sole thought of transferring it to a screen print if that makes sense. If thereโs a painting with an immense amount of thickness or layers a screenprint canโt really capture that. re: "I donโt even know how a screenprint would be possible for a digital work. " You'd just print the different parts of the file on different screens using transparency paper. One for each colour. Works well for flat vector files. I always thought a screenprint needed an etching of some sort but I guess that makes sense. Does a screenprint original have to be fairly flat? Would a collage translate to a screenprint?
|
|
fonebone45
New Member
Posts โข 343
Likes โข 261
August 2014
|
Giclee prints, by fonebone45 on Aug 12, 2018 0:22:49 GMT 1, re: "I donโt even know how a screenprint would be possible for a digital work. " You'd just print the different parts of the file on different screens using transparency paper. One for each colour. Works well for flat vector files. I always thought a screenprint needed an etching of some sort but I guess that makes sense. Does a screenprint original have to be fairly flat? Would a collage translate to a screenprint? Screen print screens are made using photosensitive solutions that dry onto the screen, and block out areas you don't want ink to go through. Each colour is it's own screen generally (you can use a big screen and tape areas off as well if you're good at lining things up by eye).
re: "I donโt even know how a screenprint would be possible for a digital work. " You'd just print the different parts of the file on different screens using transparency paper. One for each colour. Works well for flat vector files. I always thought a screenprint needed an etching of some sort but I guess that makes sense. Does a screenprint original have to be fairly flat? Would a collage translate to a screenprint? Screen print screens are made using photosensitive solutions that dry onto the screen, and block out areas you don't want ink to go through. Each colour is it's own screen generally (you can use a big screen and tape areas off as well if you're good at lining things up by eye).
|
|
fonebone45
New Member
Posts โข 343
Likes โข 261
August 2014
|
Giclee prints, by fonebone45 on Aug 12, 2018 0:25:03 GMT 1, re: "I donโt even know how a screenprint would be possible for a digital work. " You'd just print the different parts of the file on different screens using transparency paper. One for each colour. Works well for flat vector files. I always thought a screenprint needed an etching of some sort but I guess that makes sense. Does a screenprint original have to be fairly flat? Would a collage translate to a screenprint? This Okuda San Miguel print we had made for his show here in Toronto for example, started off as a photoshop file that was separated into 12 layers. One for each colour.
www.hashtaggallery.com/products/exclusive-okuda-san-miguel-screen-print
re: "I donโt even know how a screenprint would be possible for a digital work. " You'd just print the different parts of the file on different screens using transparency paper. One for each colour. Works well for flat vector files. I always thought a screenprint needed an etching of some sort but I guess that makes sense. Does a screenprint original have to be fairly flat? Would a collage translate to a screenprint? This Okuda San Miguel print we had made for his show here in Toronto for example, started off as a photoshop file that was separated into 12 layers. One for each colour. www.hashtaggallery.com/products/exclusive-okuda-san-miguel-screen-print
|
|
|
|
Giclee prints, by Happy Shopper on Aug 12, 2018 0:28:05 GMT 1, Horses for courses. Sometimes giclee is the better option, sometimes it's a lazy option. Depends on the image you're reproducing, and how much you want to charge for the final result.
Horses for courses. Sometimes giclee is the better option, sometimes it's a lazy option. Depends on the image you're reproducing, and how much you want to charge for the final result.
|
|
Andy 123
New Member
Posts โข 209
Likes โข 315
January 2015
|
Giclee prints, by Andy 123 on Aug 12, 2018 10:14:35 GMT 1, Giclee are of course less valuable as the artworks itself. But when you have colors fading, you can't use a screen print method, all is left is a printer and a giclee... Of course to imitate fadings on screen print you can use rasters (different sizes of dots), the result can be extremely nice, but its sill not a fading...
Giclee is a reproduction method rather than art creating method. Its useful when you want to own a piece of art you love. But much less attractive for longterm collections & collectors. Personally i try avoid buing giclee, but it doesn't change the fact i own a few and produced a few as well.
Despite giclee seems to be a cheaper print, sometimes the cost of production is similar to screen print, especially when you are printing a hi-quality detailed, colorful image on a fancy paper.
So its not a rule $$giclee$$ < $$screenprints$$.
Someone asked about flat storage of screen print - true!! Because the paint on the screen printed paper may be crushed when you have your screen print in a (especially) thin tube... This is why you are receiving your screen prints in a wide tubes (or flat).
Giclee are of course less valuable as the artworks itself. But when you have colors fading, you can't use a screen print method, all is left is a printer and a giclee... Of course to imitate fadings on screen print you can use rasters (different sizes of dots), the result can be extremely nice, but its sill not a fading...
Giclee is a reproduction method rather than art creating method. Its useful when you want to own a piece of art you love. But much less attractive for longterm collections & collectors. Personally i try avoid buing giclee, but it doesn't change the fact i own a few and produced a few as well.
Despite giclee seems to be a cheaper print, sometimes the cost of production is similar to screen print, especially when you are printing a hi-quality detailed, colorful image on a fancy paper.
So its not a rule $$giclee$$ < $$screenprints$$.
Someone asked about flat storage of screen print - true!! Because the paint on the screen printed paper may be crushed when you have your screen print in a (especially) thin tube... This is why you are receiving your screen prints in a wide tubes (or flat).
|
|
Express Post
Junior Member
Posts โข 3,330
Likes โข 2,479
January 2008
|
Giclee prints, by Express Post on Aug 12, 2018 10:45:04 GMT 1, I have to commend Graffiti Prints. In light of giclees reducing overheads for the industry, they have still found a way to deliver screenprints at a price point that is below competitors right now.
Hush and Popink also make good quality screenprints, however the latter is a tad pricier.
And anyone with a KAWS print knows that Pace is on point with execution. Their pricing on the other hand๐
Giclee are of course less valuable as the artworks itself. But when you have colors fading, you can't use a screen print method, all is left is a printer and a giclee... Of course to imitate fadings on screen print you can use rasters (different sizes of dots), the result can be extremely nice, but its sill not a fading... Giclee is a reproduction method rather than art creating method. Its useful when you want to own a piece of art you love. But much less attractive for longterm collections & collectors. Personally i try avoid buing giclee, but it doesn't change the fact i own a few and produced a few as well. Despite giclee seems to be a cheaper print, sometimes the cost of production is similar to screen print, especially when you are printing a hi-quality detailed, colorful image on a fancy paper. So its not a rule $$giclee$$ < $$screenprints$$. Someone asked about flat storage of screen print - true!! Because the paint on the screen printed paper may be crushed when you have your screen print in a (especially) thin tube... This is why you are receiving your screen prints in a wide tubes (or flat).
I have to commend Graffiti Prints. In light of giclees reducing overheads for the industry, they have still found a way to deliver screenprints at a price point that is below competitors right now. Hush and Popink also make good quality screenprints, however the latter is a tad pricier. And anyone with a KAWS print knows that Pace is on point with execution. Their pricing on the other hand๐ Giclee are of course less valuable as the artworks itself. But when you have colors fading, you can't use a screen print method, all is left is a printer and a giclee... Of course to imitate fadings on screen print you can use rasters (different sizes of dots), the result can be extremely nice, but its sill not a fading... Giclee is a reproduction method rather than art creating method. Its useful when you want to own a piece of art you love. But much less attractive for longterm collections & collectors. Personally i try avoid buing giclee, but it doesn't change the fact i own a few and produced a few as well. Despite giclee seems to be a cheaper print, sometimes the cost of production is similar to screen print, especially when you are printing a hi-quality detailed, colorful image on a fancy paper. So its not a rule $$giclee$$ < $$screenprints$$. Someone asked about flat storage of screen print - true!! Because the paint on the screen printed paper may be crushed when you have your screen print in a (especially) thin tube... This is why you are receiving your screen prints in a wide tubes (or flat).
|
|
kwatis
New Member
Posts โข 974
Likes โข 691
April 2007
|
Giclee prints, by kwatis on Aug 12, 2018 14:36:38 GMT 1, It is a tough subjective question with lots of variables. I think it comes down to the main differences in the mediums. Giclees are great for reproducing an image, either complex (paintings and digitally created image in PS/AI with numerous layers, blend options, transparencies, etc) or simple (only thing coming to mind is Jerkface's recent carebear prints). The resulting giclee IMO is flat and void of any intrinsic "life." Screenprinting allows for a similar ability to reproduce but with the limitations of the medium (ability to mix accurate colors, ability to accurately create separations, etc). I do fancy the work POP!NK has been doing as they seem to approach each different artist and the work by each artist in a different way when screen printing. From the smooth colorful vector shapes of Pose's 20 color prints, to more painterly looking prints for Hebru Brantley to more recently Joakim Ojanen and Ryan Travis Christian. Same with Seriopress and of course Pace. And Pace has a rich history of working with screen printing and other printmaking processes. I think they are responsible for the 140-plus color screen print for Chuck Close. IMO, a screen print will always look better than a giclee. It has an certain "hand-done" look even if it was printed on an automatic press (not pulled by hand).
If you have the time, money and knowhow, I am sure screen printing could be used in place of digital printing. That said, it's definitely cost effective and has its own place.
One last thing regarding giclee'ss that it is French for spurt or squirt. Currently French youth are using it as slang for diarrhea or ejaculate. Seems fitting IMO.
It is a tough subjective question with lots of variables. I think it comes down to the main differences in the mediums. Giclees are great for reproducing an image, either complex (paintings and digitally created image in PS/AI with numerous layers, blend options, transparencies, etc) or simple (only thing coming to mind is Jerkface's recent carebear prints). The resulting giclee IMO is flat and void of any intrinsic "life." Screenprinting allows for a similar ability to reproduce but with the limitations of the medium (ability to mix accurate colors, ability to accurately create separations, etc). I do fancy the work POP!NK has been doing as they seem to approach each different artist and the work by each artist in a different way when screen printing. From the smooth colorful vector shapes of Pose's 20 color prints, to more painterly looking prints for Hebru Brantley to more recently Joakim Ojanen and Ryan Travis Christian. Same with Seriopress and of course Pace. And Pace has a rich history of working with screen printing and other printmaking processes. I think they are responsible for the 140-plus color screen print for Chuck Close. IMO, a screen print will always look better than a giclee. It has an certain "hand-done" look even if it was printed on an automatic press (not pulled by hand).
If you have the time, money and knowhow, I am sure screen printing could be used in place of digital printing. That said, it's definitely cost effective and has its own place.
One last thing regarding giclee'ss that it is French for spurt or squirt. Currently French youth are using it as slang for diarrhea or ejaculate. Seems fitting IMO.
|
|
sfnyc
Junior Member
Posts โข 1,111
Likes โข 1,126
Member is Online
August 2017
|
Giclee prints, by sfnyc on Aug 13, 2018 4:22:05 GMT 1, Word, agree to whats been said all above. Giclee / Digital prints are the worst form of art print.
Word, agree to whats been said all above. Giclee / Digital prints are the worst form of art print.
|
|