Urban Art Association

I hear what you are saying but you wouldn't be able to get the detail that 3D would have wanted from a screen print.

What about this then, as screen prints are in at the moment. Take an unsigned Banksy print. Banksy didn't pull it himself, does that make the screen printer a human printer. I guess it does. So does it matter.

All my prints are giclee by the way as i've no other way to get the results.

Retro

It's a fancy poster, but certain images can't be reproduced properly via screen printing. I am very happy with every Giclee I have purchased and when done well (which most all of them are) you can see some amazing details in the print itself, for instance with the Ian Francis Giclees many of them look like they are on canvas when framed because the detail is so good.

I have to agree with you there is something sterile about giclee print. The process of a screen print brings a new quality to an artwork where as a giclee seems to flatten any life.
I recently received an Ian Frances giclee print and although I love the image I was disappointed with the print. I think this is due screen printing being a skilled art and there is a quality that comes with the touch of a human hand.... where as any one can push the print button.

Giclees are where screen prints were at long time ago. Lithograph printers downplayed screen prints, just as we are downplaying Giclees to screenprints. In the past, I didnt like Giclees, I thought of them as glorified inkjet prints, but I must agree they can reproduce in great detail. I did some research and archivally there are no issues. For me, its the "newness" factor, but that will change over time. If Banksy puts out a Giclee, it aint gonna stop me from trying to get it!

some inkjet printers kick some serious ass these days. the quality of the prints is highly dependent on the ink system and papers used. i have an epson 9800 (stupidly large format printer) with eight cartdridges using pigment inks and i print on all sorts of archival papers. the range of colours in a single image cannot be reproduced via screen printing.

here's an example of a piece that i've printed that i couldn't imagine screen printing:
www.publicdomainstudios.com/pds-mtm-iso2s.htm

an image on the wrong paper with the incorrect colour correction setting can look flat and really crap, while the same image (with a little bit of tlc) and more suitable paper can be quite vibrant. this is why proofing is so important.

i do agree that there is something quite appealing about the screen printing process, particularly with solvent based inks. where there are solid colours in an image, it's excellent.

i've been dicking around with combining the two for a friend of mine to see if we can get the best of both worlds.

on the other hand, there are automatic screen printing machines that put out perfectly registered prints, one after another, which i don't think really works for a lot of street art.

at the end of the day, it really depends on the image you are trying to produce.

what happens to the original file that the glicee is made from when the edition is finished or the screens if it was screenprinted?
what stops people reproducing the work at a later date if the screens/file should get into the wrong hands or say a musem wants a copy?

an image file remains the property of the artist in most contracts. a trust worthy print house may store the file, delete it or return the file to the artist (destroying all former copies). yes, you can copy the file and reprint the image, but it's a breach of contract. or you can pull a few more unsigned screens and sell them on the open market. this is very poor practise, and once you're caught out once then you might as well kiss your printing career goodbye.

Well said, a mate of mine has a HP Designjet 5500 (60" wide), the results vary hugely with the paper for starters, yet again if it's printed with UV inks, and again depending on profile, you've got to know what you're doing and the image file that you start with also must be right in terms of colour, sharpness and resolution/size etc.

Of course not everything can be screenprinted, well it is possible, BRP prove that, but it requires a huge amount of effort/time/money, but lets face it a giclee is just a fancy name for inkjet.

While you say the range of colours achievable with a giclee is not possible with screenprinting, I understand what you mean (you're thinking of thousands of colours in one print) but on the other hand you're limited to the range of colours that can be produced in CMYK (cyan, magenta, yellow & black) I know most systems also have light cyan, light yello etc but there are plenty of colours that are not achievable. In screenprinting you use specific inks to match any colour, so it can really stand out when very bright, and rich colours are required.

Another difference is the thickness of ink that can be achieved with screenprinting, that cant be done with giclee.

..giclee is fine, wont suit all tastes or styles tho.. ink..pah! oil..mmmm yes yes!