Giclee my Schmicklee !

[Scott Fleming]

We have an art foundation here in Blanco County Texas headed up by Benini. He's a decent sort. An immigrant from Italy and a very good 'modern art' painter. He's established a sculpture ranch up in the hills along with his own large gallery and puts on a symposium of artists the last weekend of every month. His gallery features other artists on a regular basis.

I go sometimes to see what's going on. There's usually a couple of photographers and most attendees have some passing interest in photography. They have all taken to using the term Giclee. Every time I hear it I giggle out loud and say something like "oh, you mean ink jet. Giclee is so phony and pretentious." Needless to say this is not winning me any friends.

Maybe I'm wrong but I truly feel like the use of this term is a complete flim flam. Meant to obfuscate the truth, lie to the public, and garner mystery and 'hoi poloi' pretensions to the photographer.

I understand that the photographer wants to get across the information that fine art inkjet processes ARE very different than what the average joe can get out of his HP multifunction machnine and that even with the finest printer around Joe Average would have a tough time getting a fine color or tonally adjusted/balanced print out of it.

But this Giclee thing is not the way. It's so phony. Why don't we just call the prints fine art ink jet prints and if anybody asks, explain that they ARE indeed not just the result of any old inkjet process?

The 'ART' community however has already adopted Giclee. Should we just let it go and take what is offered to us? The ostentatious term does work on most buyers.

Wikipedia's definition:

Giclée (French for "spray") is the use of the ink-jet process for making Fine-Art prints (first done in the early 1990s). Originally the term applied to "Iris" prints created on the Scitex Corp. "Iris Model Four" colour drum piezo-head inkjet proofer. Proofers are specialized commercial printing machines designed to proof or show what the final multi-color process printing will look like before mass production begins. The term "giclée" is frequently used to describe any high-resolution, large-format ink-jet printer output with fade-resistant dye or pigment based inks. It is common for these printers to use between seven and twelve colour inks. Though originally intended for proofing, many artists and photographers use ink-jet printers as an alternative to lithography for limited editions or reproductions.

[Kirk Gittings]

I just refer to mine as "Archival Ink" prints. I never say injet or Giclee just like I never said "Silver Projection" or "Gelatin Silver Enlargements" or some silliness like that for silver prints or "Contact Printed PP". Inkjet or Giclee is part of the mechanics of producing the print not what is on the print.

I agree with you the Giclee thing is a scam to make it sound exotic and special. Any knowledgeable collector would know better. This is aimed at uninformed buyers.

[darter]

"Giclee" is French slang for "ejaculate".

[robert_4927]

A friend and fellow photographer has started using the " Archival Ink" method and he has produced some beautiful prints. I on the other hand must be considered old school as I work almost exclusively in pt/pd and I'm not one to argue on what medium is better, to each their own, is my attitude. My friend kept on insisting that we test his new inks. I was opposed at first because with all the work that goes into making a pt/pd print I just couldn't bring myself to expose one to adverse conditions ( even a work print). But he kept on insisting and even went as far as to offer to buy one of my work prints for a test. Well I gave in and we laid a platinum and an inkjet print in harsh direct sunlight. This was four weeks ago. He has yet been back to view the results so the prints continue to be in the harsh light. I can't see any noticable difference in my pt/pd print as yet but the "archival ink" print is beginning to look like a Monet water color ( washed out). I'm very disappointed for him because he is so excited about this new medium and I won't do anything to discourage him from using it because he produces some amazing prints. But I can't seem to endorse these inks as being archival. Now this just may be a fluke and something went wrong in his process because i know nothing about these new inks. But I do know what my eyes tell me.

[paulr]

Thanks, Phil.
I was about to agree with the original post, but now that I know what giclee really means, I'm going to start using it for my work immediately.

[Ted Harris]

I believe we should offer our cleints excellent prints. I see no need to differentiate between silver/ink/platinum/etc. By making these distinctions we only make what, arguably, could be an artificial differentiation in the eyes of the buyer. Production of the master print, IMO, takes the same amount of time regardless of the process. If careful notes are taken making the original 'wet' print then subesquent prints are no more difficult than duplicating a digital master with saved settings.

[luis a de santos]

Dear Scott.

You are right on.I have an art gallery in Houston dedicated exclusively to photography and everyday I have to listen to all sort of nonsense about digital photography and the people who have learned the term " giclee" and drop it at the least provocation to prove they know something.
It is high time we refer to things for what they are.Traditional silver gelatin photography or the many permutations of digital imaging and printing.Only by doing this we can understand each other.I make no critical judgement as to the value and esthetics of one versus the many others but critical and artistic differences clearly exist between the many different techniques and it is an evolving thing.
Giclee, schmicklee... you got it.

Luis

[Paul Butzi]

Every time I hear it I giggle out loud and say something like "oh, you mean ink jet. Giclee is so phony and pretentious." Needless to say this is not winning me any friends.

Sure, it's pretentious. No, you'll not make many friends pointing out to people that they're being pretentious.

Maybe I'm wrong but I truly feel like the use of this term is a complete flim flam. Meant to obfuscate the truth, lie to the public, and garner mystery and 'hoi poloi' pretensions to the photographer.

For instance, I'd like to point out that the term 'hoi polloi' actually means 'the common people', although you've used it incorrectly in a way that implies that someone might have "'hoi poloi' pretensions', as if 'hoi polloi' meant 'elite'.

Don't you think that's a bit of a complete flim flam, intended to obfuscate the truth, which is that you clearly don't know what the term means and you're just being pretentious?

And finally, did I win any friends by pointing this out? No, I did not.

Maybe there's a lesson there.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Ah hah! So John Cleary finally has some competition uh? Good for you Luis, does your gallery have a web site? Let me know...... :-)

[Kirk Gittings]

Robert,

Richard Misrach and Joel Merowitz have been selling beautiful C prints (Misrach's are even processed in green developer that's how he gets those pastel tones) for 25 years. These prints should not even be hung anywhere for any lenght of time but kept in dark storage.

Platinum/paladium does not define accepted archival standards, P/P FAR exceeds them. That is great and that is a selling point to knowledgeable buyers. I too have done my own testing of b&w prints from UC inks (not against P/P because I know what would win) but to determine if I think Wilhelm's predictions are remotely acurate and they appear to be on B&W at least.

As per Ted's view, all my prints, whether silver, ink, Ilfochrome or P/P come with a replacement guarantee. The only thing I have ever had to replace was a silver print with staining of some unknown origin and a couple of silver prints where the dry mounting failed (the temperature read twenty degrees higher than it actually was on a used press that I bought). I replaced them without question and I will do the same with ink.

[Michael Veit]

Kirk,

What's "green developer?"

Thanks...

[John Cook]

The unspoken truth among us is that fine art is one part craftsmanship and nine parts blarney. Or perhaps “salesmanship” would be more p-c.

In art school, attempting to put our work in the best possible light for the instructor in the classroom, this was known as “saving it on the crit board”.

In Phil Cohen’s class one day, a student spent a great deal of time explaining in exquisite technical detail how he had made a rather dismal photograph using many multiple exposures through a wide variety of different filters. After his exhaustive explanation, Phil (totally unimpressed) calmly suggested that the same result could be achieved by spitting on the lens.

This giclee appellation is simply another example of the phenomenon, IMO.

[Scott Fleming]

Paul,

No kidding?! I always thought the term meant 'snootty'. Live and learn.

I think I'll switch to mentioning that giclee is French slang for ejaculation. Much more offensive. I love to piss off 'artistes'.

[John Kasaian]

Scott,

I'm glad to hear that the buffalos didn't do you in!

Is Giclee pronounced "Glicky", "Glickly" or "Gly-cee"? I never could figure that one out. I did talk to a gallery owner in Carmel once who told me that if I were to send her a portfolio for review the prints would have to be "Gly-cees" since thats what is selling these days. Another gallery down the street only sold "silver gelatin" prints which strikes me as referring to Jello contaminated by heavy metals.

I think these terms have more to do with marketing than anything else. I love making traditional silver prints and I'm learning about alternative processes too, but I'd rather sell a print because the buyer sees something in the content that deeply matters to them rather than because the technique used to produce it is fashionable.

I used to deal with an art gallery comprised of members a long time ago. I learned that artists are a bit like your buffalos---it is best not to provoke them since they are unpredictable on the best of days. Let your pals wax about glickys, glicklys, or gly-cees (if the excess verbage gets them an extra few bucks a print then good for them!) if it makes them happy then go home and do your own thing. My 2-cents.

Cheers!

[Mark Sawyer]

I thought it was named after that really bad Jennifer Lopez/Ben Affleck movie...

[Dan Jolicoeur]

And why shouldn't we differentiate between a silver print, or cibichrome or Ink jet? As I got sucked into another year of buying my daughters soocer team print for $30. It is washed out before I have even framed it! I am tired of it. I respect all of your hard work! I can only imagine the time you put into learning photo shop and the hard work you have done to make these digital prints. NO DISRESPECT! I have thought about doing it myself. All I can say is I am so glad I brought my 35mm the day of the photo session before her last game. That was only 3 weeks ago by the way. I do not have money to buy fine art. I have spent more on framing then most of the prints hanging on my wall. I have spent $150+- about 10 years ago for a print. If I knew that a print of the same value that I liked was ink jet, or what ever P.C. title you want to give it, I would not buy it. I have had too many not survive 6 months let alone 50 years. As I explain this to one of the other parents my daughter has now lost her best friend, she can no longer sleep at her house, or visa-versa. Why? Because I insulted their neighbor and friend who was the photographer who does "great work". I never said his work wasn't any good. I said the prints don't last. And I have not bought one yet that has. Three years in a row with two daughters, one with horse riding camp pictures and the other with soocer. Google my post you will see the one i wrote last year or the year before. I am sorry but if you do not differentiate then there must be a reason?
Please, Please, Please,

With Great Respect, and no harm intended,

[Paul Cocklin]

I believe it's pronounced, "szhee-clay"

Does anybody know what 'hoidy toidy' means? I've always wanted to know....

[RichSBV]

hoity-toity

hoi·ty-toi·ty (hoi”t¶-toi“t¶) adj. 1. Pretentiously self-important; pompous. 2. Given to frivolity or silliness. [From reduplication of dialectal hoit, to rompAkin to perhaps akin to hoyden.]

1. Overly convinced of one's own superiority and importance:
a. proud
b. superior
c. lofty
d. presumptuous
e. arrogant
f. disdainful
g. haughty
h. insolent
i. lordly
j. overbearing
k. supercilious
l. high-and-mighty
m. overweening

Well said John, and several others. If someone sells a photographic print and it's really an inkjet (by any other name), they are simply committing fraud!!!

pho·to·graph (f½“t…-gr²f”) n. Abbr. photog. 1. An image, especially a positive print, recorded by a camera and reproduced on a photosensitive surface

It is a common assumption that people take for granted. Anything sold as a photograph that is not, is fraud!

[Stan. Laurenson-Batten]

When my daughter finished at the London Art School I asked he what she had learned that impressed her most, she replied, " One can slide further on bull **** than on dry a dry a***"

[Doug Herta]

"I think I'll switch to mentioning that giclee is French slang for ejaculation. Much more offensive. I love to piss off 'artistes'."

Scott-

I remember the other slang the French have used the term giclee - a term used when a tom cat sprays to mark its territory. I only bring it up because it seems relevant to the way the art community appears to treat one another and others. And if you want to "piss off" the art community, the true uses of the term giclee is appropriate on so many levels...

Doug

[Kirk Gittings]

Michael,

The developer for C prints must be aged by running some prints thru it or adding some chemical (I quite doing this awhile ago and can't remember) to age it. Otherwise you get low contrast with pink whites and pastel colors. I was always curious about his prints so I went to a gallery and looked at his prints in a flat file. The white boarders underneath the window mat were pink, a dead give away.

[Michael Veit]

Thanks, Kirk. Very interesting.

His stuff is beautiful, no doubt about it.

[paulr]

"The unspoken truth among us is that fine art is one part craftsmanship and nine parts blarney. Or perhaps “salesmanship” would be more p-c."

fine art may have something to do with craftsmanship or not, and it may have something to do with blarney or not ... but SELLING fine ar most definitely means understanding both fine art and salesmanship. If your work sold itself, there would be no need for galleries. As it is, few people I know who are succesful in the fine art world complain about galleries taking a 50% commission. These people know how hard it is to sell the work.

I'm happy with idea that making art is my job, and selling it is someone else's. If that person needs to refer to a frenchman's ejaculate to make someone comfortable handing over hundreds of dollars, than so be it. As long as I'm not the one who has to do the wanking.

[Joe Bossuyt]

For more on the "real " story behind the term Giclee, pronounced "zhee-clay", look here:

http://www.dpandi.com/giclee/giclee.html

I suppose the custom print industry needed a "proper" term to describe their work such as the label "haute couture" is to the high fashion clothing industry. Something to distinquish your custom print from "off the rack". Based on the article at the link above, Giclee may soon evolve into a "protected appellation" too, requiring that certain rules and conditions be followed in order to apply the term to one's digital print.

See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haute_couture

Looks like the high-brow feline's out of the bag and spraying in ever new directions!

[David A. Goldfarb]

Now wouldn't you just love one of these on the back of your prints?--

http://www.dpandi.com/giclee/twologoscombo_500x_96_85q.jpg

[QT Luong]

The ostentatious term does work on most buyers.

If it's not broken, why fix it ?

[Scott Fleming]

As much as I hate to admit it I think QT is right.

I'll just have to put my franconausea aside and go with the flow. When my non photographer artist acquaintences start talking about the new Giclee prints they are paying for I'll only mention that my Lightjets and Chromira color prints are an actual photographic process rather than ink spurted ... er, sprayed on paper.

[John Kasaian]

Scott,

I'll just keep pulling my prints out of trays with my hairy forearms ;-)

[robert_4927]

"these prints should not even be hung anywhere for any length of time but kept in dark storage" Kirk, I'm sorry but how can you attach the would archival to that statement? Even with casual viewing in museum quality light the image will be exposed to UV and over a period of say 50 years I can't see how the inks will survive. This inkjet started fading after two days. personlly I could not be comfortable using the term archival. But as long as you are comfortable telling your customers that this print is archival then more power to you, as I said to each their own. But what I have a problem with is the buying public may compare the term with the archival properties of a pt/pd print and that is almost insulting. You see when we talk archival in platinum we're talking 500- 1000 years and you are correct that is a great selling point. Such a good selling point that inkjet printers are making the same claim to a naturally uninformed public and it seems unfair to those of us who take on the painstaking and expensive task to produce beautiful prints in platinum so they can be enjoyed for centuries to come. I may sound a little bias because i work in pt/pd but I feel insulted when I here the new owner of a beautiful new" Archival Ink Print" refer to it as "this will be around as long as the pt/pd's." There I got that off of my chest. Now I really like some of the work and I hope it continues to improve. I have seen some drop dead gorgeous prints and even own a couple so please keep up the good work.

[robert_4927]

Sorry, that should have read ...How can you attach the word archival......?

[Bruce Watson]

What’s in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.
-- William Shakespeare

[RB]

"What’s in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet. -- William Shakespeare"

Not if there is fraud in the naming. A rose is a rose but a poisouous mushroom is not a rose, no matter what you may call it.

[David Luttmann]

Robert,

What did you print that faded in two days? I've printed with a Canon using dye based ink on nanoporous paper and had prints unprotected in a bright room for over 2 years with no loss. Pigment inks on good paper should be fine for many decades.

That said, I've seen silver prints that colored in a few weeks because of improper washing. I guess this means silver is only good for a month or so.....

Honestly, who cares. If people want to complain about a 20% fade on my pigment printing in 100+ years, I'll be happy to take the complaint from them an rectify the situation ;-)

[Dean Tomasula]

"Giclee" is just as pretentious as "Gelatin Silver." When did a wet darkroom print become a "Gelatin Silver" print? We used to just refer to them a "prints." Not counting alternative processes of course.

Actually "Giclee" is aptly named I think, because you're being "masturbated" when you spend big bucks to buy a "Giclee" print.

[David Luttmann]

I agree Dean,

It appears OK to call a print "Gelatin Silver" but you can't give inkjet printing an equally pompous term. Afterall, there's plenty of idiotic terms to attach to photographic processes......can anyone think of anything else......like a Big "O" print instead of Giclee.

[David A. Goldfarb]

"Gelatin silver" is an objective description of the materials used, like "oil on canvas" or "watercolor on paper." "Giclee" is a marketing invention, which I would only use for Iris prints, but we've had that discussion already.

[Kirk Gittings]

Robert,

I appreciate your point of view. But for me P/P is not the standard by which all art should be judged. To me it far exceeds accepted archival standards. But no one buys art primarily because of how long it will last. When I was younger I worried excessively about archival issues, even well before anyone bought my work. I'm glad I did because I am selling that work thirty years later, but actually that was an unlikely role of the dice and I would have been better off spending the time and money on film and gas.

"these prints should not even be hung anywhere for any length of time but kept in dark storage" Kirk, I'm sorry but how can you attach the would archival to that statement?"

I didn't refer to them as archival. I was refering to C prints (not archival by anyones standards) by some very famous photographers whose work sells in the thousands and you have to keep in a closet.

"personlly I could not be comfortable using the term archival."

I am very upfront with my clients about various media and price my work accordingly. I stand behind my work. I offer replacements if the work was hung appropriately and has any problems at all. There is no uniformly ignorant "buying public". Most of my clients are established collectors and museums and they are very savy about these issues and generally they don't ask about ink anymore than anyone ever asked me if I used a two-bath fixer on my silver prints. They assume I know what I am doing and generally they assume right. If not I correct it. No questions asked.

What media did your friend use? What inkset? Is it color or b&w? All of this matters. I have only tested Ultrachrome inks on cotton rag papers. But you know stone lithography and some watercolor would fade in two days of direct sunlight too. No one advocates hanging any pimented type arts in direct sunlight. If a client of mine hung a P/P print or a silver print in direct sunlight I would get very upset because either the p/p paper or the mat of the silver print would yellow. I have seen it happen many times. I did my test that way on the inkjet papers too but it is probably unfair to many media.

I have a sculptor friend Luis Jimenez who does large fiberglass pieces that are painted with automotive paint. His work sells in 6 figures. One of his pieces is outside the Corcorran and the LA County Museum. Every ten years or so they have to hire him to repaint them. He has work for life just doing that. I have a very famous black and white lithograph of his that I traded allot of work for. It is one of the most beautiful things I have ever seen. I would never hang it where it gets direct sunlight because either the inks would fade or the paper would yellow. No one buys art primarily because of how long it will last.

[Mark_3899]

I would never hang it where it gets direct sunlight because either the inks would fade or the paper would yellow

True. Infact all works on paper should not be exposed to direct sunlight. Most lenders to exhibitions stipulate that their photographs, prints, drawings, watercolors receive no more than 5 footcandles of light. Try looking at your own work under 5 footcandles. I work every day with curators, conservators, gallerists(SALESPEOPLE) and artists and after listening to all the "Giclee" I can't wait to get home to blast my "chromagenic prints" with light and hang them in the sun, and no I don't worry about forever.

[robert_4927]

Kirk, I will be more than happy to agree to disagree as I said before I try and encourage artist to work in what ever medium they choose. If you check my first post you'll see that I in no way advocate subjecting art be it a painting, photograph or what have you, to any adverse conditions. You'll notice I was reluctant to even subject one of my work prints but it was a test. As far as what type of inks and what process was used I can find that out for you as soon as I hear from my cohort in this endeavor. I commend you for standing behind your work as should any artist. Replacement of a print that has problems should be replaced without any problems , I agree. And that can happen in any medium because of the human element involved. My point is only.. when I make that 16x20 platinum portrait of someones beloved father I can say to the customer, you can pass this down for the next 10 generations. You see it's gonna be kind of hard for you to personally replace that print if somthing happens 50 years from now. All I am saying is the term Archival is being used to loosely. And I'm sure you understand as a platinum printer why I feel this way. Good light to you, Robert

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Kirk, here is a good example of what Robert is talking about:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=66465&item=7333128769&rd=1

(Caution, nude shot)

If you read the description, you will see this guy claims ink jet prints will last longer than silver and pt/pd.

[David A. Goldfarb]

He is also calling them "Archival Carbon Prints."

[Kirk Gittings]

Jorge, Robert,
I completely agree with you in this case. These claims are total nonsence and fraudulent and I sent him an email to that effect. In a better world this guy would be fed to the bears and snakes of the other thread.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Agreed Kirk, but I think this is a symptom and the reason many of us doing traiditonal processes have some antagonism against people doing ink jet prints. I remember about a couple of years back in Photo Techniques when it became in vogue to call them carbon pigment prints there was a Dubovoy (sp?) guy offering carbon prints that took a month to make, let me tell you I was ready to jump on this but the price made me read the copy very carefuly, I could not beleive someone doing tri color carbon prints would sell them for $79 in the magazine. Well as it turned out and after some very careful reading it became clear these were ink jet prints. IMO this was intentional misrepresentation as the copy did not clearly state these were ink jet prints.

In the article above about the glicèe name, one guy is doing "platinum glicèe"....sorry, but as a REAL pt/pd printer I am offended by this misrepresentation. Now, people who do not know the difference will buy one of these prints and call them platinum prints....and that, is just plain wrong IMO.

[David F. Stein]

I think the name should reflect the material used. An emulsion is an emulsion, an ink is an ink. And while I agree that the "silver gelatin print" is nothing more than a photograph-remember, them, at least it is an honest description. There is no denying the genius behind inkjet printing; it is one of the great thresholds in all of imaging history.

Silver gelatin PRINT - light sensitive emulsion type

Gum bichromate PRINT - light sensitive emulsion type

Cyanotype PRINT - light sensitive emulsion type

Platinum PRINT - light sensitive emulsion type

Albumen PRINT - light sensitive emulsion type

Cibachrome PRINT - light sensitive emulsion type

Pigment ink PRINT - inkjet

Dye ink PRINT - inkjet

Photogravure PRINT - light sensitive emulsion originated process with mechanical or hand printing

Lithograph PRINT - stone, almuninum or paper plate process, photo or non-photo, with mechanical or hand printing

Words like archival, carbon become meaningless to me. A poorly processed Silver gelatin print can deteriorate more quickly than many dye ink inkjet prints.

[Emmanuel BIGLER]

My 0,02 French-Euro.
"giclée" is definitely unknow to me in the French terminology for digital photographic prints. "tirages jet d'encre" or "tirages numériques" are in use.
So let's consider it as a pure invention ;-);-) or a registered trade mark : giclee® ; sounds like a brand name of cosmetics and perfumes, evokes the Eiffel Tower and Paris fashion ;-)

But we French are experts in forging English-sounding words. And not only for marketing purposes. The rules are simple. Take any word, preferably something not in use in the English-speaking world, and add "-ing", "-man" or "-'s" at the end.
Ever heard about : caméraman, aquaplaning, camping-car, chez Bébert's ?

[ernie]

Well, if it's looking like there's need for a new pretentious name to replace "giclee" how about this?

I did a Google search for word translators & entered "inkjet." Most languages came back as "inkjet", but the German returned as "Tintenstrahl."

Could this one have legs?

[Jim Rhoades]

Scott;
If you really want to lose friends try calling that inkjet your looking at a "photo-copy". I did this at the L/F conference a month ago. The photographer started to choke. I said, "Well, that's what it really is".

The truth, you can't handle the truth.

BTW, I only have about 4 friends but my dog loves me.

[Bruce Watson]

My Momma says she loves me, but
she could be lying too. -- BB King

Jim, are you *sure* that your dog loves you? ;-)

All prints, *ALL* prints, are prints. The original photograph, is either the film, or the digital capture. No one sells those. What we sell, are prints.

If it's an image I like and can afford, I might buy a print. I've never turned down an image I really liked because of the technology. Conversely, I've never bought an image I didn't like, just because I liked the technology.

Y'all should to get over your anger about naming things. Instead, channel that anger into action; get out there and make some photographs. This continual "mine is better than yours" argument is entertaining, yes, but it's also pointless. Get over it and move on.

[jj_4045]

"Words like archival, carbon become meaningless to me."

When dealing with Carbon lets not forget that Carbon Prints are a hand done process. They are not inkjet inksets. The inkjet guys need to get another name for their stuff to be honest with the public.

[Scott Fleming]

Jim,

I have one friend but my three dogs love me.

All,

Has anyone ever done archival tests on lightjet and chromira prints? How'd they hold up?

[David Luttmann]

"In the article above about the glicèe name, one guy is doing "platinum glicèe"....sorry, but as a REAL pt/pd printer I am offended by this misrepresentation. "

Jorge, I agree. At best, he could maybe call them "platinum toned inkjet"....much in the same way one may say sepia toned, etc. But calling it Platinum Giclee is pretty close to fraud as the output does not use Platinum.

[David Luttmann]

JJ1,

If the inkjet output uses a Carbon inkset, then I see nothing wrong with using the term Carbon Inkjet Print, or Carbon Pigment Print, etc. Simply calling it a Carbon Print would be confusing though.

[Wayne]

I see no need to differentiate between silver/ink/platinum/etc

This is a widely held opinion-but held exclusively by people doing some variation on ink/digital imaging. I have never heard a single person who uses only "traditional" photographic processes who shares it, but their opinions arent worth much anymore.

[David A. Goldfarb]

Regarding Lambda, LightJet, and Chromira--these machines output to traditional materials (most often Fuji Crystal Archive, but also to Ilfochrome and traditional B&W paper in some cases, and I'd imagine that some labs may be using Kodak Endura and Portra papers), so the archival stability is the same as the materials used, whether the enlargement is digital or by traditional projection.

[Kirk Gittings]

"I see no need to differentiate between silver/ink/platinum/etc"

As someone who has done all of these, but who currently is primarily doing inkjet and selling inventory of all three plus Cibachrome and Van Dykes, I see the need absolutely to differentiate between these processes. I personally want my clients, collectors and students to know that I have some mastery of traditional AND new innovative photographic technologies. There is so much silliness about this subject on both sides. Like this (sorry Dave I think you are adding to the confusion):

"Carbon Inkjet Print" That is like calling a silver print Silver Gelatin Analog Enlargement or P/P Contact Print. What is on the paper is INK not INKJET.

Or "At best, he could maybe call them "platinum toned inkjet"." Maybe it should be:

PLATINUM FACSIMILE ARCHIVAL CARBON INKJET COTTON RAG MUMBO JUMBO PRINT

[paulr]

There seem to be a couple of longstanding traditions in naming art media. One describes the process of making the thing (van dyke print, lithograph, etching, inkjet print, etc.) and the other describes the materials used (oil on canvas, gelatin silver print, india ink on paper, rat feces on aluminum, etc.). In some cases the process implies the materials (dye sublimation print) and in some of these cases, if the process is proprietary, the whole thing can be called by a trademark (polaroid, cibachrome, etc.).

It seems that the main reason to use one of these customs over another is tradition. But another is to make the choice based which aspect has the greatest ifluence on the look of the final piece. Oil on canvas has a very specific look and set of characteristics no matter how the paint was applied. The woodcut process has strong defining characteristics regardless of what you print on or what kind of ink or paint you use.

But inkjet is such a broad range of technologies that it actually tells you very little about what the look and the nature of final piece will be. While calling something an inkjet print is accurate, it's not very helpful. A photoshop painting output onto a slab of barnwood in ultrachrome inks is an inkjet print; so is a large format photograph printed on rag paper in carbon pigments; so is my aunt's vacation picture that she printed from her home printer with plain paper and off-the-shelf ink.

Part of the confusion is that this is a new process, and is evolving rapidly and constantly being used in new ways. Naming conventions are still under discussion. The challenge has been to find something that's accurate, descriptive, and also unpretentious. If we keep arguing, and give it enoug time, it will eventually sort itslef out like all those other processes did. Just remember this is nothing new. And it's a pretty small fight compared with the real revolutions ... like the invention of photography.

[Paul Butzi]

So, if I say that my prints are "Ultrachrome Inkjet prints on Epson Ultrasmooth paper", will I avoid committing an unpardonable sin?

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

So, if I say that my prints are "Ultrachrome Inkjet prints on Epson Ultrasmooth paper", will I avoid committing an unpardonable sin?

Yes........

[paulr]

But you'll be committing another sin ... too many words, too many syllables, too much information. The media descriptions used in museums certainly don't list the brand of paint and paper used by watercolor artists. Thankfully.

[Paul Butzi]

The media descriptions used in museums certainly don't list the brand of paint and paper used by watercolor artists. Thankfully.

But, given the fugitive nature of so many watercolor pigments, maybe they should stop deluding the buying public and give some complete disclosure of which pigments were used and what the lightfastness of them is?

[Dean Tomasula]

What's the matter with just calling them ink jet prints? There's nothing wrong with well-produced ink jet prints. You can always specify how long the print will last if you want.

If you need to get fancy, why not call them "dye prints" or "pigment prints", depending on the type of printer used?

[Phil Schmeckle]

I was at a restaurant this evening for dinner with my wife. On the walls around the place were numerous 36"x48" photographs that were scenes from Venice. Under each image was a small packard with the photographers name, image price, and the words "Archival Ink Print".

Some of the images were quite nice, most however were badly faded. This restaurant has been open for about 3 years.

It is a shame that the photographic community has been sold a bag of goods that includes this inkjet archival nonsense. The fact is, I have NEVER seen a black and white inket print that can rival a finely crafted silver, palladium or platinum print.

We can tell ourselves as much as we want that inkjet prints are archival, just as good as traditional processes, and are art. The truth is, we are not only snowing ourselves, we are snowing out clients and the rest of the world. Eventually, the snake oil will run out and th inkjet print market will be "exposed" for what it is..........pure ejaculation.

It is time to take the cotton out of our ears and put it in our mouthes.

[Phil Schmeckle]

"But, given the fugitive nature of so many watercolor pigments, maybe they should stop deluding the buying public and give some complete disclosure of which pigments were used and what the lightfastness of them is?"

Butzi, you are in complete denial.

A water color artist has created his art by hand with a brush and paint. the Giclee artist is using a computer and a mechanical printer to ejaculate on a sheet of very expensive paper.

I fail to see your point.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

What's the matter with just calling them ink jet prints?

LOL...Dean I have been asking that very same question for the last two years and I have always been deemed an antidigital agitator. Let me spare you the pain and advice you not to ask this... :-)

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

the Giclee artist is using a computer and a mechanical printer to ejaculate on a sheet of very expensive paper.

tsk, tsk, tsk....you poor Phil, now you have done it, you have no idea what you are getting into. Just so you can think your responses ahead of time let me give you some of the arguments given to me on the same issue.

- So what? I can spend just as much time on the computer working on my image.

- the process does not matter, the end result is what counts.

- someone doing classic photography is also using mechanical means, a camera is a machine, an enlarger is a machine, they are not different from a printer.

- someone doing classic photography can also do a million prints, I only have the advantage that I can make them identical at a fraction of the cost and far more efficiently.

- Wilhelm is the expert and he has done color fastness tests and he tells us the prints will last 150+ plus years.

I am sure I am missing some more, but these seem to be the typical ones......have fun.. :-)

[RichSBV]

Perhaps it's finally time for someone to officially release a document titled "The Digi-Myth"??? ;-)

[paulr]

History will sort this one out. I bet in just ten years only a few people will remember this debate, and they'll be saying, "remember those cranks who used to get their adult diapers in a wad over what's a real photograph?"

It's pretty short sighted not to see it coming. You might remember that 100 years ago or so the exact same argument was waged over whether or not photographs could be art. What side would you have been on then?

[Paul Butzi]

Butzi, you are in complete denial.

A water color artist has created his art by hand with a brush and paint. the Giclee artist is using a computer and a mechanical printer to ejaculate on a sheet of very expensive paper.



What's your point? do you think that this watercolor artist creating the art by hand with a brush and paint will magically make the fugitive watercolor pigments used resistant to fading?

You do know, don't you, that fading of watercolors is a major problem?

[Dean Tomasula]

LOL...Dean I have been asking that very same question for the last two years and I have always been deemed an antidigital agitator. Let me spare you the pain and advice you not to ask this... :-)

Thanks for the advice Jorge, but I'm afraid it's already too late.

I still don't see the problem with telling the truth. Most people don't know from ink jet, Giclee or Silver Gelatin. And most don't really care either. They just like to look at pretty pictures. Of course, they do expect them to last more than 6 months on the wall.

We may as well just call them "Pictures" and put a note on them that explain they will "self destruct in 5 months."

[clay harmon]

Some thoughts here.

1) the Wilhelm tests. Who pays Wilhelm? Have you ever seen a test whose results said that a particular ink and paper were extremely fugitive and should not be relied on to last more than 3 years? Yet I have some inkjet prints done three years ago that are gone, gone, gone. I think there is a significant Lake Wobegone effect here where all the manufacturers have products 'significantly above average'.

1a) How does can a month long test approximate the actual conditions a print may suffer? The extrapolations to 150+ years are by their very nature a creative bit of scientific wishful thinking.

2) The real answer will occur in 10, 20, 50 and 100 years. Empirical experience trumps laboratory theory any day, IME.

3) I have 100 year old silver gelatin and albumen and platinum prints from my family. I have oil paintings of family members that are over 200 years old. They are all in decent shape. I have 40 year old color prints from my childhood that are just about gone. In fact, I have some color baby pictures of my oldest daughter that are twenty years old and are just about gone. These are REAL bits of information, not extrapolations. This emprical information tells me that I should not expect a color print to survive in normal storage conditions for very long. On the other hand, when I tell someone that a silver gelatin or a platinum print I sell them should last, I am basing it on some real world experience. Saying the same for an inkjet print is really just speculation at this point. It may turn out that some of them will be just fine. We will really know the answer later.

4) Remember the RC paper debacles of the 70's and 80's? Each time, we were assured that the papers were 'just as archival' as fiber based silver gelatin prints. And each time, a lot of pain and suffering ensued. The accelerated aging tests used to give us those assurances were not very different than the tests being done today.

Caveat emptor. At least it is easy to reprint an image on a printer if you have an angry purchaser down the road. And maybe that is the answer. Print guarantees similar to battery warranties. You don't promise that it will last, only that you will replace it.

[Oren Grad]

Have you ever seen a test whose results said that a particular ink and paper were extremely fugitive and should not be relied on to last more than 3 years?

Yes. Go to...

www.wilhelm-research.com/ (http://www.wilhelm-research.com/)

...and see for yourself. Wilhelm has posted plenty of test results that make products from the major vendors - including those who sponsor some of his work - look really bad.

Unlike the internal testing done by the vendors, Wilhelm has been upfront from day 1 about exactly what his testing procedures are, and is constantly doing additional research in order to refine those methods. Anyone who really cares about these issues can easily read the fine print and make his own judgments about the applicability of his results to real-world conditions.

Are his results sometimes oversimplified and misused by others with a proprietary interest to promote? Of course. Caveat emptor. But as for Wilhelm himself, on balance, he's done more than anybody else to help the world understand that there is a problem, and to shed light on it in a way that has forced vendors to respond.

[clay harmon]

Oren,

Okay. Thanks for the link. After re-reading my post, I realized that it did sound a little snippy about Wilhelm. I really don't mean to throw rocks at his company at all. They are doing all they can given the obvious constraints they work under - mainly the inability to accurately model what is the effect of the time variable on image permanence. My point is that we have over 100 years of in-the-field experience with the old technologies, but less than a decade with the newer ones. Time will truly tell. I hope these images DO last. It is just that we don't really know until... later.

[David Luttmann]

"What's the matter with just calling them ink jet prints?

LOL...Dean I have been asking that very same question for the last two years and I have always been deemed an antidigital agitator. Let me spare you the pain and advice you not to ask this... :-)"

--Jorge, 2005-07-01 18:32:35

I guess that's why you continuously refer to them as "inkjet posters." ;-)

[Phil Schmeckle]

"What's the matter with just calling them ink jet prints? "

OK, so with this in mind, I went into a gallery that is selling INK JET copies of painting.

I was looking at a lovely 'inkjet ejaculation" when the sales person came over and said "Hello, can I help you".

I responded, Yes, this is a lovely painting, can you tell me about the artist?"

The salesperson offered "This painting is a original Giclee made by James N......".

I asked, what is a Giclee?

Answer "It is a hand process that let's the painter produce high qualty art and is very similar to a lithograph or serrigraph only better and more valuable."

I thanks her and left.

Jeez folks, this is the type of inane crap that the galleries are shovelling on the public.

The photographers like Butzi who spout this inane nonsense are no better.
Why are we not standing up to the market and get the truth out.

I am madder than hell and refuse to be ejaculated on any longer.

Phil S.

[Scott Fleming]

Phil,

Your experience is part of why I brought this up as I have had similar. My wife recently purchased an original by Robert Stout. One of his food series. The gallery told us they have been given the rights to make giclee prints of the originals which they will sell for about $750. Not bad for a 20 x 20 print.

I know these people. They don't know squat about photography. They will take a pic of these original oils with an 8MP digicam and print them on an HP 130 or maybe even an Epson 4000. These sorts of fraudulent idiots are going to really screw things up for a lot of decent photographers.

[Janice Johannsen]

I have read some of the posts this BUZI fellow has made on other websites. Don't listen to a word he has to say. He is arrogant and pompous. A self proclaimed expert at everything.

[David Luttmann]

Scott,

So I guess if I used a 4x5 and photographed an original oil and did a wet print, you'd call it art? Your example has NOTHING to do with digital or inkjet.....it has to do with basic fraud. I can see where this is going. If one spends hours in the darkroom working on a print, it's art. If one spends hours in front of the computer, it's an ejaculate fraud. That's an interesting take on an output method.

You can see the other nonsense on here as well.

-If Wilhem says anything against inket, he's correct. If he supports it, he's biased, on the payroll, and doesn't know what he's talking about.

- What the print....the final output.....looks like doesn't matter....it's all about the process. If it's on Silver with a compressed tonal range, it's art. Even if the print looks the same on inkjet....and quite often they can.....it's still not art. It's just a fraud. (LOL)

- Ridiculous terms attached to conventional processes are OK. Doing the same for digital output is fraud, idiotic, and pure pomposity.

- If the silver looks better, it is proof of its superiority. If the digital looks better....you've done something wrong with the silver.

- And finally....those that claim a certain digital capture device can't be as good as film or silver....in spite of never having used, seen, or worked with the equipment.

OK, I'm done. I'm going out in the rain to take some pictures. All the best to those of analog or digital use.

[David Luttmann]

Janice,

I presume that you have completed the same tests Mr. Butzi has and come up with results to the contrary. Please provide a link to the results of your tests. Unless of course, you haven't tested like Mr. Butzi has and you are offering nothing more than an opinion of what you believe (or hope to believe) to be true.

If that's the case, read my post above!

[Kirk Gittings]

"I have read some of the posts this BUZI fellow has made on other websites. Don't listen to a word he has to say. He is arrogant and pompous. A self proclaimed expert at everything." Janice

I am assuming this is joke in bad taste, but in case it isn't.............on the contrary, though Paul has his difficult moments and I oftentimes don't agree with him, he is one of the few people here who actually does his homework and is not talking out of his rear. One can easily track the seriousness of one's career (or lack there of Janice) by simply Googling someones name. Paul's Google shows his dedicated appoach to the medium by the many references to his thorough equipment reviews and writing contributions. Paul usually knows exactly what he is talking about.

David "the other nonsense".........well said.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Yeah Scott, you can see a lot of nonsense in this thread, for example:

- If Wilhelm said it, it is a FACT and TRUE. After all he has never been wrong and there are no faded ink jet prints anywhere to be found.

- The process does not matter, it is only the final product that matters. Silver prints have compressed tones, and that is the fault of the paper and negatives.

- I dont want to use the name ink jet with my prints 'cause they sound like they were made with a computer, so I am going to steal some of the ridiculous, pompous, idiotic sounding names those guys use for classic processes and use them, and just to make sure people know I am doing art I am going to use an obscure word in a foreign language. "Platinum glicèe" Yeah that is the ticket....

- If an ink jet poster looks the same as a silver ot pt/pd print, then by golly it must be just as good as them, just because they "look" the same.....and of course there are books that are 1000years old and written with pigments, so this is proof that they last just as long.

- And finally those that claim that digital capture devices are as good or better than film, which of course is backed by "test" only they have seen....

geeez....and here I thought I could beleive everything I read in this web sites....silly me...

[David Luttmann]

"Yeah Scott, you can see a lot of nonsense in this thread, for example:
- If Wilhelm said it, it is a FACT and TRUE. After all he has never been wrong and there are no faded ink jet prints anywhere to be found. "

So one mistake means he's never right? Interesting concept.

"- The process does not matter, it is only the final product that matters. Silver prints have compressed tones, and that is the fault of the paper and negatives. "

If the prints look the same, then the process is not an issue. I'm not sure of the point you seem to be trying to make. Are you suggesting that because the process is old fashioned or more complicated to produce that it has a higher value?

"- I dont want to use the name ink jet with my prints 'cause they sound like they were made with a computer, so I am going to steal some of the ridiculous, pompous, idiotic sounding names those guys use for classic processes and use them, and just to make sure people know I am doing art I am going to use an obscure word in a foreign language. "Platinum glicèe" Yeah that is the ticket.... "

I've never had a problem using the term inkjet. Neither have my clients. Those that try to justify the process as being more important than the image seem to indicate that the term inkjet is a negative. I've never found that. My clients look at the image.....they don't ask what printer, pigment, paper, etc is used. It appears that it is those using more complicated methods try to justify their use to elevate the work.

"- If an ink jet poster looks the same as a silver ot pt/pd print, then by golly it must be just as good as them, just because they "look" the same.....and of course there are books that are 1000years old and written with pigments, so this is proof that they last just as long. "

I don't recall indicating a 1000 year life to pigment inks. Please show me where I did. If indeed, you are referring to a quote from other people....I can show you just as many idiotic statements from conventional printers. That said, if the pt/pd print lasts a couple of hundred years, and the inkjet print does as well.....and they both look the same.....then what would the difference be Jorge? Not that I'm saying the inkjet and pt/pd prints look the same. However, pt/pd printing has very limited real world use. As well, can you show me the tests that you have to indicate the pt/pd prints last 100's of years.

"- And finally those that claim that digital capture devices are as good or better than film, which of course is backed by "test" only they have seen.... "

Hmmmmmm.....This one is odd Jorge. You suggest that only I have seen them. Yet you have said you've used the equipment and compared as well. So let me get this straight......you've used and tested the gear.....but you haven't as well. I think we all caught you on that one last time.

As usual, you've addressed nothing stated in my original response. You attempt to deride a process by picking silly quotes from uniformed users in order to detract from a vacuous argument. I can find those from film & silver users as well....but it's nothing to try to prove a point with.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

LOL.......

[Paul Butzi]

"Phil Schmeckle" writes:
The photographers like Butzi who spout this inane nonsense are no better. Why are we not standing up to the market and get the truth out.

I am madder than hell and refuse to be ejaculated on any longer.



Well, no wonder you're madder than hell. You're being forced to share email addresses with Jon Satterovksi, or at least that's what the member page at largeformatphotography.info/lfforum/showuser.php?uid=7527 (http://largeformatphotography.info/lfforum/showuser.php?uid=7527) indicates. Just go to that page, click on 'Newbie needs Fil Advice", and you land on a post made by Jon Satterovski. Amazing! Click on the "Jon Satterovski", and you're back on the same member page again!

It makes you wonder - Phil Schmeckle/Jon Satterovski (currently madder than hell and suffering from some sort of identity crisis) and Janice Johannsen - ever seen them together?

At least I'm not afraid to attach my real name to what I write and say.

[David Luttmann]

Paul....

You made me choke on my popcorn!

[Scott Fleming]

I guess I was not clear.

I have nothing against ink jet prints in and of themselves. I simply prefer for my personal work to use photographic processes. I don't argue with the longevity and I don't argue that they can look very very good. Maybe as good as it gets.

What I abhore is the fraud going on. It's not a fraud to make a reproduction of an original oil and sell it as such. A reproduction. It IS a fraud to call it 'giclee' and pass it off as the very best process known to man. The gallery folks I referenced don't even know themselves what giclee really means. They believe it to be something rare and fine. Better than what came before. They certainly are spreading that belief liberally.

I just think the public deserves to know the truth about any product they are being sold. Caveat emptor ... however participating in spreading lies and giving the public the 'mushroom' treatment will not bode well for we as photographers.

[Scott Fleming]

My thanks to the monderator for cleaning the junk out of this thread.

[Phil Schmeckle]

Paul,

I am not Janice, she posted and tried to use my email address and name.

Phil

[Paul Butzi]

Paul,
I am not Janice, she posted and tried to use my email address and name.

Phil



Wow! Now we have ANOTHER Phil Schmeckle, with yet ANOTHER email address. And amazingly, Phil Schmeckle the First, Jon Satterovski, Janice Johannsen, and Phil Schmeckle the Second - all of them have email addresses at AOL. AOL must still make it easy to have multiple email addresses for one account.

Tell you what, Phil - why don't you take out your wallet, find the name printed on your driver's license, and start using that? After you've made a few hundred posts using your real name, maybe people will grant you a little credibility.

Because before, it was sort of comic in a sick way. And now it's just pathetic.

[tim atherton]

""Gelatin silver" is an objective description of the materials used, like "oil on canvas" or "watercolor on paper." "Giclee" is a marketing invention, which I would only use for Iris prints, but we've had that discussion already."

and a Van Dyke print would be...?

[David A. Goldfarb]

They've been called "Van Dyke" long enough, that "Van Dyke" has become standard for that sort of print like "Daguerreotype" and other historic designations.

[tim atherton]

"They've been called "Van Dyke" long enough, that "Van Dyke" has become standard for that sort of print like "Daguerreotype" and other historic designations."

the point being, in reply to the quote cited:

that "Van Dyke", "Daguerreotype" , et al are also invented, somewhat pretentious terms most likely designed with aspects of marketing in mind, that don't provide "objective description of the materials used". As you rightly point out, time and usage have given them legitimacy.

That said Giclee really is a rather unfortunate and especially pretenious term (though the latter probably makes it more useful rather than less in much of the art world...). A French veteranarian friend once told me the only time she uses the term is with regard to cows "spurting" if I recall correctly.

It's telling that the first people to use/develop the term didn't go to the bother of trademarking it at the time (as terms such as Iris etc were I think?) - perhaps they realised it wasn't ideal. That said, it seems to have stuck. Though it is more and more coming to mean "inkjet repoduction of existing artwork" (mainly painings and such) - especially on canvas or watercolour paper, rather than as a broad general term for any kind of inkjet print.

As such, like any process, they can be very well or very poorly executed. The Boston Museum of Fine Art went to enourmous lengths to produce some very wonderful reproductions of this type of works from their Impressionist collection, copied using a very hi-res scanning back on a LF cameras, with specially produced colour profiles running htrough the whole production process, and printed on canvas using pigment inks. Then again, I've seen some awfully produced lithographs of artists work sold in galleries.

As for terminology, Szarkowski refers my "digital" prints (from LF negatives) as "Ink Prints" - I'm entirely happy with that (or possibly Pigment Ink Prints)

[Paul Metcalf]

After being out in the boonies exposing some flat silver-clad animal byproduct with some photons hopefully arranged in interesting and recognizable patterns, I was thinking it will be depressing to have to rely on the internet for entertainment until the next light dance. But thanks for this forum to keep my spirits up!

On one occassion when I needed to clean up and let my carpal-tunneled shutter release thumb rest, I visited an "art" gallery. I was intrigued by the "giclee from acrylic" thingy hanging in front of me on the entrance wall. So I had to ask what a "giclee from acrylic" thingy is. Well, it's a giclee "print" from a scan of a large format (4x5 upon further questioning) transparency taken of a large (something like 16 x 48 in) acrylic painting in a studio. The original acrylic painting was painted using multiple transparencies (didn't ask what size film, I was bored by this time) on a light table of the original scenic. Wow, with all that effort, they can call it anything as far as I'm concerned. And to think, now 500 people (the thingy in question was something like 198 of 500) can have exactly the same "original" giclee (of a transparency of an acrylic of a transparency of an original scene). Bored yet?

[Jeffrey Sipress]

I tried to avoid this discussion, but I have a few minutes to kill.

Someone said... "Lightjets and Chromira color prints are an actual photographic process rather than ink spurted ... er, sprayed on paper."

I thought that every method of making an image on some material that can be held in your hand was 'an actual photographic process'.

[John Kasaian]

I have a brochure from the Mumm/Napa Ansel Adams Gallery exhibit "Water As Inspiration" (May7-Sept11) that differentiates between "Archival Dye" Photographs and "Archival Pigment" Photographs. Interesting.

[robert_4927]

Alright you guys I've thought about this. And as I said before I would not discourage any artist from working in any medium he or she chooses. As the inkjet world searches for their place in the art world and starts forming their own terminology. I feel i should accept that and embrace it. So the next time I'm working on that platinum print, you know the one that hits you like WOW! I promise I will just stand up and scream.....I THINK I'M JUST GONNA GICLEE ALL OVER MYSELF!!!!!!.......LOL

[Ellis Vener]

.I THINK I'M JUST GONNA GICLEE ALL OVER MYSELF!!!!!!.

It seems that you just did. Make sure you clean off your keyboard before it dries.

[robert_4927]

Just a feeble attempt at humor Ellis. This thread is beginning to remind me of beating a dead horse. For what it's worth they can squirt what ever they want on paper and call it art. I'll continue to produce pt/pd prints with no need to mask the true process with words like giclee. After reading these post I wonder who the inkjetters are trying to convince that their work is an acceptable medium, us or themselves? Hell what do I know I'm a dinosaur. I still use in camera negatives for my work.

[Scott Fleming]

Started out feeble and ended up flacid. Tch tch.

[Paul Coppin]

At the risk of dragging this dead horse further down the gulch, I think there's another way to consider the whole giclee/inkjet thing. Part of the problem is that we call making gelatin/silver prints "prints, printmaking". They're not. They're "images" in much the same way as a negative (in b&w particularly) is an image. We don't call negatives and trannies "prints". Inkjet prints have more in common with lithographs than photographs, because they form their image by the absorption of ink or pigment on paper. Most modern inkjet printers barely have "nozzles", they're drop on demand printing (wicking or impressing, essentially, just like the ink transfer on a lithograph). If you wanted to give an inkjet print a name, the most accurate (tho not too elegante...:) might be "nozzlegraph".

Part of the problem is that "giclee" is not English. It is certainly evocative of how the ink gets out there, and technically, no less correct than "inkjet", but I think we are the snobs, perhaps, by disdaining a foreign term, partly because it is not descriptive, in English. I think the intent to distinguish a "nozzlegraph" (snicker...) from your basic computer dump of your kids making rude gestures to their relatives is valid, if it successfully conveys the art involved in creating the work in the first place. Problem is, the term "giclee" is too kitschy for most people's tastes (and means nothing to most all English speaking peoples), and "nozzlegraph" doesn't conjure up exquisite works of art like "lithograph" does. What is needed, in English, is a real term that describes the printing process much like "lithograph" does, without debasing the origins like "inkjet" does. Giclee has a running head start, but maybe English-speaking inkjet-printing fine art photographers need to coin their own phrase for this type of printing. I think a lot of photographers have not figured out yet that inkjet printing is not making a "photograph", its "printmaking", irrespective of the digital or photographic origin of the image, and they're not selling a photograph, they're selling a print.

"Giclee" made me hoot when I first heard it too, but then so did "gelatin/silver"...:)

[David Luttmann]

Gelatin/Silver.......now that's funny! ;-)

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

"platinum" toned chromira....that is even funnier... ;-)

[Paul Coppin]

Maybe, for once, the masses have it right - its a "picture", as in "nice picture", or did you get your "pictures" back yet? :):)

[John Kasaian]

This is quite an inspiring thread! Maybe the World is at long last ready to embrace "archival Xerox" or thrill to that odiferous alternative process of those pioneers: "mimeograph" (not to be confused with the more common "ditto") ;-)

[Paul Coppin]

At least Xerox wound up with an iconic name: xerography. Hell, I produce dozens of "carbon/xerographs" every day. And boy, do I still remember a "ditto" high from running ditto copies in high school in the 60s, Alcohol, if memory serves me (what's left of it from all the fumes... :):)

[David Luttmann]

Well,

would the Xerox be considered a contact print? The paper did come in "contact" with the drum." ;-)

[John Kasaian]

I'm wondering if there would be any advantage to the "ditto" since a master can only be used so many times before it wears out----hmmm.... sounds like a "limited edition" situation (1 of 200?---that ought to fetch a better price per print than a Xerox, eh??)

Imagine the Artist's Reception---no need for wine, everyone can just sniff the prints!

Instead of "amidol black" finger nails, the ditto folks will be identified by those prestigious purple fingers, heh-heh ;-)

[Rolando Guerzo]

HIGH QUALITY LIMITED EDITION GICLEE PRINTS.
All Giclee Prints (5 items) are now out-of -stock limited editions. These Paintings are printed on high quality canvas by the International Galleries Inc. of the USA. To be sold without frame and I've never displayed them. The paintings are in brand new condition, individually rolled in tubes. Paintings are as follows: An angel, An American Eagle, Yachts in the ocean, a landscape full of multiple colored flowers, and a small red bridge over a small stream surrounded by flowers and plants. Each print includes certificate of authenticity. For more details on dimensions, artist's name and price; please e-mail me at: rguerzo@yahoo.com
Thank you and God Bless both viewers and buyers!

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

ROFLMAO..........

[tim atherton]

hmm.. Rolando Guerzo someone who sounds like they possibly come from Mexico or some such locale, with no other postings to their credit - how convenient

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Good try Tim, but I dont have as small and petty mind as you do.....I dont need to resort to this kind of tricks, but apparently you do think this way.....

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Here is the response I got from the glicèe guy:

Thank you so much for the reply.

There are 11 attached files with this mail.
The 11 files are as follows:

* 5 close-ups of each artwork
* 5 certificate of authenticity of each artwork, and
* 1 list of Artwork title, Artist's names and Bios, sizes of artwork and prices.



About me:

My real name is Rolando Guerzo. I'm a Pastor of a Full Gospel Church here in Hong Kong. At the same time working as a part-time art dealer at IGI or International Galleries Inc. IGI is now the second largest Giclee art production in the world, but soon to be The largest.

I want you to know that by purchasing either one of my artwork collections mentioned above, you are helping my church to help domestic helpers here in HK who are being abused by thier employers. These domestic helpers are now being taken care of in my church to look for new good employers. It's not a big church, and to keep them alive and healthy is the reason behind this deal.

For more information, please do not hesitate to keep in touch.

Thank you and God Bless.

Lando

So there you go Tim, next time you try to slander someone you might consider not everbody is like you. I am sorry for that kid of yours.