Responding to doubters

[Manta Ray Arts]

I've posted here before asking about the differences between Iris giclee prints and my archival Epson 2200/7600 pigment-based prints but gotten very little response. Is there anywhere I could find a comparison?

--
It has to be about the Art, but it is also about Science

Fuji S2Pro, Nikkor 50mm 1.4D and 35-70mm 2.8D, Epson 2200.

 

[George Thompson]

I have spoken to a number of Fine Arts photographers selling Giclee prints only to find out that they were printed from the 2200. I think the epson is the entry level giclee printer.

Here are some links I used to satisfy myself that my Epson 2200 prints can be considered giclee.

http://www.cra-pro.com/giclee.html

http://www.fineartgicleeprinters.org/

Also try the epson2200 forum on Yahoo.

GT

I've posted here before asking about the differences between Iris
giclee prints and my archival Epson 2200/7600 pigment-based prints
but gotten very little response. Is there anywhere I could find a
comparison?

--
It has to be about the Art, but it is also about Science

Fuji S2Pro, Nikkor 50mm 1.4D and 35-70mm 2.8D, Epson 2200.

 

[Gaetan J.]

I have spoken to a number of Fine Arts photographers selling Giclee
prints only to find out that they were printed from the 2200. I
think the epson is the entry level giclee printer.
Here are some links I used to satisfy myself that my Epson 2200
prints can be considered giclee.

LOL

Hello, but giclee or "jet d'encre" is just the french name for a bubblejet. So your comon 75$ bubble jet printer you find everywhere is a giclee printer. Fine art artist use this term because who would want to buy something made by a bubblejet type printer ?

--
Gaetan J.

 

[Gaetan J.]

aint fluffing what they use to do to keep the talent hard before viagra ?

--
Gaetan J.

 

[Manta Ray Arts]

Galleries and artists started a while ago to take digital images of paintings and reproduce them on Iris inkjet printers as a way of "editioning" original works of art. These Iris prints were called "giclee" in an apparent attempt to distinguish them from what the American public thought of as inkjet=bubblejet=home printer.

Iris prints have been an archival standard for detail and longevity until Epson started the (r)evolution with the 2000P and now the 2200/7600. In some circles, the phrase "that's an Iris print" is a signifyer of quality. I'd like to be armed with scientific data to prove how my Epson 2200 prints (or 7600 when I need one larger than SuperB/13"x19") stack up against the Iris prints.

I have spoken to a number of Fine Arts photographers selling Giclee
prints only to find out that they were printed from the 2200. I
think the epson is the entry level giclee printer.
Here are some links I used to satisfy myself that my Epson 2200
prints can be considered giclee.

LOL

Hello, but giclee or "jet d'encre" is just the french name for
a bubblejet. So your comon 75$ bubble jet printer you find
everywhere is a giclee printer. Fine art artist use this term
because who would want to buy something made by a bubblejet type
printer ?

--
Gaetan J.

--
It has to be about the Art, but it is also about Science

Fuji S2Pro, Nikkor 50mm 1.4D and 35-70mm 2.8D, Epson 2200.

 

[Mark_A]

aint fluffing what they use to do to keep the talent hard before
viagra ?

I seem to get so many emails telling me I need it .... and I dont even know these people :-0

--
Mark

 

[Gaetan J.]

phil wigglesworth wrote:
...

Granted I've no knowledge of the whole wedding ritual thing,
although from my perspective many of the participants may not be
behaving rationally ;-)

...

aint those muggle strange
--
Gaetan J.

 

[George Thompson]

From the second link....

Which wide format fine art inkjet printers can produce a giclee print? Iris 3047 giclee printers initially defined the giclee fine art print market. But do you really need to spend $88,000. Today you can produce beautiful prints on a multi-faceted printer which costs under $30K (Mimaki JV4) or under $10K (HP DesignJet) or at entry level for under $3k (Epson 7600).

Furthermore, prints from economy printers with pigmented inks last longer than an Iris print whose Hertz technology is restricted to dye inks.

The review editor, Professor Nicholas Hellmuth, has an Iris giclée printer in his lab, as well as an Epson (two of them with another arriving this month), and all together twelve wide format printers (with five more en route). So this website is a useful source of first hand information to cover the entire spectrum from commercial giclée to weekend hobby printing of giclée from your home or office.

Iris prints have been an archival standard for detail and longevity
until Epson started the (r)evolution with the 2000P and now the
2200/7600. In some circles, the phrase "that's an Iris print" is a
signifyer of quality. I'd like to be armed with scientific data to
prove how my Epson 2200 prints (or 7600 when I need one larger than
SuperB/13"x19") stack up against the Iris prints.

I have spoken to a number of Fine Arts photographers selling Giclee
prints only to find out that they were printed from the 2200. I
think the epson is the entry level giclee printer.
Here are some links I used to satisfy myself that my Epson 2200
prints can be considered giclee.

LOL

Hello, but giclee or "jet d'encre" is just the french name for
a bubblejet. So your comon 75$ bubble jet printer you find
everywhere is a giclee printer. Fine art artist use this term
because who would want to buy something made by a bubblejet type
printer ?

--
Gaetan J.

--
It has to be about the Art, but it is also about Science

Fuji S2Pro, Nikkor 50mm 1.4D and 35-70mm 2.8D, Epson 2200.

 

[David Lozoya]

I think folks really get too caught up on film vs digital...both mediums can produce excellent results. If you work with film and are more comfortable with it..then fine. If your gig is digital then great. With film, you can always scan your best work and archive it for good. I personally work with a D60 and a Mamiya RZ67 and until recently a Toyo 4x5...and am very please with all three thank you.

Of course you will have your die hard film and digital fans. Its a no win situation...and guess what...the film folks are right about some aspects especially when dealing with MF and LF film. I haven't seen too many digital images that can beat my Toyo 4x5 images. In the end its all about the end result...just like the article mentions in closing. Who cares what you use to get there.

Hi everyone.
I just read an article in Minnesota Bride about digital photography
which says it might be convenient, but certainly doesn't touch film
quality. They didn't bother to interview anyone who uses digital
full time and have quotes in there about how all digital images
look "digital" and that with film a real photographer can make each
wedding look unique.

Someone else said that it was not possible with digital to slow
down the shutter speed on the dance floor to get a blurred artistic
shot. I want to smack someone.

How do you all deal with doubters and people who have been exposed
to disinformation? I know I can show them my work, but I am
interested in how people handle the doubting phone call prior to
the appointment.

Take care. Mike
--
1D, Tokina 28-80 2.8, 28-105USM, 50 1.8

--
Home page - http://home.attbi.com/~lozoyad

 

[mike m134089]

What I have done is sent the editor a pleasan email which points out some problem areas in the article and offers to help with future photo related articles as a way to make sure the mag doesn't harm my reputation. I expect this will lead to some discussions. No response yet. I'd appreciate if other do not write the editor so this thing doesn't get out of hand. Thanks. M.

Of course you will have your die hard film and digital fans. Its a
no win situation...and guess what...the film folks are right about
some aspects especially when dealing with MF and LF film. I haven't
seen too many digital images that can beat my Toyo 4x5 images. In
the end its all about the end result...just like the article
mentions in closing. Who cares what you use to get there.

Hi everyone.
I just read an article in Minnesota Bride about digital photography
which says it might be convenient, but certainly doesn't touch film
quality. They didn't bother to interview anyone who uses digital
full time and have quotes in there about how all digital images
look "digital" and that with film a real photographer can make each
wedding look unique.

Someone else said that it was not possible with digital to slow
down the shutter speed on the dance floor to get a blurred artistic
shot. I want to smack someone.

How do you all deal with doubters and people who have been exposed
to disinformation? I know I can show them my work, but I am
interested in how people handle the doubting phone call prior to
the appointment.

Take care. Mike
--
1D, Tokina 28-80 2.8, 28-105USM, 50 1.8

--
Home page - http://home.attbi.com/~lozoyad

--
1D, Tokina 28-80 2.8, 28-105USM, 50 1.8

 

[Jean Ricket]

Many good comments in this thread.

I am a technical writer/editor and believe you might get a letter to the editor printed in an edition next month or soon, but articles are scheduled months in advance--notice how many magazines will have bride articles in the spring, etc.

It's possible you could get an article coming out around Xmas, a terrific time, if you talk with an editor, present some of your work, and have a few specficic points to make. (If you want to run a draft by me, let me know & I'll give you a quick review if I have time.)

My feeling is that the more people who write letters to the editor, calmly putting forward the plus side of digital photography, the better. The editor will realize that a significant part of his audience is digital.

Popular Photography (& Imaging, new name--reflecting modern trends, including digital) for July 2003 has a film-digital "shootout." The text was pretty bland, but the picture comparisons were nicely done.

Good luck, Jean Ricket

Of course you will have your die hard film and digital fans. Its a
no win situation...and guess what...the film folks are right about
some aspects especially when dealing with MF and LF film. I haven't
seen too many digital images that can beat my Toyo 4x5 images. In
the end its all about the end result...just like the article
mentions in closing. Who cares what you use to get there.

Hi everyone.
I just read an article in Minnesota Bride about digital photography
which says it might be convenient, but certainly doesn't touch film
quality. They didn't bother to interview anyone who uses digital
full time and have quotes in there about how all digital images
look "digital" and that with film a real photographer can make each
wedding look unique.

Someone else said that it was not possible with digital to slow
down the shutter speed on the dance floor to get a blurred artistic
shot. I want to smack someone.

How do you all deal with doubters and people who have been exposed
to disinformation? I know I can show them my work, but I am
interested in how people handle the doubting phone call prior to
the appointment.

Take care. Mike
--
1D, Tokina 28-80 2.8, 28-105USM, 50 1.8

--
Home page - http://home.attbi.com/~lozoyad

--
1D, Tokina 28-80 2.8, 28-105USM, 50 1.8

 

[Andrew64673]

Here are some quotes from an article in MN Bride, which have me
really upset since I was talked into placing my ad as a digital
photographer on the pages of this article.

I plan on writing a letter to the editor. How would you respond to
these types of comments?

"Do you prefer traditional or more artsy shots?" and then claims
that in digital one can't slow down the shutter speed to get an
impressionistic dance floor shot.

You can do all you can on a film camera PLUS, change iso as you go, and check your results to make sure you have it, (even if it takes 100 frames to get a good dance floor shot)

Greg Jansen Photography says "digital produces sharper images than
film and what he calls a hyper-realistic look. It is a consistent,
across-the-board look, he says. While these sound like plusses, it
can mean that your digital wedding photos look very much like
everyone else's digital wedding photos. "If you like that look,
great," he says, " but as a photojournalist, I try to make
everywedding look different."

These ARE plusses as you can also funk it up with some added noise or a endless list of other things you cant do with film

Here's another stupid comment: "...But Gunther isn't sure CDs are
all they are cracked up to be. "CDs scratch," she says. They can
also be misplaced. She adds that it is hard to predict what's
going to happen with the technology and she worries about giving
someone a product that might be obsolete done the road. (Imagine,
for example, where your parents would be if they had trusted their
wedding to the "magic" of a Beta video tape.)

NEGS scratch too, and they get ruined by fungus and they fade.

CDs Dont fade. I make two copies of my CDs and keep them in separate places. If one delaminates I can make anther copy of the other one, if a new technology comes out, I can copy the data onto a DVDR or whatever is hip at the time. Who makes a second copy of their negs? People send the only copy away to be printed, yikes!