Digital BW, The Print

At 10:20 am -0800 11/9/03, Alan Zinn wrote:

>Thanks for that.  Couldn't agree more with last part.  Only thing to 
>add is that shops have been selling reproduction prints as art 
>prints forever.


Alan --

That some would sell reproductions of arts prints as original prints 
(if I understand the subtlety of your distinction) is more a matter 
of explicit fraud than the inherent prevarication my last two 
paragraphs attempted to address. But you are right: That is a bad 
thing and should be addressed.

Regardless, reproductions are a valid and necessary medium of 
production and sale for numerous reasons, and not something I would 
try to argue against.

My point in those paragraphs was that, with terms like "Fine Art 
Print" or "Fine Art Reproduction" even the most clueless customer 
knows (more or less) what they are getting. The door is left open for 
a discussion of the merits of the reproduction. There is an 
invitation to discuss and analyze its quality, fidelity, longevity, 
and etc. The customer can come away with not only a beautiful picture 
that they like, but as intrinsic idea of its value as a piece of art.

This contrasts with the term "Giclee Print" which has two different, 
and individually condemnable, aspects:

First, the phrase "Giclee Print" is hilariously idiotic and should go 
away simply because it is ludicrous.

Secondly, and my biggest concern, is that so many shops hide behind 
the phrase "Giclee Print." The obscurity of the phrase not only 
allows them to, it encourages them to. They slap it on the back of a 
repro of an enjoyable but essentially mediocre watercolor (or pastel, 
or oil, or...even a photograph) and then implicitly try to pass it 
off as though this "Giclee Process" were the medium. (Presumably an 
ancient medium the artist only rediscovered through some rigorous 
ascetic regimen.)

I cringe when I see that. I know that when the customers who've been 
scammed find out the whole story they are going to become so cynical 
that it will be an all-day job to talk them into buying an original 
oil for fifteen percent over cost-of-materials. Meanwhile, their 
respect for inkjet printing will have gone down so far that just 
getting them to pay cost-of-materials will be difficult.


Best wishes.

-=-Dennis


p.s.: That "Lookaround" system is really interesting. I'm thinking 
about getting the book and trying to build my own. I've been trying 
to figure out whether or not you get a usefully different effect if 
you construct it so that it rotates around the nodal point of the 
lens rather than the film plane. Have you tried any experiments like 
this (or do you know off-hand)? I could probably do the diagrams and 
work up the math, but it's a lot easier to just ask... :-)


-