Digital BW, The Print

Hello Jane,

>...but my photos ARE inkjet prints (of course...Therefore, I suppose 
>they *should* be classified as giclée's. 

I think of a giclee as being a copy of an original art work.  The
paint artists in the west coast branch of my family had "giclees" made
of their watercolor paintings.  The originals of course sold for far
more than the copies.  According to them, the term is widely used in
that context (being a copy of an original) among graphic artists and
their galleries and retail outlets.


>the curious question I get more and more often these days is "is 
>this an original?" - what else would it be. Can you call an inkjet 
>print an "original"? 

Yes, IMO.  A print is the result of a lot of time, effort and artistic
judgements and bears little resemblance to the original source (neg or
digicam file).  It certainly isn't a copy of the original (a copy of
an original neg would look just like the original, a negative).  Each
print is made individually with great care and, even with digital
printing, can be slightly different, especially if made at different
times using different paper/ink production batches (or especially
using different paper and/or ink).  As my photoshop skills have
improved over the years I have in several cases gone back and altered
a digi file to improve it, with the result that later prints look
different than earlier ones.  Ansel also changed his treatment of an
image over time.  Look at how many different versions of his
"Moonrise" are out there.  

I consider each print to be an original work of art, to which I place
my signature.  To me our ink prints are closely akin to photogravure,
an early form of photographic ink print.  These were considered works
of art in their own right by Alfred Steiglitz, a pioneer in the fight
for acceptance of photography as art in the early 1900s.  The point
is, photographs have already been established as works of art, and ink
prints were right in there with emulsion prints during that time.  We
don't need to fight that battle all over again.  The term "original"
(as opposed to "copy") is appropriate for painting but irrelevant for
photography.

As for "giclee", I would never use the term for my prints because it
implies a copy, and also because it has pretty much been the exclusive
domain of painters.  It has not been associated with photography and
it seems highly pretentious.  I'm saddened to see it creeping in, it
seems so inappropriate and un-photographic.  

A print isn't a giclee because it's made with ink.  It's a giclee
because it's a copy of another finished work of art.  If you made only
one single "original" print from a neg or digi file (and never used it
again), and then photographed that print and made copies using the
secondary image, then they could legitimately be called giclees.



>- which takes us back to numbering prints in series. What a pain in
>the neck that is. I tried doing numbered series for awhile - they 
>didn't sell any better than the not numbered pieces.

I number my prints but not as part of limited editions.  Every print
gets a number simply as a unique identifier.  Each image has it's
prints numbered, beginning with #1, regardless of size or any other
difference.  There is no significance to the numbers (unless owners of
the prints attach some significance - maybe if I'm famous some day
print owners will brag about having an early version and think it is
worth more - Ha!).

I keep a database of my work, and the print number serves as a very
handy unique identifier.  I sell prints on line and through a local
gift shop.  My consignment report lists each print by title and number
("Pillar" #11).  When they sell a print they record the sale and pay
me for "Pillar" #11.  I look up that print in the database and mark it
as sold.  The gift shop people like it because it makes their
inventory very precise.  I don't know if it makes any difference in
sales, I doubt it.  I've met some of the customers, plus my web site
sales, and nobody has ever asked me about the numbers.  They are
marked very discretely down in the corner.  Some other possible
advantages could be a list of property for insurance purposes or a
police report for theft, identification and recovery.  For historic
purposes, someone doing research could determine (if the database is
available) when a particular print was made and who it was originally
sold to.

I hope this is good food for thought.


Regards,
Clayton


Info on black and white digital printing at    
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm
I-Trak 2.1   http://www.cjcom.net/itrak.htm