Digital BW, The Print

I'm coming back to photography after a long break and am going 
digital.  Will digital prints dry mount?  I have a full-size press 
(Seal 210) I used to use for fiber-based darkroom prints.

thanks

Rick

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Rick" <r_schiller@...> wrote:
>
> I'm coming back to photography after a long break and am going 
> digital.  Will digital prints dry mount?  I have a full-size press 
> (Seal 210) I used to use for fiber-based darkroom prints.
> 
> thanks
> 
> Rick
>

Yes.  The main thing you have to be careful about is your choice of paper and not leaving the 
print in the press (heat) for as long as you may have done in the past.  Also, there are some 
new mounting adhesives on the market specifically for digital prints.

I believe a more proper way of mounting an inkjet print is the same as one would mount a litho, silkscreen, etching, etc. for art sake.

But for portraits, and commercial matter, I go the same route as I have for years with dry mounting.

Ben




      

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hello Ben,

>I believe a more proper way of mounting an inkjet print is the same
as one would mount a litho, silkscreen, etching, etc. for art sake.
>But for portraits, and commercial matter, I go the same route as I
have ?for years with dry mounting.

Why?


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

Hello Rick,

>I'm coming back to photography after a long break and am going 
>digital.  Will digital prints dry mount?  I have a full-size press 
>(Seal 210) I used to use for fiber-based darkroom prints.

Welcome home :) it's a good time to be getting back in.  Printer, ink
and paper technologies have come a long way over the past few years.

Ink prints will dry mount, but IMO there is no longer any need to do
it.  The main reason for doing it, wrinkled or wavy emulsion papers,
is no longer an issue.  If you want the floating mount look, it can be
emulated by leaving a 1" or greater border around the image and
cutting the window mat big enough to leave a "reveal" area around the
image.  This has the advantage of keeping a signature, title, print #,
etc, on the image paper instead of the mount board.  As a bonus,
mounting/matting time and labor is greatly reduced.  It's great.  You
couldn't pay me enough to go back to dry mounting (well, few could
afford to pay me enough <g>).


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

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Clayton Jones" 
<cj@...> wrote:
>
> Hello Rick,
> 
> >I'm coming back to photography after a long break and am going 
> >digital.  Will digital prints dry mount?  I have a full-size press 
> >(Seal 210) I used to use for fiber-based darkroom prints.
> 
> Welcome home :) it's a good time to be getting back in.  Printer, 
ink
> and paper technologies have come a long way over the past few years.
> 
> Ink prints will dry mount, but IMO there is no longer any need to do
> it.  The main reason for doing it, wrinkled or wavy emulsion papers,
> is no longer an issue.  If you want the floating mount look, it can 
be
> emulated by leaving a 1" or greater border around the image and
> cutting the window mat big enough to leave a "reveal" area around 
the
> image.  This has the advantage of keeping a signature, title, print 
#,
> etc, on the image paper instead of the mount board.  As a bonus,
> mounting/matting time and labor is greatly reduced.  It's great.  
You
> couldn't pay me enough to go back to dry mounting (well, few could
> afford to pay me enough <g>).
> 
> 
> 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
>
OK, thanks for everyone's thoughts on this.  There is just something 
I still miss about a fine BW fiber based darkroom print drymount and 
sitting on top of the board.  But I suppose those days have gone the 
way of the dinosaur.  Best.

Portraits, and Commercial prints are mostly framed without a matte.  Dry mounting is necessary to keep the print flat, especially when no glass is put into the frame.  I normally lacquer all of the prints that do not have glass over them.

I chose to float, or hinge mount prints that are matted, because it is reversible.  One can change the matte and backing if necessary.  When I print the print, it is on a slightly larger sheet.  I sign that sheet, as well as the matte.  The extra paper that extends past the image helps to keep the print flat under the matte.

I also think of Ink Jet Prints as being different then Photographs.  I have argued this ethical, and aesthetic point many times.  I consider Silver/Gelatin prints a whole other class of art, digital ink jet printing another.  When I sell digitally produced images, I do not call them photographs.  I sell them as Giclee Prints.  Adding this title to them, makes people think they are more exclusive.  

Personally I consider injet printing more akin to Lithography as a print class.  Images made from cyan, magenta, yellow, and black ink dots on paper.  It is just the method of applying the ink that is different.

Ben




      

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Clayton Jones"
<cj@...> wrote:
>
> Hello Rick,
> 
> >I'm coming back to photography after a long break and am going 
> >digital.  Will digital prints dry mount?  I have a full-size press 
> >(Seal 210) I used to use for fiber-based darkroom prints.
> 
> Welcome home :) it's a good time to be getting back in.  Printer, ink
> and paper technologies have come a long way over the past few years.
> 
> Ink prints will dry mount, but IMO there is no longer any need to do
> it.  The main reason for doing it, wrinkled or wavy emulsion papers,
> is no longer an issue.  If you want the floating mount look, it can be
> emulated by leaving a 1" or greater border around the image and
> cutting the window mat big enough to leave a "reveal" area around the
> image.  This has the advantage of keeping a signature, title, print #,
> etc, on the image paper instead of the mount board.  As a bonus,
> mounting/matting time and labor is greatly reduced.  It's great.  You
> couldn't pay me enough to go back to dry mounting (well, few could
> afford to pay me enough <g>).
> 
> 
> 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
>
Clayton,
How do you fix/position your print to the ?mat board sitting behind
the window mat, since it's not dry mounted on a board?
Michael

My working outlook, too.

I like to point out to people that the coffee table books seem to have reproductions they don't complain about. It's just a different process.

gar

*********** REPLY SEPARATOR  ***********

On 9/18/2008 at 9:22 AM ben schneider wrote:

>Portraits, and Commercial prints are mostly framed without a matte.  Dry
>mounting is necessary to keep the print flat, especially when no glass is
>put into the frame.  I normally lacquer all of the prints that do not have
>glass over them.
>
>I chose to float, or hinge mount prints that are matted, because it is
>reversible.  One can change the matte and backing if necessary.  When I
>print the print, it is on a slightly larger sheet.  I sign that sheet, as
>well as the matte.  The extra paper that extends past the image helps to
>keep the print flat under the matte.
>
>I also think of Ink Jet Prints as being different then Photographs.  I
>have argued this ethical, and aesthetic point many times.  I consider
>Silver/Gelatin prints a whole other class of art, digital ink jet printing
>another.  When I sell digitally produced images, I do not call them
>photographs.  I sell them as Giclee Prints.  Adding this title to them,
>makes people think they are more exclusive.  
>
>Personally I consider injet printing more akin to Lithography as a print
>class.  Images made from cyan, magenta, yellow, and black ink dots on
>paper.  It is just the method of applying the ink that is different.
>
>Ben
>
>
>
>
>      
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>------------------------------------
>
>Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as
>they are often being updated.
>
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
>If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
>unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
>page.
>
>Please follow these basic guidelines:
>- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
>them short.
>- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames.
>Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the
>membership without notice.
>- Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W
>printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from
>the membership.
>- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and
>guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner
>and Moderators. See “Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines” in the Files
>section:
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
>
>BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
>YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE “OWNER” AND
>“MODERATORS” OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO
>YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR
>EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF
>PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE 
>“OWNER” AND “MODERATORS” OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN
>ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE
>OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii)
>UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii)
>STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
>YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE
>PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Hello Michael,

>How do you fix/position your print to the ?mat board sitting behind
>the window mat, since it's not dry mounted on a board?
>Michael

I use two pieces of acid free linen hinge tape at the top of the
print, taped to the back of the window mat.  Then I hinge the back
board (another piece of mat board) to the top of the window mat.

So the print is basically hanging by it's top edge while being
sandwiched between the boards.  Quick, easy, stable, and not permanent.

As for positioning the print and mat, I lay the print face up on a
table with the top edge (the edge that will be taped) extending over
the table edge about two inches.  Then lay the window mat over it and
carefully position it for even reveal all around the image.  When it's
in position I place two small pieces of photographers tape over the
upper corners of the print (the part extending from the table) to hold
it in position against underside of the mat.  Then I lift them up for
final inspection to ensure the positioning is correct, then lay it
face down and apply the hinge tape along the top edge of the print
(two pieces, each about 2" long [tape is 1.25" wide]), then remove the
photographers tape from the corners.  

While it's face down, I put the back board next to the mat, top edges
touching, and apply two more pieces of hinge tape along that joint. 
Then fold the back board over the mat, which sandwiches the print, and
it's done (print is already signed).  If it's not being framed it goes
into a sleeve.

It's so much quicker than dry mounting, which was always a major
factor in print production.  It's made a huge difference.  I haven't
used my dry mount press in over seven years.

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

Of course people will see more value in a print that is 
called "Giclee" because a lot of people are stupid and think if it 
has a french name it is something special. Call it what it is if one 
is worried about ethics..sprayed ink...or pigment inks..or dye 
inks...
    When I sell my prints the print speaks not the process. I have 
silver halide, pigment ink, dye ink, both from an inkjet printer, 
carbon ink, from inkjet also...I have photos manipulated with 
watercolor paints, acrylics etc. I do not give it a fancy name. When 
someone asks it is described as..."Mixed media using, dyes, paints, 
acrylics, bee pollen, whatever is in it. 
     I would imagine that the photographers who used 
daguerreotypes "felt" that calotypes weren't photographs either. And 
the wet plate folks did'nt think the dry plates were "real 
photographs" . 8x10 shooters, vs 4x5, Graphlex shooters vs, roll 
film users, 2.25 in. vs 35 mm....film vs. digital.. the Is it art? 
argument...all of them...useless, silly, wastes of time...what 
matters is the final print...period.  
     Photography is the process where light is captured on a light 
sensitive material..it is the capture that dictates whether 
something is a photograph or not. Do'nt believe me..check a 
dictionary. But, if one believes photographs must be printed on 
silver halide, then the years of Life Magazine, Nat Geo, Look, etc 
etc did not show photos but showed....???what. 
  Digital is upon us and will stay. People take photographs with 
their digital light capturing sensors and print them either as ink 
prints, C Prints, or any other foreign sounding name you can give 
them.
   And in case anyone needs some sodium thiosulphate for a fix bath 
let me know. I wo'nt ever touch that stuff again.
Just my two cents...with gas prices this high, make it a quarter's 
worth
Frank in NJ

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, ben schneider 
<benjschneider2@...> wrote:

> 
> I also think of Ink Jet Prints as being different then 
Photographs.  I have argued this ethical, and aesthetic point many 
times.  I consider Silver/Gelatin prints a whole other class of art, 
digital ink jet printing another.  When I sell digitally produced 
images, I do not call them photographs.  I sell them as Giclee 
Prints.  Adding this title to them, makes people think they are more 
exclusive.  
> 
> Personally I consider injet printing more akin to Lithography as a 
print class.  Images made from cyan, magenta, yellow, and black ink 
dots on paper.  It is just the method of applying the ink that is 
different.

> 
> Ben
> 
> 
> 
> 
>       
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Clayton Jones" <cj@...> wrote:

> I use two pieces of acid free linen hinge tape at the top of the
> print, taped to the back of the window mat.  Then I hinge the back
> board (another piece of mat board) to the top of the window mat.
> 
> So the print is basically hanging by it's top edge while being
> sandwiched between the boards.  Quick, easy, stable, and not permanent.
> 
> As for positioning the print and mat, I lay the print face up on a
> table with the top edge (the edge that will be taped) extending over
> the table edge about two inches.  Then lay the window mat over it and
> carefully position it for even reveal all around the image.  When it's
> in position I place two small pieces of photographers tape over the
> upper corners of the print (the part extending from the table) to hold
> it in position against underside of the mat.  Then I lift them up for
> final inspection to ensure the positioning is correct, then lay it
> face down and apply the hinge tape along the top edge of the print
> (two pieces, each about 2" long [tape is 1.25" wide]), then remove the
> photographers tape from the corners. 

Clayton,
  I've used a method similar to yours (tightly affixing the print to the back of the mat with 
two short pieces of archival tape) until recently. Then two people returned prints to me for 
remounting because they had developed waviness, visible along the top edge of the print. 
I'm using Ilford GSF, so this problem is likely more obvious then it would be with a less 
reflective mat paper.

   Now I'm leaving some "play" in the mounting tape (as recommended for mounting art 
work by Linco & others) by using two 2-inch pieces of tape applied vertically to the back 
of the print and not stuck to the mat; then two additional, horizontal pieces of tape, 
spaced 3/4 inch above the print, are used to anchor the vertical pieces of tape to the 
backing board. So far (but after only 2 months of observation) the new method seems to 
avoid the waviness problem.

   Possibly the problem is caused by slight swelling or contraction of the paper related to 
changes in humidity (the prints cure for, usually, several months before framing). Or 
possibly the Ilford paper is more susceptible to dimensional changes than rag papers?
Best,
Jim C

Everybody here knows "Giclee" is a marketing system and bogus label,
not a process. And it's a copywrite violation to use the term if one
isn't paying to take part in the hustle. "Giclee" is exactly the same
conceptually as "Big Mac"...not a burger, a specific brand of burger..
inferior and easily marketed.


  


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Gary Weaver"
<garww@...> wrote:
>
> My working outlook, too.
> 
> I like to point out to people that the coffee table books seem to
have reproductions they don't complain about. It's just a different
process.
> 
> gar
> 
> *********** REPLY SEPARATOR  ***********
> 
> On 9/18/2008 at 9:22 AM ben schneider wrote:
> 
> >Portraits, and Commercial prints are mostly framed without a
matte.  Dry
> >mounting is necessary to keep the print flat, especially when no
glass is
> >put into the frame.  I normally lacquer all of the prints that do
not have
> >glass over them.
> >
> >I chose to float, or hinge mount prints that are matted, because it is
> >reversible.  One can change the matte and backing if necessary.  When I
> >print the print, it is on a slightly larger sheet.  I sign that
sheet, as
> >well as the matte.  The extra paper that extends past the image
helps to
> >keep the print flat under the matte.
> >
> >I also think of Ink Jet Prints as being different then Photographs.  I
> >have argued this ethical, and aesthetic point many times.  I consider
> >Silver/Gelatin prints a whole other class of art, digital ink jet
printing
> >another.  When I sell digitally produced images, I do not call them
> >photographs.  I sell them as Giclee Prints.  Adding this title to them,
> >makes people think they are more exclusive.  
> >
> >Personally I consider injet printing more akin to Lithography as a
print
> >class.  Images made from cyan, magenta, yellow, and black ink dots on
> >paper.  It is just the method of applying the ink that is different.
> >
> >Ben
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >      
> >
> >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >------------------------------------
> >
> >Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other
resources as
> >they are often being updated.
> >
> >http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> >
> >If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
> >unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting
this same
> >page.
> >
> >Please follow these basic guidelines:
> >- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages
to keep
> >them short.
> >- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames.
> >Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the
> >membership without notice.
> >- Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W
> >printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be
removed from
> >the membership.
> >- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and
> >guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group
Owner
> >and Moderators. See "Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines" in the Files
> >section:
> >http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
> >
> >BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE
PRINT
> >YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE "OWNER" AND
> >"MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE
LIABLE TO
> >YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR
> >EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF
> >PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE 
> >"OWNER" AND "MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN
> >ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i)
THE USE
> >OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii)
> >UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA;
(iii)

> >STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
> >YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE
> >PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
> >Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>

Frank in NJ,

Right on.  Magazines are lithographs, not photographs.  The original transparency, or piece of film was the photograph.  But the reproductions in the magazines are lithographs.

This realization came to me some twenty-five years ago.  I had a both at an arts and crafts fair, and it was a requirement that each person exhibiting do some sort of demonstration.  I took an Alto's Easy Matte, and my Seal 160M press and demonstrated print finishing.  Cutting mattes, and mounting prints on backing board.  It was a statement a visitor made in my booth which made me aware of what the was being mounted.  His statement to his children was, "See, he is cutting pictures out of magazines, and mounting them to cardboard".  Even though they were my original, darkroom made prints, I was made aware that a print is a print to most people.

I was first hurt by his statement; then after thinking about it, if he thought these were magazine reproductions, they must be pretty good to fool him.

Ben




      

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hello Jim,

>...two people returned prints to me for remounting because they had 
>developed waviness, visible along the top edge of the print. 
>I'm using Ilford GSF, so this problem is likely more obvious then it 
>would be with a less reflective mat paper.

Bummer.  I've never had that happen (I use matte paper).


>Now I'm leaving some "play" in the mounting tape...used to anchor 
>the vertical pieces of tape to the backing board. 

Understood, I've seen those kind of hinges.  Only problem I have with
that is it's back to the old dry mount problem of the time-consuming
extreme precision required when attaching to the mount board - it has
to be centered in the window.

I'm wondering, since the purpose of the hanging hinges is to allow for
some minute dimensional changes due to whatever, if it wouldn't work
just as well taped to the window mat.  Why should it matter to which
side of the sandwich it's taped?  Why not do as described, only apply
hanging hinges instead of the two pieces of tape?  

Now that I think about it, it would be easy to do.  The "tabs" (a 2 or
3 inch piece of tape folded over on itself, leaving just a half inch
of sticky exposed) could be pre-attatched to the print, with the tabs
extending out from the top edge.  Then the usual procedure, and when
it's flipped over you just tape down the tabs instead of the print
edge.  What do you think?


>possibly the Ilford paper is more susceptible to dimensional changes 
>than rag papers?

Could be, and maybe size makes a difference.  What size prints are you
talking about?  My biggest are in 16x20 mats, and my best sellers are
in 11x14 mats, so I'm not operating in the big print arena.


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

There is no copyright violation to selling a Giclee. That would be like
saying it a copyright violation to sell a photograph. There may be a group
of people selling "Giclee" prints but they can not copyright a term that is
a term in common use. If this is true, please direct us to ANY post which
spells this out. If you don't belong to their group you may not sell a
"certified" with their label I suppose, but your statement here leave a lot
to be explained.

 

Eric

 

Eric Neilsen Photo

4101 Commerce Street, Suite 9

Dallas, TX 75226

214 827-8301

 

http://ericneilsenphotography.com

SKype ejprinter

 

  _____  

From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of djon43
Sent: Saturday, September 20, 2008 12:43 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] Re:Dry mounting digital prints?

 

Everybody here knows "Giclee" is a marketing system and bogus label,
not a process. And it's a copywrite violation to use the term if one
isn't paying to take part in the hustle. "Giclee" is exactly the same
conceptually as "Big Mac"...not a burger, a specific brand of burger..
inferior and easily marketed.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhit
<mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com>
eThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Gary Weaver"
<garww@...> wrote:
>
> My working outlook, too.
> 
> I like to point out to people that the coffee table books seem to
have reproductions they don't complain about. It's just a different
process.
> 
> gar
> 
> *********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********
> 
> On 9/18/2008 at 9:22 AM ben schneider wrote:
> 
> >Portraits, and Commercial prints are mostly framed without a
matte.  Dry
> >mounting is necessary to keep the print flat, especially when no
glass is
> >put into the frame.  I normally lacquer all of the prints that do
not have
> >glass over them.
> >
> >I chose to float, or hinge mount prints that are matted, because it is
> >reversible.  One can change the matte and backing if necessary.  When I
> >print the print, it is on a slightly larger sheet.  I sign that
sheet, as
> >well as the matte.  The extra paper that extends past the image
helps to
> >keep the print flat under the matte.
> >
> >I also think of Ink Jet Prints as being different then Photographs.  I
> >have argued this ethical, and aesthetic point many times.  I consider
> >Silver/Gelatin prints a whole other class of art, digital ink jet
printing
> >another.  When I sell digitally produced images, I do not call them
> >photographs.  I sell them as Giclee Prints.  Adding this title to them,
> >makes people think they are more exclusive.  
> >
> >Personally I consider injet printing more akin to Lithography as a
print
> >class.  Images made from cyan, magenta, yellow, and black ink dots on
> >paper.  It is just the method of applying the ink that is different.
> >
> >Ben
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 
> >
> >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >------------------------------------
> >
> >Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other
resources as
> >they are often being updated.
> >
> >http://groups.
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint>
yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> >
> >If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
> >unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting
this same
> >page.
> >
> >Please follow these basic guidelines:
> >- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages
to keep
> >them short.
> >- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames.
> >Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the
> >membership without notice.
> >- Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W
> >printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be
removed from
> >the membership.
> >- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and
> >guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group
Owner
> >and Moderators. See "Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines" in the Files
> >section:
> >http://groups.
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/>
yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
> >
> >BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE
PRINT
> >YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE "OWNER" AND
> >"MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE
LIABLE TO
> >YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR
> >EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF
> >PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE 
> >"OWNER" AND "MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN
> >ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i)
THE USE
> >OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii)
> >UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA;
(iii)
> >STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
> >YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE
> >PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
> >Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>

 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Eric, This is a matter for you and your attorney. You won't find a
convincing answer unless you pay for it because you believe what you
believe...always a mistake. 

"Giclee" wasn't in "common use" until it was cooked up for marketing
purposes, then appropriated by others who didn't want to let their
customers know they were doing common inkjets. "Levis" is in common
use, but you might not want to use it as a label for Indonesian
knockoffs...

"Photograph" is a generic term for optical, and perhaps scanned
image-making. It commonly includes video and motion picture as well.
It doesn't refer to silver film, color slides, digital files or
anything technical whatsoever. Commonly we make a distinction between
halftone prints (as in magazines, books, and serigraphs) and items
that are closer to the camera, but digital technology is blurring that.

PT Barnum invented "Giclee."

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "E Neilsen"
<e.neilsen2@...> wrote:
>
> There is no copyright violation to selling a Giclee. That would be like
> saying it a copyright violation to sell a photograph. There may be a
group
> of people selling "Giclee" prints but they can not copyright a term
that is
> a term in common use. If this is true, please direct us to ANY post
which
> spells this out. If you don't belong to their group you may not sell a
> "certified" with their label I suppose, but your statement here
leave a lot
> to be explained.
> 
>  
> 
> Eric
> 
>  
> 
> Eric Neilsen Photo
> 
> 4101 Commerce Street, Suite 9
> 
> Dallas, TX 75226
> 
> 214 827-8301
> 
>  
> 
> http://ericneilsenphotography.com
> 
> SKype ejprinter
> 
>  
> 
>   _____  
> 
> From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
djon43
> Sent: Saturday, September 20, 2008 12:43 PM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Digital BW] Re:Dry mounting digital prints?
> 
>  
> 
> Everybody here knows "Giclee" is a marketing system and bogus label,
> not a process. And it's a copywrite violation to use the term if one
> isn't paying to take part in the hustle. "Giclee" is exactly the same
> conceptually as "Big Mac"...not a burger, a specific brand of burger..
> inferior and easily marketed.
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhit
> <mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com>
> eThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Gary Weaver"
> <garww@> wrote:
> >
> > My working outlook, too.
> > 
> > I like to point out to people that the coffee table books seem to
> have reproductions they don't complain about. It's just a different
> process.
> > 
> > gar
> > 
> > *********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********
> > 
> > On 9/18/2008 at 9:22 AM ben schneider wrote:
> > 
> > >Portraits, and Commercial prints are mostly framed without a
> matte.  Dry
> > >mounting is necessary to keep the print flat, especially when no
> glass is
> > >put into the frame.  I normally lacquer all of the prints that do
> not have
> > >glass over them.
> > >
> > >I chose to float, or hinge mount prints that are matted, because
it is
> > >reversible.  One can change the matte and backing if necessary. 
When I
> > >print the print, it is on a slightly larger sheet.  I sign that
> sheet, as
> > >well as the matte.  The extra paper that extends past the image
> helps to
> > >keep the print flat under the matte.
> > >
> > >I also think of Ink Jet Prints as being different then
Photographs.  I
> > >have argued this ethical, and aesthetic point many times.  I consider
> > >Silver/Gelatin prints a whole other class of art, digital ink jet
> printing
> > >another.  When I sell digitally produced images, I do not call them
> > >photographs.  I sell them as Giclee Prints.  Adding this title to
them,
> > >makes people think they are more exclusive.  
> > >
> > >Personally I consider injet printing more akin to Lithography as a
> print
> > >class.  Images made from cyan, magenta, yellow, and black ink dots on
> > >paper.  It is just the method of applying the ink that is different.
> > >
> > >Ben
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 
> > >
> > >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> > >
> > >------------------------------------
> > >
> > >Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other
> resources as
> > >they are often being updated.
> > >
> > >http://groups.
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint>
> yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> > >
> > >If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you
wish to
> > >unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting
> this same
> > >page.
> > >
> > >Please follow these basic guidelines:
> > >- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages
> to keep
> > >them short.
> > >- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
flames.
> > >Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the
> > >membership without notice.
> > >- Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of
digital B&W
> > >printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be
> removed from
> > >the membership.
> > >- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and
> > >guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group
> Owner
> > >and Moderators. See "Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines" in the Files
> > >section:
> > >http://groups.
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/>
> yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
> > >
> > >BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE
> PRINT
> > >YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE "OWNER" AND
> > >"MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE
> LIABLE TO
> > >YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR
> > >EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF
> > >PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE 
> > >"OWNER" AND "MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP
HAVE BEEN

> > >ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i)
> THE USE
> > >OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii)
> > >UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA;
> (iii)
> > >STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
> > >YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE
> > >PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
> > >Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Copyright issues are fairly straight forward and then again not, but to say
that the term giclee is to inkjet as big mac is to burger is so far off to
be really sad. One should not confuse the marketing by a group with a
readily used term. There has certainly been a movement to stand up and call
an inkjet an "inkjet" with pride but there are many out there that are still
calling inkjet prints "Giclee" in order to improve the perception of them in
the market place. There is NOTHING to impart quality either way; that only
comes from the actual piece of paper and ink. 

 

If you want to call your coffee table book a collection of giclee prints
that is nothing stopping you from doing so. 

 

Eric Neilsen Photo

4101 Commerce Street, Suite 9

Dallas, TX 75226

214 827-8301

 

http://ericneilsenphotography.com

SKype ejprinter

 

  _____  

From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of djon43
Sent: Saturday, September 20, 2008 12:43 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] Re:Dry mounting digital prints?

 

Everybody here knows "Giclee" is a marketing system and bogus label,
not a process. And it's a copywrite violation to use the term if one
isn't paying to take part in the hustle. "Giclee" is exactly the same
conceptually as "Big Mac"...not a burger, a specific brand of burger..
inferior and easily marketed.






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

"Giclee" is nothing but the French term or word for Inkjet....

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

Tyler
http://www.custom-digital.com/

Dear Chris,

On 9/20/08 4:11 PM, "-= Chris =-" <baudec@...> wrote:

> "Giclee" is nothing but the French term or word for Inkjet....
> 
> 
The French language definition means something completely different... :)

This is an anglicized version of the French definition...

jim k


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I have my belief and you have your, but while Levis is a brand name, who
made and sold the copyrighted print known as the “Giclee”. These are not
Fresson prints, which are a unique type of print. I asked for reference if
you have it; Not more hearsay. Doing a Google check, a search on the US
copyright site, I find nothing on the term being anything other than a term;
not a copyrighted process. Giclee is a generic term for iris, and inkjet
prints. If the owners of the process known as a Giclee were out there, I
think someone on this list, the Epson Wide Format Group, or one of the many
other groups I subscribe would have run across an issue using that term. Is
it possible that it is a copyright term? 

 

Loooking, looking, looking
 ahh

 

According to Wikipedia, “True Story of Giclée''" By Harald Johnson” is
quoted as attibuting the creation of it to Jack Duganne. 

 

 

What is a "Giclee" Art Reproduction print (pronounced gee-clay)? 

Giclee is French for "sprayed paint" and is traditionally used to describe
fine art reproductions (copies) of original works of art, generally in
larger sizes. Giclee reproductions are created on high quality archival
ink-jet printing systems using pigment inks that are designed for color
accuracy, longevity, and fade resistance.

 

From San Diego Pictures,858-274-0665 web site

 

I have email Jack and Harald for their input on this issue. I will post what
I feel I can, if not all of their response. ( after check with them). I also
see over 30 places selling Giclee prints that ARE inkjets; not Iris prints. 

 

Eric

 

 

Eric Neilsen Photo

4101 Commerce Street, Suite 9

Dallas, TX 75226

214 827-8301

 

 <http://ericneilsenphotography.com> http://ericneilsenphotography.com

SKype ejprinter

 

  _____  

From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of djon43
Sent: Saturday, September 20, 2008 5:08 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] Re:Dry mounting digital prints?

 

Eric, This is a matter for you and your attorney. You won't find a
convincing answer unless you pay for it because you believe what you
believe...always a mistake. 

"Giclee" wasn't in "common use" until it was cooked up for marketing
purposes, then appropriated by others who didn't want to let their
customers know they were doing common inkjets. "Levis" is in common
use, but you might not want to use it as a label for Indonesian
knockoffs...

"Photograph" is a generic term for optical, and perhaps scanned
image-making. It commonly includes video and motion picture as well.
It doesn't refer to silver film, color slides, digital files or
anything technical whatsoever. Commonly we make a distinction between
halftone prints (as in magazines, books, and serigraphs) and items
that are closer to the camera, but digital technology is blurring that.

PT Barnum invented "Giclee."

--- In DigitalBlackandWhit
<mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com>
eThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "E Neilsen"
<e.neilsen2@...> wrote:
>
> There is no copyright violation to selling a Giclee. That would be like
> saying it a copyright violation to sell a photograph. There may be a
group
> of people selling "Giclee" prints but they can not copyright a term
that is
> a term in common use. If this is true, please direct us to ANY post
which
> spells this out. If you don't belong to their group you may not sell a
> "certified" with their label I suppose, but your statement here
leave a lot
> to be explained.
> 
> 
> 
> Eric
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Neilsen Photo
> 
> 4101 Commerce Street, Suite 9
> 
> Dallas, TX 75226
> 
> 214 827-8301
> 
> 
> 
> http://ericneilsenp <http://ericneilsenphotography.com> hotography.com
> 
> SKype ejprinter
> 
> 
> 
> _____ 
> 
> From: DigitalBlackandWhit
<mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com>
eThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhit
<mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com>
eThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
djon43
> Sent: Saturday, September 20, 2008 12:43 PM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhit
<mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com>
eThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Digital BW] Re:Dry mounting digital prints?
> 
> 
> 
> Everybody here knows "Giclee" is a marketing system and bogus label,
> not a process. And it's a copywrite violation to use the term if one
> isn't paying to take part in the hustle. "Giclee" is exactly the same
> conceptually as "Big Mac"...not a burger, a specific brand of burger..
> inferior and easily marketed.
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhit
> <mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com>
> eThePrint@yahoogrou <mailto:eThePrint%40yahoogroups.com> ps.com, "Gary
Weaver"
> <garww@> wrote:
> >
> > My working outlook, too.
> > 
> > I like to point out to people that the coffee table books seem to
> have reproductions they don't complain about. It's just a different
> process.
> > 
> > gar
> > 
> > *********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********
> > 
> > On 9/18/2008 at 9:22 AM ben schneider wrote:
> > 
> > >Portraits, and Commercial prints are mostly framed without a
> matte. Dry
> > >mounting is necessary to keep the print flat, especially when no
> glass is
> > >put into the frame. I normally lacquer all of the prints that do
> not have
> > >glass over them.
> > >
> > >I chose to float, or hinge mount prints that are matted, because
it is
> > >reversible. One can change the matte and backing if necessary. 
When I
> > >print the print, it is on a slightly larger sheet. I sign that
> sheet, as
> > >well as the matte. The extra paper that extends past the image
> helps to
> > >keep the print flat under the matte.
> > >
> > >I also think of Ink Jet Prints as being different then
Photographs. I
> > >have argued this ethical, and aesthetic point many times. I consider
> > >Silver/Gelatin prints a whole other class of art, digital ink jet
> printing
> > >another. When I sell digitally produced images, I do not call them
> > >photographs. I sell them as Giclee Prints. Adding this title to
them,
> > >makes people think they are more exclusive. 
> > >
> > >Personally I consider injet printing more akin to Lithography as a
> print
> > >class. Images made from cyan, magenta, yellow, and black ink dots on
> > >paper. It is just the method of applying the ink that is different.
> > >
> > >Ben
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 
> > >
> > >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> > >
> > >------------------------------------
> > >
> > >Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other
> resources as
> > >they are often being updated.
> > >
> > >http://groups.
> <http://groups.
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint>
yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint>
> yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> > >
> > >If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you
wish to
> > >unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting
> this same
> > >page.
> > >
> > >Please follow these basic guidelines:
> > >- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages
> to keep
> > >them short.
> > >- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
flames.
> > >Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the
> > >membership without notice.
> > >- Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of
digital B&W
> > >printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be
> removed from
> > >the membership.
> > >- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and
> > >guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group
> Owner
> > >and Moderators. See "Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines" in the Files
> > >section:
> > >http://groups.
> <http://groups.
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/>
yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/>
> yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
> > >
> > >BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE
> PRINT
> > >YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE "OWNER" AND
> > >"MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE
> LIABLE TO
> > >YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR
> > >EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF
> > >PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE 
> > >"OWNER" AND "MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP
HAVE BEEN
> > >ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i)
> THE USE
> > >OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii)
> > >UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA;
> (iii)
> > >STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
> > >YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE
> > >PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
> > >Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I still associate the word with the IRIS and the APLS 4000 era. Not at all with inkjet.

gar

*********** REPLY SEPARATOR  ***********

On 9/20/2008 at 5:02 PM jim kitchen wrote:

>Dear Chris,
>
>On 9/20/08 4:11 PM, "-= Chris =-" <baudec@...> wrote:
>
>> "Giclee" is nothing but the French term or word for Inkjet....
>> 
>> 
>The French language definition means something completely different... :)
>
>This is an anglicized version of the French definition...
>
>jim k
>

Couldn't have been said simpler.

 
--- On Sat, 9/20/08, -= Chris =- <baudec@...> wrote:

> From: -= Chris =- <baudec@...>
> Subject: Re: Copyright enough misinformation RE: [Digital BW] Re:Dry mounting digital prints?
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Saturday, September 20, 2008, 6:11 PM
> "Giclee" is nothing but the French term or word
> for Inkjet....

Just heard that someone, somewhere in a back room in Rochester, NY, is developing a camera that not only shoots digital but also film. Anyone else hear this?

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Clayton Jones" <cj@...> wrote:

> 
> I'm wondering, since the purpose of the hanging hinges is to allow for
> some minute dimensional changes due to whatever, if it wouldn't work
> just as well taped to the window mat.  Why should it matter to which
> side of the sandwich it's taped?  Why not do as described, only apply
> hanging hinges instead of the two pieces of tape?  
> 
> Now that I think about it, it would be easy to do.  The "tabs" (a 2 or
> 3 inch piece of tape folded over on itself, leaving just a half inch
> of sticky exposed) could be pre-attatched to the print, with the tabs
> extending out from the top edge.  Then the usual procedure, and when
> it's flipped over you just tape down the tabs instead of the print
> edge.  What do you think?

I think that's a great idea:  it certainly would speed up the process. It is difficult to center a 
print in the mat window when the print is fastened to the backing board. Probably not 
even necessary to fold over the hinge (might make the tabs too rigid?), if only the end that 
is fastened to the back of the print is moistened. I'll try it.
> 
> What size prints are you talking about?  My biggest are in 16x20 mats, and my best 
sellers are in 11x14 mats, so I'm not operating in the big print arena.

My prints are in the same size range (18X23 mats).

thanks for the suggestion, 
Jim C

----- jim kitchen <jim.kitchen@...> wrote:

> > "Giclee" is nothing but the French term or word for Inkjet....
>
> The French language definition means something completely different... :)

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gicl%C3%A9e

http://www.nakedtranslations.com/fr/2004/05/000157.php

En 1991, Duganne a dû créer un mot pour désigner un type d'impression mentionné dans un dépliant annonçant l'exposition de Diane Bartz, une artiste californienne. Il voulait éviter des mots tels que "ordinateur" ou "numérique" à cause des connotations négatives attachées à cette nouvelle technique dans le monde artistique. S'inspirant du mot français jet d'encre, Duganne a cherché dans son Larousse de poche un mot recouvrant la plupart des technologies jet d'encre de l'époque et, avec un peu de chance, du futur. Il est tombé sur le mot gicleur, la pièce qui diffuse l'encre sur le papier présente dans la plupart des imprimantes. La forme nominale de gicleur est giclée. Duganne avait trouvé ce qu'il recherchait.


I guess, artistic license <g>, it also does have a slang connotation.

Hello Tyler,

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

Thanks for the good link.  Here is the essence of the dictionary
definition at the bottom:

"...exact copy of an original work of art that was created by
conventional means (painting, drawing, etc.) and then reproduced
digitally, typically via inkjet printing."

I don't know if the author(s) of this meant to include photographs in
the "etc" part of "conventional means", but no matter.  If a giclee is
a copy of an original work of art, then it's not a good term for my
ink prints because my prints are original works of art.  

If anyone wants to call their prints giclees that's fine, but they are
relegating their efforts to the realm of copies.

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

Dear Chris,

On 9/20/08 6:42 PM, "-= Chris =-" <baudec@...> wrote:
I guess, artistic license <g>, it also does have a slang connotation.

It can...  :)

jim k





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

unlike "toned silver gelatin", "Platinum", "Kallitype", on and on,
including all of the intaglio, silkscreen, stone lithography, etc etc..

.. it's not a very helpful term, as it does not inform about the
materials at all, or really the process.
It could be Iris, Epson, dye or pigment, whatever.
Certainly people can call their prints whatever they want.
I prefer to call them something helpful and descriptive, and like
yours, mine are originals, not "reproductions" of some other original.

Tyler

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Clayton Jones"
<cj@...> wrote:

>
> Hello Tyler,
> 
> > http://www.dpandi.com/giclee/giclee.html
> 
> Thanks for the good link.  Here is the essence of the dictionary
> definition at the bottom:
> 
> "...exact copy of an original work of art that was created by
> conventional means (painting, drawing, etc.) and then reproduced
> digitally, typically via inkjet printing."
> 
> I don't know if the author(s) of this meant to include photographs in
> the "etc" part of "conventional means", but no matter.  If a giclee is
> a copy of an original work of art, then it's not a good term for my
> ink prints because my prints are original works of art.  
> 
> If anyone wants to call their prints giclees that's fine, but they are
> relegating their efforts to the realm of copies.
> 
> 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
>

That waviness can happen because of different reasons.
1. The thickness of the paper.
2. The tightness of the frame's backing which, if too loose, will 
not keep the mat's backing tight to the mat itself.
3. Humidity as someone else mentioned.
  I have found I never get waviness with 8x10 but it begins with 
11x14 and above. A co-worker who mats and frames photos for other 
people mentioned the same thing.
  When I use a metal frame, and tightly set the backing boards I 
rarely get waves...seems to happen more with thin wooden frames.
   Also, printing on a paper the same size as the mat backing board 
almost completely eliminates it with 11x14 and larger. 
Frank in NJ

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "jimcongleton" 
<jconglet@...> wrote:
>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Clayton 
Jones" <cj@> wrote:
> 
> > I use two pieces of acid free linen hinge tape at the top of the
> > print, taped to the back of the window mat.  Then I hinge the 
back
> > board (another piece of mat board) to the top of the window mat.
> > 
> > So the print is basically hanging by it's top edge while being
> > sandwiched between the boards.  Quick, easy, stable, and not 
permanent.
> > 
> > As for positioning the print and mat, I lay the print face up on 
a
> > table with the top edge (the edge that will be taped) extending 
over
> > the table edge about two inches.  Then lay the window mat over 
it and
> > carefully position it for even reveal all around the image.  
When it's
> > in position I place two small pieces of photographers tape over 
the
> > upper corners of the print (the part extending from the table) 
to hold
> > it in position against underside of the mat.  Then I lift them 
up for
> > final inspection to ensure the positioning is correct, then lay 
it
> > face down and apply the hinge tape along the top edge of the 
print
> > (two pieces, each about 2" long [tape is 1.25" wide]), then 
remove the
> > photographers tape from the corners. 
> 
> Clayton,
>   I've used a method similar to yours (tightly affixing the print 
to the back of the mat with 
> two short pieces of archival tape) until recently. Then two people 
returned prints to me for 
> remounting because they had developed waviness, visible along the 
top edge of the print. 
> I'm using Ilford GSF, so this problem is likely more obvious then 
it would be with a less 
> reflective mat paper.
> 
>    Now I'm leaving some "play" in the mounting tape (as 
recommended for mounting art 
> work by Linco & others) by using two 2-inch pieces of tape applied 
vertically to the back 
> of the print and not stuck to the mat; then two additional, 
horizontal pieces of tape, 
> spaced 3/4 inch above the print, are used to anchor the vertical 
pieces of tape to the 
> backing board. So far (but after only 2 months of observation) the 
new method seems to 
> avoid the waviness problem.
> 
>    Possibly the problem is caused by slight swelling or 
contraction of the paper related to 
> changes in humidity (the prints cure for, usually, several months 
before framing). Or 
> possibly the Ilford paper is more susceptible to dimensional 
changes than rag papers?

> Best,
> Jim C
>

I agree. So not descriptive of anything. Might have been needed at the
beginning... but today? Me not think so.

Hey I just loaded my water gun with some dye blue ink and unloaded it
on a piece of HPR. An original giclée... :-)

Denis


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Tyler Boley"
<tyler@...> wrote:

>
> unlike "toned silver gelatin", "Platinum", "Kallitype", on and on,
> including all of the intaglio, silkscreen, stone lithography, etc etc..
> 
> .. it's not a very helpful term, as it does not inform about the
> materials at all, or really the process.
> It could be Iris, Epson, dye or pigment, whatever.
> Certainly people can call their prints whatever they want.
> I prefer to call them something helpful and descriptive, and like
> yours, mine are originals, not "reproductions" of some other original.
> 
> Tyler
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Clayton Jones"
> <cj@> wrote:
> >
> > Hello Tyler,
> > 
> > > http://www.dpandi.com/giclee/giclee.html
> > 
> > Thanks for the good link.  Here is the essence of the dictionary
> > definition at the bottom:
> > 
> > "...exact copy of an original work of art that was created by
> > conventional means (painting, drawing, etc.) and then reproduced
> > digitally, typically via inkjet printing."
> > 
> > I don't know if the author(s) of this meant to include photographs in
> > the "etc" part of "conventional means", but no matter.  If a giclee is
> > a copy of an original work of art, then it's not a good term for my
> > ink prints because my prints are original works of art.  
> > 
> > If anyone wants to call their prints giclees that's fine, but they are
> > relegating their efforts to the realm of copies.
> > 
> > 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
> >
>

>There has certainly been a movement to stand up and call
an inkjet an "inkjet" with pride but there are many out there that are still
calling inkjet prints "Giclee" in order to improve the perception of them in
the market place.

I cannot see how using a rude French word for ejaculate improves the 
perception of a print as a serious piece of work. I just makes me (and 
others) laugh at the stupidity of it.

bob Frost.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "E Neilsen" <e.neilsen2@...>

I think Harald Johnson describes the origins and use of the word well

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

Bob Frost.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "E Neilsen" <e.neilsen2@...>

Incorrecto-mundo my friend!

It is the French word for "Spurt" (or similar) and was brought about
around 2000 to make the process sound more arty - a more clever, less
techy
name for ink-JET. The French have shunned the word as it is also close
to ejaculation in it's French meaning and therefore considered crude
and offensive.

Also: I think it is/was used more for traditional artworks (paintings,
water colors, etc) that were drum-scanned and reproduced via
(originally) an Iris printer. The reproduction quality was so stunning
(for the day - 2000ish) - nearly indistinguishable from the original -
that  gallery owners were in fear of a flood of counterfeit Mona
Lisa's. Now that quality is available on the desktop!

I've seen "Pigment ink" used as reference to an ink-jet produced
image, just as "silver gelatin" is being used as a reference to
traditional wet-process photographic prints. That seems like a
reasonable term.

=Alan R.


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, -= Chris =-
<baudec@...> wrote:

>
> "Giclee" is nothing but the French term or word for Inkjet....
>

Bob, I too find it an odd behavior, but it is out there none the less. And
again, I don't think that they were going for that context but the one set
in motion by those following Jack Duganne and his followers. Perhaps the
slang you refer to is really a statement about all the piss poor quality
prints that flows over the art market. It felt good when they were making
them, but looking back not much to remember. 

 

Eric

 

Eric Neilsen Photo

4101 Commerce Street, Suite 9

Dallas, TX 75226

214 827-8301

 

http://ericneilsenphotography.com

SKype ejprinter

 

  _____  

From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Bob Frost
Sent: Sunday, September 21, 2008 3:12 AM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Copyright enough misinformation RE: [Digital BW] Re:Dry
mounting digital prints?

 

>There has certainly been a movement to stand up and call
an inkjet an "inkjet" with pride but there are many out there that are still
calling inkjet prints "Giclee" in order to improve the perception of them in
the market place.

I cannot see how using a rude French word for ejaculate improves the 
perception of a print as a serious piece of work. I just makes me (and 
others) laugh at the stupidity of it.

bob Frost.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "E Neilsen" <e.neilsen2@worldnet
<mailto:e.neilsen2%40worldnet.att.net> .att.net> 

 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Since I am the bastard that started this "Photograph" thing, I thought I would add the following Wikipedia definition:

********************

A photograph (often shortened to photo) is an image created by light falling on a light-sensitive surface, usually photographic film or an electronic imager such as a CCD or a w-redirect">CMOS chip. Most photographs are created using a camera, which uses a lens
to focus the scene's visible wavelengths of light into a reproduction
of what the human eye would see. The process of creating photographs is
called photography. The word "photograph" coined 1839 by Sir John Herschel and is based on the Greek φώς (phos), "light" + γραφίς (graphis), "stylus", "paintbrush" or γραφή (graphê), "representation by means of lines" or "drawing", together meaning "drawing with light".[1]

******************

I think the word "photograph" invented by Sr. John Herschel says it all!  This is the definition I was taught in college some 40 years ago, and the definition I used when I taught photography in college more recently.  Drawing with light.

It is the process that names the image we see.  So, if the final image, the one placed on display, is not made by using light, it is not a photograph.  The signal formed by the camera sensor could be a photograph though.

Electra magnetic ink splatterings??????  Call it what you want.  

Doing a image with a squirt gun loaded with ink could be a new art form, needing a great amount of skill.  One could develop a whole line of precision squirt guns.  Make tons of money selling them.  Especially in selling the inks and papers needed to use them properly.  Would we call that sort of image a Giclee too!

I wonder if Jackson Pollock ever tried it?  

; >)

Ben



      

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

YES! I think the clueless noobs who invented the word had no idea of
the 'other' connotations of it. And it is, AFAIK, why it as fallen
into such disfavor.

"Pigment Ink" rules!


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Frost"
<bob@...> wrote:
>
> >There has certainly been a movement to stand up and call
> an inkjet an "inkjet" with pride but there are many out there that
are still
> calling inkjet prints "Giclee" in order to improve the perception of
them in

> the market place.
> 
> I cannot see how using a rude French word for ejaculate improves the 
> perception of a print as a serious piece of work. I just makes me (and 
> others) laugh at the stupidity of it.
> 
> bob Frost.
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "E Neilsen" <e.neilsen2@...>
>

> Doing a image with a squirt gun loaded with ink could be a new art
form, needing a great amount of skill.  One could develop a whole
line of precision squirt guns.  Make tons of money selling them. 
Especially in selling the inks and papers needed to use them
properly.  Would we call that sort of image a Giclee too!
> 
> I wonder if Jackson Pollock ever tried it?  
> 
> ; >)
> 
> Ben

I think these precision squirt guns already exist and are called
airbrush, An artform in itself indeed. ;-) I tried while studying
industrial design and failed miserably at using them...

Denis

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "E Neilsen"
<e.neilsen2@...> wrote:
>
> ....Perhaps the
> slang you refer to is really a statement about all the piss poor quality
> prints that flows over the art market....


I can't resist passing this on, Bruce Watson sent me the link. YOu
have to watch to the end. I gotta get me one of these!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKK933KK6Gg

Tyler
http://www.custom-digital.com/

What's this got to do with Dry Mounting Digital Prints?
Jules



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "the_des_bois"
<thedesbois@...> wrote:

>
> 
> > Doing a image with a squirt gun loaded with ink could be a new art
> form, needing a great amount of skill.  One could develop a whole
> line of precision squirt guns.  Make tons of money selling them. 
> Especially in selling the inks and papers needed to use them
> properly.  Would we call that sort of image a Giclee too!
> > 
> > I wonder if Jackson Pollock ever tried it?  
> > 
> > ; >)
> > 
> > Ben
> 
> I think these precision squirt guns already exist and are called
> airbrush, An artform in itself indeed. ;-) I tried while studying
> industrial design and failed miserably at using them...
> 
> Denis
>

Ouch!  [BG]

I try to educate my customers (both artists buying limited editions, and
end-user print buyers) to not call them Giclee, but if they insist, that's
what I make.

But I'm not going to jump into the "what's a photo" argument.

Bill

On Sun, Sep 21, 2008 at 10:13 AM, E Neilsen <e.neilsen2@...>wrote:

>   It felt good when they were making
> them, but looking back not much to remember.
>
> Eric
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I can see a whole new industry! (just not sure what is it good, for; UHH!)

Bill

On Sun, Sep 21, 2008 at 2:32 PM, Tyler Boley <tyler@...> wrote:

>   --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com<DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com>,
> "E Neilsen"
> <e.neilsen2@...> wrote:
> >
> > ....Perhaps the
> > slang you refer to is really a statement about all the piss poor quality
> > prints that flows over the art market....
>
> I can't resist passing this on, Bruce Watson sent me the link. YOu
> have to watch to the end. I gotta get me one of these!
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKK933KK6Gg
>
> Tyler
> http://www.custom-digital.com/
>
>  
>



-- 
Regards,

Bill Morse
Wm. Morse Editions

http://www.MorseEditions.com/


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Tyler Boley wrote:
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "E Neilsen"
> <e.neilsen2@...> wrote:
>> ....Perhaps the
>> slang you refer to is really a statement about all the piss poor quality
>> prints that flows over the art market....
> 
> 
> I can't resist passing this on, Bruce Watson sent me the link. YOu
> have to watch to the end. I gotta get me one of these!
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKK933KK6Gg
> 
> Tyler
> http://www.custom-digital.com/

That's what the print side of Photoshop CS4 will look like 
then :-)

A paint ball is in a way an encapsulated pigment particle.


-- 
Met vriendelijke groeten,Ernst


|  Dinkla Grafische Techniek  |
|     www.pigment-print.com    |
|             ( unvollendet )            |