|
|
Post by rhinomilk on Mar 13, 2009 9:47:32 GMT -8
wondering which people prefer (feel free to suggest techniques... i'm no expert on print making)... personally I like a screen print whenever possible (if not, a really well made giclee). not a fan of having it on canvas or wood to try to make it look more like an original.
sorry if there's a thread about this already
|
|
|
|
Post by virtu on Mar 13, 2009 16:41:41 GMT -8
Depends on the originals medium.
For me watercolors look better as giclee and oils/acrylics as serigraphs.
|
|
|
|
Post by lowpro on Mar 21, 2009 12:56:28 GMT -8
Serigraph all the way.
I used to be gung ho for the canvas Giclee, as a result of being the proud owner of a Ryden/Porterhouse edition that was just flawlessly executed. Unfortunately, the recent Simkins canvas Giclees that I have purchased - It Wanders, Knight Watch, Lost Thought - have left a lot to be desired. Riddled with color accuracy errors, poorly stretched, and without a protective varnish, I have to assume these issues have more to do with the printing house Greg selected than the process and medium itself. Porterhouse has proven that if the right hands are handling things, the end product can be jawdropping. So if done right, I'm still all for the canvas Giclee.
I know it's a bit superficial, and also realize it might be a bad thing for the reproduction to so closely mimic the original, but I'm more of a fan of prints on canvas than paper. Ultimately, I think a serigraph on canvas (or archival board) - ala Chase's Seuss Secret Art series - is the best combination of process and medium.
|
|
|
|
Post by svenman on Mar 22, 2009 6:55:56 GMT -8
as a general rule i prefer screens - but as virtu says, i think it depends upon the depth of the piece that is being reproduced.
giclee obviously can be more directly representative of a piece of original work, but serigraphs are an artform in themselves. many artists produce work for screened editions as the medium for their work.
that screen print that josh liner produced of matzu's looks great, and is a great example of all the things that a good screen print should be.
|
|
|
|
Post by sylvia0rtiz on May 19, 2009 12:35:56 GMT -8
as a general rule i prefer screens - but as virtu says, i think it depends upon the depth of the piece that is being reproduced. giclee obviously can be more directly representative of a piece of original work, but serigraphs are an artform in themselves. many artists produce work for screened editions as the medium for their work. that screen print that josh liner produced of matzu's looks great, and is a great example of all the things that a good screen print should be. I TOTALLY AGREE! i think that especially for screen prints, its always awesome when it comes from the artist studio theres still a very "handmade/original" essence to it of course we have machines to do this too but sometimes a mistake done by hand on a screen print can be a happy one! but all else aside giclee prints are by far the best way to go for quality and mass production ( in the digital to print media) |
|
|
|
Post by thecreep on May 19, 2009 16:30:46 GMT -8
Along with what medium it is, I think it really ends up being who makes them. Michael Hussar's "Hans Memling" is a giclee and looks amazing, same with Alex Pardee's prints, they all looks fantastic.
|
|
ill
Full Member
Posts: 158
|
Post by ill on May 20, 2009 21:07:48 GMT -8
Unfortunately, the recent Simkins canvas Giclees that I have purchased - It Wanders, Knight Watch, Lost Thought - have left a lot to be desired. Riddled with color accuracy errors, poorly stretched, and without a protective varnish, I have to assume these issues have more to do with the printing house Greg selected than the process and medium itself. Porterhouse has proven that if the right hands are handling things, the end product can be jawdropping. Thought I might shed a bit more light on Greg's giclees. Here's what his wife wrote me on the issue "In regards to the varnish, we use a water-based UV coating on the canvas. The canvas we use has been tested and certified to last 100 years before any deterioration. The inks have also been tested and certified for the same longevity. The main reason for using the coating is to protect the surface from scuffs and scratches. We purposely don't select a glossy finish and match the color during the proofing process prior to production as opposed to relying on the varnish to bring out the color." If you feel there are some quality issues, or that glossy would be preferable, how about voicing your concerns to the source? There's nothing stopping things from improving. |
|
