What is a "giclée" print ... really?

[koraks]

She took a while to explain, and my understanding of it is not that it means “inkjet”, plain and simple.

So the lady either sold you a bogus story (with or without realizing it) or you simply misunderstood.
There's no confusion about the meaning of the word 'giclee' in the context of arts. Here's a nice summary: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giclée
It simply means "inkjet print". That's really all there is to it.

 

[fdonadio]

So the lady either sold you a bogus story (with or without realizing it) or you simply misunderstood.

According to the Wikipedia article you cited, I have completely misunderstood her and I stand corrected.

Anyway, since the moment I understood that wasn’t the original artwork, my interested just died. At the time, this so-called “giclée” costed around USD 5,000! Even though it was really eye-catching, I couldn’t pay that much for a digitally printed copy of an original artwork.

Personally, I disregard even digitally printed copies of photos originally created in traditional processes. For me, if it’s been shot on film, I will only accept a wet-print copy of it.

But then it’s only my opinion…

 

[GregY]

So the lady either sold you a bogus story (with or without realizing it) or you simply misunderstood.
There's no confusion about the meaning of the word 'giclee' in the context of arts. Here's a nice summary: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giclée
It simply means "inkjet print". That's really all there is to it.

Yes.....market speak for inkjet print.....

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I don't really understand why [especially the young] digital photographers talk so much about sRGB vs. Adobe RGB. Yes, there is a difference that, even with a calibrated professional monitor (that costs over USD 10,000), is indistinguishable for most people.

Also, no printer does RGB. They all do CMYK, some of them have extra colors for a wider gamut. We all know that, even with these so-called wide-gamut printers, it's still a lot narrower than sRGB.

Can anyone tell the difference between sRGB, Adobe RGB, and the others without having two photo prints to look at simultaneously? And if so, does it really matter? I adjust and shoot in sRGB because almost all my photos only get used on the web which is in sRGB. My monitor is calibrated for sRGB as well.

 

[koraks]

Can anyone tell the difference between sRGB, Adobe RGB

And if so, does it really matter?

For all intents and purposes - no, not really. A digital camera can generally record outside sRGB space, but then you still run into gamut issues when trying to display let alone print the images. For computer display, things have improved with monitors that offer a large gamut as well. However, even then, you'll only really notice the difference on a side-by-side comparison. Which, of course, can still be a compelling argument to get the latest & greatest. If it wouldn't matter at all, these advances wouldn't exist. Is it something to lose any sleep over? Hardly.

My monitor is calibrated for sRGB as well.

No, it isn't, but (1) it doesn't really matter, (2) going into the question why not would be unnecessarily technical. Your monitor will happily display whatever colors thrown at it, within the limits of its gamut. Whether the colors come out as they should is a question of running color management-aware software.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

View attachment 396678



For all intents and purposes - no, not really. A digital camera can generally record outside sRGB space, but then you still run into gamut issues when trying to display let alone print the images. For computer display, things have improved with monitors that offer a large gamut as well. However, even then, you'll only really notice the difference on a side-by-side comparison. Which, of course, can still be a compelling argument to get the latest & greatest. If it wouldn't matter at all, these advances wouldn't exist. Is it something to lose any sleep over? Hardly.



No, it isn't, but (1) it doesn't really matter, (2) going into the question why not would be unnecessarily technical. Your monitor will happily display whatever colors thrown at it, within the limits of its gamut. Whether the colors come out as they should is a question of running color management-aware software.

I have a NEC calibratable monitor using SpectraView II calibration software and puck. So I;,m assuming I;,m looking at the sRGB gamut since I calibrate to it automatically with the NEX program. Am I?

 

[koraks]

Am I?

No - but it doesn't matter. Your monitor is calibrated so that you can assume it displays colors as intended, without any significant casts etc.
What the gamut of your monitor is, I don't know, but it's virtually certainly not exactly sRGB. It's probably slightly less in some places and/or slightly bigger in others. Your monitor has its unique, own color space. By calibrating it, you're essentially giving your computer a map that tells it what color data to send to the monitor so that it gets displayed correctly.

 

[logan2z]

For me, if it’s been shot on film, I will only accept a wet-print copy of it.

Same here. I'm still appalled that a local museum showed inkjet prints at a Dorothea Lange exhibition. Unforgivable.

 

[koraks]

@logan2z @fdonadio how come you categorically prefer 'wet' prints? What makes you appreciate those prints to the extent that you will not accept the alternative? This question has been with me for some time. I've not been able to work it out entirely, I feel. Interested to hear what you guys make of it.