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.

 

[Don_ih]

Sentimentally, there is a idealized continuity between the original act of composing the image and enlarging the negative onto paper. Consider it like pouring getting water from a well, pouring that water into a jug, then pouring the same water into a glass. The digitally produced print is like getting water from a well, pouring it into a jug, then pouring water into a glass from a different bottle. Looks the same, yes. Functions the same, probably tastes the same, practically identical. Sentimentally different.

 

[koraks]

@Don_ih that's also the argument that I came up with and pretty much the only one that seems to work if I challenge it.

Consider it like pouring getting water from a well, pouring that water into a jug, then pouring the same water into a glass. The digitally produced print is like getting water from a well, pouring it into a jug, then pouring water into a glass from a different bottle.

Well, yeah, I like how you put that, although the way I feel about it, it's still water all throughout the process in the second instance. To me, a hybrid workflow feels more like taking water from a well, then splitting it into hydrogen and oxygen, maybe doing some more high-tech convoluted stuff with it before turning it back into water again. The chemical parallel doesn't work very well IMO because there's always the laws of thermodynamics that result in some sort of continuity. With a hybrid photographic process, I feel the image is somehow temporarily 'lost' in a different realm before taken back into tangible reality, if that makes sense.

 

[Don_ih]

With a hybrid photographic process, I feel the image is somehow temporarily 'lost' in a different realm before taken back into tangible reality, if that makes sense.

That's what I meant by pouring water into the glass from a different bottle. It's water, but it's not even necessarily from the same well.

I prefer to make enlargements, but that has more to do with what I want to do than what I want to end up with. I've received some inkjet postcards in the exchange that you'd guess were fibre-based silver gelatin prints.

Anyway, there are likely a number of quite practical reasons to show inkjet prints of older photographs in a show, not the least of which is unavailability of the original negative to make a new print. It may be gone or too damaged. And it's likely much easier to find someone to make a big inkjet print than a big silver-gelatin one.

I do, however, sympathize with the desire to see the most authentic print possible when you go to a show. In a way, looking at inkjet prints would feel a bit like looking through a photo book. They're not the "real" thing, they're copies. And it doesn't alleviate the doubt you'd have wondering if a silver-gelatin enlargement wouldn't look just that much better.

 

[koraks]

Yes, thanks @Don_ih; I can relate to everything you said there.
The show of Madame Yevonde's prints made by Katayoun Dowlatshahi (@Katayounpd )last year in the Portrait Gallery (I didn't visit in person, sadly) comes to mind as an example of an IMO successful application of a hybrid workflow that at the same time at least stays true to the 'original water', so to speak. Katayoun made color carbon transfer prints using period-correct pigments, but from digital (halftone screen/imagesetter) negatives that were in turn based on scans of the original negatives.

 

[foc]

As I said in post # 32, back in 2018, I investigated the cost involved in changing my print minilab Frontier RA4 to a Frontier drylab (inkjet). I also got a chance to operate and run test prints through the Frontier drylab in the Fuji service centre in Dublin.

I had a series of images nn my USB stick and I printed them (drylab) in all the different print sizes, 6x4, 5x7, 6x8, 10x8 inches (10x15cm, 13x18cm, 15x20cm, 20x25cm).

The images were mostly my own, scenery, landscapes, portraits, and two technical images, a Fuji test card and an Ilford monitor set up.

I also brought with me the same images in the same print sizes that I had printed on my Frontier, on Fuji CA RA4 paper.

The prints were laid out side by side on the print inspection table (with daylight lighting lamps) and I asked some of the sales staff and two Frontier engineers, to view the prints and pick what they thought were, in their opinion, the best. A bonus question was which were the RA4 prints and which were the drylab.

It turned out 50:50 in both cases. The only difference that could be detected was the feel of the print and ofcourse looking at the back of the print.

I also tried the same in my lab/shop and asked random customers to do the same. I got the same results.

My own opinion is that most people don't know or care how the print was made.

Take from that what you will.

 

[logan2z]

@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.

In my case, at least, there may be some sentimentality involved. I don’t think I can completely discount that. But I also think wet prints simply look better, so I don’t agree with the analogies above that seem to assume that an inkjet and silver gelatin print are indistinguishable.

Maybe inkjet technology is theoretically capable of producing an image with all of the qualities of a silver gelatin print, but the inkjet prints I’ve seen in galleries and museums have fallen short. I can always tell which I’m looking at even before reading the wall labels.

 

[Don_ih]

Katayoun made color carbon transfer prints using period-correct pigments, but from digital (halftone screen/imagesetter) negatives that were in turn based on scans of the original negatives.

And, when it comes down to it, what is the more important part of that process? Getting the colours right or using film negatives? Being contact prints, I doubt it would be possible to detect any difference - except you get a chance to try to fix any degrading of the negative (scratches, dirt, flaking, kinks) using the scan.

I don’t agree with the analogies above that seem to assume that an inkjet and silver gelatin print are indistinguishable

I don't assume they are indistinguishable. It can be hard to tell them apart. And, I would expect, since much work continues to be done on inkjet printing while none is done on silver-gelatin, it's just a matter of time before it will routinely be impossible to tell them apart.

It is a problem if you can look at a gallery print and see it's inkjet. Just like everything else, there will be people who are better at it and people who are worse.

 

[koraks]

I don’t agree with the analogies above that seem to assume that an inkjet and silver gelatin print are indistinguishable.

I don't agree either - although I also don't believe that wet prints necessarily look better. In my experience, they don't. It's hit & miss - a well-made wet print can look better than a poorly made inkjet, and vice versa.

And, when it comes down to it, what is the more important part of that process? Getting the colours right or using film negatives?

That's a hard question to answer (of which you're of course aware). I think they main importance of those prints is that they exist in the first place. And that someone did a thorough job at interpreting the images within the context they were made, insofar as that can be reconstructed. Had Katayoun opted to create a custom set of inkjet inks using these pigments or something similar, I'm sure she would have ended up with a similarly compelling end result.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

If digital printing were invented simultaneously with chemical film photography, no one would say digital printing is unnatural and not true to photography. Let's face it, photography is all magical regardless of the process. None of the forms is natural. They're all depictions of the real thing. Are Life Magazine's artistic photos created through some printing process, not chemically created, a bogus form of photography? It's like when people argue that when they grew up, society was better.