![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
|
Would a link to art sites such as http://www.12stoneart.com/ be appropriate for this article? The giclee-making process is decribed at http://www.12stoneart.com/about/printing_process.html —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.98.190.235 ( talk) 02:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC).
I have cleaned up this article a bit. Integrated redundant repeating paragraphs. There seemed to be a lot of confusion between the various imprecise trade names flying around in the “fine arts print” business and the actual technical description of the hardware and processes them selves. To correct this I have made the Iris printer article about the iris printer, redirected Iris prints to Iris printer, and incorporated deleted content from Iris printer into this article. Fountains of Bryn Mawr 00:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
A giclee is JUST an inkjet print. The very word 'Giclee' was invented to make a one-off print seem worth more $$ than it really is. I could make a Xerox copy of something and call it 'Tonee-Sublime`' and charge more money for it. Selling a Giclee for $500 is easier than selling an Epson Inkjet print for the same money, because people are stupid. Come off your high horse and stop getting in the way of concise information.
User:Dstoer -- Could you please sign your posts? Please use four tildes to sign your posts. Thank you. Bus stop 14:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
The assumption that a giclee print costs $50 to make is the real problem here... There are a lot of giclee prints being sold by galleries for $600 that cost $3-$10 to make. Whereas the article makes the comparison between litho and giclee, the more realistic comparison would be with serigraphy, which cost much more than giclee, and which was formerly price-pointed where giclee is now. Of course, in contrast to litho, serigraphs are superior in every way to giclee prints in having texture, transparency, and custom mixed individual colors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.215.115.31 ( talk) 22:05, August 28, 2007 (UTC)
I deleted the added section "How it Works" because it was:
a) redundant
b) bullshit - Giclée is not a technology, it is a trade name used to cover Iris, ultrachrome or other inkjet technologies.
c) Full of florid unsubstantiated claims such as "whole new vibrant medium for art" and "superior to traditional lithography".
d) plagiarized- this was simply copy/pasted from websites such as [1], [2], [3].
69.72.2.71 21:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
This article describes a Neologism and seems to meet the standards at Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms. As such it describes a word and its usage -- that is the "thing" described here, i.e a name coined to mean prints created on inkjet printers. What someone may then go on to do with that inkjet print [4] is not relevant because it is done with many other printing methodes that resualt in canvas prints, for example "Repligraphs". Also this seems to be the editors first hand observation and therefor original research. 69.72.7.122 ( talk) 19:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Spell-checkers are not your enemy!Use one please. Ddudley 03:57, 1 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
96.54.144.33 (
talk)
To my eyes, it makes no sense to capitalize the word giclée -- or we should always put lithography, watercolor, oil, pastel or pencil up as well. As a professional printer who specializes in the process, it disturbs me that the word can be used so loosely in a field that suffers terribly from fraud -- the sale of art where the eye of the beholder is the only limit on value. How the image in that eye was created doesn't really matter to the besmitten viewer who wants it on his wall at home but the seller should be required to truthfully and meaningfully indicate the printing technique where relevant.
Art prints -- or Prints if you prefer -- bring permanence to the fore because art has a way of becoming useless as it fades or grow in value after the demise of the artist while the work remains bright and clear. A print rendered from an inexpensive ink jet can fade without direct exposure to the sun. It will sometimes fade when placed in a drawer in no light at all. Cheap acrylics and other media can also fade in this way but I know of no way to protect a buyer from an artist who doesn't care about longevity. There is a way to protect prints made by careful processes with inks that are tested and rated for archival quality when used on specific media. My point in all this is that this step should be taken because it can. Some agency or association should step up and create a standard for prints to prevent fraud in the marketplace of art.
Many honest printers place labels on the back of their work specifying the manufacturer and names of inks and media used in the product. For a different reason, we are beginning to see large press productions specifically labeled as 'green' to indicate that the product is made -- as relevant -- from recycled and/or non-toxic inks. I'm in Hawai`i and there has recently been a successful law requiring coffee identified as "Kona" to contain a certain percentage of beans that were actually grown there. Maybe this all started with fine wines. This illustrates the value-added component of standards that could be set for professionally imaged and printed ink jet prints when they qualify. Perhaps we have all seen racks of lithographs with a big "Giclée" sign over their bin.
This is entered in the discussion section because it needs some broad-based thinking and input before surfacing as part of the giclée page in Wikipedia
Bill Eger ( talk) 22:15, 15 December 2008 (UTC) Bill Eger
I know that everyone with half a brain reads the discussion page before they completely believe anything they read on wikipedia, so I thought I'd post this little anecdote just for everyones amusement - I'm sure that its not 'encyclopedic' enough for the front page, but I wish I had known this particular bit of info a while ago.
I went to Lille, in France to help hang an exhibition in a fairly major gallery there, half way through hanging the show, one of the directors asked me what kind of prints the ones that I happened to be putting up were. So I told him in my best french "they are giclee prints" at this he erupted into hysterical laughter, and after gasping something to the others in the room they too fell about laughing. Eventually they pulled themselves together enough to tell me what they found so amusing. The upshot was that the word giclee may well technicaly mean 'squirt' in France, but in THAT part of france it is mainly used in much the same way we might use the word 'cum'. It seems that I was hanging a whole load of orgasm prints - so be warned, think twice before you try and sell a giclee print in france, unless of course... 82.24.57.18 ( talk) 08:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
This article mostly, but not completely, capitalizes “Giclée.” If it is a proper noun, that should be explicitly stated (as well as who holds the trademark, if it’s a trademark). If it’s not a proper noun, it should be consistently downcased. — crism ( talk) 15:14, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Then why is lithography or ink jet not capitalized? It is a made up word to describe ink jet printing, but that doesn't make it a proper noun. The word man describes a male human but is not proper. Bob is proper and should always be capitalized. Trademarks are (usually) capitalized, product names aren't (except in headline format such as is displayed on product packaging): e.g. Kleenex brand facial tissue, Vaseline brand petroleum jelly. Perhaps we need a citation on the use of the word as a proper noun rather than just a noun? You should not be able to state an opinion without a reference to back it up, right? 67.63.150.242 ( talk) 18:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
The more proper term for a giclee is digital ink jet print. Unfortunately, the term giclee has become the term most people use to talk about it. It has taken on such a life of its' own that it is sort of useless to rage against it. By the way, when you refer to companies that "mystify" the process, you only help to promote them on the web. You may want to remove their web links and consider using ours instead. (link removed per WP:LINKSPAM-Source soliciting) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Picsalon ( talk • contribs) 06:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
There is nothing about the need to varnish a giclee print to protect the surface. For prints of paintings the varnish layer is also used to add paintbrush strokes to the surface giving the impression that the giclee has been painted with a brush. This is done by tracing round printed objects when adding the varnish. QuentinUK ( talk) 15:23, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Can someone please describe in the article what the alternatives are for prints. Bod ( talk) 23:18, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
"For artists making reproductions of their original work, inkjet printing is more expensive on a per-print basis than the traditional four-color offset lithography, but with inkjet printing the artist does not have to pay for the expensive printing-plate setup or the marketing and storage needed for large four-color offset print runs."
I was not familiar with this term, so I turned to Wikipedia -- my trusted resource for learning new things -- to look it up. When searching "gilcee", this page did not come up, but in fact searched for "gilles" instead, thinking I mistyped "gilcee" for that. Clicking on the link to actually search for "gilcee" told me that the page did not exist. Searching the word on Google, however, showed me the link to this page (which does exist).
I know technically "gilcee" is a misspelling of "gilcée" because the accent is missing. However, I think it would be much more helpful if the search substituted "gilcée" instead of "gilles" when searching for "gilcee". This is likely a much broader problem with Wikipedia's search mechanism rather than this page, but there may be something to add to this page I'm not aware of that may help it to more correctly appear in searches like this.13:38, 26 April 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.70.201.220 ( talk)
Do you realise you're spelling it incorrectly as well as missing the accent? If you spell it correctly without the accent, it works fine, you're transposing the l and c. -- 88.202.32.183 ( talk) 16:01, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
|
Would a link to art sites such as http://www.12stoneart.com/ be appropriate for this article? The giclee-making process is decribed at http://www.12stoneart.com/about/printing_process.html —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.98.190.235 ( talk) 02:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC).
I have cleaned up this article a bit. Integrated redundant repeating paragraphs. There seemed to be a lot of confusion between the various imprecise trade names flying around in the “fine arts print” business and the actual technical description of the hardware and processes them selves. To correct this I have made the Iris printer article about the iris printer, redirected Iris prints to Iris printer, and incorporated deleted content from Iris printer into this article. Fountains of Bryn Mawr 00:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
A giclee is JUST an inkjet print. The very word 'Giclee' was invented to make a one-off print seem worth more $$ than it really is. I could make a Xerox copy of something and call it 'Tonee-Sublime`' and charge more money for it. Selling a Giclee for $500 is easier than selling an Epson Inkjet print for the same money, because people are stupid. Come off your high horse and stop getting in the way of concise information.
User:Dstoer -- Could you please sign your posts? Please use four tildes to sign your posts. Thank you. Bus stop 14:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
The assumption that a giclee print costs $50 to make is the real problem here... There are a lot of giclee prints being sold by galleries for $600 that cost $3-$10 to make. Whereas the article makes the comparison between litho and giclee, the more realistic comparison would be with serigraphy, which cost much more than giclee, and which was formerly price-pointed where giclee is now. Of course, in contrast to litho, serigraphs are superior in every way to giclee prints in having texture, transparency, and custom mixed individual colors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.215.115.31 ( talk) 22:05, August 28, 2007 (UTC)
I deleted the added section "How it Works" because it was:
a) redundant
b) bullshit - Giclée is not a technology, it is a trade name used to cover Iris, ultrachrome or other inkjet technologies.
c) Full of florid unsubstantiated claims such as "whole new vibrant medium for art" and "superior to traditional lithography".
d) plagiarized- this was simply copy/pasted from websites such as [1], [2], [3].
69.72.2.71 21:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
This article describes a Neologism and seems to meet the standards at Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms. As such it describes a word and its usage -- that is the "thing" described here, i.e a name coined to mean prints created on inkjet printers. What someone may then go on to do with that inkjet print [4] is not relevant because it is done with many other printing methodes that resualt in canvas prints, for example "Repligraphs". Also this seems to be the editors first hand observation and therefor original research. 69.72.7.122 ( talk) 19:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Spell-checkers are not your enemy!Use one please. Ddudley 03:57, 1 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
96.54.144.33 (
talk)
To my eyes, it makes no sense to capitalize the word giclée -- or we should always put lithography, watercolor, oil, pastel or pencil up as well. As a professional printer who specializes in the process, it disturbs me that the word can be used so loosely in a field that suffers terribly from fraud -- the sale of art where the eye of the beholder is the only limit on value. How the image in that eye was created doesn't really matter to the besmitten viewer who wants it on his wall at home but the seller should be required to truthfully and meaningfully indicate the printing technique where relevant.
Art prints -- or Prints if you prefer -- bring permanence to the fore because art has a way of becoming useless as it fades or grow in value after the demise of the artist while the work remains bright and clear. A print rendered from an inexpensive ink jet can fade without direct exposure to the sun. It will sometimes fade when placed in a drawer in no light at all. Cheap acrylics and other media can also fade in this way but I know of no way to protect a buyer from an artist who doesn't care about longevity. There is a way to protect prints made by careful processes with inks that are tested and rated for archival quality when used on specific media. My point in all this is that this step should be taken because it can. Some agency or association should step up and create a standard for prints to prevent fraud in the marketplace of art.
Many honest printers place labels on the back of their work specifying the manufacturer and names of inks and media used in the product. For a different reason, we are beginning to see large press productions specifically labeled as 'green' to indicate that the product is made -- as relevant -- from recycled and/or non-toxic inks. I'm in Hawai`i and there has recently been a successful law requiring coffee identified as "Kona" to contain a certain percentage of beans that were actually grown there. Maybe this all started with fine wines. This illustrates the value-added component of standards that could be set for professionally imaged and printed ink jet prints when they qualify. Perhaps we have all seen racks of lithographs with a big "Giclée" sign over their bin.
This is entered in the discussion section because it needs some broad-based thinking and input before surfacing as part of the giclée page in Wikipedia
Bill Eger ( talk) 22:15, 15 December 2008 (UTC) Bill Eger
I know that everyone with half a brain reads the discussion page before they completely believe anything they read on wikipedia, so I thought I'd post this little anecdote just for everyones amusement - I'm sure that its not 'encyclopedic' enough for the front page, but I wish I had known this particular bit of info a while ago.
I went to Lille, in France to help hang an exhibition in a fairly major gallery there, half way through hanging the show, one of the directors asked me what kind of prints the ones that I happened to be putting up were. So I told him in my best french "they are giclee prints" at this he erupted into hysterical laughter, and after gasping something to the others in the room they too fell about laughing. Eventually they pulled themselves together enough to tell me what they found so amusing. The upshot was that the word giclee may well technicaly mean 'squirt' in France, but in THAT part of france it is mainly used in much the same way we might use the word 'cum'. It seems that I was hanging a whole load of orgasm prints - so be warned, think twice before you try and sell a giclee print in france, unless of course... 82.24.57.18 ( talk) 08:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
This article mostly, but not completely, capitalizes “Giclée.” If it is a proper noun, that should be explicitly stated (as well as who holds the trademark, if it’s a trademark). If it’s not a proper noun, it should be consistently downcased. — crism ( talk) 15:14, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Then why is lithography or ink jet not capitalized? It is a made up word to describe ink jet printing, but that doesn't make it a proper noun. The word man describes a male human but is not proper. Bob is proper and should always be capitalized. Trademarks are (usually) capitalized, product names aren't (except in headline format such as is displayed on product packaging): e.g. Kleenex brand facial tissue, Vaseline brand petroleum jelly. Perhaps we need a citation on the use of the word as a proper noun rather than just a noun? You should not be able to state an opinion without a reference to back it up, right? 67.63.150.242 ( talk) 18:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
The more proper term for a giclee is digital ink jet print. Unfortunately, the term giclee has become the term most people use to talk about it. It has taken on such a life of its' own that it is sort of useless to rage against it. By the way, when you refer to companies that "mystify" the process, you only help to promote them on the web. You may want to remove their web links and consider using ours instead. (link removed per WP:LINKSPAM-Source soliciting) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Picsalon ( talk • contribs) 06:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
There is nothing about the need to varnish a giclee print to protect the surface. For prints of paintings the varnish layer is also used to add paintbrush strokes to the surface giving the impression that the giclee has been painted with a brush. This is done by tracing round printed objects when adding the varnish. QuentinUK ( talk) 15:23, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Can someone please describe in the article what the alternatives are for prints. Bod ( talk) 23:18, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
"For artists making reproductions of their original work, inkjet printing is more expensive on a per-print basis than the traditional four-color offset lithography, but with inkjet printing the artist does not have to pay for the expensive printing-plate setup or the marketing and storage needed for large four-color offset print runs."
I was not familiar with this term, so I turned to Wikipedia -- my trusted resource for learning new things -- to look it up. When searching "gilcee", this page did not come up, but in fact searched for "gilles" instead, thinking I mistyped "gilcee" for that. Clicking on the link to actually search for "gilcee" told me that the page did not exist. Searching the word on Google, however, showed me the link to this page (which does exist).
I know technically "gilcee" is a misspelling of "gilcée" because the accent is missing. However, I think it would be much more helpful if the search substituted "gilcée" instead of "gilles" when searching for "gilcee". This is likely a much broader problem with Wikipedia's search mechanism rather than this page, but there may be something to add to this page I'm not aware of that may help it to more correctly appear in searches like this.13:38, 26 April 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.70.201.220 ( talk)
Do you realise you're spelling it incorrectly as well as missing the accent? If you spell it correctly without the accent, it works fine, you're transposing the l and c. -- 88.202.32.183 ( talk) 16:01, 20 June 2019 (UTC)