Talk:Giclée

Question regarding link appropriateness

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).[reply]

On online art gallery (that apparently opened this week) selling the works of two artists? Probably not. Robertissimo 05:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup

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)[reply]

You have to learn that simpler is sometimes better

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.

You have to learn that inserting opinion into an article is not allowed on Wikipedia WP:NPOV. The article already explains that this is a made up word (thanks to revisions by yours truly). Now... if you can find an article where someone notable in the field explains what a "crock of s**t" the word Giglee is the go ahead and insert and cite it. You just can't insert your own opinion.

BTW "Giglee prints" printed off, say an Epson 9800 printer, are not "worth more $$ than they really are", and can be being sold for way less than they are worth. If a print cost $50 to make, times 3 to get that poor artist a profit, and then 2 times more for the galleries end, you get a base sales price of $300.... $600 if someone is going to distribute it (advertising and all that nasty stuff is not even included yet). I as an artist sell such a print for $300, which as you can see, is barely break-even profit wise and I take a bath if a distributor sells it. $500 is a good round price set by someone with more buisness savy than me. Fountains of Bryn Mawr 13:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)

Giclee has nothing to do with serigraphs. Serigraphs are original images with the artist sometimes making the screens. Giclee is simply another way to duplicate an original work via the photo-mechanical 4 color offset printing method, the same as 4 color offset lithogrophy. It simply uses an injet printer in place of lithographic plates. Current pricing on Giglee's is around $20 a square foot. 69.72.2.71 04:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted "How it Works"

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)[reply]

Neologism

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)[reply]

I have added the reference to "painting on top of the image" to the Canvas print article. 69.72.93.221 (talk) 20:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)

I don't think it qualifies as a neologism at all. « Giclée » is a perfectly valid French word that was used prior to the technology. To me it's more a borrowed word than a neologism. The meaning may have changed from the orginal word in French, but it's not a fabricated word. --Joancharmant (talk) 10:23, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Giclée" is not the French word for "Inkjet". So it is a fabrication for that use, a new one, constituting a Neologism. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:06, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The process needs clear definition

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[reply]

Your points may be valid, but are they encyclopedic? Wkipedia articles are created from cited reliable sources to describe something. There could be a section on the abuse of the name "Giclee" if there are some reliable articles on the topic. But Wikipedia is not a forum (WP:NOTFORUM) for hashing out problems with the usage of a word. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the Fine Art Trade Guild (link removed per WP:LINKSPAM-Source soliciting by Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 17:26, 4 December 2011 (UTC) ) QuentinUK (talk) 18:24, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A friendly warning to all who Giclee

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)[reply]

Proper noun or not?

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)[reply]

The word "Giclée" is a made up proper noun for a common item (inkjet prints). It is not a trademark or name for any process, its just one printers made up name. It really isn't a common noun because Giclée's really do not exist as a "thing". So looks like it should be capitalized. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 23:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Here's the problem: Giclee doesn't describe anything, it is not process, it is not a product, it is not a noun for any existing thing. All we can say about it is it is a made up trademark that is not a trademark. As a made up trademark it should probably be capitalized (then you tell people the bad news that it is not a trademark ;)). Looking through Google searches it seems to me whether you capitalize it or not depends on how you are "pushing" the word. Some use it as a trademark (caped)[5], some portray it as some supper secret magical process (not caped)[6]. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Varnish

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)[reply]

It wouldn't be added here because "giclee" is not a printing process, its a word. Inkjet printer is the article where you would add referenced information about varnishing. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 18:57, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then why is there an Applications section. With advice to artists on JIT business models? This also could go into inject printing.

On the other hand I can see that if Varnish was added to inkjet printing editors there would say it was a separate process and not allow it. QuentinUK (talk) 18:46, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your right about that, hence why consensus is not to have articles about Neologisms (WP:NEO). I think this NEO needs to be explained but I can see how all of what you cited could be added to a section at Digital printing and removed from this article. Could also be added to a new section at Inkjet printer on Fine art reproduction. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:01, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatives

Can someone please describe in the article what the alternatives are for prints. Bod (talk) 23:18, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite sure what you are looking for. Giclée is not a type of printing, its a sales word for inkjet printing. Different types of printing are listed at Printmaking. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 02:02, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From the article on Digital printing,

"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."

So it looks like the alternatives are offset lithography or cheaper, low-quality inkjet printing.

What about "laser printing" or "dot matrix printing"? Are other printing methods used? Bod (talk) 02:19, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Giclée is a coined word for inkjet printing in general. It has no "alternatives" because its not any specific type of printing. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 03:13, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you get prints from artists, they sometimes have giclees and then less-expensive prints. Are those cheaper, less long-lasting prints also inkjet or some other kind of printing? Bod (talk) 03:19, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to say, an artist could have anything in their bin. Per the Digital printing you noted above, four-color offset lithography is cheap, spitting something out on your home inkjet is cheap, going to a print service and paying $18 a square foot to have them spit out a pigment based inkjet on their large format Epson 9900 is expensive. If you are looking for where Wikipedia should describe whats in an artists bin, that would be Printmaking, not this article. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:05, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Added to "See Also" those topics... Bod (talk) 18:55, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Issues with search

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)[reply]