Re: Re: digital giclee

"Erich C. Decker" wrote:
>
> Impressive results indeed! But considering the tremendous cost
> of new printer, paper and - most of all - the archival inks,
> why not continue with high quality silvergelatine papers.
> There are enough on the market which are fairly cheap and
> still of highest quality.

Erich,

The difficulty for photographers shooting and printing color - whether
pinhole or, God forbid, glass photography - is the lack of fine art
emulsions. Plastic is all you have to print on and there are many times
where I was sorry that I did not shoot in B&W so that I could print on
nice fiber-based paper. This led me to experiment with my printer on
fine art paper. But the lack of archival properties of the inks, until
recently, was quite disappointing.

Even then, the current cost of giclee and other archival digital
printing processes is prohibitive for most people. Think that you have
to spend several prints (ink + paper) before you get the right color
match for your print. This can make the final print very expensive and,
unless you have generous donators or rich clients, it becomes really
prohibitive.

I was quite impressed with your site which I had visited a year or two
ago and I was really intrigued with the "lith" section. I have a number
of questions relating to availablity of these chemicals for people like
me living in Canada but perhaps I should write to you privately on this.

Best wishes,

Guy Glorieux
Montreal, Canada
Received on Mon Dec 4 07:44:30 2000