What is a "giclée" print ... really?

[Carnie Bob]

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.

I feel only a very few people world wide could tell the difference between a well produced bartya inkjet and a silver gelatin print of the same image. I come from this position because I do both methods of output weekly for over 10 years now. The possible difference is that with inkjet the spray sits on the surface vs the metal sitting within the gelatin.

 

[JerseyDoug]

One difference between darkroom and inkjet printing from film negatives is that for prints that the general viewer would describe as equally good inkjet printing has a much shorter learning curve.

 

[Carnie Bob]

One difference between darkroom and inkjet printing from film negatives is that for prints that the general viewer would describe as equally good inkjet printing has a much shorter learning curve.

Took me over 5 thousand editing attempts in PS before I felt I have it nailed , about the same for good silver enlarger prints.

 

[logan2z]

The possible difference is that with inkjet the spray sits on the surface vs the metal sitting within the gelatin.

Maybe that's what I'm reacting to.

 

[koraks]

Maybe that's what I'm reacting to.

There's one problem with that factoid - it's incorrect. The ink receptive layer on typical inkjet paper is as deep as the emulsion layer of silver gelatin paper - sometimes even more so. If you look at SEM crossections of inkjet and silver gel prints, the image forming density ends up sitting at roughly the same depth.

 

[fdonadio]

@koraks , @Don_ih and others,

Yeah, I pretty much agree with all of you: one has to be happy with what they do.

Anyway, we all have preferences and opinions. And thinking your opinion or preference is better is kind of natural. If you thought anyone else’s opinion was better than yours, you probably would change your opinion.

The question I asked — why shoot film then? (or something like that) — is more directed to myself. And I was pretty sure you all understand it’s my opinion and point of view.

Yeah, scanning 4x5 gives you a resolution that no digital camera can give. Or, if there’s a digital camera capable of such high resolutions, it probably costs an arm, a leg and and an eye.

For mere mortals like me, that can’t spend big bucks on equipment, my Z6 II should give results at least as good as my FM2 with Portra. It’s just that I don’t feel compelled to take it outside…

And then I have to spend time on the computer for “post-production”. I already spend too much time with computers, working in IT.

Analog photography is my “digital detox”. Some people like to cook, some like to paint, others write… I take pictures with old film cameras, process the film and enlarge my prints.

And I think it’s such a phenomenal hobby!

 

[Don_ih]

If you thought anyone else’s opinion was better than yours, you probably would change your opinion.

Probably. But you don't need to think in terms of better/worse or correct/incorrect. Different people have different opinions - they have different likes and dislikes, different concerns, different needs and desires, Differing opinions can often just be "differing" and not really be opposing at all.

 

[koraks]

one has to be happy with what they do.

OK, and I sympathize with and respect your opinion on this, regardless whether we agree on it. The question on the table, however, is whether or not someone would prefer to view/purchase/consume/appreciate 'analog' prints more to than digital ones, or vice versa. So let's decouple this from what we like to do behind a computer or in a darkroom. That's not what this is about - unless the argument remains that "I like doing it that way, so that's what I'd like others to do as well". In which case we've established that particular argument as one of several that can come into play.

 

[MattKing]

At the risk of stretching a metaphor, just as jazz musicians are at least slightly more likely to want to hear jazz than opera, due to their appreciation for the challenges and rewards of their chosen musical genre, a darkroom printer may prefer to view and perhaps even own darkroom prints, due to their appreciation for the challenges and rewards of their chosen mode of presentation.
We tend to appreciate that which we understand best.

 

[Don_ih]

We tend to appreciate that which we understand best.

Which goes hand in hand with: We tend to dismiss what we understand least.

 

[fdonadio]

Probably. But you don't need to think in terms of better/worse or correct/incorrect.

I think we’re deviating into semantics here. Often people mistake/replace “personal preference” with “best/better [for me]”. It’s human nature.

Nevertheless, I understand and agree with your general idea..

We tend to appreciate that which we understand best.

Which goes hand in hand with: We tend to dismiss what we understand least.

Yes to both. But sometimes we do understand what we don’t like.

 

[isaac7]

Hey, guys…


Sorry for setting the fire and running away.

Answering @koraks’ question from a few days ago, I would say mostly the same as @Don_ih, especially the part about “what I like to do”.

But I feel that a digital print of something shot on film is like a reproduction. It doesn’t feel “right” to me, except in the cases exemplified by @koraks himself: missing or damaged negative, etc. I have a picture of my mother that was digitally restored from a scan of a very damaged print.

To put it in a more specific way: in my opinion, contemporary work shot on film should follow the traditional photographic process. It’s how I like to do. What’s the point of shooting film otherwise?

The only reason to shoot film these days is because you like to. This whole thread reminds me of APUG of old and why there are separate forums for hybrid and analog. I ended up leaving APUG because it wasn't so much about analog photography but analog printmaking. It was, and is, tiresome. Many people simply do not care about what process is used as long as they get prints they like. Other, like Ctein https://ctein.com/ abandoned traditional printmaking when they thought inkjets were better than than the Dye Transfer prints they had been making previously.

Sandy King and many others did the opposite. Shoot with digital, make inkjet negatives, and print using super old processes like carbon printing, salt prints, platinum, etc. Digital imaging in general, and inkjet in particular are just tools for most people not philosophical conundrums. Granted, the term giclée reeks of pretension but I don't cast aspersions on ink jet prints. Use the tool that works best for you!

I am in then planning phase to get back into large format photography. I will be making positive Black and White (or sepia) transparencies exclusively. They are beautiful objects as well as photographs. If I decide to get a print made it will be done digitally in whole or part.

 

[albireo]

I find it odd the people react so strongly when others use the term silver gelatin and think that others using the term are just trying to be fancy or something.

What about people reacting strongly to people using 'glicee'? 4 pages in, I see a few strong reactions on that front too!

When discussing photography among other photographers, how else to describe a process that uses silver encased in gelatin, and differentiate it from other processes commonly used, such as platinum, carbon, or even other silver-based processes such as salt prints?

The usage of the term you're referring to tends to happen, if at all, in a clique within a clique within a clique within a clique. People who find 'silver gelatine' just as pretentious and hollow as 'glicee' are, I suspect, referring to social media fruition of digitised analogue content.

Instagram or Flickr photographers who scan their prints and post a scan of a print and go 'this is a fully analogue silver gelatine print' are addressing a community of hybrid analogue/film users online, not a club of palladium/platinum/copper/carbon printers.

They'd be served just as well by writing 'darkroom print' but that doesn't ring as exoteric and doesn't convey the ' I'm a authentic film photographer, a dying breed doing really difficult manual work at night to show you this image of a bell pepper or a brick wall' that well.

 

[Don_ih]

The usage of the term you're referring to tends to happen, if at all, in a clique within a clique within a clique within a clique. People who find 'silver gelatine' just as pretentious and hollow as 'glicee'

I think the normal way to differentiate prints among people using enlargers is to say Fibre-based RC and maybe mention whatever toning was done.

I agree the "silver gelatin" appellation is a mostly social media thing. But it's not necessarily snobbery. People want to show what they're doing and distinguish it from what's similar but different - and also associate it with other stuff that's the same.

 

[koraks]

I agree the "silver gelatin" appellation is a mostly social media thing.

It's also still widely used in the museum/exhibition world and in arts trade. I have the impression that 'glicée' in those arenas has now been mostly superseded by 'archival pigment'. At least that's how I see most inkjet prints labeled around here in museums etc.

 

[albireo]

To put it in a more specific way: in my opinion, contemporary work shot on film should follow the traditional photographic process. It’s how I like to do. What’s the point of shooting film otherwise?

I can think of many reason to shoot film and not one of them has to do with printing my own work in a darkroom.

Mind you - I adore well crafted wet prints, I routinely visit exhibitions by top film photographers all around Europe (I travel to see them!) and own close to a thousand well crafted, finely printed photobooks by specialist publishers.

However, I see the hobby of 'printing' as a separate hobby and craft. I personally prefer to spend my limited time (I'm in full time employment and have a toddler and a baby) doing photography, developing and scanning my work. That's all I have time for. What little time is left goes into other hobbies or spending time with my family.

If and when I want to print my own work (rarely, I'm really not that good as a photographer) I will reach out to a professional printer, a specialised artisan who will surely do a much better job than I'll ever do.

One day, when I have more time, I might buy a 10x8 camera and set up a little space to try contact printing, but I really don't have any plans to enlarge, dodge, burn, etc.

And still, I love analogue photography and I love how my scanned film looks if I expose and develop well. Absolutely love it. The features of film I adore are entirely present already in the negative and will be preserved in a scan if expose, develop and scan correctly (all three must be done well).

Hope that gives you an idea of another point of view people might have. There are many more!

 

[albireo]

I have the impression that 'glicée' in those arenas has now been mostly superseded by 'archival pigment'. At least that's how I see most inkjet prints labeled around here in museums etc.

Yep I've noticed that too.

 

[fgorga]

In my view the term(s) used to describe a photograph (or really any art) should inform people as to the materials used.

"Silver gelatin" is a perfectly good term... it states clearly what the print is made of.

"Glicee" is a perfectly awful term... it was invented to obscure the materials used to make an inkjet print. I am glad that it has been mostly replace with the perfectly descriptive term "archival pigment print".

In the analog world, the term "C print" always bothered me a bit as it does not really describe the materials used. However, I have made my peace with "C-print" because most photographers, at least, know what it means and I have never figured out a concise but descriptive alternative.

 

[koraks]

@fgorga I hear you on the 'C print'. It's really almost as obscure as 'giclée', albeit without the undertone of seemingly deliberate obfuscation.
I prefer 'chromogenic print' though.

 

[jeffreyg]

To me a good effective print no matter the technique or materials is the goal. I print analog and digital from film, scanned film, pt/pd from film, enlarged film negatives and digital negatives. I use film cameras, digital cameras and pinhole cameras. Each has its own characteristics.
I was having some problems with my Epson 3880 and had an expert technician over to try to save it. He took it apart. Amazing what’s in there and more amazing that it puts down micro droplets of just the right colour ink in just the right spot and forms the image intended (most of the time ). Fortunately the repair was successful.

 

[koraks]

Fortunately the repair was successful.

That's reassuring! What was the matter with yours? Mine's making (good) noise in the background as I'm typing this! Always interested to hear what kind of failures it may experience so I can be prepared for when the time comes.

 

[djdister]

That's reassuring! What was the matter with yours? Mine's making (good) noise in the background as I'm typing this! Always interested to hear what kind of failures it may experience so I can be prepared for when the time comes.

Well, speaking of 3880's, mine was doing just fine until a series of power on/power off cycles caused it to completely "forget" how to connect via any kind of network - it does not recognize an ethernet connection and the only type of connection that still works is via USB cable, which has been problematic since the printer is in the basement and my main computer is a floor away. Now its connected to my Linux box and so I create .tif files on my main computer and then access and print them via GIMP. Color printing management on Linux is still a work in progress, but it's not that much of a problem if printing in black and white mode.

 

[jeffreyg]

The problem was that tiny particles of paper had collected and was causing occasional black areas on the borders but never on the image. I mostly printed on cotton papers. He suggested putting the platen on “widest” to prevent that from happening. So far so good. He cleaned everything up and made whatever adjustments that were needed. Works like new now.

 

[koraks]

Thanks guys, interesting stuff. So far no problems with Ethernet on my end; let's hope it stays that way. And my printing is largely on regular inkjet papers and transparency film, so not a big problem with dust/fibers. I have had to clean the capping station and the head really thoroughly at some point though, so in that sense I can relate. And yes, these things really are a marvel of technology. I once took out the head and looked at the actual nozzle plate (i.e. the business end) and was kind of amazed at how big it really is, and how consistent it manages perform even after 15 years of use. Quite impressive if you think about it.

 

[Vaughn]

...What about people reacting strongly to people using 'glicee'? 4 pages in, I see a few strong reactions on that front too!

But reacting to apples and reacting to oranges, so to speak.
I'm more along the lines of Frank's "Silver gelatin" is a perfectly good term... it states clearly what the print is made of.
What other good descriptive name/word is there for it? What else would one say if someone asks "What kind of print?" If they don't know what a silver gelatin print is, my fall-back is "The type of print Ansel Adams use to make." (if in the USA).

...
Hope that gives you an idea of another point of view people might have. There are many more!

Thank you. There are many ways of approaching photography.

I am on the other end of the scale, where I tend to consider seeing, composing, making the negative, and printing as one step from me and to the work. Which is one of the reasons life with my triplet boys became part of my photography. Saw no reason to keep them separate.

Three Snags, Three Brothers, 2008
Prairie Creek Redwoods State Park
8x10, two minute exposure
Carbon print