Show HN: Primitive Pictures

Re:Show HN: Primitive Pictures by lisper on Tuesday September 20, 2016 @05:56PM (#12543751)

This is really impressive. I'll bet if you printed these out as high quality giclees and didn't tell anyone how you did it you could sell them for thousands of dollars in fine art galleries.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Show HN: Primitive Pictures by javajosh on Tuesday September 20, 2016 @07:13PM (#12544149)

I feel compelled to note that "giclée" is a fancy word for "inkjet printed". It has connotations of higher quality, but it's not a distinct process. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gicl%C3%A9e

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Show HN: Primitive Pictures by lisper on Tuesday September 20, 2016 @07:18PM (#12544183)

That's not quite true. It's a particularly high quality of ink-jet print. You can easily tell the difference between a giclee and the output of an HP OfficeJet.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Show HN: Primitive Pictures by TeMPOraL on Tuesday September 20, 2016 @07:42PM (#12544296)

Since we're talking art and commerce, I smell a business opportunity - selling inkjet printers with Giclée Enabled™ label, at extra markup.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Show HN: Primitive Pictures by l0b0 on Wednesday September 21, 2016 @02:46AM (#12545937)

From Wikipedia (and professional photographers I've spoken to mirror this sentiment), “since [giclée] is an unregulated word it has no associated warranty of quality.” It's like “premium”.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Show HN: Primitive Pictures by klodolph on Tuesday September 20, 2016 @08:13PM (#12544451)

It's still the same process. The printers used to make "giclée" printes are ordinary inkjet printers, they're just not HP OfficeJet printers—probably.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Show HN: Primitive Pictures by lisper on Tuesday September 20, 2016 @09:05PM (#12544689)

Depends on what you consider "ordinary". A giclee printer can fill a room and cost many thousands of dollars. e.g.:

http://www.adorama.com/iesp20000.html?gclid=CNz7x4-in88CFQqE...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Show HN: Primitive Pictures by klodolph on Wednesday September 21, 2016 @12:00AM (#12545279)

I have a similar printer.

The word "giclee" does not even appear in the description, but "inkjet" does. It's still an ordinary injet printer. It's bigger and more accurate than most. I've never seen them put in rooms so small that they'd "fill the room", I've usually seen them in rooms with several printers.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Show HN: Primitive Pictures by lisper on Wednesday September 21, 2016 @01:12AM (#12545584)

> It's bigger and more accurate than most.

Then it isn't ordinary.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Show HN: Primitive Pictures by glial on Tuesday September 20, 2016 @07:31PM (#12544251)

Also it's often done on some type of canvas.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Show HN: Primitive Pictures by polyomino on Tuesday September 20, 2016 @06:38PM (#12543985)

You could probably sell them even though you revealed how you did it.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Show HN: Primitive Pictures by seanmcdirmid on Tuesday September 20, 2016 @09:41PM (#12544844)

On a related note, perhaps Richard P Gabriel could also sell his machine generated poetry. The future will be interesting for artists.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Show HN: Primitive Pictures by lisper on Tuesday September 20, 2016 @07:14PM (#12544157)

I dunno, I think a lot of the hoity-toity types who are willing to overpay for art would be put off by knowing that it was done by computer. For them, the value is in the scarcity more than the aesthetics: they want to have something that their friends don't (and can't!) have. So if it were me, I would choose not to reveal that anyone who knows how to use github and an inkjet printer can reproduce the results.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Show HN: Primitive Pictures by jamesjyu on Tuesday September 20, 2016 @07:40PM (#12544288)

That's not necessarily true. There are many examples of fine art which is made by computer and easily replicated by anyone. However, the prints themselves are limited in quantity (or, there may just one official print).

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Show HN: Primitive Pictures by lisper on Tuesday September 20, 2016 @07:47PM (#12544325)

Of course. But do people pay top dollar for those? I don't actually know, but I doubt it.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Show HN: Primitive Pictures by RangerScience on Tuesday September 20, 2016 @10:14PM (#12544933)

This is how photography nearly always worked. I think there's some early photo tech that did only result in one image, but all of film photography produced 'prints'.

Although I remember growing up with one print that deliberately had a fold in it, made by the artist as part of the art.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Show HN: Primitive Pictures by bootload on Tuesday September 20, 2016 @09:28PM (#12544795)

"I dunno, I think a lot of the hoity-toity types who are willing to overpay for art would be put off by knowing that it was done by computer. For them, the value is in the scarcity more than the aesthetics:"

There is a portion of the art market that caters for interior design. A client might say something like, "I want a dozen in this colour, style with an ocean breeze feel." As soul destroying as this may be to an artist, some clients want their art by the numbers, colours and feel.

[ Parent | on HN ]