|
Mike:
I think you said it better than I did. That's pretty much what I meant in reference to the giclee process. I'm familiar with two of the giclee ways of doing things -- one is to scan on a flatbed scanner the actual painting, and the other is a process where the painting is set up and scanned from across the room. But, the end effect is a huge digital file, which, to my experience, is used for making the giclee copy, and this file is then "smalled down" so the artist can use it for his own purposes. But, the upshot is, the artist gets a much better, cleaner file for posting than he does through the use of a digital camers, which is "puny" in comparison to the giclee making process. I didn't know how to say all this clearly, and I'm not sure that I have. I do it both ways, myself. If it's a serious piece or commission, I take the painting through the giclee process so that I can have a super digital, super clean file. However, with little paintings that are my "fun" stuff, I pop a digital, tweak it a little to, as you say, bring it back to my perception, and go with this smaller, lest exact file.
|
Threaded Mode
