Oxford Giclee........any opinions???

[YosemitePaul]

Up to date I've used Loxley as my printers and found them to be very good.
However I've always found their Roes software to be a pain, and now its crashed it won't re load on my Mac.

So, I've spent the evening looking around and found Oxford Giclee.
They appear to do what I need, at a good price and appear to use a variety of quality papers.

Has anyone used them, know of them, have an opinion of them??

Thanks in anticipation.

Paul

 

[POAH]

Up to date I've used Loxley as my printers and found them to be very good.
However I've always found their Roes software to be a pain, and now its crashed it won't re load on my Mac.

So, I've spent the evening looking around and found Oxford Giclee.
They appear to do what I need, at a good price and appear to use a variety of quality papers.

Has anyone used them, know of them, have an opinion of them??

Thanks in anticipation.

Paul

never heard of them but they are inkjet prints not machine prints like you get from loxley or DSCL etc

the range if papers is pretty unexciting.

 

[Pookeyhead]

What's wrong with inkjets? The output from the 9900 we have at work makes most of my older machine prints look stupid in comparison.


Just checked the site.. they use the 9900 as well. The output from that thing is awesome.

 

[POAH]

What's wrong with inkjets? The output from the 9900 we have at work makes most of my older machine prints look stupid in comparison.

Just checked the site.. they use the 9900 as well. The output from that thing is awesome.

never said there was anything wrong with them ??????????

 

[Box Brownie]

As noted by my question about other Giclee printing companies I am subscribed to this thread.

Unlike others I have looked into Oxford Giclee say this about sharpening
"Please do not apply any digital OUTPUT sharpening as we will apply the
correct amount of sharpening to suit the printing media used and the
final print size."

Now this surprised me in that for most printing services it was my understanding that the file should be "as is" ready for printing i.e. they will not do anything to the file. In fact it reminds more of what I have read for stock submissions where the final output printing is determined by the client buying the image as different output sharpening will be required for say magazine vs book vs poster printing i.e. the size they print it at will be a determining factor.

Though they do say this about the print size/resolution
"Image resolution: We request that submitted images have a resolution of 300 pixels per inch with the image at the actual height and width settings that will be used in print. If you would like your file printed at a larger size than the resolution will allow we can upscale submitted files but we require the largest file you have in order to maintain quality."

In broad terms AFAIK it is the sharpening for print size that is important so in similar broad terms just how different will the various papers be that they each need a different level of output sharpening not related to the print size itself???

 

[Pookeyhead]

never said there was anything wrong with them ??????????

never heard of them but they are inkjet prints not machine prints like you get from loxley or DSCL etc

...just made it sound like that was a bad thing.

 

[Oxford Giclee]

Hi YosemitePaul,

I'm head of printing at Oxford Giclee Ltd, send a test order through Paul and I'm sure you'll be impressed with the results.

Our range of Epson printers, 9900. 7900 and 11880 combined with Epson's Ultrachrome inks and our range of papers, produce prints of unrivalled colour reproduction and archival lifespan. I'm a photographer myself and I would not let anyone else print my work or have it output by any other method. Our output from these printers is on sale in museums and galleries around the world and in my opinion are better than lightjet prints onto gloss or semi gloss photographic paper. (this is my opinion and others will always disagree.)

POAH, we might not stock the widest range of papers but we have spent months testing the papers in terms of colour and tonal reproduction and archival qualities and the range we offer are those that are up to the standard we demand. We have done a lot of testing for manufacturers and not all papers can be offered for high quality fine art or photographic printing. Also the range is the same price for all papers, excluding stretched canvas in order the give the best options with clear pricing.
thanks
Dan

 

[Pookeyhead]

Our range of Epson printers, 9900. 7900 and 11880 combined with Epson's Ultrachrome inks and our range of papers, produce prints of unrivalled colour reproduction and archival lifespan. I'm a photographer myself and I would not let anyone else print my work or have it output by any other method. Our output from these printers is on sale in museums and galleries around the world and in my opinion are better than lightjet prints onto gloss or semi gloss photographic paper. (this is my opinion and others will always disagree.)

Agreed. I can vouch for the 9900 any way. Truly amazing output.

 

[POAH]

not saying anything bad about inkjets at all - I use an R2400 for my prints and I've yet to see a machine print (frontier type) that betters it. I just wondered if the OP realised the difference between the two prints as the machine prints from Loxley would be more glossy and have a greater gamut than those printed on rag papers.

Hi YosemitePaul,

I'm head of printing at Oxford Giclee Ltd, send a test order through Paul and I'm sure you'll be impressed with the results.

Our range of Epson printers, 9900. 7900 and 11880 combined with Epson's Ultrachrome inks and our range of papers, produce prints of unrivalled colour reproduction and archival lifespan. I'm a photographer myself and I would not let anyone else print my work or have it output by any other method. Our output from these printers is on sale in museums and galleries around the world and in my opinion are better than lightjet prints onto gloss or semi gloss photographic paper. (this is my opinion and others will always disagree.)

POAH, we might not stock the widest range of papers but we have spent months testing the papers in terms of colour and tonal reproduction and archival qualities and the range we offer are those that are up to the standard we demand. We have done a lot of testing for manufacturers and not all papers can be offered for high quality fine art or photographic printing. Also the range is the same price for all papers, excluding stretched canvas in order the give the best options with clear pricing.
thanks
Dan

 

[YosemitePaul]

Wow, I didn't want to start a war!!!!!!!

Dan, Thanks for the response, I'll get myself sorted shortly and send a couple of images over.

Poah, thanks for your input, personally, I'm quite happy with the paper selection, if I were printing for myself, which obviously considering the cost, then these are probably the papers I'd choose.

Thanks all for your input.

Paul.

 

[Box Brownie]

Hi Dan & welcome to the TP forum

Thanks for the insight in answer to the OP and POAH but I would welcome your feedback/answer in regard to my post #5 where your information refers to submitting files with "no output sharpening", as a complete novice the realm of Giclee printers you are the only one I have come across in my searches that says this??? I am used to my workflow with 'Capture sharpening > creative sharpening (if required) > the output sharpening to suit the medium i.e. web or print'.

So please tell me why your processes are so different that my choice of output sharpening level/type is not right to print on your Giclee papers?

Incidently, I did buy your sample pack on the 5th April timed at 15:10hours but have yet to receive it/them. Happy to PM you my name but if you can tell from the PayPal timing 'who I am' and when the package was sent that wold be welcome

 

[POAH]

inkjet printing benifits from more sharpening than would be required for viewing on screen

 

[Box Brownie]

inkjet printing benifits from more sharpening than would be required for viewing on screen

Hi POAH

Yes, absolutely as indicated in my post...............but I know how much works for C-type and screen and would trust QImage Ulitmate for the Giclee but letting 'another' take control of the final output is to me for now still a little alien because as mentioned "they" are the only such printers who say this!

 

[POAH]

never heard if it before either but I'm sure they have a rational explanation for it.

 

[Box Brownie]

never heard if it before either but I'm sure they have a rational explanation for it.

curious mind that I have, that is why I asked for the explanation and indeed subject to their thinking would they print them without their sharpening step? And................still no sample pack yet! From other printers I got them overnight

Would be good to think that Dan will come back (soon) and continue to answer any queries arising here.