The Kevin Peterson Thread

[turnJBup]

The quality is fine. I have no idea what you guys are seeing or not seeing.
It came out great.
It's way better than screen prints by JC Richard and James Eads.

[Codeblue]

Prolly cuz it's a geekclay.

[shredkeenan]

I agree that Coalition II is not at the same level of quality reproduction that Static Medium is capable of. My hypothesis is that they only did the printing. This print release was announced like a year after the gallery show where Coalition II was sold, so I doubt the original painting was available to be photographed or scanned or whatever they do usually do as part of their process. I assume that they had to print it from a digital file that Kevin had kept for his own purposes strictly to archive his work. I'd say it's "good enough", but I'll admit I was a little disappointed. Still going to hang it though.

[Codeblue]

Ya'll do realize there's a Static Medium thread where they're quite responsive, right? Perhaps this should be moved to that thread or someone should clue em in to this discussion for a response.

[ToolFanFromWayBack]

Ya'll do realize there's a Static Medium thread where they're quite responsive, right? Perhaps this should be moved to that thread or someone should clue em in to this discussion for a response.

Oh blue, don't you remember where you are?

[Codeblue]

Oof.

[bubbie]

The quality is fine. I have no idea what you guys are seeing or not seeing.
It came out great.

Is it me or is the print job on it meh(not crisp, almost blurry, or is that due to the OG)?

I thought same thing.

I see it as well. Doesn't have the sharpness I was expecting.

That's what I thought as well. I wouldn't say it's meh and definitely worth the $75. However, I would not pay even close to a premium that Protector dictates for this quality of a print. That is what I meant to say but didn't

The four Peterson prints I have all look different, with the first coalition d the protector looking the best. I also see no problems with the quality of the most recent one.

Thanks, dude. Seeing this print now though, I will definitely need to see the Protector in person (not sure how) before I have the funds to get one (if I find one for sale).

[StaticMedium]

I agree that Coalition II is not at the same level of quality reproduction that Static Medium is capable of. My hypothesis is that they only did the printing. This print release was announced like a year after the gallery show where Coalition II was sold, so I doubt the original painting was available to be photographed or scanned or whatever they do usually do as part of their process. I assume that they had to print it from a digital file that Kevin had kept for his own purposes strictly to archive his work. I'd say it's "good enough", but I'll admit I was a little disappointed. Still going to hang it though.

Nailed it.

Unfortunately, since the original had sold over a year before the print release we never had a chance to photograph it. For comparison, we did photograph Coalition I. In instances such as this we're simply reliant upon the file produced by the gallery or artist. A digital print or giclee is simply a photo of a painting that is printed. That makes the photo or file the most important step in producing a high quality giclee. We always recommend that for the best results an original is photographed in our studio so we can create our own high res file and color proof against the original.

[maddog76]

I agree that Coalition II is not at the same level of quality reproduction that Static Medium is capable of. My hypothesis is that they only did the printing. This print release was announced like a year after the gallery show where Coalition II was sold, so I doubt the original painting was available to be photographed or scanned or whatever they do usually do as part of their process. I assume that they had to print it from a digital file that Kevin had kept for his own purposes strictly to archive his work. I'd say it's "good enough", but I'll admit I was a little disappointed. Still going to hang it though.

Nailed it.

Unfortunately, since the original had sold over a year before the print release we never had a chance to photograph it. For comparison, we did photograph Coalition I. In instances such as this we're simply reliant upon the file produced by the gallery or artist. A digital print or giclee is simply a photo of a painting that is printed. That makes the photo or file the most important step in producing a high quality giclee. We always recommend that for the best results an original is photographed in our studio so we can create our own high res file and color proof against the original.

So we paid $75 for a ink jet print of a jpg photo.

Times like these I realize I could print my own.

[StaticMedium]

I agree that Coalition II is not at the same level of quality reproduction that Static Medium is capable of. My hypothesis is that they only did the printing. This print release was announced like a year after the gallery show where Coalition II was sold, so I doubt the original painting was available to be photographed or scanned or whatever they do usually do as part of their process. I assume that they had to print it from a digital file that Kevin had kept for his own purposes strictly to archive his work. I'd say it's "good enough", but I'll admit I was a little disappointed. Still going to hang it though.

Nailed it.

Unfortunately, since the original had sold over a year before the print release we never had a chance to photograph it. For comparison, we did photograph Coalition I. In instances such as this we're simply reliant upon the file produced by the gallery or artist. A digital print or giclee is simply a photo of a painting that is printed. That makes the photo or file the most important step in producing a high quality giclee. We always recommend that for the best results an original is photographed in our studio so we can create our own high res file and color proof against the original.

So we paid $75 for a ink jet print of a jpg photo.

Times like these I realize I could print my own.

I wish you the best in your print shop endeavours!

The photo used was the same one used by the RHCP for all of their merch, billboards, promotion, prints, etc. It's a high res .TIF file. We just weren't the ones to photograph the original.

[666ways2love]

you mean it wasn't just a picture message Kevin texted you???

Thanks for info was always SM!

[Codeblue]

I agree that Coalition II is not at the same level of quality reproduction that Static Medium is capable of. My hypothesis is that they only did the printing. This print release was announced like a year after the gallery show where Coalition II was sold, so I doubt the original painting was available to be photographed or scanned or whatever they do usually do as part of their process. I assume that they had to print it from a digital file that Kevin had kept for his own purposes strictly to archive his work. I'd say it's "good enough", but I'll admit I was a little disappointed. Still going to hang it though.

Nailed it.

Unfortunately, since the original had sold over a year before the print release we never had a chance to photograph it. For comparison, we did photograph Coalition I. In instances such as this we're simply reliant upon the file produced by the gallery or artist. A digital print or giclee is simply a photo of a painting that is printed. That makes the photo or file the most important step in producing a high quality giclee. We always recommend that for the best results an original is photographed in our studio so we can create our own high res file and color proof against the original.

So we paid $75 for a ink jet print of a jpg photo.

Times like these I realize I could print my own.

Ya been around for 10 years and still didn't know this fudge? Luls.

[bryndavies]

Thankfully, the only two new pieces I like from the show are the most expensive and way out of the realm of possibility for me.

[Codeblue]

What happened? Are ya a poor now?

[bryndavies]

That Eskimo DUI money ain't what it used to be.