Welcome to Gaia! ::

My thoughts were always that if you had digital artwork, you make prints; if you've done them traditionally - anything from pencils to paints - you don't. If you can get a nice enough scan, you of course are able to make prints, but somehow my mindset has always been not to do this.

Is this just a weird outlook on my part? With all the art being commissioned online even just through Gaia, I think I may be a bit behind the times (I'm not that old, I swear). What do you think of selling prints of work done in traditional media?

I'm kind of in your boat, I much prefer making traditional art, but I feel like since I don't do much digital I shouldn't bother with prints. I think that largely stems from the fact that traditional art is much more likely to lose quality and color in the transition from scanning to being printed. Particularly things like pencil or colored pencil work tend to get grainy and fuzzy, and you want a sharp quality in a print. With a digital print, you can be pretty sure it'll look like the original, unless you didn't save it at a high enough resolution. Perhaps things have gotten good enough now that its ok though.

I make prints of nearly all my artwork. I majorly work with digital, but I'm also proficient with acrylics and do a few rare paintings. They're pretty nice but it's rare for me to sell an original painting (and when I do, unless it was small and quick it'd get pretty expensive and would be reserved for an art gallery or show). So I see no qualms about making prints of them. Sure you don't quite capture the same effect as the original but they still look quite nice. I've met some people who still prefer the traditional painting look on the prints.

Just think of all the famous painters out there who only or mostly sell prints of their paintings.

I see plenty of prints of traditional works... and on the rare occasion when I buy a print, it's usually a traditional piece (watercolor, painted, etc). So I see nothing wrong with it!