why don't you buy other peoples photographs?

[back alley]

i'm making the assumption that most of us do not buy prints of another shooters work...preferring to hang our own only.

[35mmdelux]

If it was the right print I would buy it, assuming it didn't cost a fortune. I'm glad you asked the question.

[celluloidprop]

I can't justify spending more than a month's rent on decoration.

[Gumby]

I hang both my own and other people's work in my home.

[Brian Legge]

I've thought about this on and off. I almost bought a print from a photographer a few months back - high quality prints at a great price - but couldn't find one that grabbed me enough.

In the end, I think I'd have to see a print in person that really grabbed me. I see too many wonderful images online to really make the move and buy something. I was tempted to buy a print from Per Volquartz but couldn't bring myself to put that much down for a print. I still may at some point.

[gdmcclintock]

I purchase prints from photographers, even from galleries, when I think I can afford it.

[nikon_sam]

Do you know how much photographers charge...???

Actually there is some of my stuff hanging and only because the wife demanded...

And there are shots taken by photographers at several Horse Shows that our daughter has competed in over the years...

[terrafirmanada]

I would like to buy others work since it is different than mine. That being said, we only own one photograph that is hanging in our house. It is a Petr Hlinomaz, his work can be seen here: http://hlinomaz.com/

[krötenblender]

I don't hang pictures on the walls. Or any pictures, that is. We have some paintings from my wife on the wall, but I did not hang them there, but she did. I simply don't look at pictures on the wall (at home), so I don't buy. I buy photo-books instead.

[Bingley]

I'm proud to have purchased a print from RFF member bobkonos, which hangs in my living room.

[Richard G]

I would buy if the mechanism of doing so were well worked up. Some of the stuff on the weekly gallery picks is stunning. I'd rather not have my own stuff hanging. I would soon hate it. I would be much happier with someone else's work on the wall.

[randolph45]

Picked up 3 prints in Alaska on our last visit Havent framed them yet Want to do a triptich frame for the 3

[Lflex]

I buy other peoples work if I like it (photographs and artworks), but it has to express a unique vision and personality - unfortunately this requirement limits the range for possible purchases because most people* are consciously or unconsciously copying other peoples work (as opposed to ‘standing on the shoulders of’).
If I like it and it qualifies, I have no problems paying up to 3 figures (in USD equivalent) – above that, it has to qualify as an investment as well – meaning the artist has to have a art world career potential on top of the visual attraction of the artwork.
I do have collected a few works aligned with these principles.

*that includes myself.

[back alley]

I buy other peoples work if I like it (photographs and artworks), but it has to express a unique vision and personality - unfortunately this requirement limits the range for possible purchases because most people* are consciously or unconsciously copying other peoples work (as opposed to ‘standing on the shoulders of’).
If I like it and it qualifies, I have no problems paying up to 3 figures (in USD equivalent) – above that, it has to qualify as an investment as well – meaning the artist has to have a art world career potential on top of the visual attraction of the artwork.
I do have collected a few works aligned with these principles.

*that includes myself.

black on black...impossible to read.

[gb hill]

Supporting family members disabled plus my wife not able to work I can't afford it. I wish I could. There are some really good artist here. Chris Crawford comes to mind. I'd love to have one of his prints...maybe someday.

[Brian Legge]

Good point on photo books. I've purchased several while I've only purchased one or two prints. The prints I gravitate towards seem to run in the $1-3k range is too much for me.

The work we have hanging is a mix of my photography my wife selected and had printed (I don't know if I'd hang anything on my own), a painting of Norwich where my wife grew up and a few photos of family.

We do need to rotate the photography a bit more frequently though. This is a good prodding to look around at others work again and see if anything jumps out at me. Perhaps the answer is to find some photographers I like and have her look at their work and pick prints. :)

[Turtle]

Do you know how much photographers charge...???


Indeed, but they need to do so to be economically viable. Print exchanges are a great way to get other people's work on your walls and is a method commonly used by professionals because they can't afford each other's work!

I have four prints in the kitchen I bought from a chap on the street in Manhattan, but have a few print exchanges shaping up for bigger 'living/dining room' pieces. I have about ten of my own prints up in the house and will gradually replace those as I acquire work I like. There are a few photographers in the US whose work I can afford and I will wait until I have moved house to figure out what to buy.

[Doug]

I have bought prints directly from other photographers, but I can understand a reluctance when we think we did (or think we could) do something similar and as well.

The most recent, a couple years ago, was an 8x10 all green and tropical leafy, from a young photog hawking his prints at a small mall in Maui. Come to think on it, I got a shot of him holding it. :)

[Roger Hicks]

Money. I've never seen much that I like under $500, and the last few I'd really have liked were in the $1000-$3000 range.

Also, display space. My walls are pretty crowded with my own and others' work: 'others' usually being gifts or the occasional exchange. As Turtle says, Print exchanges are a great way to get other people's work on your walls and is a method commonly used by professionals because they can't afford each other's work!

Cheers,

R.

[jordanstarr]

...couldn't afford it.

That being said, I dropped $250 on kickstarter on a photographer (and friend) whose work and genuine approach to this particular documentary, would produce something I knew I would love. I get a 16x20 exhibition fiber print out of the deal. I think this is a great way to aquire prints. I saw Bruce Gilden hitting up money on kickstarter to produce "foreclosure" series and his 11x14 prints were only about $500 and you would also get a book out of the deal. I thought that was a pretty great deal, but it had to be a picture that you wouldn't see yet and you would chose from a selection of that series only. But if you know the photographer, the caliber of the work, etc. it's a great option.

[Phil_F_NM]

The only reason I don't buy photos more often is because I don't have enough income to do so.
I have a few prints which I've bought from other photographers though. They happen to be some of my favorite photos ever and they are all from folks in this forum and other email lists. None by any of the "greats" though these particular images could easily stand alone against work by any of the masters. That work and that talent is mostly here on RFF. So if I had more money to spend, I'd buy more photography. At this point I'd rather buy fine prints than gear.

Phil Forrest

[sevres_babylone]

I actually do buy prints, though not as many as I'd like to. In my house, I have other people's prints on the wall. Most of them have been bought at Gallery 44 (artist-run gallery of which I'm a member); I think the most I've paid is $350.

I do have some of my prints on the wall of my office though.

[Lflex]

black on black...impossible to read.
Thanks for pointing it out. I don't have the problem because I use the light background theme. apparently when you copy the text from a word processor to RFF it is not default color anymore but the color of the text in the word processor.
I'll see if there is some HTML tag I can remove.

[250swb]

I don't hang any of my own work, that would be far to self congratulatory. And are friends and relatives going to say 'I don't like it!' even if thats what they think? No, generally speaking they won't. Which all leads to a lack of perspective. So I like other peoples work on the wall, it keeps me on my toes, and my own work is for a scary and independently critical public.

Steve

[nighstar]

i can hardly afford to print and hang my own work let alone pay for the work of someone else. that said, i would love to buy other people's work if i could afford it. i do, however, buy photo/art books when i can. you get a lot more photos/art for your money and i find browsing through such books really relaxing and inspirational.

[Pickett Wilson]

I don't hang my own prints in my home. I have a lot of geometric abstract paintings on my walls. Only two photo prints, though, and those are prints I bought fom Chris Crawford. While I generally prefer photo books to prints, Chris' stuff is just so nice hanging on the wall!

[shadowfox]

"why don't you buy other peoples photographs?"

If money were not a problem, I'd be rotating others' prints on my walls along with mine. There are plenty out there that I'd love to have.

I think it's very neat to be able to share photos that I like with people who come over to my house. Especially from certain photographers whose work I admire.

But as mentioned above, photobooks are not a bad way to acquire others' works.

[SimonSawSunlight]

I've had a couple of people on this forum buy prints from me for their walls. as for me, I don't want to have photos on my walls, may it be my own or the work of others.

[dogbunny]

I'm just working on getting the walls, then I'll happily hang some photos on them. Unfortunately, my taste is always beyond my budget.

[Cyriljay]

I would if i could afford them , but I have bought so many of their work on book form and that is the only way for the time being!!!

[menos]

I actually try to prevent influence from other photographers on me - a short glance on the internet is fine, although, I try to limit this, not extensively spending time on other photographers web galleries.

Having other photographers prints on walls would be a bad thing for me.
I do have rotations of my own prints on walls or leaning against things, as I try, how they work. Having a print on display, being able, to see it is an important part of the creation of a photograph for me.

The internet and digital post processing have badly crippled this part of creation for many people. I wish, I had a nice 20" hot press, which would make framing for display unnecessary for me - I would just matte the prints and archive them that way, leaning them out for display for a while.

[maddoc]

It never came to my mind to sell a print of a photo that I made but I have purchased a print as part of a camera sale and one when buying a photo book from a member here at RFF. :)

[Frank Version Two]

I raised my prices a while back and still make (fewer but more profitable) sales while protecting the value of my images in the future. If you bought a print from me in the past then it appreciated! ;-p

I found it better to simply give prints away if it's a worthy cause rather than undervaluing your work and screwing over buyers, galleries, and yourself later on. I'm all for democratizing art but jeez, when you can buy a nice 11x14 for $50 it really means the image is worthless.

Same with jobs. It is better to shoot a job for free rather than lower your rates to peanuts. No matter how cheap you make it, it will always be too expensive to the client and it could haunt you when you want to charge their friend full-rate. If you're doing something on the cheap you still have obligations - whereas if you're giving it away then you have some leverage and leeway.

Trading can be very awkward when you discover you don't care for the other person's work. Hard to decline... I just threw some traded prints out last week, I didn't like them and want to have to care for them for years and have my heirs ask, "WTF is this?"

That said, we have a lot of other artists' work hanging and underfoot. My wife practically supports Etsy and keeps a lot of strange smelling hippie women off Food Stamps with all her purchases. I also display some of my older photos but it usually has to become a "classic" or come back from a show in a nice frame to gain wall space.

[Joe Brugger]

i'm making the assumption that most of us do not buy prints of another shooters work...preferring to hang our own only.

Um. That's a faulty assumption. I have the work of two or three other people on my walls -- some from times and places not available to me, some in styles that I admire but don't spend much time on.

[Turtle]

I'm assuming this extends to photo books etc?

I'm curious about this, because most of the biggest photographers from history can name their influences and are intimately knowledgeable when it comes to other people's work. It does not seem to cause them any problems in terms of the individuality of their work.

I wonder whether being familiar with a broad range of work out there actually helps prevent you unwittingly producing work that is 'coincidentally derivative.'



I actually try to prevent influence from other photographers on me - a short glance on the internet is fine, although, I try to limit this, not extensively spending time on other photographers web galleries.

Having other photographers prints on walls would be a bad thing for me...

[Jamie123]

Except for my pinboard, where I have both mine and other photographers' work (mostly polaroids of mine and promo cards of other photogs) I don't really hang photos anywhere. It actually never even occured to me to hang my own work on my walls. That would just feel weird to me, like I'd be celebrating myself. I'm not saying that's what others do, I'm saying that's how it'd feel to me.

As for other photographers' work, I've only once bought a few prints from a young photographer whose work I appreciated. Never really did anything with them, though. If I had the money I'd probably get some original Stephen Shore prints from 'Uncommon Places'. They're quite small so they're not that expensive. But we're still talking several thousands of dollars, of course.

[DominikDUK]

I regularly buy photographs from other photographers, most of the photographers are already dead though as I mostly collect tintypes and late 19th century to mid 20th century photographs that I find on flea markets for far less than a $100.

Dominik

[Sparrow]

... my talent exceeds my budget usually

[Jamie123]

I'm assuming this extends to photo books etc?

I'm curious about this, because most of the biggest photographers from history can name their influences and are intimately knowledgeable when it comes to other people's work. It does not seem to cause them any problems in terms of the individuality of their work.

I wonder whether being familiar with a broad range of work out there actually helps prevent you unwittingly producing work that is 'coincidentally derivative.'

Most famous photographers can name their influences but their influences are not always photographic. Also, depending on what period in history you're talking about you have to consider that at a certain time exposure to other people's photographic work was very limited. I probably see more photographs before noon than an early 20th century photographer did in a month.

I remember once reading an interview with a photographer (Chris Buck if I remember correctly) where he said (I paraphrase) "There are two types of photographers. Those who look at other people's work and those that don't". He counted himself amongst the latter. I don't think there's any right or wrong here, it just comes down to preference. I couldn't live without looking at other photographers' work as I love photgraphy. Does it get in the way of my own work? Sometimes it can as it''s hard to find one's own voice amongst the visual vocabulary one has gained through all the exposure to imagery. But it's something I'm willing to deal with.

I don't think not looking at other photographers' work carries the risk of producing 'coincidentally derivative' work. It can only be derivative if it was derived from something and you cannot derive your work from something you do not know. Coincidentally similar work? Maybe. But if we're talking single images then every image is similar to some other in some regards. If we're talking a whole body of work then that would have to be a big coincidence.

[MickH]

...couldn't afford it.

That being said, I dropped $250 on kickstarter on a photographer (and friend) whose work and genuine approach to this particular documentary, would produce something I knew I would love. I get a 16x20 exhibition fiber print out of the deal. I think this is a great way to aquire prints. I saw Bruce Gilden hitting up money on kickstarter to produce "foreclosure" series and his 11x14 prints were only about $500 and you would also get a book out of the deal. I thought that was a pretty great deal, but it had to be a picture that you wouldn't see yet and you would chose from a selection of that series only. But if you know the photographer, the caliber of the work, etc. it's a great option.

I find this interesting and it shines a light onto the world of buying and selling 'art'. I can't imagine that I'd shell out £250+ on a photo that I'd not chosen myself. It says more about the commercial imperative behind buying and selling art works than of taste or personal preference. Still, looking at the top of the page, I suppose this is the appropriate thread.

No disrespect intended to Jordanstarr, he/she simply put into words an approach that, I guess, many people have when it comes to buying stuff you can't use, 'Can I sell it for more when I want to get rid?'.

Art as an investment has a long and prosperous history.

Yes, I know I'm stating the bleeding obvious :)

[Turtle]

I agree that kickstarter and indiegogo are great ways to pick up work at good prices. its something I will do but unfortunately its a bit harder from the UK.

[Jamie123]

I find this interesting and it shines a light onto the world of buying and selling 'art'. I can't imagine that I'd shell out £250+ on a photo that I'd not chosen myself. It says more about the commercial imperative behind buying and selling art works than of taste or personal preference. Still, looking at the top of the page, I suppose this is the appropriate thread.

I don't think this really shines a light on the commercial imperative behind buying and selling art. Firstly, prints bought through kickstarter probably aren't much of an investment. If they even are editioned it must be quite a high number. I reckon you'd be hard pressed to resell such a print at the price you bought it for but that's not really what it's about anyways. You pledge the money because you want to support a project and as a reward you get a print. If the print was worth (on the market) as much as you pledge then the photographer would be better off financing his project through gallery sales.

Paying money for an image that does not exist yet is a common practice. Any magazine or newspaper editor who gives an assignment to a photographer does exactly that. Most times it turns out well, sometimes it doesn't.

[Sparrow]

I agree that kickstarter and indiegogo are great ways to pick up work at good prices. its something I will do but unfortunately its a bit harder from the UK.

There is always this to fall back on ... http://www.ssplprints.com/index.php

... mostly older stuff but it cuts out the gallery, good prices and helps to support the museum ... obviously the only value they have is the image itself so they're not art ...

[MickH]

Hello Jamie123.

I agree with you that editors and such commission work. I'm unfamiliar with Kickstarter, but did look it up. It seems to be a place for 'Angels' to support up & comers, all very admirable, and if you get to choose the photograph you're buying, even better. My main thrustc was intended to relate to folk paying £250+ for a Bruce Gilden photo - a chap who doesn't really need our support - sight unseen. An investment? Maybe.

[taylan]

Income, income, income... that is the main problem for me.
I have some special and very valuable prints belongs to other photographers. Also 5 of them belongs to year 1981 which is my birth year. The total values of them are much more then my 10 years income. I am so lucky that they gave as a gift to me. Also i have not sold any of my print ever but i gave approximately 250 of my prints to lots of people without any charge. I love to give them. Lots of mine friend hang at least one of my print to their walls and i feel very happy when i saw them.
In short, i believe in KARMA.

[Jamie123]

Hello Jamie123.

I agree with you that editors and such commission work. I'm unfamiliar with Kickstarter, but did look it up. It seems to be a place for 'Angels' to support up & comers, all very admirable, and if you get to choose the photograph you're buying, even better. My main thrustc was intended to relate to folk paying £250+ for a Bruce Gilden photo - a chap who doesn't really need our support - sight unseen. An investment? Maybe.

Kickstarter and similar pages are not just for up and comers. Bruce Gilden's project was on that site. It's intended to be an alternative way of funding, not charity. I suppose the idea behind it is now that traditional media are no longer funding such projects the content creators are approaching the target audience directly.

[ooze]

I have bought photos in the past and some of them hang on my wall. However, I haven't paid more than 100USD for any of them. I would not pay more than about 300USD for any photograph and I would almost certainly not buy a limited edition print...the idea of artificially inflating prices is abhorrent to me.

I very much prefer print exchanges and I have acquired some beautiful photographs this way.

[Dan States]

I've bought a lot of photo books, but never a print...I guess for the same reason I don't order meatloaf in a restaurant...I can make it myself. Besides, the likelihood is that the one image on my walls that I didn't make would get more comments and fame than all the rest of my rubbish and it would drive me nuts.

[jippiejee]

Besides, the likelihood is that the one image on my walls that I didn't make would get more comments and fame than all the rest of my rubbish and it would drive me nuts.

:D haha. That, and then my taste exceeds my budget.

[hteasley]

We have two polaroid-on-gold prints from Patty Mulligan (http://www.pattymulligan.com/). I love her work.

My xmas present from the wife was permission to buy this Stanley Kubrick print (http://tinyurl.com/buxd2gw), which is now framed and more awesome than awesome.

As to the rest of the stuff on the walls, most are watercolor paintings (http://www.yatsze.com/portfolio-portraits.html) from my wife, photos of the kids by me, old family photos, and one photo of mine that isn't a sentimental shot, but a shot because I quite like it.

[Frank Version Two]

I don't think not looking at other photographers' work carries the risk of producing 'coincidentally derivative' work. It can only be derivative if it was derived from something and you cannot derive your work from something you do not know. Coincidentally similar work? Maybe. But if we're talking single images then every image is similar to some other in some regards. If we're talking a whole body of work then that would have to be a big coincidence.

I think you have to spend $100K on a good photo grad school to really make derivative photos ;-p

[Turtle]

Ha, yes.

As someone else alluded to earlier, by 'coincidentally derivative' I meant that others might consider your work derivative as a consequence of you unwittingly producing work that just happens to look like someone else's. By knowing what is out there, in detail, you can avoid ending up squarely in someone else's shadow. Basically parallel evolution.

Alternatively you can choose not to be bothered when your work ends up looking similar to someone else's. After all, its a big world and there are a lot of photographers out there.

I think you have to spend $100K on a good photo grad school to really make derivative photos ;-p

@ Menos, while I get this:

"I do have rotations of my own prints on walls or leaning against things, as I try, how they work. Having a print on display, being able, to see it is an important part of the creation of a photograph for me." Yes, absolutely!

... but I don't understand this:

"I actually try to prevent influence from other photographers on me - a short glance on the internet is fine, although, I try to limit this..."

Why is seeing other people's work a bad influence on you?

[menos]

Ha, yes.

As someone else alluded to earlier, by 'coincidentally derivative' I meant that others might consider your work derivative as a consequence of you unwittingly producing work that just happens to look like someone else's. By knowing what is out there, in detail, you can avoid ending up squarely in someone else's shadow. Basically parallel evolution.

Alternatively you can choose not to be bothered when your work ends up looking similar to someone else's. After all, its a big world and there are a lot of photographers out there.

That's why, I tell myself, it's best, to shut all doors and window blinds and try not to be influenced by longer looks at other peoples art.
That could be all pretentious, but I guess, it works best, to prevent one from straight unconscious copy work, which would be terrible. Arriving at a similar or accidentally same style, theme or look, as another photographer is absolutely fine, as long, as it's not the conscious or unconscious copy work.

There are of course interpretational works, as in music, but I have momentarily no interest in such.

There are moments, when one seems stuck and browsing other peoples artworks can be helpful for a hint or an idea, but one should not watch too long or too deep, which is why I wouldn't hang other stuff.

There is the thinking of "How self shoulder tapping of you, hanging your own prints!", but hanging one's own prints is not necessarily a look, what I did thing, but more a part of the work process with a picture!

Does it work that way?
How is the format?
Is this print the right size, igniting a viewers brain, to what I would want?
How is the print technically? Do I/ others see room for improvement after watching longer?

[myoptic]

I own a couple photographs by other photographers. I don't have any of my own pictures hanging on the walls, but those of other photographers whose work I really like... and can afford (once in a blue moon). The two pieces I have are Platinum/Palladium LF contact prints. My own work hangs in the houses of others, usually past exhibition stuff or prints ordered directly.

[gdmcclintock]

...
That could be all pretentious, but I guess, it works best, to prevent one from straight unconscious copy work, which would be terrible. Arriving at a similar or accidentally same style, theme or look, as another photographer is absolutely fine, as long, as it's not the conscious or unconscious copy work.
...


The fear of "conscious or unconscious copy work" is a bizarre pretension as it deliberately rejects inspiration that another's work may provoke.

[bgb]

I do actually but usually in the form of book like ?Milton Keynes" by our Vicky or that nice calendar
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=113835
Might buy a print for the wall if i saw something that blew me away and I could afford it"

[Vince Lupo]

The photos I've usually purchased have been of the vintage variety, and right now I have a 1940's vintage Marion Warren print on the wall, as well as a 1930's vintage George Hurrell, and another lovely portrait from the 1930's by a NY photographer whose name I can't make out. I only have one small print of mine on a wall in the kitchen, and a few taped onto the side of the fridge. All the rest on the walls are paintings, a few Dutch tiles, and a couple of clocks.

[helenhill]

I can't Imagine Living Without my library of Photography Books
There are/were so Many Talented Photographers
from the early 1900's to present Day
I feast on Viewing their Works....

I have One trade up on my Walls
And a B-day present from one of my FAV japanese photographers Junku Nishimura

Have Sold two prints .... And will probably BUY a few when the Time is right

Owning Books & Prints does Not Stfle my Vision..,, ;)

[Nando]

I don't by prints simply because photographs normally don't go well with the decor of my home. The majority of photos that I like wouldn't be suitable to hang in my house. The only photos on display are portraits of family and friends.

Like a few others, I prefer photography books. My B.A.S. easily exceeds my G.A.S. and storing books is a constant problem for me.

[jsrockit]

I don't hang my own...seems strange. However, if I see a friends photo that I really like, I will buy one. I don't buy well known photographer's work because it's too expensive. I'm more of a book guy.

[jan normandale]

i'm making the assumption that most of us do not buy prints of another shooters work...preferring to hang our own only.

Hi Joe, since you started the discussion I'm wondering if you buy people's photography you don't mention in your OP.

[menos]

The fear of "conscious or unconscious copy work" is a bizarre pretension as it deliberately rejects inspiration that another's work may provoke.

How could that be bizarre?
In music, one hears that from time to time as well - musicians quoted as trying not to be influenced by other music.

I find it quite interesting, to make a development as much, as possible on my own, having changed photographic interests a lot over the past few years.

I don't claim, sitting in a eggshell, as it would be impossible, to manage, not to be influenced at all, but I try to reduce the influence by not being exposed to other peoples work, if I can prevent this (not collecting photo books, not hanging prints, not visiting galleries, etc …).

I don't see this as bizarre.

[Pablito]

I raised my prices a while back and still make (fewer but more profitable) sales while protecting the value of my images in the future. If you bought a print from me in the past then it appreciated! ;-p

I found it better to simply give prints away if it's a worthy cause rather than undervaluing your work and screwing over buyers, galleries, and yourself later on. I'm all for democratizing art but jeez, when you can buy a nice 11x14 for $50 it really means the image is worthless.

Same with jobs. It is better to shoot a job for free rather than lower your rates to peanuts. No matter how cheap you make it, it will always be too expensive to the client and it could haunt you when you want to charge their friend full-rate. If you're doing something on the cheap you still have obligations - whereas if you're giving it away then you have some leverage and leeway.

Trading can be very awkward when you discover you don't care for the other person's work. Hard to decline... I just threw some traded prints out last week, I didn't like them and want to have to care for them for years and have my heirs ask, "WTF is this?"



Yes. All perfectly true.

[back alley]

Hi Joe, since you started the discussion I'm wondering if you buy people's photography you don't mention in your OP.

i only recently started to hang my own images, framed on the wall. it seemed strange at first to hang photos as i was more used to hanging 'things' on the wall...but i now like it and am amazed at the reaction from friends who knew i did photography but never saw any of my stuff.

i would love to buy and hang some classic images but that isn't likely...too $$

[Sparrow]

i only recently started to hang my own images, framed on the wall. it seemed strange at first to hang photos as i was more used to hanging 'things' on the wall...but i now like it and am amazed at the reaction from friends who knew i did photography but never saw any of my stuff.

i would love to buy and hang some classic images but that isn't likely...too $$

Join in the one of the print swaps Joe, they may not be classic but I have two that look good on my walls

[gdmcclintock]

Sorry, I find your point of view bizarre. No one escapes outside influence by attempting to avoid it. Being closed-minded only limits one's vision be it visual, musical, or literary.




How could that be bizarre?
In music, one hears that from time to time as well - musicians quoted as trying not to be influenced by other music.

I find it quite interesting, to make a development as much, as possible on my own, having changed photographic interests a lot over the past few years.

I don't claim, sitting in a eggshell, as it would be impossible, to manage, not to be influenced at all, but I try to reduce the influence by not being exposed to other peoples work, if I can prevent this (not collecting photo books, not hanging prints, not visiting galleries, etc …).

I don't see this as bizarre.

[jsrockit]

Avoiding other people's work just seems to me like a way of saying that what you are doing is way more important (or so much better) than what others are doing.

[dave lackey]

i'm making the assumption that most of us do not buy prints of another shooters work...preferring to hang our own only.

Because I am broke.

[shadowfox]

How could that be bizarre?
In music, one hears that from time to time as well - musicians quoted as trying not to be influenced by other music.

I find it quite interesting, to make a development as much, as possible on my own, having changed photographic interests a lot over the past few years.

I don't claim, sitting in a eggshell, as it would be impossible, to manage, not to be influenced at all, but I try to reduce the influence by not being exposed to other peoples work, if I can prevent this (not collecting photo books, not hanging prints, not visiting galleries, etc …).

I don't see this as bizarre.

Maybe not bizarre, but it's unusual.

I *love* seeing other people's work, because it gives me ideas, raised my standard, and sometimes it allows me a glimpse of how creative mind works.

[excellent]

I trade pieces

[RayPA]

good topic.

I think that photographers should gift and trade their photos with other photographers—likewise with photo books (my preferred method of presentation). It's kind of like a 'professional courtesy' (even though a lot of us aren't 'professionals'). I've traded photo books with other photographers; it's a lot of fun, and the books go into my collection right next to the masters.



/

[menos]

Sorry, I find your point of view bizarre. No one escapes outside influence by attempting to avoid it. Being closed-minded only limits one's vision be it visual, musical, or literary.

Slowly there!
I never stated, I prevent influences, I described, how I avoid to have hanging artworks or books make a deep impression on my own style.

This is in no way narrow minded, quite contrary is my character and I would feel offended, being called such.

Avoiding other people's work just seems to me like a way of saying that what you are doing is way more important (or so much better) than what others are doing.

Please read my above comment - I think, there is quite a misunderstanding, don't you think?
Why do you throw in valuation of ones own work against others? This is completely far fetched (and obviously untrue), while, as described, I do am influenced by others.

Otherwise, what do I do on the internet or even leaving house in the morning, discussing photography and sharing pictures with others?

If you see my flickr profile, you will also find, that I do have many favorites from other photographers, that I like or tagged as such, as a reminder.

I too have a small collection of snippets on my computer, that work as work notes or reminders on certain looks (mostly in technical aspects).

What I did state has been entirely related to "hanging prints of other photographers in my home" - what this thread has been about to my understanding.

[gdmcclintock]

To each his or her own. I am surrounded by photobooks and prints by other photographers. In no way am I worried that my environment will influence my photography; for better or worse, my pictures are my own. Here is a photograph that reminds me of one made by Saul Leiter, but I had never heard of Leiter when I took the picture, thus his influence is after the fact!

http://www.etceteras.org/Paris/Waiter.jpg

[fireblade]

i'm making the assumption that most of us do not buy prints of another shooters work...preferring to hang our own only.

never thought of buying another shooters work, i enjoy viewing others work, therefore the disease of purchasing books.
....but have sold 4 prints of my work, only because of connections within my circle of friends.
as one buyer has gallery connections he has 6x4's to show around to put some of my work up, which is more "arty" rather than "pure photographs"...we'll see what happens in the new year.

[chris00nj]

I buy others photographs when I like the photo, but know I cannot produce something similar for whatever reason:

I bought a photo of a panaroma of Stockholm. I don't own a panaoramic camera, nor would I bring one traveling if I did.

I bought a photo of a single guy walking on Charles Bridge in Prague at dusk in the winter. I was in Prague in the summer, and finding it empty must take patience.

[wlewisiii]

i'm making the assumption that most of us do not buy prints of another shooters work...preferring to hang our own only.

If I have the money I buy what I like. I have a fair number of prints that I have picked up over the years.

Perhaps this query should have been a poll?

[back alley]

i'm enjoying the conversation and find it enlightening...can't find that in a poll.

what is most interesting to me is that so much influence is attributed to money. i am poor for the most part but did not consider the financial aspects as much as i thought it would be ego driven.

[ferider]

I do though, Joe, sometimes when I really like something. Lots of books, too.

Interesting in this thread that some posters with thousands of dollars in vintage camera equipment feel they cann't afford another persons print.

A question of emotional value I guess.

Roland.

[gdmcclintock]

Why ego driven?


i'm enjoying the conversation and find it enlightening...can't find that in a poll.

what is most interesting to me is that so much influence is attributed to money. i am poor for the most part but did not consider the financial aspects as much as i thought it would be ego driven.

[back alley]

Why ego driven?

to be completely honest...

if i were to choose between anothers print and one of my own (for the limited wall space that i have) my ego would go with my image.

[sepiareverb]

I buy work when I can. My most recent is by Anna Hepler (http://www.annahepler.com/), an inkjet print enlarged from a cyanotype. I'm hoping to get a cyanotype contact print later this year. I also trade images with friends and other folks whose work I see online if they're amenable.

[back alley]

I do though, Joe, sometimes when I really like something. Lots of books, too.

Interesting in this thread that some posters with thousands of dollars in vintage camera equipment feel they cann't afford another persons print.

A question of emotional value I guess.

Roland.

not to change topics but what really baffles me is someone with thousands invested in a camera and lens and shoots the cheapest film they can find.
and then gets it processed at the cheapest lab they find.

[gdmcclintock]

You could always rotate the prints.


to be completely honest...

if i were to choose between anothers print and one of my own (for the limited wall space that i have) my ego would go with my image.

[Benjamin Marks]

I do own many photographs by other photographers and tend to display them rather than my own. I find the work of other photographers inspiring and that they constantly push me to do better in my own work. What I really like though, is to see my work on others' walls. That is a treat I could get used to.

[back alley]

You could always rotate the prints.

i do...but with my own newer shots.

[back alley]

I do own many photographs by other photographers and tend to display them rather than my own. I find the work of other photographers inspiring and that they constantly push me to do better in my own work. What I really like though, is to see my work on others' walls. That is a treat I could get used to.


can't say there is a great demand for my work...

[ferider]

not to change topics but what really baffles me is someone with thousands invested in a camera and lens and shoots the cheapest film they can find.
and then gets it processed at the cheapest lab they find.

Agree.

Back on subject, it's understandable that you prefer most of your own prints. Not an ego issue in my book, since your own work and emotions are in there .... Somebody else's work must resonate very well to be competitive.

Roland.

[back alley]

Agree.

Back on subject, it's understandable that you prefer most of your own prints. Not an ego issue in my book, since your own work and emotions are in there .... Somebody else's work must resonate very well to be competitive.

Roland.

this is true...

[Jamie123]

to be completely honest...

if i were to choose between anothers print and one of my own (for the limited wall space that i have) my ego would go with my image.

That's interesting. So you actually think your own work is really good and better than anyone else's you could imagine? I'm not being sarcastic at all, I just find this interesting as I can't seem to get in this mindset. Somehow I'm never 100% happy with my own work. Even if others say it's great I always see what I could've done better. Mind you, I'm not being self-deprecating at all. There's plenty of work of mine that I think is decent. Sometimes I'm really happy with a shot but the longer I look at it the more I find things I see that I would want to improve.

I don't think the same way about other people's work. Either I like it or I don't. It is what it is. I didn't take part in its creation so the idea to change something doesn't really occur to me.

[Benjamin Marks]

can't say there is a great demand for my work...

Who said anything about demand? ;-) These were images gifted to friends. Still, there's no rule saying they have to put my stuff up, so when they do, I do a little victory dance.

Ben

[back alley]

That's interesting. So you actually think your own work is really good and better than anyone else's you could imagine? I'm not being sarcastic at all, I just find this interesting as I can't seem to get in this mindset. Somehow I'm never 100% happy with my own work. Even if others say it's great I always see what I could've done better. Mind you, I'm not being self-deprecating at all. There's plenty of work of mine that I think is decent. Sometimes I'm really happy with a shot but the longer I look at it the more I find things I see that I would want to improve.

I don't think the same way about other people's work. Either I like it or I don't. It is what it is. I didn't take part in its creation so the idea to change something doesn't really occur to me.

can't say that i think my stuff is BETTER, but it is mine.

i read a story once about a drapery maker who came into a photographers home to measure for new drapes. he asked the photographer what he did for a living and the photograher told him. the man looked puzzled and asked him where his photos were? the photographer said he never hung his own work on the walls. the drapery maker thought this was foolish and said his home was filled with his drapes, they were beautiful and also were built in advertisements...

there are some shooters here whose work i would love to have but i can't imagine they would want mine in a trade, the styles are so different.

[raid]

black on black...impossible to read.


I cut and pasted the above black on black comment:

"I buy other peoples work if I like it (photographs and artworks), but it has to express a unique vision and personality - unfortunately this requirement limits the range for possible purchases because most people* are consciously or unconsciously copying other peoples work (as opposed to ‘standing on the shoulders of’).
If I like it and it qualifies, I have no problems paying up to 3 figures (in USD equivalent) – above that, it has to qualify as an investment as well – meaning the artist has to have a art world career potential on top of the visual attraction of the artwork.
I do have collected a few works aligned with these principles."

[raid]

What Joe asked about here is reflected differently in the art gallery I am a member in. Photos are in far less demand than paintings or wood work. It may indicate the people view photography as "an easy and light form of art that anyone can do" .... so to speak. Photographers ... may view photos differently; worthy to buy? Do we behave diferently than what I see in the customers at the gallery?

[sailor]

I cut and pasted the above black on black comment:


If I like it and it qualifies, I have no problems paying up to 3 figures (in USD equivalent) – above that, it has to qualify as an investment as well – meaning the artist has to have a art world career potential on top of the visual attraction of the artwork.
I do have collected a few works aligned with these principles."

I think it's very difficult to pick those photographers who have investment potential unless you go for already established artists who have a track record - in which case the price of the work will reflect their success and you might have to pay more than three figures for it.

Trolling through the gallery on this site alone yields plenty of work which I really like but which of the photographers has investment potential and which are going to remain largely unknown is difficult to figure. I think the first part of your statement is the most important - buy something you like. The decision then is how much you like it - enough to pay £500 or £50 or £5. That's the test!

[andredossantos]

I dont even hang my own photos up....

[patois]

I don't like most people's work enough to buy it. I have started collecting stuff from people who use #believeinfilm (https://twitter.com/#!/search/believeinfilm) on twitter but mostly in secret. :) Price is a big issue and I'd rather buy work I like that is cheap and then try to promote the photographers who made them to add value.

[Benjamin Marks]

there are some shooters here whose work i would love to have but i can't imagine they would want mine in a trade, the styles are so different.

Funny: the stuff I post on RFF is really gear specific. It is not representative of my best work at all. As an amateur, I don't even have that extensive an on-line presence as the pix posted on flickr are usually there so family members can see them and so on.

However, Joe, I'll go on record as willing to swap prints with you. Only criterion: the picture you send me has to be one of which you are proud. Now if we could only figure out how to view a representative body of one another's work. . .

[back alley]

Funny: the stuff I post on RFF is really gear specific. It is not representative of my best work at all. As an amateur, I don't even have that extensive an on-line presence as the pix posted on flickr are usually there so family members can see them and so on.

However, Joe, I'll go on record as willing to swap prints with you. Only criterion: the picture you send me has to be one of which you are proud. Now if we could only figure out how to view a representative body of one another's work. . .

i use flickr for most everything and my image blog for anything i consider a little better...

[Roger Hicks]

not to change topics but what really baffles me is someone with thousands invested in a camera and lens and shoots the cheapest film they can find.
and then gets it processed at the cheapest lab they find.

Baffles me too.

Cheers,

R.

[sailor]

What Joe asked about here is reflected differently in the art gallery I am a member in. Photos are in far less demand than paintings or wood work. It may indicate the people view photography as "an easy and light form of art that anyone can do" .... so to speak. Photographers ... may view photos differently; worthy to buy? Do we behave diferently than what I see in the customers at the gallery?

Last year I was speaking to a photographer who has his own gallery here on the Isle of Skye. As it was out of season and there weren't many folk about, we spent quite a bit of time chewing the fat about things photographic. At the end of it he was astounded that I actually bought some of his work. He explained that people who identify themselves as keen photographers hardly ever buy anything.

[Jamie123]

can't say that i think my stuff is BETTER, but it is mine.

i read a story once about a drapery maker who came into a photographers home to measure for new drapes. he asked the photographer what he did for a living and the photograher told him. the man looked puzzled and asked him where his photos were? the photographer said he never hung his own work on the walls. the drapery maker thought this was foolish and said his home was filled with his drapes, they were beautiful and also were built in advertisements...


I didn't mean that you shouldn't think your stuff is better than some other people's. I think some of my photos are better than a lot stuff I see, namely that which I consider to be crap. What I meant was that I either like or dislike other people's work. I would obviously only consider hanging the stuff I like. But if I like it then it is not in contest with my own work. My own work, on the other hand, is always in contest with what it could've been, i.e. what I think I did wrong.

As for your story about the drapery maker, that's the difference between art and artisanry, innit?

[Jamie123]

Baffles me too.

Cheers,

R.

Funnily I always buy expensive film (Portra 400) and have it processed at the best pro-lab in town but often the film is shot in cheap P&S cameras (i.e. whenever it's 35mm film).

[raid]

There are many amazing photos here at RFF Gallery that I would buy.

I spent several thousand dollars on "professional" slide film for about 20 years. I would take 30-50 rolls per short photo trip. The quality of film is very important to me. I used Velvia 50 professional from B&H and before that, I used Fujichrome 50 and 100 Professional.

[Roger Hicks]

Funnily I always buy expensive film (Portra 400) and have it processed at the best pro-lab in town but often the film is shot in cheap P&S cameras (i.e. whenever it's 35mm film).
From the 'Saving Money' module on my site, http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/ps%20save.html

don't skimp on materials

All right. We have made the point that inexpensive second-hand equipment can produce excellent results -- but we have to say at this point that it will only do so if you use decent materials.

Cheers,

R.

[Jamie123]

Baffles me too.

Cheers,

R.

From the 'Saving Money' module on my site, http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/ps%20save.html

don't skimp on materials

All right. We have made the point that inexpensive second-hand equipment can produce excellent results -- but we have to say at this point that it will only do so if you use decent materials.

Cheers,

R.

For me using my favourite emulsions (in date no less, I don't like to use expired film) is a given but when I use cheap 35mm P&S cameras the reasoning behind using expesive film like Kodak Portra is that I need the film to make up for the camera's shortcomings. The exposure is likely to not be spot on every time so I need a film that handles that very well.

[menos]

I'm assuming this extends to photo books etc?

I'm curious about this, because most of the biggest photographers from history can name their influences and are intimately knowledgeable when it comes to other people's work. It does not seem to cause them any problems in terms of the individuality of their work.

I wonder whether being familiar with a broad range of work out there actually helps prevent you unwittingly producing work that is 'coincidentally derivative.'

I think, I overlooked your post - Yes, I have a few photo books, but these have mainly been picked up as inexpensive buys, like I would buy an occasional magazine before a long train ride, …
Some of them, I barely touched - not out of disrespect to the photographer or not admiring their work, but in fact out of being so busy with developing myself in the little time, I have next to a full-time job, that I have barely time, to calm down and enjoy studying these books.

Another interesting point of yours is knowing other photographers work, to prevent similar work from being created by oneself.
This is entirely out of the question for me. Why would I want, to prevent, to produce something, because another person has already done this without me knowing?

It is not like every photograph, one produces is created, to be shown to an audience or sold in an auction, where critics might discuss the similarities or real core of the picture …

I am absolutely for a totally free development of my photographic ways - without bounds, brought by myself or others.
This is the true reason, why I try to limit outer influences - I can't (ant do not want!) prevent them, but I can limit them to a dose, I think, not intrusive. Some people might call this BS - I don't care. For me it absolutely works.

I know a good friend of mine, who is well educated in visual arts, knowing about almost all important, famous photographs, drawings and paintings and artists from the last 200 years.
He recently has developed a strong interest in creating photographs himself, having bought a 35mm rangefinder camera and started shooting.

He struggles of course with handling and technical terms of picture taking, as we all were, when fresh, but you won't believe the mental struggle, he goes through, when seeing his pictures showing an unbelievable disconnection from what he imagined the image, to be, when shooting!
He also barely presses the shutter, as his constant preselection of pictorial substance in the real world is constantly scanned and compared the vast library of great artist's works i the back of his head!

This indeed might be the absolute extreme of the negative influence, other's work can have on a photographer, but it shows in a nutshell, why I refuse, to enjoy the works of others extensively (I know, I would love to, but I indeed just try, to protect what I have).

[menos]

Most famous photographers can name their influences but their influences are not always photographic. Also, depending on what period in history you're talking about you have to consider that at a certain time exposure to other people's photographic work was very limited. I probably see more photographs before noon than an early 20th century photographer did in a month.

I remember once reading an interview with a photographer (Chris Buck if I remember correctly) where he said (I paraphrase) "There are two types of photographers. Those who look at other people's work and those that don't". He counted himself amongst the latter. I don't think there's any right or wrong here, it just comes down to preference. I couldn't live without looking at other photographers' work as I love photgraphy. Does it get in the way of my own work? Sometimes it can as it''s hard to find one's own voice amongst the visual vocabulary one has gained through all the exposure to imagery. But it's something I'm willing to deal with.

I don't think not looking at other photographers' work carries the risk of producing 'coincidentally derivative' work. It can only be derivative if it was derived from something and you cannot derive your work from something you do not know. Coincidentally similar work? Maybe. But if we're talking single images then every image is similar to some other in some regards. If we're talking a whole body of work then that would have to be a big coincidence.

Jamie, thanks for this post - although, for me it might seem normal, but I wasn't aware, that I am not a weird nut job, doing the way, I do :D

[Turtle]

Menos,

I completely understand what you are saying, but I am not sure that it works this way.... but maybe it does! This is just my perspective.

I suspect that your friend, if he has real ability, will overcome his connection to his mental database and that it will become an asset rather than a hindrance. However, if he has not natural talent and is relying merely upon imitation then he probably will not (but will likely produce far better images than someone with no natural talent and no image database in his head)!

Personally, I think if a person has an ability and really immerses himself in what he/she does then the intensity of what is being done will take that person beyond the books and reading into a very personal realm.... but that realm will have been influenced, for the better, by the knowledge he has acquired. That knowledge comes in the form of understanding, of techniques and ways of seeing, that can be applied in whatever way the photographer wishes, and on top of which the person can add their own completely novel methods.

Just as your friend is struggling to get past some of the technical issues of making images, surely any photographer needs to become very comfortable with a broad array of artistic and creative basics (attained by reading, looking, learning) if he is to have the widest options open to him. I suppose the other possibility is that to do something completely unexpected and new, knowing nothing about anything might be very useful, but you would not know if it was new and unexpected or be able to anchor it within the wider 'art/photography' world.


I know a good friend of mine, who is well educated in visual arts, knowing about almost all important, famous photographs, drawings and paintings and artists from the last 200 years....
He also barely presses the shutter, as his constant preselection of pictorial substance in the real world is constantly scanned and compared the vast library of great artist's works i the back of his head!

This indeed might be the absolute extreme of the negative influence, other's work can have on a photographer, but it shows in a nutshell, why I refuse, to enjoy the works of others extensively (I know, I would love to, but I indeed just try, to protect what I have).

[JayM]

I haven't had a paying job in over two years or my own residence for the last year (give or take.)

You know when I think about it though I'd definitely rather have a print by a virtually unknown photographer or someone who isn't rapidly upcoming. Photos that I love and can find in book form I am happy with in book form. If it does not, and likely will not, appear in a book it would be pretty special to have and enjoy (even if there were a few hundred of them floating around.)

Also, I'm ok with trying to straight rip off things I see. There's no way I'll be able to copy someone's style in 1 try let alone 1,000 tries. I have a short attention span too so I'll end up moving on to trying something else after a month or two but will keep all the knowledge I gained from trying to do things someone else's way :)

[shadowfox]

I do though, Joe, sometimes when I really like something. Lots of books, too.

Interesting in this thread that some posters with thousands of dollars in vintage camera equipment feel they cann't afford another persons print.

A question of emotional value I guess.

Roland.

Roland,

Then there's that difference between "afford" and "justify" if you know what I mean.

[Tom A]

In our living room there are about 20 prints hanging,matted and framed. Two are my own ( color no less -K25 on Cibachrome) - the rest I have either bought or been given. In the rest of our place there are more prints hanging, again, mostly other peoples.
The problem with prints is that they take up an inordinate amount of space - and I hate changing them - with time they become "friends". Have two more to frame and hang.

[Turtle]

As for not skimping on materials, I think Foma 100 is infinitely more beautiful than FP4+ and that Arista Premium 400 is every bit as good as TriX ;)

[emraphoto]

a yo yo! from the peanut gallery. Arista Premium gets a big thumbs up from me

[Godfrey]

i'm making the assumption that most of us do not buy prints of another shooters work...preferring to hang our own only.

I buy or trade prints with other photographers frequently and enjoy looking at my little collection of other folks work quite a lot.

I can't speak to the general case, I can only tell you about my habits. Very little of my own work is on the walls... Currently, there are six of my photos hung in my entire condominium, the rest of the art on the walls is from other people. It was a big event when I hung the sixth print (first thing on the wall in the living room) last week.

Why? Because I feel that when you hang work on the walls it disappears: you get used to it and don't see it anymore after a very very short time. I much prefer to look at prints in an album, a folio, or a book.

[back alley]

I buy or trade prints with other photographers frequently and enjoy looking at my little collection of other folks work quite a lot.

I can't speak to the general case, I can only tell you about my habits. Very little of my own work is on the walls... Currently, there are six of my photos hung in my entire condominium, the rest of the art on the walls is from other people. It was a big event when I hung the sixth print (first thing on the wall in the living room) last week.

Why? Because I feel that when you hang work on the walls it disappears: you get used to it and don't see it anymore after a very very short time. I much prefer to look at prints in an album, a folio, or a book.

interesting pov...i have some native art on my walls and this is very true...i never notice it anymore.

[gdmcclintock]

...

Why? Because I feel that when you hang work on the walls it disappears: you get used to it and don't see it anymore after a very very short time. I much prefer to look at prints in an album, a folio, or a book.

This is not my experience. I guess it depends on what you hang on your walls!

[DougFord]

Back in the late 90's I purchased a giclee print. An unsigned Jeanloup Sieff photograph, the one with Hitchcock standing behind the model, with the 'Psycho' house in the background.
I notice it often and smile.

[jsrockit]

This thread has got me into looking to buy photos... thanks.

[jan normandale]

Buy 2 photos from ten young serious artists, who's work you admire, and at least one of them will become famous, you will get all the work for free by selling one print. ;)

where were you with this advice when I started....
;D

[shadowfox]

Buy 2 photos from ten young serious artists, who's work you admire, and at least one of them will become famous, you will get all the work for free by selling one print. ;)

And which ten young serious artists would you recommend, Fred? :)