View Full Version : Are Wet Prints Printed Personally by the Photog Worth More? I think so.
CameraQuest
12-18-2008, 19:01
As more and more photogs surrender to the wonders of digital, I think they are creating a niche art market for archival signed silver prints. I personally believe there is a craftsmanship and artistic value in wet prints personally printed by the photographer that just does not exist in a digital print.
OK, so you can turn out a wonderful print on your printer and get X for it. Great. IF you made the same wet silver print YOURSELF (really, yourself, NOT a lab or some flunkie) I would place that signed, dated, and archival processed silver print's value at least TEN times or MORE the value of your digital print.
My Point? Photogs should MAKE MONEY OFF THE SNOBBERY OF "ART" COLLECTORS!
I personally have nothing but loathing and contempt for the ultra rich who compete with each other to outdo the other's "art collection." Yet I would have NO problem taking their money and profiting from their shallowness. To me, much of that which passes for art is just trash sold to the gullible rich. So be it. Painters take advantage of it. Photogs should too. Photogs, take the the rich art collector's money and laugh all the way to the bank!
How?
1) Shoot film so you can easily make wet prints personally, or scan it and print digitally.
2) Offer your work at two price levels: lower priced digital prints, or much more expensive silver archival prints personally printed by yourself.
3) IF YOU ARE GOOD: Your low priced digital prints will help sell your high priced silver prints while your high priced silver prints will help sell your low priced digital prints.
4) Be sure to have an attitude against digital. It will help sell your work as an artist. IF someone recognizes you with your digital Point and Shoot, tell them you are just testing a friend's camera, and you DON'T like it!
Stephen
charjohncarter
12-18-2008, 19:09
If you see a silver print and a digitally printed print next to each other (the same image), you know which one you will pick. But the watering down of quality today will not help the silver printer.
Goldorak
12-18-2008, 19:28
If you see a silver print and a digitally printed print next to each other (the same image), you know which one you will pick. But the watering down of quality today will not help the silver printer.
What do you mean by watering down?
I personally think 10X the price of a digital print is the minimum. Digital prints have ZERO value to me as far as ART is concerned and it will always be so. Always.
charjohncarter
12-18-2008, 19:37
Watering down: less quality, but more widely accepted. Just like when I came home after many years in South America; I wanted to taste a real American hambuger. Sorry, it wasn't like when I left. Or when you listen to a vinyl record by Fats Domino and then listen to a CD version of it, it just isn't the same.
Al Kaplan
12-18-2008, 19:42
I tell people that digital prints are really posters. Every digital print is exactly the same as every other. When I'm making say ten silver prints involving any burning and dodging (they ALL have at least some) I might have to print twelve or fifteen, or more at times, because they're not all the same. I discard the rejects, keep and sign the ones I like. No different than an artist inking and wiping an etched plate before printing an etching. Every print is unique unto itself, and a certain amount will be rejected.
You can pay through the nose and buy vinyl records and quality turntables again. A lot of my younger friends are jealous of my vinyl collection, from Dylan to the Doors, the Grateful Dead to Pink Floyd, and some rerecordings of some blues from as far back as the 1920's. Vinyl is Kodachrome for the ears.
As far as quality...One medium is not inherently better than the other. It's not the tools and materials so much as what one does with them, right? I believe those who claim digital prints are inferior have just not seen really good digital prints.
As far as value in the marketplace...I don't really know. Vintage prints, made by the artist have always been priced higher than later prints or those made by others. I don't know of any photographers offering 2 "Grades" of prints.
There is a pretty interesting podcast (warning: kind of long) of printing guru and former Yale art school dean, Richard Benson discussing his digital prints with Jay Maisel
and George Jardine. You can find it here...
http://photoshopnews.com/2006/12/05/lightroom-podcast-episode-23-posted/
Worth a listen.
Cheers,
Gary
Goldorak
12-18-2008, 20:37
Watering down: less quality, but more widely accepted. Just like when I came home after many years in South America; I wanted to taste a real American hambuger. Sorry, it wasn't like when I left. Or when you listen to a vinyl record by Fats Domino and then listen to a CD version of it, it just isn't the same.
Thanks!
I don't see how this watering down won't help the silver printer. If anything, it shall be the opposite. No? For making Fine Art, that is!
For books, in B & W, I think quality ink-jet prints are better than the lithographs used in commercial printing. Of course nothing compares to a good silver print(except a platinum print). As far as the prints being personally printed by the photog, I'd be happy with a Bellocq printed by Friedlander.
charjohncarter
12-18-2008, 21:20
Thanks!
I don't see how this watering down won't help the silver printer. If anything, it shall be the opposite. No? For making Fine Art, that is!
Very much so, there will always be someone that wants the best. And if they can't afford the best there will always be someone that wants to look at the best. And by that I mean they will go to museums, art galleries, and maybe even seek out prints at craft fairs. But for the widening proletariat masses they will be happy with whatever.
when I last hung my b&w prints in a gallery, the other photographer got into this same discussion with me... pointed at one of my prints and said, "see, you could never do that with digital." I waited a moment before telling him that he was pointing at an inkjet print. On my statement of archivability I listed them as "b&w photographs" which they are... honestly no one knew they came from an HP inkjet. I think the HP dye-based b&w system matches traditional silver prints until you view them under a loupe.
I worked in a traditional darkroom making my own prints for 20+ years so it isn't that I've never seen good traditional prints... and had I not developed a severe sensitivity to photochems I probably never would have gone to digital printing, but it is certainly better than most commercial lab work. Some of my fiber based prints have yellowed over the years so I don't even buy the archival argument when Wilhelm gives some of the inkjet prints 200+ years... time will of course tell how good a prediction that is... just like RC papers... no one really knows.
If I was buying a print, I agree that I would also put some kind of premium on a darkroom print made by the photographer using traditional means just out of nostalgia... but that premium would certainly not be more than +50%. 10X is insane and well done inkjet prints are not "posters."
If you aren't dodging and burning your traditional prints, every single print in a addition is also identical... so the idea that they are all lovingly "handcrafted" is meaningless. Etchings and stone lithography is far different than a b&w photograph because the hand of the artist really does "make" the image, with photographs is it light striking sensitized chemicals... the artist really just making choices in the processing... this fundamental difference is why photography always has to fight just to be considered a "fine art." I have been both a print making major and a photography major at different times in my life... there is a big difference between the two... I take photography for what it is.
Anyone who claims that digitally printed photos have "zero value" clearly are not looking at photos in the first place... if all the value is in the process and not the outcome... the image... photography is about images to me... what they say, what they make me think and how they make me feel... a boring traditional print is just an old photograph... and most photographs have zero value no matter how they were printed.
jwhitley
12-18-2008, 22:06
I'll chime in with: nonsense. Prints by a good photographer who is highly skilled in their media of choice are worth more. Fine art photographers often choose to do limited print runs whether they work with a traditional or digital darkroom; when push comes to shove, many buyers won't really care. If someone has a strong personal vision to express via the camera and print, and the experience to create a rich realization of that vision, that will stand out more than any particulars of process.
Goldorak
12-18-2008, 22:09
when I last hung my b&w prints in a gallery, the other photographer got into this same discussion with me... pointed at one of my prints and said, "see, you could never do that with digital." I waited a moment before telling him that he was pointing at an inkjet print. On my statement of archivability I listed them as "b&w photographs" which they are... honestly no one knew they came from an HP inkjet. I think the HP dye-based b&w system matches traditional silver prints until you view them under a loupe.
I worked in a traditional darkroom making my own prints for 20+ years so it isn't that I've never seen good traditional prints... and had I not developed a severe sensitivity to photochems I probably never would have gone to digital printing, but it is certainly better than most commercial lab work. Some of my fiber based prints have yellowed over the years so I don't even buy the archival argument when Wilhelm gives some of the inkjet prints 200+ years... time will of course tell how good a prediction that is... just like RC papers... no one really knows.
If I was buying a print, I agree that I would also put some kind of premium on a darkroom print made by the photographer using traditional means just out of nostalgia... but that premium would certainly not be more than +50%. 10X is insane and well done inkjet prints are not "posters."
If you aren't dodging and burning your traditional prints, every single print in a addition is also identical... so the idea that they are all lovingly "handcrafted" is meaningless. Etchings and stone lithography is far different than a b&w photograph because the hand of the artist really does "make" the image, with photographs is it light striking sensitized chemicals... the artist really just making choices in the processing... this fundamental difference is why photography always has to fight just to be considered a "fine art." I have been both a print making major and a photography major at different times in my life... there is a big difference between the two... I take photography for what it is.
Anyone who claims that digitally printed photos have "zero value" clearly are not looking at photos in the first place... if all the value is in the process and not the outcome... the image... photography is about images to me... what they say, what they make me think and how they make me feel... a boring traditional print is just an old photograph... and most photographs have zero value no matter how they were printed.
Wet printing is a craft, which takes talent and long tedious studies or practice behind it all. Therefore there is a high price attached to this.
Clicking a "print" button and choosing paper settings while in pyjamas and scratching balls while yawning and burping the beer hardly commands a premium, no matter how goos the image may be. The price of such a print has to be limited by the cost or the paper + inks. There is no deep knowledge and sweat behind a digital print. A few hours on any internet forum and Voila anyone can become an"expert" digital printer by knowing how to assing a profile to a specific paper. When I think of it I can't help but think of it as a pathetic practice. As pathetically easy as driving a bike. Anyone can do it.
I value real Gold and I despise plated Gold, no matter if you wouldn't be able to tell the real from the fake. The real is still worth 10X more. I personally will never accept to wear a fake gold chain, not even if experts couldn't tell it apart. would you?
Chriscrawfordphoto
12-18-2008, 22:12
when I last hung my b&w prints in a gallery, the other photographer got into this same discussion with me... pointed at one of my prints and said, "see, you could never do that with digital." I waited a moment before telling him that he was pointing at an inkjet print. On my statement of archivability I listed them as "b&w photographs" which they are... honestly no one knew they came from an HP inkjet. I think the HP dye-based b&w system matches traditional silver prints until you view them under a loupe.
I worked in a traditional darkroom making my own prints for 20+ years so it isn't that I've never seen good traditional prints... and had I not developed a severe sensitivity to photochems I probably never would have gone to digital printing, but it is certainly better than most commercial lab work. Some of my fiber based prints have yellowed over the years so I don't even buy the archival argument when Wilhelm gives some of the inkjet prints 200+ years... time will of course tell how good a prediction that is... just like RC papers... no one really knows.
If I was buying a print, I agree that I would also put some kind of premium on a darkroom print made by the photographer using traditional means just out of nostalgia... but that premium would certainly not be more than +50%. 10X is insane and well done inkjet prints are not "posters."
If you aren't dodging and burning your traditional prints, every single print in a addition is also identical... so the idea that they are all lovingly "handcrafted" is meaningless. Etchings and stone lithography is far different than a b&w photograph because the hand of the artist really does "make" the image, with photographs is it light striking sensitized chemicals... the artist really just making choices in the processing... this fundamental difference is why photography always has to fight just to be considered a "fine art." I have been both a print making major and a photography major at different times in my life... there is a big difference between the two... I take photography for what it is.
Anyone who claims that digitally printed photos have "zero value" clearly are not looking at photos in the first place... if all the value is in the process and not the outcome... the image... photography is about images to me... what they say, what they make me think and how they make me feel... a boring traditional print is just an old photograph... and most photographs have zero value no matter how they were printed.
I stopped printing in the darkroom for the same reason as you did: chemical allergies. My newer work isn't crap just because I got sick from chemicals. I hear blowhards in galleries (I have a print in a gallery exhibit right now) say digital prints are crap too while telling me what a great printer i am. Then I tell them that it is an Epson print from a scanned negative. They usually stammer out a response about how they had never seen a digital print that good before.
I think part of the anti-digital attitudes are simple snobbery, but part of it does have some basis in truth: I see a LOT of large prints made from digital cameras that simply do not have the resolution to support the big prints people are trying to make from them. The exhibit I am in now is filled with such prints and you can spot them a mile away because they lack fine details in things like grass, trees, and weathered wood that should show them. A 11x14 from a 6mp camera looks crappy to me. From a 14mp camera it looks magnificent. I know, I own a 6mp D70 and used to have a 14mp Kodak 14n. I now shoot all film, mostly medium format, for my fine art work. My scanned negs print nicely at large sizes without the lack of fine resolution that i see in too many digital prints from digital cameras. Digital cameras, as my 14n showed, are not inferior to film IF you have enough pixels for the print size, but few of the people making 16x20s from their 8mp cameras can afford a 22mp camera. I can't either, which is why I am back to 120 rollfilm. I had the camera and the film is cheap.
Lilserenity
12-18-2008, 22:41
It's a changing world, with changing times. It's only going to become more so that digital prints continue to improve and are able to produce digital prints.
Now I say this as someone who loves working in the darkroom and loves silver prints and yes each print is ever so slightly unique -- BUT -- the artist has the right to use whichever medium they prefer or can work with.
I paint watercolours, not oils, I'm useless with oils and have the talent of a drunk seal flapping around with a paintbrush when it comes to oils -- but that doesn't make me any less of a painter (and for the record, I'm not that good!)
The way I see it is there is the artist and the consumer. The artist will use whatever tools they have chosen and/or have at their disposal to communicate their ultimate vision in that piece. Some will scan + tweak in Photoshop + print digitally, some will use a fully analogue/silver based path. That is fine and so long as the artist is happy with the result and the tools, then they will see their idea and concept has come through properly.
So, the consumer then sees something they like. If what it is is of value and worth paying for them, or indeed even just to look at it and consider it for any period of time beyond a short glance -- then the process works as far as that's concerned because the buyer/consumer feels that whatever was used to make that print and how it looks is worth paying the price. The bottom line is they either will or they won't.
I personally love my silver prints, and I can't be doing with Photoshopping my photos seriously as I use the application every day virtually and have done for 14 years and I'm quite sick of it :) But, I personally like my results in the wet print, but that shouldn't devalue or take away from other methods that are used.
That said, I love working in the darkroom and whilst I'll never say never, I can't see myself ever wanting to print digitally. But that's a personal choice, and I can't see anything better than someone who loved to work in the darkroom but due to an allergy or other ailments that stop people working effectively in the dark, digital in general offers a great way for people to stay in a field or art form that they love.
Carlsen Highway
12-18-2008, 22:57
ITs a little like the difference between a painting, and a print of a painting. both have the same image, but one has the hand of the artist in it.
This is why wet photographic prints mean more, it has the hand of the artist revealed in it. It is both an aesthetic thing and a plastic thing at the same time. This is my opinion, and why for my exhibition prints I am still doing wet darkroom work.
(unlike others I have seen around who are getting digital photo's printed onto stretched canvas, I suspect in an effort to defeat this very concept by the weave of the canvas evoking the association)
amateriat
12-18-2008, 23:13
Wet printing is a craft, which takes talent and long tedious studies or practice behind it all. Therefore there is a high price attached to this.
Clicking a "print" button and choosing paper settings while in pyjamas and scratching balls while yawning and burping the beer hardly commands a premium, no matter how goos the image may be. The price of such a print has to be limited by the cost or the paper + inks. There is no deep knowledge and sweat behind a digital print. A few hours on any internet forum and Voila anyone can become an"expert" digital printer by knowing how to assing a profile to a specific paper. When I think of it I can't help but think of it as a pathetic practice. As pathetically easy as driving a bike. Anyone can do it.
Stop the presses!
My dress code and personal habits while slaving over a hot Mac at home are, of course, my business. But reducing digital printing to a mouse-click and a yawn is a Schedule-1 myth. I'm not interested in going mano y mano with my inkjets against someone's silver prints because each has a unique quality about them that doesn't negate or deny the other's validity..
One thing to remember is that consistently good wet prints come from solid wet darkrooms. Yes, we can talk about how so-and-so made crackerjack prints from a rickety enlarger propped uo on the commode of his bathroom and such, but that's generally NOT the way the prints you and I ogle in a gallery or museum were printed. In fact, you're lucky if the prints you're looking at on the wall were even printed by the photographer her/himself. For every Weston (Ed or Brett), there are at least five HCBs who rarely saw the inside of a darkroom, save to discuss details with their personal printer.
I can second mh2000's musings about b/w digital printing's virtues (for the record, we use the same printer). When I finally hit the "good" formula for really good b/w inkjet prints (and great color as well, from the same printer, which is still relatively rare at prices under $1k), it was full speed ahead. Yes, I see way too many lousy inkjet prints, but I see my share of ho-hum silver prints as well. Method means little if you can't make a damn good print, and it's not necessarily "easier" via inkjet than in the wet darkroom (just less messy ;)). I try not to be dogmatic about method: I primarily shoot film because I like working with film, like the results I get from film, and prefer the workflow with film-based cameras. Digital cameras are generally way too fussy and convoluted for my sensibilities, but that doesn't mean I can't get decent results from one, but I won't go that way unless absolute speed trumps all other considerations. Once the film is developed and cut, I scan, work on the file, make test prints, sit on the tests for a few days, then either go for a final or work the file again and mull over things a few days more. It ain't just click 'n grin, whether it's for a small portfolio or a gallery exhibit.
I value real Gold and I despise plated Gold, no matter if you wouldn't be able to tell the real from the fake. The real is still worth 10X more. I personally will never accept to wear a fake gold chain, not even if experts couldn't tell it apart. would you?I prefer my watches–the only thing on my person approaching jewelry–with hand-wound movements, and wouldn't be caught dead wearing one with much gold (silver and stainless-steel only for my wrist), for what that's worth. That didn't stop me from getting a nice Citizen Eco-Drive a year ago. But these things are mere reflections of my personality, not the embodiment.
Are not ink and carbon, in their own realm, as artistically noble as silver?
- Barrett
This whole subject seems to evoke as much emotion as the whole digital verses film argument we constantly seem to be having around here. If I really like something on an artistic level I don't give a damn what the source may have been ... I'm purely interested in how it affects me visually and emotionally.
One of the gallery openings I was fortunate enough to photograph a while ago was predominantly video art ... either on large monitors or projected on to screens. I was initially sceptical about it's real aristic value but came away at the end of it highly impressed with some of the extremely original stuff I saw.
My answer to the OP's question is no ... IMHO!
Fred Burton
12-18-2008, 23:46
Suggesting wet prints are somehow more valuable than inkjet prints is myopic. Like the poor one dimensional inhabitants of Flatland, it's easy to get trapped in the box.
Digital cameras and Photoshop (Lightroom, Aperture, et. al.) have freed the photographic artist from the constraints of wet printing. I've spent 40 years wet printing in a darkroom, but haven't stepped into one in 10 years. I actually spend more time working on a print on the computer than I did in the darkroom, because I have so much more control with the computer than I ever had with an enlarger. I usually spend days (or weeks) on a single print for exhibition.
It really doesn't matter what media you work with. Producing art is still hard work. And anyone who gets up and does it every day has my accolades, regardless in what medium he/she works!
Digital cameras and Photoshop (Lightroom, Aperture, et. al.) have freed the photographic artist from the constraints of wet printing. I've spent 40 years wet printing in a darkroom, but haven't stepped into one in 10 years. I actually spend more time working on a print on the computer than I did in the darkroom, because I have so much more control with the computer than I ever had with an enlarger. I usually spend days (or weeks) on a single print for exhibition.
This is your preference of work, but not general statement.
If we talk about multiple copies of the same photography, every master wetprint copy is more like original, while digital print copies are more like clones. For me it does not makes sense to number digital prints for this reason. But at the same time I don't discredit the huge value of work to make good digital prints.
But back to topic, I think there were (are) very few generally acclaimed photographers who made prints themselves.
Are those Shermans pigment or chromogenic prints?
This stuff about the hand of the artist and each print being unique is kind of silly, isn't it? Is anyone looking at those 8 versions of Sherman's picture and saying, "I like this one best. I'll take this one". And, I doubt she even made the prints.
Photography has been around for a century and a half, and we are still having the "Hand of the Artist" debate? Ok then.
Cheers,
Gary
Photography has been around for a century and a half, and we are still having the "Hand of the Artist" debate? Ok then.
Yes. It's a reasonable debate because it transcends both time and media.
This discussion, however, is tainted by harsh attitude toward those who are our (1) skillfull/lucky enough to have money in the bank, and (2) (if one really wants to sell art prints) are our potential CUSTOMERS. A smart merchant never lets his customers know if he has distain for them! I sincerely hope that was all tongue-in-cheek.
Other than that, the conclusion and suggestions are rather reasonable.
Goldorak
12-19-2008, 08:20
It has been a long time since I was in a gallery, and frankly if anyone was willing to start selling my work, the last discussion I would be having would be "now how can we fool those silly collectors, and get them to compete over me?"
For me this would be the first conversation. Just goes to show that there is no standard and it all depends on the individual.
I see you heavily rely and always mention the NY galleries situated in your microcosm and you always refer to them as the final truth. There's a whole world out there and no gallery goes by a strict standard. The reality you refer to is definitely not the reality I know.
sojournerphoto
12-19-2008, 08:28
Stephen's point seems to be more that 'ricjh art collectors' are willing to pay more for a silver print than an inkjet print, and for reasons that have nothing or little to do with the reality of the images portrayed. That has little to do with the intrinsic value of either medium really.
In fact there are a (not insignificant ) number of photographers ()photographic artists?) who sell inkjet prints at high prices - Pete Myers current catcalogue lists framed 12 by 8 inkjets at $1900 and Michael Reichmann at LL sells inkjets at several hunder dollars each. Now there are people selling silver prints for much more, but really at this stage your into the art worlds own valuation process which has far more to do with how you're viewed than your media.
So, I think Stephen was talking about a marketing approach rather than the intrinsic value of the print - which is presumably comprised a realtively small material value and a relatively high artistic value for the image.
CameraQuest
12-19-2008, 08:53
hmm.
perhaps I was not clear.
I don't care if photographers sell their images with digital prints, wet prints, or etch-a-sketch. I would just like to see them make a good living off their work. I am not against digital prints.
I just strongly believe wet prints personally printed by the photographer have the potential for being sold for MUCH MORE than the same image printed digitally.
I don't see photographers taking that marketing approach, and I believe it is costing them financially.
Example. Price a signed digital Annie Liebowitz print. Now imagine the price of that same image if personally printed by her in the darkroom. Of course she probably does little if any wet printing herself. But a huge increase in wet print prices might make it worth even Annie Liebowitz's time.
Photographers often forget to market the craftsmanship and artistic value of their images. I think they can do that much more effectively with personally printed wet prints than digitally printed images. Their is nothing wrong with selling digital images. But what is wrong with selling personally produced wet images for a lot more than digital prints?
Stephen
shadowfox
12-19-2008, 09:06
I think Polaroid "arts" will worth more in ten-years since you won't be able to make them anymore.
CameraQuest
12-19-2008, 09:07
There is a new movie about Annie going into the darkroom.
Not many photographers have the time, it is a huge commitment to make prints yourself. The only time I could have done it was when I was not working. :D
Its marketing. If your customers were willing to pay you $10,000 per personally produced photomoof wet print vs $1000 for a digital print, how long would it take you to set up your darkoom?
Stephen
Pherdinand
12-19-2008, 09:10
As it was discussed here a few times already, a good printer does not need to be good photographer and vice versa. A good printer sometimes is really necessary. And i mean the person, not the machine :)
I would go for the answer: no, a properly printed image by a good printer and signed by the photographer should sell for more than a sloppy print of a great photographer made by himself.
dazedgonebye
12-19-2008, 09:16
Certainly the more “hand crafted” a thing is perceived to be, the more it may be valued by a consumer.
I know I sell my cyanotypes for 5 to 10 times what my digital prints will fetch.
As far as carbon vs. silver is concerned…I seriously doubt that even photographers could spot the difference between two prints mounted and behind glass more than 1 out of 10 times. The average potential buyer probably would do far worse on the same test.
Most of the micro differences worried over by photographers/artists are all but invisible to anyone but themselves.
Can't remember his name, but an American photographer who died a few years back, ordered that all his negs were to be burned after his death, to prevent "non conformist" prints to be made posthumously.
I think you might be thinking of Brett Weston. But that is just one option... didn't AA give his negs to the Center For Creative Photography with the stipulation that they be used "creatively"?
CameraQuest
12-19-2008, 09:29
As it was discussed here a few times already, a good printer does not need to be good photographer and vice versa. A good printer sometimes is really necessary. And i mean the person, not the machine :)
I would go for the answer: no, a properly printed image by a good printer and signed by the photographer should sell for more than a sloppy print of a great photographer made by himself.
I think that choice depends both on the buyer and photographers. I know I would choose Gene Smith's personally printed worst print of a famous shot over his printer's best print of the same image.
Stephen
Al Kaplan
12-19-2008, 09:31
It comes down to what Annie wants to do: shoot, wet print, or go the computer route. She's made a name for herself and I'm sure that she's making a decent living. I'm sure that she could sell a lot more ink jets of an image at $100 each than silver prints at $1,000 each, and with the ink jets it wouldn't matter so much as to who was pushing the "Print" button. From a fical standpoint, she might be able to sell a hundred silver prints of an image. Could she sell a thousnd inkjets even at the much lower price? Unknown variables are how many people would scrimp and save to own a silver print printed by Annie herself versus the number of well off people who are more interested in the image rather than the value of the print.
Then consider people such as HCB who didn't do his own printing, but had a printer who could print the way Henri wanted his prints to look, or W. Eugene Smith who'd go into the darkroom and slave for hours to produce one print that he really liked, that met his standards and matched his vision. Gene did a lot of work on his prints in the darkroom, rubbing areas with his hand to speed up the developing action and locally intensify the blacks while using potassium ferracyanide to lighten areas and bleach the highlights. How will that affect the print's long term archival qualities?
And maybe one hundred years down the road nobody will give a damn!
I agree that a print made by a professional printer, who understands the photographer's vision, should be worth as much as one made by the photographer personally. As far as I'm concerned, the printers I work with are much better at it than me. My job is the taking of the picture, theirs is to make the most of the neg.
Cheers, Paul.
Al Kaplan
12-19-2008, 10:24
Fred, when I mentioned prices I was merely using them as examples. I wasn't implying that they were actually selling for that price.
Another thing to think about is what a photographer's death does to print prices. It would seem to have a greater effect on somebody who printed his own (Smith) than on photographers who had someone else making them (HCB).
blackwave
12-19-2008, 10:39
So in the hierarchy of print prices, where would wet prints by someone other than the photog lie? Cheapest to most expensive: digi, wet - not by photog, wet - printed by photog? Or does the fact that it's not printed by the photographer put a wet print in the same class as a digital print?
My Point? Photogs should MAKE MONEY OFF THE SNOBBERY OF "ART" COLLECTORS!
I personally have nothing but loathing and contempt for the ultra rich who compete with each other to outdo the other's "art collection."
Stephen
why the hostility towards art collectors? if it weren't for art collectors, very few artists would make a living and the world would be without untold numbers of art from years past.
and i think you're discounting the intellect of art collectors, they're not a stupid group of people. i've been in the art(gallery) world for 20 years and have only come across a handful of truly snobby, 'new-money-trying-to-show-up-my-neighbors' types. the majority of them know what they like and know what it's worth.
your post brings to mind the typical schlub at the MoMA looking at a jackson pollack and telling his wife that he's capable of painting the same thing. and if he only made up a fake persona and resume, they'd be on easy street...it doesn't work that way, people who buy real art know real art.
my .02
bob
Bill Pierce
12-19-2008, 10:56
Gallery owners are in the business of selling rarity. Thus the "vintage" print that is not as good as the photographer's later prints selling for more. Thus the screams of the past when silver replaced platinum and the current screams as inkjet slowly replaces silver with contemporary photographers.
For those who have forgotten the mass produced runs of silver prints from copy negs, I have seen glossy copy prints of Bresson's work used to promote a museum show sold as artist's proofs because the rubber stamp on the back said "AP photo." Most photographers make a few silver prints from a negative and a few inkjet prints from a scan or a digital record. Each print is a slight improvement on the previous one. Then they get bored and stop. The question becomes is it the artist's print or one of those giant lab prints with minimum input from the artist, prints that seem to be so popular because a picture that is not very impressive in a conventional size seems to fool people when it becomes a semi mural. (Those who saw the show of Edward Weston contact prints vs. the Luc Delahy giant prints at the Getty will know exactly what I am talking about.)
I have shown black-and-white prints to skilled photographers, gallery owners and museum curators. When the prints were back in the box, I have asked if the viewers were aware that they saw a mix of silver and inkjet. No one has yet to say yes. In my NY apt. I have a number of silver prints and one inkjet on the wall. No one has yet been able to pick out the inkjet.
Read the Richard Benson piece http://photoshopnews.com/2006/12/05/...ode-23-posted/ (http://photoshopnews.com/2006/12/05/lightroom-podcast-episode-23-posted/). To see his prints in a recent NY gallery show was to see what an exceptional printer can do with inkjet. This man is the king of printers. When he turns to inkjet, it's all over.
Most prints, silver or inkjet, are average. If you want to condemn a medium because of that, we're in real trouble becaue then both silver and inkjet suck. Digital images, original or scanned, and computer programs offer a bigger toolbox than conventional silver printing. And really good printers will want to take advantage of that.
Of course, this argument, silver vs. digital, diverts us from discussing whether the picture rather than the print is any good.
people who buy real art know real art.
I don't know if you've seen 'Who the #$&% is Jackson Pollock', but it's interesting to me to see how 'people who buy real art' can't agree much on 'real art'.
Bill Pierce
12-19-2008, 11:05
My understanding is that Smith printed all of his work, none were ever printed by Life, since he would not release his negatives?
Gene certainly wanted to print the Life stories, but there were times when the lab made prints. (Gene's prints were better, but the lab's were quicker.)
CameraQuest
12-19-2008, 11:13
Of course, this argument, silver vs. digital, diverts us from discussing whether the picture rather than the print is any good.
Bill,
this isn't a thread about silver vs digital.
this is a thread about whether or not photographers can successfully charge substantially more in the marketplace for wet prints they personally printed than for the same size digital print of the same image.
Stephen
I don't know if you've seen 'Who the #$&% is Jackson Pollock', but it's interesting to me to see how 'people who buy real art' can't agree much on 'real art'.
that's the beauty of it, if it's art TO YOU, it's art. if you don't see the value in a Pollack, why put it down? why call someone who does see value in it snobby?
there are plenty of people who can't tell the difference between a picture shot with a one-time use camera and a $5k noctilux. are they any less intelligent?
bob
this is a thread about whether or not photographers can charge substantially more in the marketplace for wet prints they personally printed.
Ah... I'm finally getting clarity on the intent of the thread :rolleyes:
I've ALWAYS got more money in the marketplace for wet prints that were printed by my "master printer" than those printed by myself.
twopointeight
12-19-2008, 11:20
I can't read through all these posts at the moment, but want to add something and apologize if its redundant. I was visiting photo galleries in Chelsea, NYC about 3 months ago. Made it my business to have conversations with as many gallery staff as possible about what's selling and what's not. There was agreement from gallery to gallery that the black and white collectors buy only fiber prints in traditional sizes, 11X14, 16X20 and 20X24. Collectors of color, don't care so much about the process, but do like large and very large sizes. Seems like two distinct groups of collectors. And why the disparaging comments about collectors in this thread? The ones I know share a love of photography, mainly the B&W fiber type, and are not always filthy rich. And what if they are? Most collectors I know just have good steady jobs and buy a few prints and other artwork every year. Maybe they spend $15,000 to $20,000 per year. And they often know more about the medium than many of the photographers.
CameraQuest
12-19-2008, 11:29
Ah... I'm finally getting clarity on the intent of the thread :rolleyes:
I've ALWAYS got more money in the marketplace for wet prints that were printed by my "master printer" than those printed by myself.
Excellent, some marketplace feedback.
But HOW were were marketing the prints?
For your prints, where they identified as personally printed by you? Were you Master Printer prints identified as such?
Try identifying your own printed prints with a hand inscribed note on the back in pencil, charge at least 25% more for them, and see what happens.
Stephen
No one becomes an "expert" in digital printing in one hour... it has honestly taken me much longer to get great results from a scan than it did to get consistently great darkroom prints... I personally think that for most images that darkroom printing is much easier... do a test strip, expose and slosh your exposed paper around in a standard chemical and voila! an instant print... anyone can do it.
>>A few hours on any internet forum and Voila anyone can become an"expert" digital printer by knowing how to assing a profile to a specific paper. When I think of it I can't help but think of it as a pathetic practice. As pathetically easy as driving a bike. Anyone can do it.
that's the beauty of it, if it's art TO YOU, it's art. if you don't see the value in a Pollack, why put it down? why call someone who does see value in it snobby?
there are plenty of people who can't tell the difference between a picture shot with a one-time use camera and a $5k noctilux. are they any less intelligent?
I completely agree :)
But HOW were were marketing the prints?
For your prints, where they identified as personally printed by you? Were you Master Printer prints identified as such?
My non-commercial work was high-end portraiture. Marketing was only by direct commission, in total honesty. No client ever seemed to care who, exactly, was making the prints but they sure cared who was "clicking the shutter." The master printer worked to my precise direction and nothing that wasn't up to my standards was delivered. My clients were buying my artistic output, not a guarantee that I personally labored over every phase of the production process. My master printer was highly valued by me, but not personally identified... any more than I would identify the secretary who typed this message for me. I made enough that another 25% wouldn't matter to me.
dazedgonebye
12-19-2008, 11:51
Clicking a "print" button and choosing paper settings while in pyjamas and scratching balls while yawning and burping the beer hardly commands a premium, no matter how goos the image may be. The price of such a print has to be limited by the cost or the paper + inks. There is no deep knowledge and sweat behind a digital print. A few hours on any internet forum and Voila anyone can become an"expert" digital printer by knowing how to assing a profile to a specific paper. When I think of it I can't help but think of it as a pathetic practice. As pathetically easy as driving a bike. Anyone can do it.
Once again, I find I'm not nearly as smart as I thought I was. It took me months and months to work out how to make digital prints that satisfied me and even with the process down pat, it still can take many proofs before I'm happy with a new image.
I didn't feel a single "voila" along the way either.
I feel so...pathetic.
Goldorak
12-19-2008, 11:54
[quote=mh2000;955729]No one becomes an "expert" in digital printing in one hour... it has honestly taken me much longer to get great results from a scan than it did to get consistently great darkroom prints... I personally think that for most images that darkroom printing is much easier... do a test strip, expose and slosh your exposed paper around in a standard chemical and voila! an instant print... anyone can do it.
LOL
No way! I have never mistaken a print of a painting, but easily mistake good inkjet prints for traditional wet prints. If you can't see the difference... is there one?
I've already agreed that on an emotional level that good prints made by the photographer should command a higher price... just that the difference shouldn't be that much (more like +50% would be reasonable).
When I start showing again I am pretty sure that I will be using mpix so I can say they are "real b&w photos" and that I sent them out (like most photograhers I know do for exhibitions).
ITs a little like the difference between a painting, and a print of a painting. both have the same image, but one has the hand of the artist in it.
This is why wet photographic prints mean more, it has the hand of the artist revealed in it. It is both an aesthetic thing and a plastic thing at the same time. This is my opinion, and why for my exhibition prints I am still doing wet darkroom work.
(unlike others I have seen around who are getting digital photo's printed onto stretched canvas, I suspect in an effort to defeat this very concept by the weave of the canvas evoking the association)
I've already agreed that on an emotional level that good prints made by the photographer should command a higher price... just that the difference shouldn't be that much (more like +50% would be reasonable).
Is architecture more valuable if the building is personally built by the architect?
How about a car... is the design any more valuable if it comes from a single designer than if it comes from a design team?
Goldorak
12-19-2008, 12:02
Once again, I find I'm not nearly as smart as I thought I was. It took me months and months to work out how to make digital prints that satisfied me and even with the process down pat, it still can take many proofs before I'm happy with a new image.
I didn't feel a single "voila" along the way either.
I feel so...pathetic.
:confused:
People are so defensive. Since when has digital printing become a science? Profile the thing, choose the paper and click print. If it took you longer then a day, well you can only blame yourself. Besides, it has nothing to do with skill, with talent. It's all technical. I could get a monkey to do it, really, since there is no deep thinking into a digital print.
I have nothing against digital printing which I am condemned to do for a majority of my work, modern times oblige, but for fine art there is an added value to a good wet print. And since almost no one here wet prints, well... it's starting to become an expert thing, a thing of rarity. There is a price attached to this, like it or not.
dazedgonebye
12-19-2008, 12:07
:confused:
People are so defensive. Since when has digital printing become a science? Profile the thing, choose the paper and click print. If it took you longer then a day, well you can only blame yourself. Besides, it has nothing to do with skill, with talent. It's all technical. I could get a monkey to do it, really, since there is no deep thinking into a digital print.
I have nothing against digital printing which I am condemned to do for a majority of my work, modern times oblige, but for fine art there is an added value to a good wet print. And since almost no one here wet prints, well... it's starting to become an expert thing, a thing of rarity. There is a price attached to this, like it or not.
You now state that a monkey could do what many of us have found very difficult indeed and you think "people are sensitive?"
I don't in any way dispute the beauty and value of wet prints btw.
Also, please send that monkey my way. I need a good print primate.
CameraQuest
12-19-2008, 12:10
My non-commercial work was high-end portraiture. Marketing was only by direct commission, in total honesty. No client ever seemed to care who, exactly, was making the prints but they sure cared who was "clicking the shutter." The master printer worked to my precise direction and nothing that wasn't up to my standards was delivered. My clients were buying my artistic output, not a guarantee that I personally labored over every phase of the production process. My master printer was highly valued by me, but not personally identified... any more than I would identify the secretary who typed this message for me. I made enough that another 25% wouldn't matter to me.
What photographers charge, and charge for, is usually a matter of how they market themselves.
The next time you give a quote, why not try giving two quotes?
One with custom prints from your master printer.
One with prints personally done by yourself with a hand written message on the back about all the technical details of how it was printed, at a premium of 50% more than your master printer.
See what sells.
Stephen
Goldorak
12-19-2008, 12:14
Is architecture more valuable if the building is personally built by the architect?
How about a car... is the design any more valuable if it comes from a single designer than if it comes from a design team?
Wrong logic. Here's why:
A building will be more valuable if it's made with Quality materials. Also, if skilled workers are needed for the Manual job, such as let's say the ornaments on a ceiling, then you will see the value go Wayyyy up. 200$ an hour is not unusual for those folks.
At last, if the architect is renowned, the building will gain tremendous value.
Let me guess, Gumby, you are among those who think a Noctilux should cost 900$, correct?
What photographers charge, and charge for, is usually a matter of how they market themselves.
The next time you give a quote, why not try giving two quotes?
One with custom prints from your master printer.
One with prints personally done by yourself with a hand written message on the back about all the technical details of how it was printed, at a premium of 50% more than your master printer.
See what sells.
Stephen
Sorry, amigo... I KNOW what sells. If you do better by printing your own work, I am happy for you.
Let me guess, Gumby, you are among those who think a Noctilux should cost 900$, correct?
No, I couldn't care less about the price of a Noctilux. What does that have to do with the conversation?
Bill Pierce
12-19-2008, 12:37
Bill,
this isn't a thread about silver vs digital.
this is a thread about whether or not photographers can successfully charge substantially more in the marketplace for wet prints they personally printed than for the same size digital print of the same image.
Stephen
Stephen -
I think most galleries and reps feel that at the present time they can charge more for silver than inkjet.
At the present time I think most high end galleries dealing with black-and-white prefer silver and want to avoid inkjet altogether. Of course, they would also prefer that the photographers they represent be dead. (This naturally favors albumen, platinum and silver prints over inkjet.) We are talking about rarity. (I know of one artist's rep that actually asked an older photographer to stop shooting so much and please stop printing his well known stuff.)
Can you get more for a silver print in that world at this time? Absolutely, without question. Is it a better print than an inkjet? Really good printers in both mediums seem to prefer the potential of inkjet.
Contemporary photography is slippery slope for galleries. There's so much of it. And it's a little difficult to determine whether it will increase in value or lose value to the point of worthlessness over time. But, eventually, some of today's contemporary becomes tomorrow's valuable collectable. And more than likely, it will be in the form of inkjet prints.
Of course, it will have to be a strong image to make it. And an early albumen print that is absolute crap will probably go for a higher price. We're talking rarity.
Bill
This is a stunning thread for me, full of info and passion at the crossroads where art and big money meet. To my great dis-taste I have to admit this is the existing world, that one Nikonhswebmaster promoted so hard, and no wonder seldom I have read on RFF a more informative thread.
I happened to know an art photographer whose work centered on the macro (lens) world. Her wonderfull images were printed by a pro hand color printer. Being a high class darkroom color printer is a skill few of us could possible match, even if given all the necessary free time and free sustain. To my knowledge, although she was eager to make the most possible money out of ther work, she -the photog- never thought that forwarding the fact her pictures were hand printed was a good marketing techique. Perhaps she felt threatened the printer was competing with the photographer, in gaining the symphaty of the viewer.
In my naive world, one thing is value, and another thing is marketing. The medium you use is of no value per-se unless you are able to exploit it in order to add an additional depht to your work. The same goes for who is doing this extra deptht.
As for marketing - use the best you know. Or give your work to an art representative who will leave you a circumsicion cut.
Hmmm, so much to learn production techniques, so much to run to sell the production. So fierce the competition. Perhaps we should learn the technique of bank stealing.
Cheers,
Ruben
dazedgonebye
12-19-2008, 12:46
Yes, I have been in a darkroom. I'm no master printer, but I have struggled enough to value the process and those who master it. I also know that I probably never would master it. So, I admit that, at least for me, the digital process is easier. Something I am able to master...more or less. Still, I think even a lesser light, forced to digital, has something to offer the process beyond what a monkey could provide.
Again, I don't dispute the beauty and value of the wet process. Certainly though, it is a technical process as well.
I'm thinking of trying to describe the creative end of wet printing. I know it's there, but I'm at a loss as to how to describe it beyond the sort of intuitive feel for applying the technical steps that make up the physical process.
Maybe a wet print person here could describe the creative aspects?
Or give your work to an art representative who will leave you a circumsicion cut.
Only Ruben could say such a thing! :D
I suspect many photographers are mentally stuck in the small world that is photography, and haven't seen the bigger art world. Take the field of print-making -- lithographs, for instance -- where each print pulled is a true collaboration between artist and printer. Does the print have intrinsic value only because a certain printer pulled it, or only because the "artist" oversaw the printer's work? Certainly a master printer's skill adds to the value of the artist's vision implanted within the physicality of the crafted final print; and conversely a not-so-skilled printed the opposite; which is why certain master printers are highly sought after, and likewise certain lithography studios. But when the "artist" signs the print, he/she is confirming for the customer that the final product -- the work of both artist and printer -- conforms to the artist's initial vision as does the quality of execution.
A similar relationship exists between photographer and master printer; the difference being that many photographers think of themselves as master printers, because of the ready accessibility to printing technology (both darkroom and lightroom); but that doesn't necessarily mean they ARE master printers. One doesn't have to be both photographer and printer, yet, for economic reasons, many attempt to do so.
~Joe
I was at a gallery show in San Francisco recently showing large B&W prints by Joel Leivick. They were pigment prints. They were beauitiful. They were priced at $2,000.
If you saw these, you would not ask, "Can I get it in silver?".
Cheers,
Gary
Chriscrawfordphoto
12-19-2008, 13:09
Printers are actually more important in that world. Collectors follow printers and buy prints from that master. Artist want to work with certain well known printers. Artists will often spend weeks with the printer. You are in the hotbed of printing in the US.
Fred,
I've never heard of artists working with printers to do lithography. The process of printing is so deeply entwined with the process of making the drawing that every printmaker I have known did the drawings, produced the plate or stone, and made the prints themselves (for those who have never done it, Lithography is done by drawing on a slab of limestone with a waxy crayon, then treating the stone with acids and gum arabic to etch the image on to the stone).
I think a print purchased by an art appreciater with information added in the form of how the process was done and signed and written in the photographers own hand is similar to including the exif data of a digital equivalent.
It's almost like carrying a gearhead mind set right through to the final result ... why not include camera and film information as well?
Chriscrawfordphoto
12-19-2008, 16:47
You would be surprised to know that very few of us have a large supply of stones in our studios. :D
Here is an example of a small studio I know of...
http://www.muskatstudios.com/
I know a lot of lithographers don't own any stones due to the high cost of them. I took a class at Indiana University's Fort Wayne campus last semester, and we did litho. It was my first time doing that, my previous printmaking experience has only been with Etching and Aquatint. The professor said that stones cost hundreds and in some cases thousands of dollars each.
So, I knew many artists didn't own stones and they worked in studios like the one you linked to, but I assumed they did the printing themselves using the studio's equipment.
Chriscrawfordphoto
12-19-2008, 19:40
No the artist creates the image, and the master printer does the inking and printing. That way you gain the years of experience that the printer has.
Interesting. I found creating the image much harder than printing it, but drawing is not my strength as it would be for someone who is a professional printmaker. Inking and printing was a laborious chore but it wasn't difficult for me. I suppose for a professional, it would be nice to leave the grunt work to someone who specializes in that.
Al Kaplan
12-19-2008, 20:03
I consider myself a good printer. My son keeps telling me to stop shooting and spend lots of time in the darkroom printing. He also said that he'll pay for the paper and chemicals. Then he said "Just think what those prints will be worth after you're dead!"
Seriously, the real problem, regardless of how you produce your prints, is marketing them.
Chriscrawfordphoto
12-19-2008, 20:12
I imagine that it was probably rather satisfying. I have never made lithographs, only etchings. Etching require a good press, but some artists do own them.
I have not printed since college, but would like to. Have you done any since school?
I graduated with my BFA back in 99, and had only done etching as well. I started taking a printmaking class in August, and did my first litho there. Unfortunately, I had to drop the class partway through because of the time it took up. My son unexpectedly came to live with me fulltime right before the semester started because his mother's mental problems became so bad that she was hospitalized (still is, the state committed her!). I was taking a class on the history of colonial Latin America too, and didn't have time to care for my son, do the time-consuming art class and the history class, and spend time looking for commercial work at the same time.
I like lithography and would like to try it again someday when things get easier for me. The last few months have been stressful because of the stuff with my son's mother and having to provide the full support of my son since his mom (who made FAR more than I do) cannot pay child support, at least till she is released from the mental hospital. I also had to deal with the courts as I tried to get custody of my son (he lived with me after his mom was committed but she still had legal custody), which I finally got the judge to order 2 weeks ago.:bang:
There's a fabulously good New Mexico photo exhibit in the Palace of Governors in Santa Fe....most of the images are antique or digital. The main wet darkroom exceptions are from the Sixties. The digital color all looks more crisp and accurate, more beautiful, than the dye transfers .
I've seen a lot of photo gallery and museum exhibitions in the last couple of months (NYC, San Francisco, Santa Fe) and this is the best...a huge cross section of work by the best who have worked in New Mexico...not just "scenic" or "cultural" and not bogged down with the usual redundant "street" (several Friedlanders do that duty). The digital B&Ws are physically beautiful and were of course mostly printed by the photographer.
If one is a photographer, one prints one's own...IMO. Has nothing to do with "value," everything to do with self respect.
Al Kaplan
01-09-2009, 07:46
The value of the hand done silver print is that every one is a unique print because of the variables involverd in making it. Everything from the way that particulr print was burned and dodged to how many prints went through the tray of developer before this one, how the prints where shuffled through the hypo clear with the selenium toner, etc. After they dry I think that most of us will then throw some in the trash because they don't quite meet our expectations.
With digital you do all your adjustments on the file, one time. I've heard folks brag that the the advantage of digital is that you can make ten or a hundred or...XXX# and they're all exactly alike. Art collectors and gallery owners say "Whoopie-Doo!, I can go to the print shop down the street and get a jillion printed up, but so what?" I guess you could sign them and write with soft pencil on the back "Lovingly printed by Sir Speedy to the exact specifications of the photographer." over your signature and the date. You now have a bunch of posters. Good luck in getting a gallery to sell them for decent money.
funkaoshi
01-09-2009, 07:56
Good luck in getting a gallery to sell them for decent money.
I think the process a successful artist used to print their work probably has very little on the final sale price. Assuming your print is high quality, which you can get through a digital process now, why would they sell for less than prints made in a traditional manner? As with all photographic art, much of the value comes from artificial scarcity. (Are your 'unique' wet prints worth varying amounts of money because each is ever so slightly different than the next?)
Gabriel M.A.
01-09-2009, 08:04
The value of the hand done silver print is that every one is a unique print because of the variables involverd in making it. Everything from the way that particulr print was burned and dodged to how many prints went through the tray of developer before this one, how the prints where shuffled through the hypo clear with the selenium toner, etc. After they dry I think that most of us will then throw some in the trash because they don't quite meet our expectations.
With digital you do all your adjustments on the file, one time. I've heard folks brag that the the advantage of digital is that you can make ten or a hundred or...XXX# and they're all exactly alike. Art collectors and gallery owners say "Whoopie-Doo!, I can go to the print shop down the street and get a jillion printed up, but so what?" I guess you could sign them and write with soft pencil on the back "Lovingly printed by Sir Speedy to the exact specifications of the photographer." over your signature and the date. You now have a bunch of posters. Good luck in getting a gallery to sell them for decent money.
I thoroughly agree. People who have never done "wet prints" themselves could not possibly understand the value of the photographer him/herself having printed his/her own photo as opposed to somebody who had no contact with the photographer at all (i.e. the photographer had a final say as to whether the print was right or not)
The "who cares!" ignorati couldn't --oh surprise-- care less. Value is always where the buyer or holder puts it.
funkaoshi
01-09-2009, 08:13
I thoroughly agree. People who have never done "wet prints" themselves could not possibly understand the value of the photographer him/herself having printed his/her own photo as opposed to somebody who had no contact with the photographer at all (i.e. the photographer had a final say as to whether the print was right or not)
You don't think photographers work with their printers when printing their work digitally? Or when they have others wet print for them? What's your opinion of photobooks for that matter?
The idea that wet prints are intrinsically better -- just because -- is silly.
Gabriel M.A.
01-09-2009, 08:19
You don't think photographers work with their printers when printing their work digitally? Or when they have others wet print for them? What's your opinion of photobooks for that matter?
The idea that wet prints are intrinsically better -- just because -- is silly.
Did I say anywhere there that I said they were "intrinsically better"?
Answer: no (just in case there's a lingering doubt)
I said...well, I said what I said, and I didn't say what I didn't say.
If the question is "are prints better when photographers work with their printers when printing their work digitally?", then I'd say that it isn't "better". It's just as good as a photographer working with a "wet printer".
I invite you to re-read my comment.
Chriscrawfordphoto
01-09-2009, 08:22
You don't think photographers work with their printers when printing their work digitally? Or when they have others wet print for them? What's your opinion of photobooks for that matter?
The idea that wet prints are intrinsically better -- just because -- is silly.
Exactly. And what of those of us, like me, who do our own digital printing? My experience as a professional artist is that NO ONE cares a bit about this in the world of galleries, museums, and collectors. Only photographers who have never exhibited and have no professional connection to the art world (note: ART world, not journalism or commercial photography) ever get upset because of how a photographer prints his work.
Al Kaplan
01-09-2009, 08:32
Why do digital prints sell for less than wet process? One simple reason. Collectors are willing to pay more for them. Gallery owners are more willing to show them. Photographers don't set the value of the prints, the buyers do. It's capitalism at its best. A pure market driven economy. Convince them that silver prints made one at a time with an enlarger is a scam then the prices will drop to the value of ink jet prints. You've got a tough row to hoe there! Better get started....
Chris, why do I see exhibits that say "Silver print" or "Inkjet print" next to photographs hanging on the gallery walls? It must mean something to somebody.
funkaoshi
01-09-2009, 08:46
Photographers don't set the value of the prints, the buyers do. It's capitalism at its best. A pure market driven economy.
I agree. If your photography is good, people will pay you money for it. People aren't paying 2000$ for prints because of the process used to make the print. In this very thread people have pointed out that galleries regularly display works of art printed in non-traditional manners, and sell them for substantial sums of money.
Joe Nobody might have an easier time selling his $20 prints on the Internet if he prints them in a dark room. You can turn that into a selling point. William Eggleston could sell his prints printed anyway he thought looks best, and I guarantee people would still buy them given the chance.
I agree people are also interested in the process that goes into making a photo. That's why you see "gell print on silicon with paint and mushrooms" and junk like that. I don't think people pay for the process unless the process is some how integral to the art. In photography, printing on silver is really nothing special. A crappy photo isn't made more special because it's printed in a darkroom vs. a pigment printer.
dazedgonebye
01-09-2009, 09:12
Chris, why do I see exhibits that say "Silver print" or "Inkjet print" next to photographs hanging on the gallery walls? It must mean something to somebody.
It won't mean "something" for long.
We're just in an awkward time right now. Digital printing is improving all the time and as others have pointed out, results to make just about anyone happy are already possible.
People just need time to get used to the idea. Then the perceived differences will all but dissolve. No one will feel the need to disclose, in almost an almost apologetic manner, that a print is digital.
Chriscrawfordphoto
01-09-2009, 09:15
Why do digital prints sell for less than wet process? One simple reason. Collectors are willing to pay more for them. Gallery owners are more willing to show them. Photographers don't set the value of the prints, the buyers do. It's capitalism at its best. A pure market driven economy. Convince them that silver prints made one at a time with an enlarger is a scam then the prices will drop to the value of ink jet prints. You've got a tough row to hoe there! Better get started....
Chris, why do I see exhibits that say "Silver print" or "Inkjet print" next to photographs hanging on the gallery walls? It must mean something to somebody.
For the same reason you see Oil on masonite, or Watercolor on Paper next to those types of paintings. It is just part of the documentation of what it is. I have been exhibiting for many years and have never, not even in Santa Fe, seen a price difference between digital prints and wet prints by LIVING photographers. The silver prints that brought high dollar amounts were by dead 'masters' like Cartier-Bresson and Adams who used silver-gelatin because it was the only game in town at that time. Who knows what they'd do now; Adams wrote that the prospect of electronic imaging interested him, but he didn't live long enough to see it. Cartier-Bresson did, but he had long before given up photography in favor of painting and drawing.
When I start seeing galleries in major art centers like Santa Fe charging more for silver than they do for inkjets by the same artists, i'll buy your story, but I just haven't seen it. I lived in Santa Fe, the 3rd largest art market in North America, for almost 2 years and made the rounds of the photography galleries frequently. Saw lots of digital stuff, lots of silver stuff, and no price differences for contemporary work. The stuff that sold for high dollars there did so because of WHO the artist was, not how he/she printed.
CameraQuest
01-09-2009, 09:18
I was at a gallery show in San Francisco recently showing large B&W prints by Joel Leivick. They were pigment prints. They were beauitiful. They were priced at $2,000.
If you saw these, you would not ask, "Can I get it in silver?".
Cheers,
Gary
You seem to be missing the point. This is not a discussion of how much digital prints can be sold for. Of course digital prints can be outstanding and command high prices.
This discussion has to do with the value of the craftsmanship of the artist and whether or not the marketplace will pay more for it.
I believe any work of art hand crafted by the original artist is worth more than other mediums of their same work, and that includes the photographer as artist. This discussion is questioning whether or not traditional wet prints (of any type) HAND CRAFTED BY THE ARTIST (ie printed by the original photographer) are worth MORE than the same image printed digitally. Real world, I believe photographers can increase their income by charging substantially more for PERSONALLY hand crafted AND AUTHENTICATED wet prints than digital prints.
Stephen
funkaoshi
01-09-2009, 09:44
This discussion has to do with the value of the craftsmanship of the artist and whether or not the marketplace will pay more for it.
I think you can definitely use the 'printed in a darkroom' label as a selling point when selling your work. That said, I think being successful and well respected is probably going to do more for your bottom line then printing in a darkroom. Or by producing stunning work. I realize this is a gear forum, so maybe this gets lost, but most people don't care what a photograph was shot on, or how it was printed. They look at a picture and ask themselves whether it is meaningful to them or not.
monochromejrnl
01-09-2009, 10:43
people will be willing to pay for print but what they will pay does depend on how it's printed...
Ansel Adams' silver prints made by his printer cost $225+, inkjet prints go for considerably less (under $100)...
http://www.anseladams.com/shoponline.html
I agree. If your photography is good, people will pay you money for it. People aren't paying 2000$ for prints because of the process used to make the print. In this very thread people have pointed out that galleries regularly display works of art printed in non-traditional manners, and sell them for substantial sums of money.
Joe Nobody might have an easier time selling his $20 prints on the Internet if he prints them in a dark room. You can turn that into a selling point. William Eggleston could sell his prints printed anyway he thought looks best, and I guarantee people would still buy them given the chance.
I agree people are also interested in the process that goes into making a photo. That's why you see "gell print on silicon with paint and mushrooms" and junk like that. I don't think people pay for the process unless the process is some how integral to the art. In photography, printing on silver is really nothing special. A crappy photo isn't made more special because it's printed in a darkroom vs. a pigment printer.
monochromejrnl
01-09-2009, 10:45
see my post above, AA's prints are offered in both silver gelatin and inkjet format at different prices... silver gelatin prints cost more...
For the same reason you see Oil on masonite, or Watercolor on Paper next to those types of paintings. It is just part of the documentation of what it is. I have been exhibiting for many years and have never, not even in Santa Fe, seen a price difference between digital prints and wet prints by LIVING photographers. The silver prints that brought high dollar amounts were by dead 'masters' like Cartier-Bresson and Adams who used silver-gelatin because it was the only game in town at that time. Who knows what they'd do now; Adams wrote that the prospect of electronic imaging interested him, but he didn't live long enough to see it. Cartier-Bresson did, but he had long before given up photography in favor of painting and drawing.
When I start seeing galleries in major art centers like Santa Fe charging more for silver than they do for inkjets by the same artists, i'll buy your story, but I just haven't seen it. I lived in Santa Fe, the 3rd largest art market in North America, for almost 2 years and made the rounds of the photography galleries frequently. Saw lots of digital stuff, lots of silver stuff, and no price differences for contemporary work. The stuff that sold for high dollars there did so because of WHO the artist was, not how he/she printed.
johnastovall
01-09-2009, 11:09
You'll never find a print by Robert Mapplethorpe which he printed but that has not affected their value. He had no darkroom skills at least as far as development and printing went.
funkaoshi
01-09-2009, 11:29
monochromejrnl, good find. As I said above, I agree wet prints can be used as a way to create a 'premium' product. I'm just not sure it would matter to the people buying them if it wasn't presented in that manner. (Obviously some people care -- this thread is testament to that.) Silver vs. Digital ultimately strikes me as being more about gimmick than anything else. I'm sure Ansel Adams' store could sell a special edition of his work that was printed the same way as the other stuff if they could find some other way to differentiate it: limited release signed by his family or some junk like that. That is to say, I think people are paying 225+ because it's a special edition, not because it's a gelatin print.
funkaoshi
01-09-2009, 11:38
Mind you, I like silver prints more, and do think there is something to printing your artwork yourself. I just think being dismissive of the new ways of printing a bit silly. At this point in time, I really don't think one is better than the other.
Chriscrawfordphoto
01-09-2009, 12:12
see my post above, AA's prints are offered in both silver gelatin and inkjet format at different prices... silver gelatin prints cost more...
Those prints are worthless no matter whether they're silver or digital. The art world places no value on prints made after the artist dies, which is why the prints are only a couple hundred. REAL Adams prints, which is to say ones made in his lifetime, costs THOUSANDS. The Andrew Smith Gallery in Santa Fe has a number of Adams originals and they average $10,000 each.
Why is that place you reference selling silver prints at higher prices? Because they cost more to make. It is not because of any inherent value, because those prints have none.
Al Kaplan
01-09-2009, 13:32
I make my own silver/gelatin prints, always have, and I've got qujte a few of them that are forty to nearly fifty years ago. They're holding up well.
Chriscrawfordphoto
01-09-2009, 14:55
I make my own silver/gelatin prints, always have, and I've got qujte a few of them that are forty to nearly fifty years ago. They're holding up well.
You wouldn't believe how lazy or lacking in knowledge some photographers can be when it comes to darkroom work. When I was a student, we did everything in the darkroom....this was right before people began experimenting with scanning film and printing with the primitive inkjets available in the late 1990s. Digital cameras were so expensive then that no one considered them. My fellow students were so lazy about proper processing of prints that many of the prints were yellowed or stained by the time they'd dried! Most of them must have eventually realized that they didn't have what it takes to be photographers, since only a couple of us are still doing anything with photography. My prints from that time and the years after when I still did wet printing are still perfect....like you Al, I knew how to process archivally and I did it. I liked wet printing but the chemicals started making me sick. Digital printing lets me keep doing my work. Should I have stopped because I'm not able to make 'real photos' anymore? NO WAY!
Al Kaplan
01-09-2009, 19:13
Chris, if you're allergic to the chemicals then you don't have much choice.
I make my own silver/gelatin prints, always have, and I've got qujte a few of them that are forty to nearly fifty years ago. They're holding up well.
Al, that's no surprise. My collection of family photographs goes back to cc 1880 and many are spectacularly good. I acquired a box full of a Russian family's photographs via some gypsies...again, many are perfect and some date from the era of Tsar Nicholas.
You'll never find a print by Robert Mapplethorpe which he printed but that has not affected their value. He had no darkroom skills at least as far as development and printing went.
Mapplethorpe's work sells for more than Paris Hilton's only because Paris Hilton isn't in that business. If she sold digital snapshots, they'd sell for as much.
johnastovall
01-11-2009, 17:34
Mapplethorpe isn't in any business. He's dead.
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.