Are Wet Prints Printed Personally by the Photog Worth More? I think so.

[JTK]

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]

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]

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.]

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]

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.]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.