Gumby
Veteran
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.
sojournerphoto
Veteran
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.
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.
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
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
Darkroom printing lives
I think Polaroid "arts" will worth more in ten-years since you won't be able to make them anymore.
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
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 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
Veteran
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.
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.
Gumby
Veteran
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"?
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
Veteran
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!
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!
phc
Paul Hardy Carter
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.
Cheers, Paul.
Al Kaplan
Veteran
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).
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).
Last edited:
blackwave
silver halide lover
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?
bob338
Well-known
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
Well-known
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/. 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.
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/. 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.
gertf
Established
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,
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
bob338
Well-known
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
Gumby
Veteran
Ah... I'm finally getting clarity on the intent of the thread
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
Well-known
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.
Ah... I'm finally getting clarity on the intent of the thread
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