Buying photographic prints

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

'm pretty sure that's called stealing and infringing on an artists copyright.
Would you like your work to be photographed and reproduced?

I'm afraid you've totally misunderstood me.

I was talking about the once, very common, practice of making the very best print of your own negative, and then making a copy negative, from which you could make as many distribution prints as were required.

Theatrical prints displayed on the front of cinemas were usually produced this way, sometimes in their thousands. Technical images for user manuals were another common use. Publicity pictures of all sorts, of course.

The point is, the printer made that one "perfect" print and was then able to repeat it without restraint. There were even special negative materials for the job at one time.

 

[gns]

30 years on, I wish I had bought more than I did.

 

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

there are times in life to sit down, accept you have misspoken, and accept that there is no fixing it.

I'm not quite sure I understand what you're suggesting that I need to fix.

I genuinely fail to understand why anyone would pay a lot of money for a print. I'm not implying that it's wrong to do so. My point is simply that photography is a mass reproduction medium, so if I were buying a print from someone else, I'd expect to pay the cost of making a print plus a bit more for making the original "perfect" print.

It's obvious that some of the posters have a different view. I'm trying to work out why they hold that view. 😕

 

[sepiareverb]

I was talking about the once, very common, practice of making the very best print of your own negative, and then making a copy negative, from which you could make as many distribution prints as were required.

I think his thread is about artwork not 810 glossies?

 

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

I think his thread is about artwork not 810 glossies?

In the 'sixties, this was the way in which many exhibition prints were made, not for photographic exhibitions but where the images were part of some larger area of interest. Around then, I helped a much more senior colleague produce, if I recall correctly, around sixty prints per pack for a British Council exhibition on agriculture.

The images were taken by many photographers, several of whom were amateurs working in very tough conditions. We first had to clean many of the negatives, then my colleague made one astonishingly good 16 by 20 inch print from each negative, dodging and burning in as required. These were then spotted and, in some places retouched. Finally, they were copied onto 10x8 film, some final pencil retouching done and then prints up to 6 foot tall were made from the 10x8 negatives.

The point is this. There was a great deal of artistic effort involved and the final exhibition prints were really stunning but each print could be reproduced as often as required by simply giving the copy negative a single standard exposure. If I had to put a figure on the production of each negative, in modern terms, I'd say about $500. After that, though we could produce equally beautiful prints for the cost of the paper and chemicals (being simplistic, of course).

This is why I'm confused about the idea of paying a lot of money for one print, when the photographer could follow the same path and sell many, many equally attractive images.

 

[gns]

I'm not quite sure I understand what you're suggesting that I need to fix.

I genuinely fail to understand why anyone would pay a lot of money for a print. I'm not implying that it's wrong to do so. My point is simply that photography is a mass reproduction medium, so if I were buying a print from someone else, I'd expect to pay the cost of making a print plus a bit more for making the original "perfect" print.

It's obvious that some of the posters have a different view. I'm trying to work out why they hold that view. 😕

You are right that photos can be infinitely reproduced and that should (does) limit the value they can have as a collectable. I'm surprised though that you seem completely unaware of very common practices like editioning which, though artificial in a way, do improve & protect the value of many photographic prints. In some cases, photographers have resorted to destroying a negative after producing a small edition (of even one).

 

[jsrockit]

You are joking right? I don't know a single fine art printer worth his developer that would pull that maneuver and I am talking real hand made prints here, not "press button for print" digi-crap...

... You don't understand because you don't value photography and that is fine but there are some very talented people out there who make amazing final prints.

I value photography enough to know that there is nothing wrong with digital printing ...

 

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

I'm surprised though that you seem completely unaware of very common practices like editioning which, though artificial in a way, do improve & protect the value of many photographic prints.

I can't say that I'm unaware of this practice. It's used with lithography as well, of course. In that context, I can see that there is a limit to how many impressions you can take before the stone degrades, so a numbered set (if every one involved is honest) tells you how good an impression you're buying.

It's the psychology of the thing that eludes me. I can understand why the photographer wants to make each print as unique as possible and therefor as expensively desirable as possible but what's in it for the buyer?

I'm coming to the conclusion that I shall have to accept this as something that's in my blind spot. It does seem that my perplexity has annoyed some people, so a general apology to those upset.

 

[Aristophanes]

With digital edition prints the integrity of the edition is limited to a contract by the photographer NOT to re-edition. If their brand falls in value over time, they may find it necessary to re-issue, thereby diminishing the earlier print values.

This could be done analogue, but was far more time-consuming and costly, especially as there was often a master printer behind the work while the photographer was behind the camera. Digital reproduction has no such intermediary, so digital edition reserve value is far less discrete and far riskier.

Protecting the value for the buyer entirely depends on the integrity of the seller. In digital, the technical barrier to drop that integrity barrier is almost non-existent. That is one reason why fine art photographic prints have gone to such large scale. the cost to reproduce that edition goes up, making future reproduction equally as costly (at that size).

 

[dasuess]

With digital edition prints the integrity of the edition is limited to a contract by the photographer NOT to re-edition. If their brand falls in value over time, they may find it necessary to re-issue, thereby diminishing the earlier print values.

This could be done analogue, but was far more time-consuming and costly, especially as there was often a master printer behind the work while the photographer was behind the camera. Digital reproduction has no such intermediary, so digital edition reserve value is far less discrete and far riskier.

Protecting the value for the buyer entirely depends on the integrity of the seller. In digital, the technical barrier to drop that integrity barrier is almost non-existent. That is one reason why fine art photographic prints have gone to such large scale. the cost to reproduce that edition goes up, making future reproduction equally as costly (at that size).

In light of the "Eggleston debacle" (my words, so now you know where I stand on that subject), I think all of the above could also be said of analog photography.

 

[Jubb Jubb]

I value photography enough to know that there is nothing wrong with digital printing ...

Exactly. The printing is just another form of it being reproduced. Whether it is darkroom or digital.
It is the image itself that counts.

 

[SausalitoDog]

I've been buying photos since the 60s, both from photographers, galleries and auctions...mostly auctions. I don't' have a huge collection but in the early days it seemed like we were spending a huge amount relative to what we thought they might some day be worth.

I've found a few things...buy what you like is first rule, not what you think will be worth a lot. That said, you will always have some expectations about value increase when you buy. Most of what I bought were vintage and the vintage have all done much better (judging from auction prices) than contemporary (with only a couple of exceptions). Buying the best known photos of photographers will generally net you more gain in the long run than lesser known images (this applies even with greats like Ansel Adams). Photo values, similar to stocks or other investments, go down from time to time but have really show spectacular gains in the high end images, not so much in the lower end.

Bottom line: go with your heart. If you love it, buy it. You will probably never really regret it.

Then again, like everything else...advice is worth what it costs 🙂

Good luck and enjoy...

Tom

 

[KM-25]

Exactly. The printing is just another form of it being reproduced. Whether it is darkroom or digital.
It is the image itself that counts.

Well sort of, but I prefer to both buy and produce prints that are hand made without touching a computer, and when I get wound up, I may say something more along the lines of how I feel about digital given what it has done to the art world in general, not real fond of it...and I happen to know Alex Webb, he reviewed my portfolio in a workshop at Look3 once.

Personally, there have been some things that have happened and are going to keep happening to both the monetary and social value of photography that have fully pushed me over the edge this past month to the point that I have simply had it with the digital world. I officially hate it and need to be done with it and the internet, I am Not At All cut out for it.

Oh, how nice it would be if this really happened.....

 

[Alex Krasotkin]

I am buying old photos (postcards and photos) of womens' portraits dated XIX-first half XX centirues for my private collection. A lot of them are signed.

 

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

I officially hate it and need to be done with it and the internet, I am Not At All cut out for it.

Well, you and I seem to have very different views but it would be sad to lose your viewpoint in these discussions.

 

[Jubb Jubb]

and I happen to know Alex Webb, he reviewed my portfolio in a workshop at Look3 once. .....

Yeh I just finished a 5 day workshop with him over here.

 

[sepiareverb]

Well there does seem to be a "for a signed 8x10 photograph of Miss Monroe, please include a self addressed stamped envelope," undercurrent to the discussion. :angel:

Some people would probably pay plenty for a signed 8x10 photo of Miss Monroe.

 

[Aristophanes]

In light of the "Eggleston debacle" (my words, so now you know where I stand on that subject), I think all of the above could also be said of analog photography.

Analogue is harder to reproduce, but the core part of a negative (and most art prints were touched up, the re-photographed) is to reproduce in multiples. That is the design. It's just economically and technically more difficult than digital. But of course Egglestone got around that with digital scans, didn't he? And they sold.

Editioning is about creating artificial scarcity. That concept is absolutely at odds with the technical reality of digital files. Being infinitely copyable, there is no scarcity in the medium. None at all. The economic and technical barriers to infinite reproduction are so low as to be nil. Once out in the ether, the capacity to reclaim and put behind lock and key again is also nil. Therefore the risk is infinite. Caveat emptor.

Turning digital, or any photograph really as Egglestone proved, into large size analogue prints, that's where the scarcity gets reintroduced, especially if signed. There's clearly a market for that. But at the point, you're really buying an autograph. I suspect that historically the Sobel versions of Egglestone's originals are going to be worth far more, small size and all. Ironically, the lawsuit probably added an imprimatur of authenticity to his collection as being the "real" and "first" one.

 

[jljohn]

"A lot" can mean many different things to different people. Most folks in the US would probably consider Adams' Special Edition Prints too much money to spend on photography, and they only ring in at $295. Certainly, most people would consider Sexton at $1,200 to be a lot of money. But there are those for whom Clift and (Robert) Adams are not too much even in excess of $10k. And there's the upper tiers of collectors that are dropping in excess of $50k on vintage prints. So, what exactly are we talking about here in this thread in regard to "a lot?" The whole conversation is rather pointless without a benchmark.

Regarding "genuinely fail[ing] to understand why anyone would pay a lot of money for a print," I think there are at least two ways to look at it--Return on Investment and enjoyment. Certainly you can understand that it was a good idea for people to buy Adams' or Brett Weston's or Imogen Cunningham's prints in the late 70's. Those folks spent a couple of hundred, at most, which was probably "a lot" of money to them at the time, and they reaped at least 10 fold, and many reaped in the range of 100 fold. So, the first answer to the "why" question is that, when choosing wisely, it can put dollars in your pocket. (Please note that I say this without endorsing buying photography as an investment. I think it is better purchased for enjoyment.) The second is pure enjoyment. Let's take a Sexton print for example. You could spend $1,200 on one of his prints and hang it in your living room and see and enjoy it for the rest of your life (and if you ever decide to sell it, you'd likely recoup most of your 'investment' (near-term) or even make some money (long-term)). Or, for that same $1,200, you could take a few days of a nice vacation, eat out with your spouse/significant other a dozen times, go to a half dozen sporting events, or buy a large tv that will hit the landfill in a few years. The point is simply that there are a myriad of ways people spend "a lot" of money on enjoyment and if you enjoy looking at a particular print, I'd hope you might understand how it could outweigh the value of some other enjoyment-expenditure.

 

[gns]

With digital edition prints the integrity of the edition is limited to a contract by the photographer NOT to re-edition.

It is absolutely no different for traditional prints, silver, wet, or whatever you want to call them. There may be a little more labor involved, depending on the exact process, but all are basically infinitely reproducible.