Buying photographic prints

[dasuess]

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.

Analog or digital, hard or easy, it still all boils down to the integrity of the photographer who produces a "limited edition". In the Eggleston case, while a judge ruled in his favor, I think it was wrong. Better to produce "editions" (1st, 2nd, etc) rather than "limited". It appears that there is more than one definition of "limited" in the art world.

 

[dasuess]

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

What he said...

 

[FA Limited]

has anyone purchased the dye transfer prints by ctein? are they really as great as it is made out to be?

 

[MIkhail]

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

+1
About 10-12 years ago I read online something like this from a "pro" photographer: "no digital prints are accepted by galleries, museums, etc."...
Last workshop with Alex Webb and seing his prints proven these words wrong to me, once again.

 

[MIkhail]

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 correct in general sense. But then, the same can be said about many things that are reproducible.
I think, when you buy original print from the artist (we are only speaking about art photo, not technical or wedding or whatever other area of photography) you are essentially paying for the idea, reflection of artist's vision. Lashapelle, for example, or Alex Sosh, or Saul Laiter, just to grab from different areas of art.... You are not buying piece of paper with ink.
AND, there is a notion that this piece of art will go up in value. Especially true when artist is dead. This means that the amount of art pieces is limited, there will be no more.
At this point it's already clear that Andreas Gurski - good investment, his prints will not go down in price. Alex Webb- same thing. Pinkhassov- same thing, and his prints are digital, as he shoots digital to begin with.
So it's not a matter of how easily or hard a piece can be reproduced. It's irrelevant, for a most part.

 

[Mr. Fizzlesticks]

has anyone purchased the dye transfer prints by ctein? are they really as great as it is made out to be?

His photographs are utterly dull. I think the only reason why anyone would buy them is because he gets attention through TOP and because they are "technically" perfect. By most accounts he is a good printer but he just isn't a good photographer. Many technical people fall into that pattern, and make completely forgettable photographs. Zone system photographers are infamous for it. Perfect prints of forgettable images. I would rather have a technically crappy print of something great.

 

[telenous]

...

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. 😕

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?

It's not an odd thought. Cultural historians have argued for the loss of authority of the original pretty much along the lines you describe. The psychology of art/photograph ownership is interesting but I think we all have to grant each other that on some level it is guided by fascination with photography itself. Actually Berger's Ways of Seeing came to mind when reading your post, as it does provide for a more complex, consumer-driven and identity-building account of this behaviour -- a perceptive explanation though IMO by no means exclusive to other more 'innocent' motives. However this discussion is tangential, the OP asked for hands-on experience in purchasing prints, not a theoretical disputation. This probably explains the reaction to your posts.

.