Can money be made making and selling 8x10 B&W darkroom prints?

Elektrojänis said:
Does optical wet print really have more human element than something that has been digital at some point?

Neither of those technologies create the images by themselves. Computer and enlarger are just tools that are used by people to achieve the goals they have set for themselves. If digital inkjet prints are just something machinen made, then I'd say that wet prints are also machine made.

That said... I feel that there is some value to wet prints, but it isn't that they have somehow magically more human element involved. It's just that I like them. I quess that for over 95% of people there is no difference at all though.
Click to expand...


I felt at one time that wet prints had more value and to some degree they do but in most cases galleries and particularly the average buyer doesn't care. The serious collector may but the person decorating their home could care less if they like the image.
 
Chriscrawfordphoto said:
It is possible, I have done it for years, although this year has been really bad. For the first time in many years, I sold absolutely nothing during the Christmas season this year. In the past, I was able to support myself any my son from a combination of selling my prints, doing commercial work, and web design. The print sales were half my income. This year, no. The economy is so bad now that the generally well-off people who buy art are not buying. A friend in Santa Fe who made over $100,000 a year as an artist (not photography though) has seen sales drop to almost nothing too.

Getting to the point that we made enough to live took me and the others I know doing it, many, many years of exhibiting and publishing our work before we started selling enough to make a living, or at least a decent supplement to other income. It is simply not going to happen for you fast, even in the best of times. It is very hard work, and most aspiring artists are simply not willing to do it.
Click to expand...


Chris, just an input.
I bought one of your prints last year. Love it.
But If you had printed it in the darkroom, I'd be happy to pay more for it.

I'm just that way, I appreciate darkroom prints *way* more than digital prints. Maybe now the pendulum has swing back, so there are a lot of people out there who think like I do. Maybe it's worth your releasing a couple of your masterpieces as darkroom printed editions.
 
68degrees said:
Is there any money to be made simply by making and selling 8 x 10 b&w darkroom prints of your own original interesting photos? As art. Like a musician may sell his homemade CDs and so forth.? Is anyone doing this?
Click to expand...

Just be aware that probably many times you will not be selling your most interesting stuff and that sometimes people will not buy them as "art"...oh, well or at least be aware that this might happen. I have sold a few landscapes which I didn't really like and which were used as pub decorations and all the stuff I deemed interesting was quickly browsed through... Not my main source of income tough...
PS Ah...also, consider also the very large size, what I am talking about was huge, the short side of the print at about 3'...

GLF
 
Unfortunately the millions of digital cameras has brought on the atitude of "Why should I pay for that when I have a camera and do it myself." I see it and have heard people say it.

Landscape and floral shooters have a major up hill battle. there ate tens of thousands of them trying to sell excellent work. I see it on th eLarge Format Forum and personally know a half dozen in my city that are doing stunning work. The problem is they are all sooting the same thing. New techniques come along like the long exposures at night stacking images and showing the stars in the scene. Beautiful and the first guy doing it did OK till everyone else started doing it an dnow th emarket is flooded again. It's the same as HDR. Man is that ever worn out. IR went through the same thing. I did IR back in the 60's and until the craze came then I stopped. I didn't want to be accused of copying someone else which did happen. I taught a woman in my city to do IR and the next thing she flooded the galleries and I was accused of copying her.

If you're going to make money at this you have to do something different and better. The same old pixel perfect scenes won't get you much more than a few sales at low prices. My wife and I ocasionally go to art fairs and just look at what's done. I look at the photography. I see everything from below average to beautiful work but nothing original. It's almost as though there's an X marking the spot where everyone sets their tripod up.

You must do something new and original and it must be a show stopper. It has to grap peoples attention and make them want it. You have to be more creative and have better quality than anyone else.

Good luck! It's a real joy to make serious money from ones art. It's more than just the money, it's knowing your work is good enough people with part with their hard earned cash and hang it on the wall. It's great to know your work brings joy to others. People buy a piece of your vision, creativity and soul. What a great life creating art people want.
 
x-ray said:
Unfortunately the millions of digital cameras has brought on the atitude of "Why should I pay for that when I have a camera and do it myself." I see it and have heard people say it.

Landscape and floral shooters have a major up hill battle. there ate tens of thousands of them trying to sell excellent work. I see it on th eLarge Format Forum and personally know a half dozen in my city that are doing stunning work. The problem is they are all sooting the same thing. New techniques come along like the long exposures at night stacking images and showing the stars in the scene. Beautiful and the first guy doing it did OK till everyone else started doing it an dnow th emarket is flooded again. It's the same as HDR. Man is that ever worn out. IR went through the same thing. I did IR back in the 60's and until the craze came then I stopped. I didn't want to be accused of copying someone else which did happen. I taught a woman in my city to do IR and the next thing she flooded the galleries and I was accused of copying her.

If you're going to make money at this you have to do something different and better. The same old pixel perfect scenes won't get you much more than a few sales at low prices. My wife and I ocasionally go to art fairs and just look at what's done. I look at the photography. I see everything from below average to beautiful work but nothing original. It's almost as though there's an X marking the spot where everyone sets their tripod up.

You must do something new and original and it must be a show stopper. It has to grap peoples attention and make them want it. You have to be more creative and have better quality than anyone else.

Good luck! It's a real joy to make serious money from ones art. It's more than just the money, it's knowing your work is good enough people with part with their hard earned cash and hang it on the wall. It's great to know your work brings joy to others. People buy a piece of your vision, creativity and soul. What a great life creating art people want.
Click to expand...

Thank you! Great energy and insight!
 
shadowfox said:
Chris, just an input.
I bought one of your prints last year. Love it.
But If you had printed it in the darkroom, I'd be happy to pay more for it.

I'm just that way, I appreciate darkroom prints *way* more than digital prints. Maybe now the pendulum has swing back, so there are a lot of people out there who think like I do. Maybe it's worth your releasing a couple of your masterpieces as darkroom printed editions.
Click to expand...

Wish I could, but I can't do it. I have severe allergies to the chemicals, breathing them makes me very ill, even in a very well ventilated room. That is why I stopped wet printing 10 years ago, and I will never, ever do it again. I've been in poor health all of my life, and even now I am in constant pain. The photo chemicals didn't cause that, but the allergic reactions they cause just makes me feel even worse.

I used to have a big archive of exhibition prints made in my darkroom, but when my son's mother and I split up, she destroyed them out of spite before I could get them moved. Fortunately, she did not get the negs, and I scanned all of them, but I have only a handful of prints from the 10 years I spent wet printing and I do not think I'd sell any of them at any price. My inkjets are actually better prints anyway, but I want to keep my old prints for nostalgia. Really! I was a damned good darkroom printer, but honestly, inkjet beats wet prints for sharpness ad tonality now. Anyone who says otherwise just hasn't seen a good inkjet done by someone who knows how to do it.
 
Chriscrawfordphoto said:
Wish I could, but I can't do it. I have severe allergies to the chemicals, breathing them makes me very ill, even in a very well ventilated room. That is why I stopped wet printing 10 years ago, and I will never, ever do it again. I've been in poor health all of my life, and even now I am in constant pain. The photo chemicals didn't cause that, but the allergic reactions they cause just makes me feel even worse.
Click to expand...

Ah yes, I remember this now. Well bummer, I would love to see some of your best darkroom prints.


Chriscrawfordphoto said:
Really! I was a damned good darkroom printer, but honestly, inkjet beats wet prints for sharpness ad tonality now. Anyone who says otherwise just hasn't seen a good inkjet done by someone who knows how to do it.
Click to expand...

Sharpness and detail, yes.
Tonality, not so easy to pin down.
To some degree, because of the superior resolution, you can simulate lots of tonal gradation. But in some cases, the darkening of silver halide embedded inside an emulsion produces a different look than ink.

Best to describe it as 'different' not better or worse, because the processes involved are truly different.
 
Elektrojänis said:
Does optical wet print really have more human element than something that has been digital at some point?

Neither of those technologies create the images by themselves. Computer and enlarger are just tools that are used by people to achieve the goals they have set for themselves. If digital inkjet prints are just something machinen made, then I'd say that wet prints are also machine made.

That said... I feel that there is some value to wet prints, but it isn't that they have somehow magically more human element involved. It's just that I like them. I quess that for over 95% of people there is no difference at all though.
Click to expand...

1. I'm sorry, there is no way you can tell me that hand-dodging and burning is just the same as moving a tablet stylus.

2. Even when you are a very good printer, you won't be able to create 10 prints that look exactly the same, especially with negatives that requires a lot of work to begin with. With inkjet, this "problem" is gone, but so is the uniqueness value.

3. Have you ever come out of a darkroom with a perfect (subjective) print in your hand? The feeling is incredible!! If you have, you'd be able to relate to what I'm saying. On the other hand, I have a stack of perfect (same person, me, therefore the same subjectivity) inkjet prints that I get none of those feelings from. Do I like those inkjet prints? yes. But my darkroom prints are more special to me.
 
68degrees said:
Is there any money to be made simply by making and selling 8 x 10 b&w darkroom prints of your own original interesting photos? As art. Like a musician may sell his homemade CDs and so forth.? Is anyone doing this?
Click to expand...

Are you talking 35mm or 120 prints that are 8x10 in size, or prints made from 8x10 negatives? I'm curious as I've seen both answered here.
 
I imagine that selling prints for people to hang on their walls is a somewhat limited equation ie. people may love the image, but not for the purpose of hanging on their wall. Thinking laterally, is there a bigger market for selling your work in the form of a book (blurb, for instance)? Even if people can't imagine the images on their walls, they may love to have a book on their shelves or coffee tables. Or, does this cheapen the work?
 
I think a book is a better venue for photos than wall hanging. That's how I was first attracted to photography, and how I've always bought photography- in books.
 
rohankent said:
I imagine that selling prints for people to hang on their walls is a somewhat limited equation ie. people may love the image, but not for the purpose of hanging on their wall. Thinking laterally, is there a bigger market for selling your work in the form of a book (blurb, for instance)? Even if people can't imagine the images on their walls, they may love to have a book on their shelves or coffee tables. Or, does this cheapen the work?
Click to expand...

I was thinking a actual darkroom print being part of the value not just the image which could be reproduced many different ways.
 
I would say location is very important. If you have galleries where people go to spend money, like the shopping districts of LA, Santa Fe, NYC you have a better chance than in a regular US city. I've tried to do on-site wetplate portraits a few times in Arizona at some events, and it's a bust. Everyone looks at your sample plates, hears your spiel, then asks "is it free?" I spent a day hawking very hard at a ranch heritage day with hundreds of visitors and sold about 4 plates. Here, and in this economy, people are just lookers, not buyers. When I go to the giant 4th Ave Stree Fair in Tucson, there are tens of thousands of people and hundreds of booths. But no one carrying any bags - no one buys anything, they just look and walk on. - Unless there are free samples.
 
I think there's a market for prints like this if the price point is right. Price such prints in the ballpark of 3/ 4 cups of coffee, say €10/ $10 for an 8x10, and I say you would have a market. I suspect a lot of the photo buying market is probably priced out of the market, and has been for a long time..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom