digital vs analog for gallery art

[gustavo peña]

Is digital photography well regarded in the gallery art scene or people prefer to buy wet prints instead?

I would like to hear your opinions on this subject.

I myself would feel more comfortable buying traditional lab prints, but as an artits I tend to work with digital just because everything is to easy, and now that I have a project on my mind, Im thinking whether I should get me a hasselblad 503 or work with my current M8 and spend the money on glass.

 

[bojanfurst]

Today's inkjet inks and papers are of archival sort and I really don't think it matters any more. From my experience, colour digital prints are easier to get right. You really need to know what you're doing with the black and white stuff. You might be able to claim your "traditional" expertise as a slightly higher prices though if you decide to do wet prints 🙂

 

[tlitody]

Lets put it this way, no one is going to get sniffy about wet prints. Some people get sniffy about inkjets. Really depends on the gallery, your subject matter, your target audience and your pricing.

 

[Bnack]

I had a photography instructor who had a print hanging in the national portrait gallery in DC. It was a LF film image, scanned, edited digitally, and printed on an large format inkjet printer. I think there's quite a few fine art photographers who prefer this workflow.

 

[emraphoto]

Traditional darkroom prints command a premium. I don't know if this is a global standard but it has been my experience.

 

[FrankS]

John, I suppose that with wet prints the distinction between RC and fiber paper is still made?

 

[benlees]

I've seen a lot of photo exhibits in the last couple of years and a lot were digital prints. Certainly not all, mind you, but more than I thought- even black and white. Saw a Capa exhibit and a couple of those were digital.

 

[Jamie Pillers]

A show of photographer Doug Rickart's show just closed at San Francisco's Steven Wirtz Gallery. Doug is the founder of two 'aggregating websites' that bring together commentary on modern photography: AmericanSuburbX.com and TheseAmericans.com.

Rickart's images, printed large, are interesting and beautiful. They very much have the feeling of the New Topographics work.. like Robert Adams' stuff shaken up with Stephen Shore's. And they sell for seriously BIG bucks. His method? Digitally re-photographing images he finds on Google Street Views. I think that's digital squared. 🙂

Check out some of the work here: http://www.wirtzgallery.com/dougrickard

 

[gns]

Both are common at this point. In fact, many photographers show both digital and traditional prints. The argument of whether digital prints are as good as traditional doesn't seem to exist in the gallery/art world.

@ Jammie Pillers. I saw the Rickard show and thought it was great.

Cheers,
Gary

 

[Jamie Pillers]

Gary, did you see it in S.F.?

It was funny... I was walking around looking at the images and knew there was something 'funny' about them. I was very surprised when Steven W. came over and told me about what's going on in those images.

The idea of using Google Street View pics as one's raw data is intriguing. The 'brave new world' rolls along! 🙂

 

[emraphoto]

John, I suppose that with wet prints the distinction between RC and fiber paper is still made?

Very much so. Steven Bulger (Toronto) won't accept anything but fiber based prints.

 

[tj01]

Just wondering, how big should an exhibition print be ?

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Just wondering, how big should an exhibition print be ?

Any size you want. There's no standard size. Some people print small, because they want intimate prints that force the viewer to get close. Others print large to overwhelm the viewer (or because they think bigger prints mean more money, lol). Most of mine are between 6x9 and 11x14

 

[Jamie123]

Digital vs. wet print is a false dichotomy. A lot of the prints of contemporary photography I see these days in galleries and museums are digital C-prints (even though they might be captured of film). The ''gallery art scene" is not much concerned with the capture medium in my experience. At least I've never seen anyone complain about whether or not a Gursky is shot digitally or on film (or a mix of both in some cases, as he tends to comp extensively). It does seem, though, that amongst art photographers there's a preference for (digital or otherwise) C-prints over Inkjet.

It is different, of course, for the vintage print market where obviously it's traditional wet print only.

 

[jsrockit]

Both are common at this point. In fact, many photographers show both digital and traditional prints. The argument of whether digital prints are as good as traditional doesn't seem to exist in the gallery/art world.

I agree. Anyone who tells you differently is biased. Both look great when done right. Both can look bad.

 

[jsrockit]

Just wondering, how big should an exhibition print be ?

Whatever works for the image you are printing. There are no rules, only trends.

 

[emraphoto]

Digital vs. wet print is a false dichotomy. A lot of the prints of contemporary photography I see these days in galleries and museums are digital C-prints (even though they might be captured of film). The ''gallery art scene" is not much concerned with the capture medium in my experience. At least I've never seen anyone complain about whether or not a Gursky is shot digitally or on film (or a mix of both in some cases, as he tends to comp extensively). It does seem, though, that amongst art photographers there's a preference for (digital or otherwise) C-prints over Inkjet.

It is different, of course, for the vintage print market where obviously it's traditional wet print only.

I don't think anyone here is creating a false dichotomy. We are sharing experience.

Regardless of what the photographer uses to capture or print, it has been consistently my experience that wet/darkroom prints command a premium. Will you still be able to exhibit digital C prints? Obviously. There is more to the selling ability of a particular photog than materials. Subject matter, exhibition history, name/brand, agency, etc.

I know a few here, who exhibit in established venues, that might chime in. I recently spoke with one of them on the phone (opposite sides of a very large body of water) about this very matter and his experience was similar. Perhaps his two pence will show up?

 

[Jamie123]

I don't think anyone here is creating a false dichotomy. We are sharing experience.

Regardless of what the photographer uses to capture or print, it has been consistently my experience that wet/darkroom prints command a premium. Will you still be able to exhibit digital C prints? Obviously. There is more to the selling ability of a particular photog than materials. Subject matter, exhibition history, name/brand, agency, etc.

I know a few here, who exhibit in established venues, that might chime in. I recently spoke with one of them on the phone (opposite sides of a very large body of water) about this very matter and his experience was similar. Perhaps his two pence will show up?

I was referring to the dichotomy in the OP's question which was "Is digital photography well regarded ... or do people prefer to buy wet prints?". I merely meant to point out that the two are not mutually exclusive and that making wet prints from a digital image is a very common practice these days. Digital C-Prints are wet/darkroom prints, it's just that the paper is exposed digitally.

I'd venture to say that a large part if not most contemporary art photography in color is printed from a digital file (often a scan from a neg). In my experience the digital C-print is more common for art photography while "pigment prints" (inkjets) aren't used quite as much.
I'm sure the number of fully traditional wet prints is much higher for bw work but even there you have processes like Platinum Palladium that involve digital technology these days.

 

[gns]

Gary, did you see it in S.F.?

It was funny... I was walking around looking at the images and knew there was something 'funny' about them. I was very surprised when Steven W. came over and told me about what's going on in those images.

The idea of using Google Street View pics as one's raw data is intriguing. The 'brave new world' rolls along! 🙂

Yes, the same show. Afterwards, I went downstairs to see the Richard Learoyd show at Fraenkel. Quite different work but with some similarities that got me thinking. On topic...the Rickard prints are ink jet. The Learoyd's are Ilfochrome material.

Cheers,
Gary

 

[emraphoto]

I understand. I have been looking long and hard at a 504ds myself.