Something for all photogs to strive for....

[ch1]

And he didn't use a digital camera!!....

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/02/14/photo.auction.ap/index.html

 

[kbg32]

Unfortunately, this is not what Steichen strove for in his work. Steichen was quite idealistic and romantic in his photography before WWl. A dedicated pictorialist. WWl changed him. For many of us, as we are compelled to do our work, we will never know what our work will be worth in a 100 years. All we can strive for is that someone, at least one person, can see, share, and appreciate what our vision was.

Anyway, not to disparage, I'm glad it wasn't an Ansel Adams.

Sorry if this seems like a rant. Attached is another Steichen beauty from before WWl.

 

[RJBender]

Unfortunately, this is not what Steichen strove for in his work. Steichen was quite idealistic and romantic in his photography before WWl. A dedicated pictorialist. WWl changed him. For many of us, as we are compelled to do our work, we will never know what our work will be worth in a 100 years. All we can strive for is that someone, at least one person, can see, share, and appreciate what our vision was.

Anyway, not to disparage, I'm glad it wasn't an Ansel Adams.

Sorry if this seems like a rant. Attached is another Steichen beauty from before WWl.

Nice shot of the Flatiron building!

R.J.

 

[ch1]

Steichen was a pioneer of the art form of photography.

That one of what are only three original prints should come onto the marketplace and sell at such a price is an amazing confirmation that what we do has worth.

The image itself is not rare. It is among those included in the Steichen monograph published by Aperture. (Which, BTW, places the shot in Mamaroneck, NY which is in Westchester County and NOT on Long Island - so someone is wrong 😀 )

What is rare is that this is a print (one of three) MADE by Steichen from the negative in 1904. So it has "weathered" the test of a century's time.

A hundred years from now do you thing someone is going to pay the then dollar equivelent of three million for a CD of someone's digipic?

Preserving the art is getting harder and harder to do....

 

[ch1]

Hey, just "clicked" on the link again after first seeing the story 17 hours ago!

CNN corrected the setting - their "original" article wrongly put the pic location on LI - NOW they correctly place it at Mamroneck in Westchester.

See what they can get away with on digital!

And they didn't even see a need to publish a "correction" like the print media would do!

 

[Dracotype]

In one way, this is wonderful. Photography is valued, and is paid for. But in another, it smacks of elitism. Yes, photographers should be compensated for their time and energy that they put into a photo, but how do you put a price on a piece of your soul? I am not sure what Steichen would make of this. I may sound very crass to say the above, but it should be asked. When does it become ridiculous, and how do you even begin to put a price on it?

Drew

 

[ch1]

I dunno know - I figure he had to eat too - just like the rest of us. Being as he's been dead for a million years - I'd like to think that he'd be flattered that after all this time his "decisive moment" is still valued!

 

[Stephanie Brim]

I'm hoping that, once I start selling prints, mine go for decent amounts *before* I die. 😉

But to be serious, I hope that this helps people realize how much better archival printing is than digital printing. I mean, yeah, digital printing is so much easier and faster and more convenient all around, but there's a feeling about a print that you know someone worked hard to get that seems to make it so much more worthwhile.

 

[ch1]

I'm hoping that, once I start selling prints, mine go for decent amounts *before* I die. 😉

But to be serious, I hope that this helps people realize how much better archival printing is than digital printing. I mean, yeah, digital printing is so much easier and faster and more convenient all around, but there's a feeling about a print that you know someone worked hard to get that seems to make it so much more worthwhile.

Very well put, Stephanie.

The "value" here is NOT the image, as good as it is, particularly for it's time frame.

What is amazing is that this is one of only three known prints made by the artist/photographer at the time the image was made!

I am a lazy photographer. I shoot "decent" pics but have someone else "develop" the film and then I "scan" the same into digital format!

This is a 100+ year old print made by the guy who took the image. That is what gives it it's value! That is artistry!

 

[lubitel]

But to be serious, I hope that this helps people realize how much better archival printing is than digital printing. I mean, yeah, digital printing is so much easier and faster and more convenient all around, but there's a feeling about a print that you know someone worked hard to get that seems to make it so much more worthwhile.

I agree and disagree. Digital is not easier, at least its not easier to get exactly what you want. Its just different. i dont want to start a heated discussion about that, just my opinion.

I agree though that "handmade" prints have a wonderful feeling to them. Just saw some work from a friend of mine, who prints himself and was blown away by the quality. and he printed on... 10x15cm (4x6in) paper!!! I couldnt believe that that size print could be so good.

 

[RML]

I'm hoping that, once I start selling prints, mine go for decent amounts *before* I die. 😉

But to be serious, I hope that this helps people realize how much better archival printing is than digital printing. I mean, yeah, digital printing is so much easier and faster and more convenient all around, but there's a feeling about a print that you know someone worked hard to get that seems to make it so much more worthwhile.

Digital shots can be printed on archival photographic paper as easily as on printer paper, which BTW is in some cases also graded archival.

 

[Stephanie Brim]

Well, I mean wet prints. I should probably change that. I'll leave it until tomorrow. Too darn tired to do it now. Figured everyone would get what I meant.

 

[varjag]

The technique of digital printing is IMHO easier just because so much less vairables involved. Also, certain stages (e.g. retouching) are just infinitely simpler and less error prone that with traditional process.

Another issue, which may seriously affect print value, is repeatablility. With wet process, every print is guaranteed to be pretty much unique, and buyer knows that a certain amount of sweat went into making it. With digital printing it is easy to mass-produce virtually the same result in any quantity desired.

 

[sfb_dot_com]

The technique of digital printing is IMHO easier just because so much less vairables involved. Also, certain stages (e.g. retouching) are just infinitely simpler and less error prone that with traditional process.

Another issue, which may seriously affect print value, is repeatablility. With wet process, every print is guaranteed to be pretty much unique, and buyer knows that a certain amount of sweat went into making it. With digital printing it is easy to mass-produce virtually the same result in any quantity desired.

I'm sure just the above arguments were made a 100 years ago "What you made three! prints? How can they be worth anything?" I'm sure Van Gogh would have been appalled at the prices his paintings fetch now, but I wonder how he would have felt about the millions of reproductions that have been made of for example Sunflowers? On the one hand, you have recognition of your work, fame, and potentially financial reward, but on the other hand your work becomes lessened by being universal.

For those reasons, now I've started making some archival prints possibly for sale. I'm using the most permanent (digital) process I can. And each and every one is made personally by me, and somehow each one is unique. Even if it's only in the way I write my signature 🙄

Time will of course tell, but I'd like to think that in a 100 years time, one of my images will be someone's prized possession, or hanging on a wall in a museum.

Oh well, maybe! 😉

Andy

 

[ch1]

I would hazard to guess that at the time Steichen made the initial three prints - he did not think he was using "archival" paper!

He was probably just using the best (and maybe only) photograhic print paper available - or, then again, since he was just starting out - maybe he could only "afford" the cheapest?

Of course, the real valuable is not one of these three prints. They are simply "rarities". It is the negative that holds the real value.

Assuming it exists, whomever has that, has an extremely valuable property. The images we see in, for example, Apertures monograph are likely "derivatives" of other prints.

I wonder who has the negative? And, do you think original data on a CD/DVD will last as long?

 

[nottageek]

Of course, the real valuable is not one of these three prints. They are simply "rarities". It is the negative that holds the real value.

Assuming it exists, whomever has that, has an extremely valuable property. The images we see in, for example, Apertures monograph are likely "derivatives" of other prints.

I wonder who has the negative? And, do you think original data on a CD/DVD will last as long?

I disagree. The negative is irrelevant here. The premium was paid for the fact that it was a vintage print hand produced by the man himself. Look at the difference in price between an Edward Weston vintage print and one printed by Cole from the same negative....

 

[ch1]

I disagree. The negative is irrelevant here. The premium was paid for the fact that it was a vintage print hand produced by the man himself. Look at the difference in price between an Edward Weston vintage print and one printed by Cole from the same negative....

Come to think of it - I believe you are correct.

Steichen's hand and eye in making the 3 print ARE the art.

Not sure how this form or artistry will "translate" to PS'ing an image and then printing to digital "archival" paper.

The concepts of photograpahic art is certainly changing!

 

[StuartR]

There was a beautiful Steichen flower study at my local gallery. I really wanted to buy it, but...as you might guess, it was pricey. 25,000. It was a gorgeous 8x10 contact print of a flower in a vase. I don't know how often the rest of you get out to galleries and museums, but I highly recommend it. Looking on the internet and in books is excellent, but the ability to put your nose in front of a real print, whether film or digital, makes such a huge difference. You can truly separate the geniuses from the modest talents.

But in any case, I don't think digital prints are going to be valued less. I could be wrong. But in many cases digital prints are actually closer to the artist's vision than traditional silver prints. How is this so? Well in the past, most of the great photographers did not print themselves. In the digital era there are a lot more photographers printing themselves. But really, I don't see a huge difference. Assuming you are an extremely careful printer who takes good notes and uses consistent technique, chemicals etc, darkroom printing is just as repeatable as digital printing. The only difference is that the computer saves it for you. Anyway, I am a wet printer for black and white, but for color I prefer digital. If you look at the collectors, they are coming to terms with digital. If you were at Photo LA you would have seen a ton of digital prints displayed alongside work from Steichen, Adams, Bresson, Weston, Kertesz and anyone else you care to name. Digital is just another medium, what really matters is the artist's vision and their hand in producing something which accurately represents it.