Can we start a new digital/traditional troll subforum?

[Kirk Gittings]

with a toilet flush lever as its symbol?

[Erik Larsen]

:) !!!

[vinny]

As long as it wouldn't be one of those toilets that flushes automatically? Cuz I hate those!

[djdister]

Well thats' a thought! If the subforum is expected to be for trolls and full of arguments and invective, then have at it...

[winterclock]

Will you be able to get FrankP to moderate it?

[Struan Gray]

All contributions to be written with oak-gall ink, using a quill, on double-elephant size handmade paper. To be delivered to a moderator by your personal manservant.

[Curt]

iFlush!

[Ken Lee]

http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/forum/AnalogVsDigital.png

As long as I can stamp each one accordingly.

[Ken Lee]

It may not be enough to point out to prospective buyers that your prints are made with traditional processes. The modern buying public is so well-informed about such matters that they frequently ask not only about choice of paper, paper grade, developer - they demand to know what enlarger was used, even which enlarger lens, easel, paper trays etc.

Just yesterday someone at a very famous gallery asked me whether I used print tongs, or agitated by rocking the tray instead. I told him I rock the tray. Then he asked me if I wear gloves. What type of gloves... Nitrile ? What color... blue ?

What a shame it's not like it was in the old days, when buyers only asked about shutter speed, focal length and aperture: now they demand to know the actual lens serial number !

I've clinched hundreds of print sales - not just because I use all the right materials and equipment - but because I make my prints on the right day of the week ! That's right: I do all my printing on odd-numbered days. Posh galleries insist on knowing, or they won't even look at your work.

[ic-racer]

Actually, if buyers were educated, they would actually ask those things. As it stands now, they want to know the type of scanner, type of ink, printer make, how many images are stitched together and did you take them all yourself, which Photoshop plugins you use, what stock image service do you use for your sky, moons and clouds, how much sharpening or other digital 'enhancements', file size, how much RAM you have, do you use RAID, type of digital cables used to connect it together, etc...

[BradS]

Hmmm, blue glove you say. I've been using the purple ones. Maybe it's time to re-think my approach. Thanks for the tip.

[djdister]

It may not be enough to point out to prospective buyers that your prints are made with traditional processes. The modern buying public is so well-informed about such matters that they frequently ask not only about choice of paper, paper grade, developer - they demand to know what enlarger was used, even which enlarger lens, easel, paper trays etc.

Just yesterday someone at a very famous gallery asked me whether I used print tongs, or agitated by rocking the tray instead. I told him I rock the tray. Then he asked me if I wear gloves. What type of gloves... Nitrile ? What color... blue ?

What a shame it's not like it was in the old days, when buyers only asked about shutter speed, focal length and aperture: now they demand to know the actual lens serial number !

I've clinched hundreds of print sales - not just because I use all the right materials and equipment - but because I make my prints on the right day of the week ! That's right: I do all my printing on odd-numbered days. Posh galleries insist on knowing, or they won't even look at your work.

Yikes! That would drive me insane. Guess its a good thing I don't sell any prints.

[Sal Santamaura]

Can we start a new digital/traditional troll subforum with a toilet flush lever as its symbol?I'd be in favor of that, regardless of the symbol used. However, my support is contingent upon the guidelines being updated to prohibit feeding trolls. Without that, lots of otherwise serious people keep throwing the trolls nourishment. :) With it (enforced), there'd be lots of "no response" threads, i.e. automatic troll shunning. :D

PS I've noticed that trolls frequently disguise trolling by posting their nonsense in the form of "questions." Might be a good way to determine whether things posted in other categories really ought be moved to this new one. ;)

[Maris Rusis]

A digital/traditional subforum could be interesting and informative but I'm not sure how one would identify a troll.

Is it the person who insists that digital picture-making and making pictures out of light sensitive materials is the same thing?
Or is the troll the one who points that the two methods are actually different?
Is it trolling to assert that digital pictures and pictures made by light and chemistry are identical in outcome and value?
Or is the troll the one who proposes that the the two kinds of picture constitute different outcomes and the differences are sometimes important, sometimes not?
Or, worst of all, is a troll is a person who fashions a post that transgresses the personal philosophy of a moderator?

I get the impression that many people making pictures using digital methods are very defensive about their personal identification as photographers. There may be issues of self esteem, professional credibility, commercial status, and aesthetic credentials at stake. But this forum is not the real world where people may prosper if the market-place identifies them as photographers and sees their children starve if they are not. There is an opportunity to make this place a haven of calm and rational discussions of all lens based picture-making methods.

[djdister]

120664

[Tin Can]

I like the way you put the last sentence.



... But this forum is not the real world where people may prosper if the market-place identifies them as photographers and sees their children starve if they are not. There is an opportunity to make this place a haven of calm and rational discussions of all lens based picture-making methods.

[dsphotog]

Instead, maybe a poll of members' chosen printing methods.
It might be useful to know how many users there are of various printing methods.
With a poll, folks won't be able to argue.....

[Tin Can]

Who prints? I throw away all my negs long before scanning or printing comes into play.

[mdarnton]

I print with a hammer. But I have both a digital one and an analog one.
They're both really big, though.
Large formash.

[Bill Burk]

It may not be enough to point out to prospective buyers that your prints are made with traditional processes. The modern buying public is so well-informed about such matters that they frequently ask not only about choice of paper, paper grade, developer - they demand to know what enlarger was used, even which enlarger lens, easel, paper trays etc.

Just yesterday someone at a very famous gallery asked me whether I used print tongs, or agitated by rocking the tray instead. I told him I rock the tray. Then he asked me if I wear gloves. What type of gloves... Nitrile ? What color... blue ?

What a shame it's not like it was in the old days, when buyers only asked about shutter speed, focal length and aperture: now they demand to know the actual lens serial number !

I've clinched hundreds of print sales - not just because I use all the right materials and equipment - but because I make my prints on the right day of the week ! That's right: I do all my printing on odd-numbered days. Posh galleries insist on knowing, or they won't even look at your work.

I had to read this twice and I still don't know if you are pulling our legs...

If you're serious, I can imagine being irritated, but maybe it's someone trying to catch a liar.

Yeah, I use the white vinyl gloves, but hate it when the Acetone eats them away.

[Ken Lee]

"I had to read this twice and I still don't know if you are pulling our legs..."

It was an attempt at humor.

Of course, the posh high-end snooty exclusive collectors to whom I sell hundreds - thousands really - of prints, often demand to know even more surprising details: On what day of the week was my Kodak 2D camera made ? Was it actually made in Rochester proper, or in a nearby suburb, like Brighton, Brockport, Canandaigua, Spencerport, Webster, etc. ? What did the workmen eat for lunch ? Did they bring their lunches in paper bags, or lunch boxes ? How long were their work shifts ? How often did they take a coffee break ? How long were their breaks ?

All of these factors strongly influence the value of photographs and can make or break an important sale. The actual photograph is irrelevant. One is as good as the next. Just lift someone else's photos off a social media site at random. My recommendation to anyone starting out these days is to forget about aesthetics entirely: just build your story !

[paulr]

"The actual photograph is irrelevant...

This is why I've been leveraging one of the great untapped possibilities of digital imaging ... I no longer even show people the pictures. Just the histograms.

I'm in negotiations now with a Saudi Princeling, who wants a particularly striking histogram for the 4-story-high wall in the video gaming salon of his guest palace.

[Ken Lee]

This is why I've been leveraging one of the great untapped possibilities of digital imaging ... I no longer even show people the pictures. Just the histograms.

I'm in negotiations now with a Saudi Princeling, who wants a particularly striking histogram for the 4-story-high wall in the video gaming salon of his guest palace.

Brilliant !

[Kodachrome25]

"I had to read this twice and I still don't know if you are pulling our legs..."

It was an attempt at humor.

Of course, the posh high-end snooty exclusive collectors to whom I sell hundreds - thousands really - of prints, often demand to know even more surprising details: On what day of the week was my Kodak 2D camera made ? Was it actually made in Rochester proper, or in a nearby suburb, like Brighton, Brockport, Canandaigua, Spencerport, Webster, etc. ? What did the workmen eat for lunch ? Did they bring their lunches in paper bags, or lunch boxes ? How long were their work shifts ? How often did they take a coffee break ? How long were their breaks ?

All of these factors strongly influence the value of photographs and can make or break an important sale. The actual photograph is irrelevant. One is as good as the next. Just lift someone else's photos off a social media site at random. My recommendation to anyone starting out these days is to forget about aesthetics entirely: just build your story !

I knew it had to be humor, but I was just not sure what set the parody was pointed at....and you let some people think it was not for quite some time...Trolling?

And in every case I have experienced a sale, they *always* ask as a means to gauge their personal value proposition over say, a gorgeous poster from Nat Geo Online and to especially get a feel for the artist's life.

You probably should have prefaced with a "Warning: Parody" eh?

[Tin Can]

Buyers do want to know artist and technique. Then they have a story to tell their friends about their acquisition.

Personally I think many artists are taken advantage of, since there are no 'residuals' or future profits for static work. Movies, books and many forms of art carry value back to the artist after the first sale, but not most static art. Yes some smart Pro's retain photographic rights, but the beginner never does and watches 'his' art occasionally soar to astronomic value.

I think that system is inherently unfair.

[Sal Santamaura]

...I was having lunch yesterday with a friend of mine who runs a local gallery where I live in Aspen...Basically her opinion echoed mine: in every single case of making an actual sale, if the potential customer is starting to really consider the piece, they ask how it came to be, what is it printed on, etc....I understand you are, as they would say over the pond, "Taking the Piss", but it is aimed at a target in a manner of speaking, my question is whom?Ken can and probably will speak for himself. My guess is that he's "targeting" people who leap directly from your observation about potential customers wanting to know how a piece was created straight to the conclusion that method used has any bearing on whether they purchase it or use that information in determining its value.

[paulr]

I've had some beginning collectors ask about process. Experienced collectors and curators have never asked me about that stuff.

[Maris Rusis]

I've had some beginning collectors ask about process. Experienced collectors and curators have never asked me about that stuff.

I don't know if I'm a serious collector, my holding only goes back a few decades, but I believe a collection gains integrity and value if it all of a type. An eclectic hodge-podge of one thing and another betrays the collector as an aesthetic gadfly attracted by the shiniest baubles. Further, the bits and pieces approach denies individual works a power of association. For example a lesser piece connected to a greater one may gain worth because it reveals an artist's development over time.

If I was spending corporate or government money I'd never ask about process. I'd just buy the latest and most hyped art fad. But because it's my own gold I have to aim lower. I choose to collect gelatin-silver photographs made by the person who signs them. This because it is what I do myself and I think I can pick the good ones from the bad ones. And also because my collection fits within the deep historic tradition of pictures made from light-sensitive materials. Hopefully the "value by association" fantasy comes true.

Sometimes process is irrelevant, sometimes it is critical. This forum could be pleasant place to ventilate the question.

[Sal Santamaura]

...I believe a collection gains integrity and value if it all of a type...Collections of photographic prints don't have "integrity." They're just groups of objects. They exist, period.

Each individual photograph in a collection, regardless of the tools used to make it, will become more expensive over time if and only if its value as perceived by future potential purchasers is greater than what was originally paid for it. That's the way markets work. The value determination is made based on a number of factors. Whether all photographs in a collection were made using the same or various tools is irrelevant to monetary appreciation. The market uses other criteria (recently described in a number of threads here by other posters who sell photographic prints) to establish value.

[paulr]

I don't know if I'm a serious collector, my holding only goes back a few decades, but I believe a collection gains integrity and value if it all of a type.

The collectors I know would agree with you, but for them the "types" of interest include genre, subject matter, period, particular artists, or esthetics. Not process.

I know there are exceptions. You'll find collectors with all kinds of ideas, and probably quite a few who only collect platinum prints, or tintypes, or whatever. They're just not the ones I encounter. Part of it is that those collectors are most likely interested in vintage work, and I'm not old enough to qualify (yet).

The most prominent private collector (http://www.sfai.edu/board/paul-sack) who's bought from me has a particularly quirky set of guidelines for his collection (he's a real estate guy ... every picture must include somewhere in the frame a piece of property that you could buy or lease). I've never seen him fuss over the type of print. He just cares if he likes it.

[Kodachrome25]

I have not really dealt with beginning curators and every collector or curator I have talked with says the discussion of the process is popular, be it derived of technical aspects or "Life of an Artist" aspects. Sure, I have a handful of color images that are printed by digital output that are quite popular and do well, people buy them because they like them, I'll even attach the top selling one for you so you know I am not BS-ing about...

But if the work is stunning and the buyer is interested, the fact a print was hand crafted instead of computer generated helps get that checkbook out faster every single time and that is the way it should be. The front to back analog process deserves that kind of prestige in a world filled with digital wunderkind and billions of images...

As an aside, one of my all time favorite photographers is the cinematic Fan Ho (http://modernbook.com/store/fanho.html), I have his book called Hong Kong Yesterday. The one he did after it called The Living Theatre is sold out leaving about a dozen copies of the pricey limited edition set which includes a nice print. I was about to pass until I decided to call the publisher and ask about the origin of the print. When he confirmed it is silver gel, signed and numbered, I changed my mind and ordered the book....paid for in full by the sale of a print of the attached image...

121261

[paulr]

Well ... I just looked again at the current list of most expensive photographs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_photographs). Every print dated 1990 or later is digital.

[Tin Can]

That's good enough for me. Digital wins and all darkrooms must be abolished. I start the dismantling tomorrow. :)


Well ... I just looked again at the current list of most expensive photographs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_photographs). Every print dated 1990 or later is digital.

[Christopher Barrett]

Whaddaya mean? The modern ones are all C-Prints. I mean, they could be digital C-Prints, but even so, they're developed in RA-4. None of those (that I saw) were inkjet (or Giclée if you prefer). Mind you... I don't have a problem with ink jets.

[paulr]

That's good enough for me. Digital wins and all darkrooms must be abolished. I start the dismantling tomorrow. :)

I don't know. You don't need to go all digital right away unless your lifestyle demands selling prints for over a million.

[Tin Can]

I have reduced my lifestyle to starving retired artist with a secure future. I am not burdened with profit motives for the duration.

Creative freedom is the only freedom.

And I was kidding about dismantling, I have only begun to enjoy myself. :)



I don't know. You don't need to go all digital right away unless your lifestyle demands selling prints for over a million.

[paulr]

I have reduced my lifestyle to starving retired artist with a secure future. I am not burdened with profit motives for the duration.

Creative freedom is the only freedom.

And I was kidding about dismantling, I have only begun to enjoy myself. :)

That's good news! I'm only in it for the money, so I just make million dollar inkjets now. Unfortunately they sell at a rate of one every 400 years.

[Jmarmck]

I am just starting out, again, and still have most of my darkroom equipment in a pile in the middle of the dinning room. I am looking to buy a 3880 printer. I am at the fork in the road.

[paulr]

I am looking to buy a 3880 printer. I am at the fork in the road.

They take up less space in the dining room.

This I can say with certainty. Since I left my industrial loft to share an apartment with my girlfriend, the 3880 has lived on a cart about 5 feet from the dining room table.
Still, the powers that be consider it "huge" and "ugly," so I've been forced to buy a fitted cover.

[djdister]

I am just starting out, again, and still have most of my darkroom equipment in a pile in the middle of the dinning room. I am looking to buy a 3880 printer. I am at the fork in the road.

Go for it. Shooting on film and printing on inkjet is not the road to hell. It might even lead to your shooting more film.

[Jmarmck]

They take up less space in the dining room.

Still, the powers that be consider it "huge" and "ugly," so I've been forced to buy a fitted cover.
lol I don't have that problem anymore. The dinning and living areas are full of camera gear, guitars, and recording gear. There is little mystery why the darkroom is not done.

[Sal Santamaura]

...I am at the fork in the road.As Yogi Berry so wisely advised, "When You Come to a Fork in the Road, Take It!"

[tgtaylor]

Well, one thing about printing with the inkjet is that it’s quick, easy, and cheap. Just the other day while driving on the freeway it struck me that the now common practice of making gigantic inkjet prints – room size or even building size prints – originated with the competition between the “Giclée” printer and Little Sally.

Now Little Sally is a kid and like all kids she has to have to have a phone and that phone must have a camera of course. So the parents get a camera phone for their little Sally and Little Sally don’t waste no time, she is young and unlike the old farts here who think they know what “art” is, she is unaware and totally uninhibited. Yeah, she is both hip and ready-to-go.

So Little Sally goes out and gets some snaps and sends them wirelessly to the computer at home that the parents paid a whole hundred dollars for that can print color. No Photoshop needed – just choose the optimize function and press the start button and, lo and behold, out comes an impressive looking image from their little Sally that the parents can proudly display to their friends and neighbors!

But prints from the family printer is limited to 8x10 or 8x11.5” – Little Sally and the family can’t even imagine printing photo’s the size that the “Giclée” printer prints them. To them that’s truly miraculous and the “Giclée” printer knows that – that’s where he has them and that’s why he prints in the size gargantuan.

And they are cheap. What do you do with a, say, 30x30 foot Giclée from a show that doesn’t sell? You simply toss it in the dumpster (or burn/shred it if you’re concerned about someone finding it) because you have the program that created it saved on some hard drive somewhere and all you have to do to create another identical print is to retrieve that program from is location, insert another sheet of paper in the printer and press START. That’s it! No need to incur the expense to find the space to house them in archival boxes when you can print out a brand new and identical print in less time that it would take you to retrieve a stored version for far less than the cost of preserving the original!

Yeah, Giclée is quick, easy, and cheap.

Thomas

[Kirk Gittings]

my point for this thread exactly........

[Ralph Barker]

Purpose served, I believe.