Print prices.

[Struan Gray]

I have no ambition to sell prints, but were I to do so they would be inkjets. For me, computer imaging is a transparent tool in a way that the darkroom will never would be. If I had the dexterity and timing to produce my prints in the wet I would work as a pianist not a photographer. More fundamentally, I find the tonal response and reciprocity relationships of traditional materials to be too limiting.

A lot of photographers seem to yearn to be paid by the hour. Perhaps it is a natural response to the endemic job insecurity. I can see that if you run a lab or print shop you need to charge for extra time and extra materials, but then you're doing work for hire. There's nothing wrong with that (personally I love the applied arts almost more than the fine), but it determines a relationship between you and your viewers and buyers which allows them a share of the credit as comissioners. In photography that usually means you have a status more like the uncredited master mason who made an architect's design actually stand up than, say, Haydn writing symphonies for largely forgotton patrons.

Given how widely and in how many media successful photographs are published and distributed, buying a print from the photographer has become more about provenance than aura. You are buying a direct personal connection, not a piece of paper. I assume Kirk's retrospective book will be well printed, so what is to prevent fans from mounting the sliced-out pages on their walls? I would say that it is not - as many here would argue - because his fans yearn for a 'real' a silver-gelatin print, but rather because they want something that has come from him and not just a publisher's warehouse. 'Come from him' can just as well mean 'printed from his file' as 'turned his fingernails black'.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Clever argument Struan, you almost had me convinced until your last sentence. If, as you say the only consideration is that "it came from him" then wouldnt a print that was carefully labored over be more valuable than one that was spat from a machine?

Yes, I realize that Kirk or the ink jet poster maker can sit in front of the computer for 900 hours (Which BTW Kirk with all due respect these have got to be lawyer hours.....or there was something terribly wrong with this negative or you suffer from OCD.... ;-)) but all this work does not result in a print but a computer file, the print is nothing more than the result of clicking "print" and this perception is what makes a world of difference to many people.

IMO the generalization that it is about provenance and a conection to the artist is flawed. I dont know about anybody else here, but when I buy a print I dont feel a special "connection" to the artist, I bought it because I liked it. If the specialness lies in the "connection" with the artist, then an EW print made and signed by him should have the same value as one made by Cole, Brett or now even Kim, after all the negative was made by EW, the prints are just the result of the "machines"....So I have to disagree, the "black fingernails" do make a difference, at least to me.

[Struan Gray]

I fully respect your position and purchasing decisions Jorge. My point is that even they represent a convention and not a cold assessment of material value or time invested. Would you sell a Pd print for less than a Pt one? Would you sell a print of a negative you exposed and developed just right for less than one that required more work?

I prefer photographs that work in the world of ideas as well as the world of beautiful objects. If the ideas are strong enough, the presentation becomees immaterial. For many of my favourite photographers an online jpeg suffices to get the gist, and a real print is just icing on the cake. If, on the other hand we're talking about a wet maple leaf on a it needs to be encrusted with rubies and diamonds before I'll pay a dollar.

I therefore see purchasing a print as a bit like getting a book signed by author, or buying the copy they had in their own library. You seem to want the manuscript, and nothing but the manuscript. Fair enough, but it's not the only game in town.

[Struan Gray]

hmmm. That leaf should be on a rock. Preferably with blurred white water in the background.

[bob carnie]

The ability to reproduce a colour image 20 years after it was taken is a factor that bothers me, I have negatives from the very first weeks of college in black and white that are still very printable. Any print from that time I can reproduce in fact I just reprinted 12 negatives that are in excellent shape. I do not have any usable colour film from that period. The negatives lasted no more than 10 years before huge cyan blobs appeared.
If I was selling large colour negative murals , (we see them in every gallery now) for thousands of dollars(they do go for large sums) I would be crapping my pants within 15years of the sale.(what do I do when the print is returned by the buyer).
This is a serious problem for high end wedding photographers that have sold these cheap colour prints to their clients for big bucks and now trying to fix the problem.
Anyone who works with these materials know this print/negative fade factor and a lot of photographers seem to ignore the problem and in the end blame the Manufactures .
Longevity is a factor to be considered as a photographer selling to the masses, The only colour print I would consider extremely safe to call permanent is the Carbon Colour Print, and I am only aware of one or two photographers producing these prints.
Everyone with a valid Visa card is producing ink jets.

[Will Strain]

"Second, each and every print takes the same amount of time and work to produce, from the photographer's hands."

No. Not in my darkroom workflow. I spend 2-4 hours typically making a fine print, sometimes longer. But once I'm happy with that final print, all subsequent prints in the edition, I'm just following my notes. 5 minutes, max + chemistry.

I see little difference between spending that 4 hours arriving at a final image in the darkroom. And spending that same 4 hours doing the same type of work in Photoshop.

For me it is not as simple as "just hitting print." There is a rigorous process of color matching, tweaking, paper testing, etc. Just as there is in the darkroom. I take this very seriously as an art and a science. I am very proud of my skills - both digital and traditional.

And I am happy and honored that there is an audience who enjoys my work.

[Pascal Quint]

RichSBV

"As far as photography in general compared to painting, it never has. Show me a photograph that would get the price of the Mona Lisa???"

Many questions.

Initially, what is the value of the Mona Lisa? No one really knows?

Then, what gives it its value? Is it considered a unique work of art? Perhaps the best and greatest work of art ever in history (so far)? Is it the painting's reputation and history? Its mythologie? Is it something else? (probably a combination of all those things ). And remember some people would say it is really a great "popular" piece of art, but not the greatest work ever.

After that, never mind photography, if you believe the Mona Lisa is one of the greatest works of art, what other paintings compare? What other sculptures? Very few. And how many modern or contemporary works of art compare to it? Many would say none, or, possibly one or two - a Picasso? A Kandinsky? Maybe, maybe not. And photography has only been here for such a short time by comparison. Those classic arts have a difficulty producing something as unique and beautiful and enigmatic as the Mona Lisa - but it is surely possible an artist could emerge whose work might equal it. And so it is for photography. If a photograph was made that embodied such unique and individual artistic vision, with an equally unique mythologie, then certainly, perhaps such a photograph (or any work of art) might equal the Mona Lisa in monetary value.

And know that in monetary value photography (often in editions) can equal other forms of contemporary art at the auction houses.

"Second, each and every print takes the same amount of time and work to produce, from the photographer's hands. This makes them all as valuable. "

Or all as equally invaluable. The value of a work of art really has little to do with how long it took to make.

"I personally know many artists who sell both original work and 'prints' made from the original. Originals go in the hundreds or thousands, prints go for 20 to 40 depending on whether or not they get signed. I don't see any difference in photography..."

So is a silver print an original? If so, then so is a digital print. In photography, both are made from the original matrix, which in photographic tradition, is rarely sold, especially if it is a negative. This is different and entirely accepted practice in the art world from a painter, for example, who then makes prints from an original painting. These things were settled some generations ago when photography became accepted as an "art" and are similar to (but not quite the same as) the stonecut print maker/lithographie

"I happen to beleive limited editions are a gimmick be they prints or ink jet posters created by galleries to give more "importance" to the work, lets remember that a lot of their income comes from trading limited prints, the photographer gets bupkus......."

Georges, not always true at all. If you live in a place where the artist is valued, with copyright they also recognise the "Right of the Artist", which means when a work is resold then the artists also receive a percentage of such a sale. Many other civilised countries are now recognising that their laws need to include this aspect.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

If you live in a place where the artist is valued, with copyright they also recognise the "Right of the Artist"

I guess this was meant for me...although my name is not "georges".....yeah, Califronia is the only state that recognizes this and if you are are foreigner you still get nothing.....so one state in one country is not a mayority, right?

Would you sell a Pd print for less than a Pt one? Would you sell a print of a negative you exposed and developed just right for less than one that required more work?

Nope.... maybe.....

[Pascal Quint]

If you live in a place where the artist is valued, with copyright they also recognise the "Right of the Artist"

yeah, Califronia is the only state that recognizes this and if you are are foreigner you still get nothing.....so one state in one country is not a mayority, right?

And of course France, and I think possibly Ireland? among some others. Australia and Canada are considering it, as also is the UE

[David Luttmann]

Pascal,

You are correct. The government here in Canada has been looking into this in quite a bit of detail. There has been talks in other countries in Europe also,as well as other developed nations about this type of protection. It may take awhile, but I hope that logic and common sense prevails and the artist remains protected.