Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 71

Thread: Inkjet, posters, and limited edition prints

  1. #11

    Inkjet, posters, and limited edition prints

    I like to see a print labeled as to it's type of creation. When it's not labeled, I question the producer/seller. "What kind of print is this?" It's about then, that I find many times I start getting an explanation as to the particular process like they have to make a point or give a comparsion. My question is why the explanation, if they believe in the image.

  2. #12

    Inkjet, posters, and limited edition prints

    I like to see a print labeled as to it's type of creation. When it's not labeled, I question the producer/seller. "What kind of print is this?" It's about then, that I find many times I start getting an explanation as to the particular process like they have to make a point or give a comparsion. My question is why the explanation, if they believe in the image.

    Well, I expect that the reason they give you an explanation is that you've asked what kind of print it is, and they're trying to give you an answer.

    If, in response to your question "What kind of print is this?", you got an answer along the lines of "The type of print doesn't matter, if you believe in the image. That's why I don't label the type of print," would you be happier?

  3. #13
    Michael E. Gordon
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    463

    Inkjet, posters, and limited edition prints

    I'm not really answering Q.T.'s question but responding to some of the other comments. As Eric Fredine said, "distinctions in value based on the output technology" are ludicrous. Most of sell our work primarily to those buying the print because the image moves them, not value-based collectors. Our buyers could care less what the substrate or process is. It's only the image that matters.

  4. #14

    Inkjet, posters, and limited edition prints

    Our buyers could care less what the substrate or process is. It's only the image that matters.

    Speak for yourself buddy.......let me guess, you are selling ink jet prints...right?

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Posts
    471

    Inkjet, posters, and limited edition prints

    Jorge, I can't help to chuckle. It seems in every post the only ones who claim " it's only the image that matters" are the ones selling inkjets. I just entered some of my platinum work in The 35th Annual Cleveland Photo Exhibition. This was a juried show and it included entries from all over the United States, Canada, and Mexico. Out of the 200 and some odd entrants 45 artists work were selected. I had three of the five pieces I submitted selected for the show, ( all pt. pd. prints). Out of all these entries I'd say 30% were inkjets. At the show's opening I talked to an "artist" who had a so called computer manipulated print. He said he never shot that image but put it together from various images he downloaded onto his computer. Now I know very little about photo shop but in some way this was cut and pasted together. I asked, " let me get this straight, you took numerous photos, taken by someone else and created an image and claim it to be your work?" His reply was, " basically yes". For some reason that left a real bad taste in my mouth. For those who claim that inkjets are approaching the quality of pt.pd. and silver gels let me just say my work was judged with all the other mediums in this show. My print, "Rollo" (clown on piano bench) won best in black and white. Now I encourage an artist to work in what ever medium he or she chooses. But to make false claims about their process ( such as archival inks) and claims that this inkjet will be around as long as a pt. pd print is totally absurb and an insult to those of us who have spent thousands of hours perfecting our process. When confronted with this issue I guess it would only be fitting to claim " it is only the image that matters". Tell that to the guy who spent 600.00 on that inkjet that is fading away on his wall three years later. I love some of the work being done with inkjets and I even own a couple of pieces. But let's call them what they are and not even associate them with the term archival or platinum.

  6. #16
    Old School Wayne
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Posts
    840

    Inkjet, posters, and limited edition prints

    It seems in every post the only ones who claim " it's only the image that matters" are the ones selling inkjets

    As I said elsewhere "This is a widely held opinion-but held exclusively by people doing some variation on ink/digital imaging. I have never heard a single person who uses only "traditional" photographic processes who shares it"

    I'm still waiting to hear from that single person, then you know what? We'll have a single person!

    Of course it matters what the substrate and process is. The attempt to obscure and deny obvious and easily observable differences is truly pathetic, at best. At worst its, well, even worse than pathetic

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Tucson, Arizona
    Posts
    4,267

    Inkjet, posters, and limited edition prints

    I could largely go along with the theory "it's only the image that matters," but fear that a few years after buying an inkjet print, I may not have one. Archival issues seem yet to be sorted out, and that is very significant if work is sold at art-world prices.

    But getting back to QT's original question, "what if the limited edition print was a Lightjet (a photo-sensitive process) and the posters would be a Epson ultrachrome print?", I think the distinction between Lightjet and Ultrachrome has no clear hierachy of "being the original" in many people's minds, including artists and curators who work with both.

    My issue (besides archival quality) would be that both are digital outputs, and while the photographer may have done all the shooting and digital manipulation, when it comes down to making the final print, he pushes a button and a machine spits it out, same identical result, machine-made perfect, every time. (I guess with a lightjet you have the option of running what the machine gave you through the chemicals by hand...) Yes, we tend to all use industrial tools, (cameras, lenses, film, photo paper), but further digitalization seems to remove one of the few remaining points of human touch in making the physical object.

    I think there is image value and object value, and personally, I attach more object value to traditionally made images. I think it's part of why many people attach more value to hand-coated alternative process works. It's why some prefer the work of a potter to factory-made dinnerware. This may be traditional-elitism and an otherwise-unsupportable aesthetic position, but it's where I'm at now. I could be wrong, but I don't think I'm alone...
    "I love my Verito lens, but I always have to sharpen everything in Photoshop..."

  8. #18
    Abuser of God's Sunlight
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    brooklyn, nyc
    Posts
    5,514

    Inkjet, posters, and limited edition prints

    "At the show's opening I talked to an "artist" who had a so called computer manipulated print. He said he never shot that image but put it together from various images he downloaded onto his computer. Now I know very little about photo shop but in some way this was cut and pasted together."

    I think this is clouding any issues here, Robert. The guy you talked to was working in photomontage, or more specifically, collage, which has existed for over a hundred years. The fact that his process was digital has nothing to do with it.

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Posts
    471

    Inkjet, posters, and limited edition prints

    Paul, This image was being displayed and sold as a fine art photograph. No mention was being made of it being a collage of others work. No mention was being made to unknown buyers of it being a collage, only a " computer manipulated photograph (notice I didn't say photographs) It was composed as a single image using bits and pieces of others work. Composed to look like a single image not a montage or any noticable beginning or end of a series of photographs arranged as a collage but to look like a single image a single photograph and no credit was being given to the contributing photographers whose images were used to produce it. Now you can call it a collage if you want I call it a total misrepresentation of a fine art photograph. So tell me who is clouding the issue here. If it were a literary piece of work I would call it plagiarism. Now you may feel comfortable with taking credit for something you arranged but had no part of the actual creative process other than the arrangement But I don't. And if so , then call it a collage. So what you're saying is i can take your photos arrange them how i want in photoshop and produce my own fine art prints, sell them for a profit without ever mentioning your name and you're fine with that? Paul I will apologize for my bluntness in advance but in all honesty I could teach a monkey to do that.

  10. #20
    Founder QT Luong's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1997
    Location
    San Jose, CA
    Posts
    2,197

    Inkjet, posters, and limited edition prints

    Saying that there is no intrinsic value or appeal in the craft of a process such as PT is as uninformed as saying that all inkjets would deteriorate in three years. Let's stay on topic, and not rehash the PT v. inkjet discussion with those kind of arguments.

    It is difficult to define the intrinsic expense of each method. For instance, the price of consumerables per square inch favors the RA-4 machines by a factor of 5 over Epson prints. However, most photographers don't own a RA-4 printer, and for them cranking out Epson prints would be much more economical over what a lab would charge for RA-4 printing, even in quantities.

    If the potential buyer would see the print and the poster side-by-side, he would realize that there isn't much difference, but there are plenty of ways to market where the two wouldn't be shown side by side.

    The questions that I thought the scenario would raise are:

    Is this "cheating" on the part of the photographer ? He is offering prints outside of a limited edition.
    How much have the two processes differ ? If not photosensitive/ink, then what ? Does the fact to call the prints "posters" make them so ? What is the difference between prints and posters ?

Similar Threads

  1. Limited vs unlimited edition prints?
    By Mike Tobias in forum Business
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 13-Jun-2009, 10:14
  2. Yet another limited edition post but different
    By Mark_3632 in forum On Photography
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 23-Oct-2005, 01:33
  3. Limited edition, not really that limited ?
    By QT Luong in forum Business
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: 19-Oct-2005, 17:45
  4. Replies: 28
    Last Post: 3-Dec-2003, 16:28

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •