Selling prints - to mount or not to mount?

[roteague]

I hate to tell you this, but there's no silver in a finished Fuji Crystal Archive or Ilfochrome print. The final image is composed solely of dyes.

I am aware of that, however, before processing they are silver prints.

[Ralph Barker]

While I'm certainly not in a position to argue the experience of others here, and can certainly appreciate the opposing positions, isn't the essence of what is being discussed really a matter of marketing? I suspect that most people, up to a certain point, do whatever their particular market demands.

The key point may be to recognize that different markets have different demands. If, for example, I were to offer 4x a photographer's asking price for a print, how many would decline to overmat their print with black velvet?

[tim atherton]

I am aware of that, however, before processing they are silver prints.

ha haa - but a little hard to see... rather hard to market invisible prints

[tim atherton]

Tim, first we should get one thing straight, the vast majority of fine art photographs sold in the world are not sold to hardcore collectors or museums. They are mostly sold in 2 ways, first, through art consultants, interior designers etc, for use in corporate offices, hotels and private residences as decoration. And second by non hardcore collectors seeking art to decorate their homes. This first group prefers the art mounted as the work is intended to hang on a wall. Then you have the hardcore collectors and museums who may individually have amassed large collections, but are dwarfed by the sheer numbers of the other type of purchasers. For space saving they may choose unmounted prints then again they may not.
.

okay - then you/we are talking about very different things and different markets - basically fine art photogrpahs to match the wallpaper (and why, as Paul R has pointed out in another thread, it is now recomedned not to use the term "fine art" when referring to photography - as opposed to just art photogrpahy (however un-definable it is)

There's possibly a difference in perception between a corporate office that pays $5,000 or $10,000 for a print and one that pays say $500 or $1000 or so

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

While I'm certainly not in a position to argue the experience of others here, and can certainly appreciate the opposing positions, isn't the essence of what is being discussed really a matter of marketing? I suspect that most people, up to a certain point, do whatever their particular market demands.

The key point may be to recognize that different markets have different demands. If, for example, I were to offer 4x a photographer's asking price for a print, how many would decline to overmat their print with black velvet?

Send check, have velvet.....

[paulr]

I've heard this debated a lot. I don't think there's one right answer. Any right answer will have to do with your own preference and the preference of the market you're selling to.

As Tim points out, there's more than one art market. We casually call them by the same name, but the museum/commercial gallery market, the hotel/interior design market, the art fair market, the local gallery/frame shop market, have little if anything to do with each other. And even within these markets, there probably isn't any real consensus.

Curators that I've talked to often don't care too much. If pressed on it, they'd prefer unmounted prints, because that's what their conservators like, and it gives them more options for display and storage. But they recognize that some artists consider the mat to be part of the work, and they respect that.

As far as private collectors, I've found them to be every bit as individualistic, quirky, opinionated, and hard headed as photographers. So for every one of them who prefers a mounted print, you'll find one who's willing to argue the opposite. maybe even fight about it. Just like here.

Personally, I consider the mat to be part of the display, not part of the print. And I think a major part of its role is protective. So i don't dry mount. I want somone to be able to replace the mat easily if it gets damaged. And they're easily damaged.

Those who disagree tend to consider the mat integral to their work. Or else they make very large prints and can't figure out any other way to keep them flat. Their answer to the damage issue is "don't damage it."

If you know where you stand on this divide, and what your market expects, you probably already have the answer to the question.

[Brian K]

Jorge, thanks for the very kind words, it's appreciated. If you really love Mt. Klifatindur ( I wish it had a better name) we can work something out.....

I've stated my opinion about matting not out of a need to stir the pot but because I feel that in most circumstances you do your work a disservice by leaving it up to others to decide what background to place your work on. Museums may prefer to store prints unmatted, but when it comes time to show it, they're matted. And what does the museum do with all the mats they cut for the exhibition when it's over? Throw them all out? So unless the sole purpose of a print is to be kept in a dark box in a cabinet, it's best mounted. Do you think the people who buy your work just put the print in the box and never take it out for a spin on a wall? I can think of no sadder end for a print than an existence like that.

You may feel that your eyes and the eyes of your audience are not affected by the relationship of the print to it's immediate environment but they are. The understanding that the background affects the image is not some new age idea but goes back many hundreds of years,even past the Renaissance. Even Ansel talks about background mat color in "The Print". It's not a matter of your work being able to stand up to whatever background it's on, a great image will suffer in a bad environment just as much as a bad print will. If you have taken the time to carefully choose the print contrast, meticulously dodge and burn tones why then allow the perception of those values to be altered?

This is not some made up psuedo science, there is a way that the cones and rods in your eye, the vitrious fluid, the lens, cornea and the brain deal with light. Just as a camera lens has characteristics so does the eye. Look online for optical illusions or eye tricks and you'll see how easily the eye is affected by these things.

These are not just art school theories, in the 25 years I worked as an advertising photographer I had the opportunity on many occasions to work with some of the best photographers, graphic designers and design firms in the world. They understood the affects that shape, tone, color and proximity have on the eye and even the pyschology of the viewer.

Paul if the mat is easily damaged and needs to be replaced then how does selling the work unmatted make it any safer? If I damage a print while mounting or matting, and it does happen, I throw the print out. If your buyer has a third party damage a print while mounting or matting, they're stuck with a damaged print. I know when I mount a print it's properly mounted on archival buffered board using buffered and removeable dry mount tissue. I use a floating overmat to keep the overmat from touching the print surface and to prevent environmental acids from leaching into the overmat and then directly transferring to the print. As most people who buy prints are not white gloves, put them in an acid free box and in the cabinet types, I am providing them with a properly matted print. Is the cost of matting and mounting included indirectly in my price, yes. A cost that they are most likely to have anyway. If an institution requests a print of mine unmounted and I know they are savvy about prints, I'll sell them unmounted. But how many people here routinely sell to museums versus selling to the general public?

BTW there is a similar discussion in the Darkroom, film processing, printing forum and some good points are made there.

[paulr]

Paul if the mat is easily damaged and needs to be replaced then how does selling the work unmatted make it any safer?

I sell them matted, just not dry mounted. Although I have had institutions ask for unmatted work ... places that would probably just toss out my mat anyway.

But how many people here routinely sell to museums versus selling to the general public?

I don't routinely sell much, but when I do it's a lot more likely to be a public institution, corporate collection, or serious private collector than a casual buyer looking for decoration. In other words, folks with white gloves. And with people at their disposal who know more about matting and archiving than i do.

I've never sold anything to a hotel or to an office that's looking for interior design. Different market altogether.

[QT Luong]

For me, it's a business decision rather than an esthetic one. I sell only naked prints for efficiency. However, if I found out that I would sell significantly more prints if matting and/or framing was offered as an option, I'd certainly consider it.

As far as image protection during shipping or mounting, since my prints are not handmade (like most current color prints, and from what I hear, quite a few B&W as well), it's not a big deal to replace any damaged print. In fact, I insure the packages myself rather than buying insurance for them.