Selenium Quadtone prints

[Penelope Dixon]

By way of introduction, I'm fairly new to large format photography. Most of my work has been medium format - originally using a Rolleiflex but more recently a Holga.

All of my work has been black and white. The Rolleiflex I used to do in the college darkroom. With the Holga I have been scanning the images. Sometimes the print and sometimes the negative and then printing them very big on an HP plotter.

Since I recently started using a 4x5 camera I have been scanning the negatives and printing them on an Epson 7600 printer using Piezo Selenium quadtone inks (I love the look on watercolor paper - it seems more like a platinum. In fact some of my prints have the platinum brush strokes, which I like).

I've always sold my Holga art work for two to three thousand dollars for the larger pieces. But I am feeling at a bit of a loss with the new 4x5 work. It feels like such a new thing for me and still very experimental. But it also seems like more work and expense. It also feels a bit more retro and old fashioned using the sheet film camera.

Do large format photogorpahers price their work higher just because of the equipment and work involved (as well as the printing process being more expensive and complicated than just darkroom work), or should I just let all that kind of thing blow to the wind and go ahead and price the same. What are others doing?

Penny

[Michael Veit]

Absolutely, charge by the negative square inch. Holga to 4x5 is 4X enlargement so I'd start out at $12,000 minus maybe $1000 for the loss of the Holga "quirk" factor and go for $10,000 - $11,000.

All kidding aside, Penelope, I doubt many posters here can relate to a $2000-$3000 print sale, but you've obviously found a hook, so I'd say jack it up until it starts affecting sales.

[David A. Goldfarb]

Why don't you ask Penelope Dixon, the photo appraiser?

http://www.peneloped.com/

[Andrew Held]

It's about time that Holga made an 8x10. Should be about $50 and look roughly like an Easy-Bake oven. Imagine the beautiful contacts that could be made with that baby. Also, other than a jealous toddler, who would steal it?

[Mark Muse]

I think we have been Peneloped!

ps, her site crashes my browser.

[Penelope Dixon]

Totally different Penny Dixon (weird coincidence though). I just checked the website - she's much greyer than me. And I don't think she was born in a small mining village in County Durham.

[Henry Suryo]

Good one, David. An advice I hear a lot for aspiring collectors is buy something you like. The image, then, is most important and quality should be a factor in this. I happened to enjoy using the view camera, the whole approach excites me, I admit it's not always practical (this is when my Rolleiflex comes into play) but there's just no substitute for the technical and aesthetic qualities of the photograph IMO. Pricing, as it really is, involves a lot more that a reflection of these qualities. In lesser known contemporary work, I guess it's not unusual to take an objective approach to price based on size. In the art photography world, collectors have a way of setting market price for a particular body of work or single image by established photographers, especially if they're deceased. Vintage vs later prints, editioned prints, previously published or not, physical condition, artist reputation, provenance, it's all very fascinating though I can't fully justify the reason. I am dumbfounded at auctions sometimes. I guess, like everything else in art, fair market value is however much someone is willing to expend to have it.

[Penelope Dixon]

> Is there actually any selenium in the inks you are using?

I doubt it - it's just a colour. They are carbon pigments

[Julian_3496]

If you are getting that kind of money for your work, the price has very little to do with the cost of producing the image, but more an indication of your market - I'm guessing you are selling in the 'art' field rather than the photography one. Your prices are on a par with, and in some cases exceeding masters in the field such as Ray Metzker, Lee Friedlander, Bruce Cratsley, Keith Carter etc etc If you are printing Holga images large on an HP plotter, I'm also guessing that your particular balance between image and artefact (idea and craftsmanship in the object) - lies more with the former than the latter. So should someone who metciulously coats a piece of paper by hand and contact-prints a 8X10 negative be paid more or less for the work? Again the answer lies in the market. I have also printed holga images to 1m sq, but I wouldn't charge anymore (apart from framing costs)than a well-crafted 16x16inch landscape.

[Don Miller]

I like the mathematical approach.

A $2000 print from a $20 camera is a 100x markup. So if you have $2000 in LF gear I'm thinking that $200,000 is about right. Hey! I'm buyin' more gear.

(Your new prints are worth in currency exactly what people are willing to pay. Ask your dealer for a starting point)