Inkjet better than wet prints yet?

[Greg Lockrey]

What? Cat's got the collective tongue? Well I pose an "easier" one to consider:

If you went into, say, an art gallery and there were two seemingly identical photographic prints, one hand-made in the darkroom by the artisan and the other machine made by an inkjet printer, which one would you expect to have the higher price tag?

Thomas

Which one will have the higher profit margin? If it's color, inkjet will probably sell first all things considered equally. B&W hand made has a slightly better appearance, but inkjets are catching up. What can be tolerated in a color wet print because of limitations imposed by color of light/film and processing chemicals and temperature will NEVER be tolerated with an inkjet and digital image that can be color controlled and corrected not to mention in getting down to the pixel in making spot corrections. (Inkjets only look easy because they can be taken so far.)

[Greg Miller]

Then answer the question:

If you went into, say, a furniture store and there were two seemingly identical tables, one hand-made by the artisan and the other machine made by XYZ corporation, which one would you expect to have the higher price tag?

Thomas

Your question does not accurately describe the photographic situation. you could also ask about tables hand made from a blue print by anonymous workers at xyz corp. Vs. tables made by an artisan using tools that allow for repeatability of results.

A more accurate question migh compare 10 wet prints in a series made by artisan A vs. 10 inkjet prints in a series made by artisan B.
the value of those prints is more about the vision, design, and execution of the artisan than the tools used to make the print.

[Drew Wiley]

Kirk it really depends. I think those Gurskyesque sales are really about conspicuous consumption and don't apply to us mortals. I've talked to gallery owners who themselves
didn't have a clue about technique or archival issues, and maybe their clients didn't either.
By contrast, virtually every single print I've personally ever sold was to someone fairly well
educated in this respect, and technique, uniqueness, and permanence were all important
issues to them. But many of my own prints are one of a kind, and many of the client have
either been photographers themselves or people who had a long track record of buying from well known traditional West Coast printmakers. I've never sold a print to a tourist,
and they probably wouldn't care much for my style anyway. It's a complicated question
overall with many niche possibilites - one just plays in the niche they wish to.

[Kirk Gittings]

And collect-ability. I sell 16x20 inkjet prints for $850. The guy hanging on the wall next to me with silver prints may not be as collectable and sell for allot less regardless of vision or craft issues.

Your question does not accurately describe the photographic situation. you could also ask about tables hand made from a blue print by anonymous workers at xyz corp. Vs. tables made by an artisan using tools that allow for repeatability of results.

A more accurate question migh compare 10 wet prints in a series made by artisan A vs. 10 inkjet prints in a series made by artisan B.
the value of those prints is more about the vision, design, and execution of the artisan than the tools used to make the print.

[Greg Miller]

No need to get snippy.

I personally would not care. I just want a well executed print that moves. truthfully i would take the inkjet because i know it matches the artist's vision. a wet print in a series might be the one that the artist liked least of the bunch.

(this was in reply to post71, not kirk).

[Drew Wiley]

Indeed Ken. But supply and demand kick in once an image or artist becomes particularly well known. Just before AA passed away you could just walk in some place and purchase a nice 16X20 Moonrise for 16K. Then he passed and a couple auction houses bagged around
40K for the same thing. But he made something like 350 prints of this. So at that point,
a number of folks owning this image started salivating, and a whole bunch of them came
onto the market at the same time. I think the typical priced dropped down to about 7K.
Has obviously climbed back up to a certain extent. But in the long run, value is related to
quantity. But I do get a kick when photographers start numbering editions of things they're
lucky to sell a single print of.

[tgtaylor]

You guys are dancing all around it without directly answering the question. What's the matter? Are you afraid of admitting that the individual work of the craftsman is worth more than the craftsman’s machine output of the same piece?

Kirk: WikiPedia identifies both Gursky prints as Chromogenic C-Prints, which implies that they were created in the traditional darkroom. Suppose, though, Gursky did himself create a traditional darkroom print of the same image. Which one would you suppose to have the greater value: the darkroom version created by Gursky or the “machine made print” in your statement? If you were the buyer, which one would you buy (price not a consideration).

Thomas

[Kirk Gittings]

Thomas, C prints can be done in a wet darkroom or they can be digitally exposed and run through a processor (like the Chromira process). I believe from an article I read a couple of years ago that Gursky's large prints (which those referred to are), are printed from scanned 8x10 film exposed digitally and run through a processor.

Thomas I buy images first and foremost, but all things being equal, same artist, same image, same quality I would always buy the more archival print regardless of the method of processing. If the choice was between a C print and an inkjet. I would buy the inkjet (more archival depending on ink and paper). If it were between a C print hand dipped or from a processor I would likely buy the processor print. Having printed C prints myself for 25 years, I think a processor C print, properly maintained, timed- etc. is more stable-less chance of cross contamination. Between a machine silver print and a hand done archival processed silver print>the hand done because AFAIK there are no silver print machines that are set up archival process silver prints (two fixers hypo clear proper washing etc.).

[Drew Wiley]

Tom - an analogy - perhaps the most infamous painter at the moment - Hirst the polka dot
man, who allegedly made 22 million in sales in a single day - claims his machine made wall
panels are far better than his hand-painted ones. But the latter sell for a much higher prices. I'm admittedly a darkroom guy, and like Stieglitz, only think there is one best of any
print. Later on I might learn to print it better, but the idea of making one print after another just the same not only fails to interest me, I just don't think I could do it. In fact,
I'll tweak each version with a little different time, or dodging, or toning. After they are all
dry I'll select one as best, another to sell, and most likely throw away the rest. There's
often just a little extra magic or spice or whatever separating a good print from a great one. Maybe most people wouldn't even notice; but it does matter to me.

[bob carnie]

I am not sure of this but I think that a 72 inch lambda device is used to create his prints. I will check on this. This would require scan and PS work.

I do know about making 72 inch x longer c prints off an enlarger,as I have done them myself , there are very few labs in the world with C print capability at this size.

You guys are dancing all around it without directly answering the question. What's the matter? Are you afraid of admitting that the individual work of the craftsman is worth more than the craftsman’s machine output of the same piece?

Kirk: WikiPedia identifies both Gursky prints as Chromogenic C-Prints, which implies that they were created in the traditional darkroom. Suppose, though, Gursky did himself create a traditional darkroom print of the same image. Which one would you suppose to have the greater value: the darkroom version created by Gursky or the “machine made print” in your statement? If you were the buyer, which one would you buy (price not a consideration).

Thomas