Page 10 of 26 FirstFirst ... 8910111220 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 254

Thread: Inkjet better than wet prints yet?

  1. #91

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Hudson Valley, NY
    Posts
    1,692

    Re: Inkjet better than wet prints yet?

    Quote Originally Posted by tgtaylor View Post
    HaHaHa, consider Rembrandt being brought back to life via DNA cloning (which may, all jokes aside, be possible in the not too distant future). He paints a masterpiece which he scans and prints on an ink-jet and then puts both up for auction. Which one do you think will command the higher market price?

    Now Ansel Adams is also brought back via DNA cloning, makes another darkroom masterpiece which he also scans and makes an ink-jet copy of and puts both up for auction. Which one do you think will command the higher market price?

    Now let's take you! You create a darkroom masterpiece, scan it and make an ink-jet copy. Like Rembrandt and Ansel you also put yours up for auction. Which one do you think will command the higher market price. Suppose instead that you put both up for sale in your studio gallery. Which one are you going to price the higher or are you going to price both identical?

    Thomas
    More false premises. A scan of an original is a reproduction, and therefore probably has less value. Scanning a negative and creating an original print digitally would be an original.

    You apparently feel that darkroom skills have more value than Photoshop skills. Which is perfectly fine, but doesn't make it a universal truth.

  2. #92
    Drew Wiley
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    SF Bay area, CA
    Posts
    18,338

    Re: Inkjet better than wet prints yet?

    Oren - Ansel did have drone/robots running around mass producing his work, and those
    prints still aren't worth much, even though those particular students eventually became
    very respected photographers in their own right. My brother remebers when ten darkroom
    prints sold for forty bucks at Best Gallery in Yosemite. They were made to Ansel's specifications. But the value versus a print he made with his own hands is overwhelmingly
    different today. Same goes for a contact print made by Edward Weston and one made by
    his son Cole, even though it might be difficult to even visually tell them apart.

  3. #93

    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    South Texas
    Posts
    1,837

    Re: Inkjet better than wet prints yet?

    IIRC, AA often had interns print his images for resale. How does this affect silver-based print value of his work? Didn't many of the greatest classical painters had their students replicate much of their work for resale?

    Yeah, all other things being equal, I think hand-made prints should be and are usually more valuable if, for no other reason, the extra time involved. But, again, hand-made wet process silver-based (or platinum or whatever) prints are still NOT the original artwort. The film image is. I doubt anyone here would sell their one-of-a-kind film image, one which has an expected potential to make $10K in print sales, hand-made or inkjet, for less than those total sales and would probably probably want even more than that $10K. So... let's say any type of REPRODUCION (print) of that film images is worth $500. The ORIGINAL film image is worth $10K++.

    Inkjet or silver/platinum/palladium... all reproductions of the original artwork.

  4. #94
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Posts
    8,640

    Re: Inkjet better than wet prints yet?

    Quote Originally Posted by Drew Wiley View Post
    Oren - Ansel did have drone/robots running around mass producing his work, and those
    prints still aren't worth much, even though those particular students eventually became
    very respected photographers in their own right. My brother remebers when ten darkroom
    prints sold for forty bucks at Best Gallery in Yosemite. They were made to Ansel's specifications. But the value versus a print he made with his own hands is overwhelmingly
    different today.
    Were they signed and sold identically as Ansel's own prints?

    Quote Originally Posted by Drew Wiley View Post
    Same goes for a contact print made by Edward Weston and one made by
    his son Cole, even though it might be difficult to even visually tell them apart.
    These are signed "Edward printed by Cole", or something to that effect, no?

  5. #95
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Posts
    8,640

    Re: Inkjet better than wet prints yet?

    Quote Originally Posted by Old-N-Feeble View Post
    Yeah, all other things being equal, I think hand-made prints should be and are usually more valuable if, for no other reason, the extra time involved.
    I.e., the more inefficient the production process, the more the product is worth. It's not hard to carry this to a reductio ad absurdum.

  6. #96
    http://www.spiritsofsilver.com tgtaylor's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    4,729

    Re: Inkjet better than wet prints yet?

    Quote Originally Posted by Greg Miller View Post
    More false premises. A scan of an original is a reproduction, and therefore probably has less value. Scanning a negative and creating an original print digitally would be an original.

    You apparently feel that darkroom skills have more value than Photoshop skills. Which is perfectly fine, but doesn't make it a universal truth.
    Greg,

    Rembrandt doesn't do negatives. As far a negatives are concerned see the post by Vaughn and Drew above. Finally, please note that I am not drawing a distinction between the different skill sets - both are valuable - but I do place a higher value on human time as compared to machine time to which I think most of the general public (i.e., the market place) would agree. Again, and taking the table analogy above, if you posed that very same question to the general public most would say that they would expect to pay more for the hand-made table. Many of the respondents here would seem to disagree and dismiss the time it takes an artists to hand produce a work, whether in the darkroom or studio, and deny any resulting increased valuation/desirability of the work resulting therefrom. I disagree. Photography seems unique among the arts for such self-denial.

    Thomas

  7. #97

    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    South Texas
    Posts
    1,837

    Re: Inkjet better than wet prints yet?

    Oren... you took one tiny part of my post to make an argument with. Not to worry... I missed others' posts too resulting in me simply repeating others' observations, e.g., AA's "robot printers".

  8. #98
    Drew Wiley
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    SF Bay area, CA
    Posts
    18,338

    Re: Inkjet better than wet prints yet?

    Even in Old Masters paintings, the role of the apprentice would be to grind pigments, maybe put a base layer, etc. Big fights go on about these things among art sleuths. It
    can made tens of millions of dollars difference whether #1 or one of his assistants actually did the topcoat. With a name-brand silver print, it might make thousands of dollars of difference. But as far as the notion of the film itself equalling the "original" - nonsense.
    There are endless ways to print a neg or chrome, and until that point, the image on the
    film is inert. I certainly wouldn't want anyone else printing my own shots. When you get
    the neg or chrome developed, the work just begins, if it's worthy of a print at all.

  9. #99
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Posts
    8,640

    Re: Inkjet better than wet prints yet?

    Quote Originally Posted by Old-N-Feeble View Post
    Oren... you took one tiny part of my post to make an argument with. Not to worry... I missed others' posts too resulting in me simply repeating others' observations, e.g., AA's "robot printers".
    I disagree with the rest of your post too. I just chose not to grind that particular axe right now.

  10. #100
    Drew Wiley
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    SF Bay area, CA
    Posts
    18,338

    Re: Inkjet better than wet prints yet?

    Oren - yes the prints would have to be annotated or signed differently. There are laws in
    some states stipulating that kind of thing, as well as what constitutes an orginal print or
    an edition. Otherwise, fraud enters into the definition, no matter how good the image looks, or how closely it mimics a vintage print. But that doesn't seem to stop plenty of
    tourist galleries from committing fraud, and sometimes getting indicted.

Similar Threads

  1. Laminating inkjet prints?
    By David Curtis in forum Digital Processing
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 10-Aug-2011, 11:31
  2. Making inkjet prints from enlarger prints
    By coops in forum Digital Processing
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 6-Jan-2009, 07:07
  3. should inkjet prints be dry mounted?
    By robc in forum Business
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 22-Dec-2005, 21:33
  4. Coatings for Inkjet Prints
    By David Luttmann in forum Business
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 23-May-2005, 08:01
  5. Dry Mounting inkjet prints
    By Ed Eubanks in forum Darkroom: Film, Processing & Printing
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 11-Aug-2004, 20:48

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
  •