So, if limited editions are used to.... [Archive] - Large Format Photography Forum

Shen45

10-Sep-2007, 00:24

create an artificial scarcity, why don't photgraphers take the ultimate step and sell only one print and destroy the negative? Wouldn't this be more like what painters do? We talk about "fine art photography" but in reality as long as we can reproduce it more than one time, they are nothing but snapshots, pretty, but none the less just endless reproductions.

If we are supposed to be "artists" then we should not be afraid to let go of the negative and show that with our talent, vision and mastering of the technical part we are capable of producing more work, if we are supposed to be only as good as our last shot, why not just do one print and be done with it?

Completely agree with you Jorge.

I spoke on this matter with a friend of mine in California about 2 or 3 years ago as to me the whole editions idea is a "[fill in the gap to suit]"!!

And why isn't #1 the most expensive in an edition anyway first up? If you intend to have an edition that is. It is nearest to the original and it is #1 afterall? Who wants to own anything other than #1.

Let's face it, in our world no-one wants to be less than or seen to be less than #1. Imagine the shame, you show a friend your new print and it is #5/20 -- or worse still #20/20 ----- oh the shame!!! Any prints after #1 really are not worth the paper they are printed on, can you imagine the humiliation associated with owning #2.

Oh look he has the Mona Lisa on his wall --- "Yeah, but it is only #2!!!":)

Do the prints somehow magically get better after #1 and mysteriously gain "perceived" value.

Jorge what you are considering is an excellent way to distinguish real photography as an art form not just a mechanical reproduction time after time.

Maris Rusis

10-Sep-2007, 00:30

All my gelatin-silver photographs seem to be in editions of one.

Since I make an extra one only when I have a buyer some negatives come out of the archive only every few years. Even though the negative is the same the paper, developer, burn, dodge, tone, and the photographer's mood are not reproducible enough to yield a duplicate of what I have done before.

The buyer gets a securely distinguishable original. I guess I have never understood why someone would want to pay good money for a photograph knowing that any number of people have the exact same looking thing.

windpointphoto

10-Sep-2007, 00:31

create an artificial scarcity, why don't photgraphers take the ultimate step and sell only one print and destroy the negative?

I believe Kim Weston used to glue his negative to the back of the print. Just out of curiosity, does anyone know how and why the numbering of prints got it's start? I'll give you a hint; it had nothing to do with photography.

Greg Lockrey

10-Sep-2007, 01:02

All I can suggest is to try it. See how many "original only's" you will have to make weekly just to eat. And just how many originals can you expect to make that are salable anyway? I too understand what it takes to make that first print from a negative, from the time it takes going to the location setting up and processing and marketing. But a guy who makes about $200 a day sweating his ass off in a factory isn't going to let his wife spend too much for a very reproducable piece of art. If you make portraits for a living for example, I can see a hyper-price since who else would be interested in your portrait. Unless you happen to be a has-been actor selling publicity stills at shopping center openings at $30 per 8x10 glossy. The whole idea of numbering is bs in the first place since the artist just has to change some minor thing to suggest a new limited edition. AA limited editions are still being made after his death. It's up to 8500 or so now.

kjsphotography

10-Sep-2007, 03:19

Brian K

10-Sep-2007, 03:56

The thing with editions is that it makes an artist lazy by allowing them to make an income for the exact same image time and time again therefore not pushing their creative edge and making them stale by reproducing the exact same piece over and over again.

If you want to make a living and eat just as a painter, sculpture, has to, you have to get off your backside and push it and create new work constantly. I agree with Jorge on this 110%. The only way to differentiate yourself as an artist and not just another guy with a camera is be willing to offer that one of one and destroy the negative. Then your photograph could be classified as a panting per say making it more worthwhile to collect as the buyer knows full well they are receiving an actual one of a kind and not one of a fill-in the blank.

Now get this.

Once you start selling your images as one of one and you take off with name recognition, I can see you getting $1000-2000 a photograph just a a painters get over time with your one of on, works of art. The only thing, in order to make a living doing it this way is that you have to continually photograph, just as a painter has to continually paint. If you don’t want to starve then you have to not be lazy and push yourself every single day. The question is, do you have what it takes to make it as an artist or do you want to just be another photographer selling prints?

Me personally, I want to be known as an artist. Looks like I might have to put my money where my mouth is and start selling 1 of 1 and let the negatives go. Over time if people like my work I can raise my prices and sell them for $xxxx just like a painter.

You got to make a stance somewhere and I think this is where it starts.

That is how I see it.

I have to disagree with you here Kevin. Unlike painters, photographers can't just whip up the perfect scene in their minds and put it down on canvas. We need to be in the right place at the right time. I've gone on the road for 5-6 weeks at a time and came back with only 5 images that i would use. Now if my work were limited to only one print per image, the only way to make a trip profitable , and to be able to make a living as a an artist, would be to print and try to sell a lot of the images that I currently don't consider good enough or to sell the few that do survive my edit at a price of tens of thousands of dollars each.

Also painters don't have the same start up costs as photographers. Easels, brushes, paint and canvas don't come close in cost to cameras, lenses, meters, tripods, darkrooms, dry mount presses, etc. While editions are a false means to produce scarcity, and I have to argue with that point somewhat, because often a successful artist just gets bored of printing a certain negative and chooses to stop anyway, it's the most effective means to keep work at a value high enough for a photographer to be able to make a living.

It's not how many prints of a given image that defines you as an artist, it's the quality of the work.

Bruce Barlow

10-Sep-2007, 05:20

While I completely agree with Jorge, I'll offer an alternative.

I think I'd rather get my stuff seen by as many people as possible. While selling an edition of 1 may help validate me as an artist, I'm quite realistic about whether I'll sell even the one at a price commensurate with what I feel its (and therefore my) value is. I am neither ANsel nor Edward nor Eugene, to name a few favorites. Getting seen, to me, implies a different approach and a different set of economic assumptions.

I'm also in it to have fun.

So, for me, I'd just as soon do 4x5 Polaroid portraits outside the burrito shop for $10, hang a show in the bagel shop down the block, hang another show in my studio just for me and any special people I invite, try to put on the best workshops on the planet, and produce a book worth reading.

Someone else can do editions of one, and I really hope it works. Thanks for raising the issue, Jorge - it's really interesting and provocative. Let us know how you go about it, and how it works.

Jim Becia

10-Sep-2007, 05:38

So guys, let's take this "one" idea to books, music, theater, which are all artistic endeavors. Why not print one book, better yet, just sell your manuscript to one person? An orchestra can only play a piece of music once, or only one CD. A play can be performed only once. There are some artistic endeavors that are not meant to be "one of one." Now if you choose to do that with your photography, have had it. The process, in my opinion, is meant to be reproduced if and when necessary. There are so few of us that will ever be "collectible." I personally don't limit my work and I don't believe this makes me push myself any less. Jim

www. spiritllightphotography.com

John Brady

10-Sep-2007, 06:29

Hi Jorge, What would keep a one photo from one negative photographer from setting up and firing off like ten or twenty sheets of the same image, presenting each one as an original? Granted there will be some slight change in light, clouds etc. but if done very quickly, very little. I don't disagree with your concept, I just think there is still too much potential for duplication...
______________________
jbrady@timeandlight.com

tim atherton

10-Sep-2007, 06:48

Once you start selling your images as one of one and you take off with name recognition, I can see you getting $1000-2000 a photograph just a a painters get over time with your one of on, works of art.

That's average to cheap for a standard edition art photograph (say an edition of 15). The distinguish one-off photographs you'd need to sell at say $15,000 to $20,000

naturephoto1

10-Sep-2007, 07:01

It would be nice to be able to sell single photos for $15,000 to $30,000 or more apiece for an edition of 1. But most of us would rather eat than starve. Additionally as pointed out is just too costly to travel and produce enough photos to pay all of the bills and the scans for printing etc. As I recall paraphrasing Ansel Adams he could only take 12 images a year worth printing (or something like that).

I sell my editions of 250 for all sizes that make up an edition (1 to 5 sizes) to collectively total 250 copies. For participating in art shows and for others that want smaller pieces I also offer smaller open ended copies that are available through the sale of the editions. Also, much of my work is sold framed and certainly almost all is matted. Much of my time and income comes from the framing of the work. Framing can be very important to the value of the display of the work to the buyer.

Rich

bob carnie

10-Sep-2007, 07:16

I see it both ways, a one off print really is a statement that your work is original and not just an assembly line product. But for others it takes years to get known for your work and without different prints getting out there into different markets for potential fans to see your images and pony up the cash to purchase, its a bit of a catch 22.
I am personally working on a series of solarizations that this question on editions is relevant and I need to answer for myself. These prints are very large, time consuming and very subjective, I now have made three different versions on smaller size just to get the right balance I am happy with. This has taken me time , money and energy, but I love the process and think I am close to start producing the large prints.
The question that is bugging me is I have invested x amount of dollars into each print. How much will I be able to sell them for , where and how many of each will I print.
I would prefer to only to make a small number of each print as they are very difficult to reproduce and after its made every one after is just copy work and I agree with you about one the one off value aspect.
My only concern is that I do not want to give these images away to the first lowball bidder who may or may not see my genius.
I am an unknown to the art buying public but I do have respect for my work and feel it is good and of value to some one other than my Mom, so without getting the work out there what do I do?
I have considered making three to five prints , of each image , once they are fully toned and finished in presentation matts , I would then snip the negative and that is that.
Since you brought it up , maybe this thread will help me in the decision on how many prints of each image I should make.

matthew blais

10-Sep-2007, 07:28

I sincerely do not believe selling "one-of" is going to achieve or award status as an artist. The work is what will accomplish that or not.

It is the quality of one's work, the ability to transcend the medium where it is viewed/perceived/accepted as art, and not just as a photograph. Photography is just a medium.

paulr

10-Sep-2007, 07:37

I sincerely do not believe selling "one-of" is going to achieve or award status as an artist. The work is what will accomplish that or not.

I think that's the general feeling in the various art markets. I haven't heard of any major figures using a destroyed negative as a gimmick ... and even if some do, I haven't seen any evidence of the market pressuring people to do that.

There IS pressure to limit your editions, if you're trying to sell to collectors or sell through a dealer. It's done on the honor system. If you had the good fortune to make a name for yourself, and then got caught violating the trust of your dealers/collectors, it would be bad news for you. Definitely not worth making a few extra bucks in the short term.

This has been true for hundreds of years with other kinds of printmaking. Even though you can't make an infinite number of prints from a lith stone or etching plate, you could certainly make more than the number most artists limit themselves to. Again its the market influencing them to keep the numbers smaller than the physical constraints, and again it's the honor system holding them to their word.

Louie Powell

10-Sep-2007, 07:42

Just out of curiosity, does anyone know how and why the numbering of prints got it's start? I'll give you a hint; it had nothing to do with photography.

I believe that it originated with etchings, where the act of making a print actually shortened the life of the original original etched metal plate. Therefore, lower numbered images were thought to have greater value because the metal plate had not been subjected to as much wear and abuse when they were made.

In photography, it is purely an artifice used to either justify a higher price, or increase the "artsifartsiness" of the image, or both. :)

Greg Lockrey

10-Sep-2007, 07:56

The "dirty" little secret for notariety for an artist isn't the one print that is sold as an original but the countless examples that are on display as copies, posters and in manuscripts. Then the artist becomes well known enough whereby a consumer appreciates the "value" of his work and be willing to pay the actual worth of that original. Even the newbie artist that come to me to make prints, I tell them that their work is at least worth $50.00 per hour at today's prices if they want to be able to produce enough to live and retire on if they manage to market their work correctly. Sure, the newbie is sort of flabergasted by the fact that they spent 40 or so hours on apiece I and I have the audacity to suggest that it worth at least $2000.00. If you want to survive in this business, then it is. If you really think you can produce on piece a week, you'd only make $100K. Sorry, but that's not enough to plan for your future let alone live at a decient standard today. If you can't sell a $50 poster, how would you ever expect to make at least $50 per hour for your effort? I'm thinking that some here are either dreaming and/or are just plain elitests. All of my succsessful clients that command $5-30K per painting sell prints first. They sell a lot of prints prior to when the original is finally sold if it is ever. By then they are well known. I don't know any photographers who make that much other than those in commercial work and most of those make a weeks pay tops for a print because it takes that long to satisfy their client. Too many try to get "original" prices for something that everyone knows that they can produce 30 or more in a day. It's just a too much of a hard sell for photog/artists.

tim atherton

10-Sep-2007, 08:14

Of course the obvious answer is that photographic art isn't like or the same as painting. Nor is painting the same as architecture; nor architecture like music, nor music like bronze sculpture, nor bronze sculpture like etching; nor is etching like film; or film like dancing; or dancing like poetry.

In places there may be similarities, but there are frequently much more major differences.

There is simply no particular point - apart from an obtuse one - in trying to force one into the paradigms and practices (artistic or business) of another.

Peter Lewin

10-Sep-2007, 08:23

While the discussion is interesting, isn't it ignoring the innate differences between different techniques for creating art? For example, the silk screen process is designed to produce multiple prints, so arguably one would not use the process to produce a "one-off" piece of art. An oil painting or a monoprint is by definition a single piece, so presumably the artist is aware of that in choosing the medium. Using the same logic, photography was "designed" for multiple prints via the negative. I would think that digital photography is even more "designed" for multiples, since each print made from a file will be identical, whereas multiple "wet darkroom" prints from a negative will have some differences. What I'm trying to say is that the final piece of art is related to the process used to create it, and photography is by its innate technology not designed for single images (excluding polaroid). I guess I will fall back on the old Ansel Adams idea, that like music, the negative is the score, but [each] print is the performance. Re-reading my own note before posting, it occurs to me that the photographer with single images in mind would be best served by using Polaroids, eliminating the conflict between the technology and the desire for a single print.

tim atherton

10-Sep-2007, 08:34

to further points.

Anyone interested in this should really read The Work of Art in the The Age of Mechanical Reproduction - it's online several places (and then go beat yourself up over whether photographs have the aura of true art)

And secondly, are we say Degas bronzes aren't art? (the editions limited only by contract). That would be news to an awful lot of collectors. Or Giacometti sculptures for that matter. I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who would argue that a Giacometti bronze wasn't an original artwork?

Ted Stoddard

10-Sep-2007, 09:31

Well at my first Solo show they suggested I do a limited edition of Platinum/Palladium prints, So I did just to see if it would sell, well out of the 50 i made only 25 sold at a decent price but i was still in the hole... I have had many prints bought but no where near what AA or Edward Weston sells... I know they are dead but they sell alot more then I might ever do.... If I could sell 100 prints a month I be happy...I thought about destroying the negs too but hek man it cost me too much to make it why throw it away... I will never make more then 100 prints from any one negative.... but everyone is different....

QT Luong

10-Sep-2007, 09:38

The amount of luck that one can have is in general limited.

claudiocambon

10-Sep-2007, 10:03

I think the idea of only making one print of a negative is a terrible idea. It is cutting off your nose to spite your face by rendering you further subservient to the art market, not less so, as such a defiant gesture would imply. If you resent the artificial restriction of editions, the answer is not to further restrict yourself. Who wins in that scenario? Some collector, but certainly not you!

A photograph is designed to be reproduced mechanically as many times by the practitioner as he/she feels he can accomplish (well, one would assume or hope). Why wouldn't you take advantage of that?

I make enough money selling my prints to do new projects, and that is all I care about. I have open, numbered and dated, but unlimited editions. The prints are not made all in one batch, but as orders are placed. I could care less if people think I am "flooding the market" with my prints, because in the end I'm not. I think I have issued close to 100 of 2 of my most popular images. Whoop-dee-doo. People will download whatever song of the moment to their Ipods more quickly in a few minutes than this print will ever sell in my lifetime.

Actually the argument could be made that you need to distribute your work to as many people as possible so that your work is not forgotten within a generation of your passing. The world benefits from their being as many versions as possible, each with its own subtleties and particularities.

If a collector doesn't buy something from you because he/she thinks the edition is too large, guess what? They don't like the picture enough to want it, and are buying it for speculative reasons, not artistic ones. The answer is that you don't need to conform to that kind of persons' needs or wishes. I have found plenty of people who buy my pictures because they like the images, and that's all I ever hope for (other than finding more of them! :D ).

Dan Schmidt

10-Sep-2007, 10:45

Some photographers deal with this issue of moving on by no longer making any more prints from a particular negative once it reaches a certain age , say 1-2 years, and then only selling from their existing stock of prints, which could only be a few.

This allows you to make as many prints as you customers want the first year or so, but then lets you get to new work. Collectors also know that you won't create an unlimited number of prints.

Daniel Grenier

10-Sep-2007, 10:49

....why not just do one print and be done with it?

Well, you could always look at those using one-of-a-kind processes and see how they fare (i.e daguerrotypes, tintypes, polaroids etc...).

C. D. Keth

10-Sep-2007, 10:50

But painters often sell reproductions of their work...

D. Bryant

10-Sep-2007, 11:05

But painters often sell reproductions of their work...
An old debate that is frankly been beat to death. Yawn! Make as much money as you can off your labor as long as you are honest.

Don Bryant

Gordon Moat

10-Sep-2007, 11:21

Oddly enough, my Polaroid manipulations are always one of a kind. While I could put the transparency back into the machine and try another one, the result will always be different. Often I have gone through several attempts prior to getting a result I want to frame and exhibit. I suppose I could try selling the others, though I will leave that to whomever finds all this stuff after I am gone, if I was ever famous . . . or something like that.:D

Obviously my paintings are all one of a kind, though I think there is no need to make such a statement when presenting/exhibiting them . . . unless you are Thomas Kinkaid. Then we might also think of those street artists who produce images that are mostly the same, though variation is due to hand techniques.

Another matter to consider might be laws governing Limited Editions. The state of California has laws covering these issues. Quite likely other states have similar laws. Anytime you sell something, some government will likely be involved in some manner.

When I exhibit images, I choose to do them as one off prints. However, I don't go so far as destroying the film original. The reason for me is that exhibiting photography is very secondary to my commercial work, and there might be a commercial application for one of my images. This happened last year with a print I exhibited, and a company wanted to use it for promotional materials; I was happy to do that, and it generated more income than I would have received from limited editions.

I do not envy those who try to make a living off art exhibit sales. There is nothing simple nor easy about it. While my own choice is one of a kind images, I would not look down open someone doing limited editions.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)

paulr

10-Sep-2007, 11:26

Make as much money as you can off your labor as long as you are honest.

and only if that's your goal. there might be other factors influencing how many prints you make, including difficulty/expense of printing certain images, or just how many of them you'd like to have out in the world.

If selling is a goal, though, it helps to understand how editioning will influence the value of your work in the eyes of different kinds of dealers and buyers.

Bill_1856

10-Sep-2007, 12:13

I believe Kim Weston used to glue his negative to the back of the print. Just out of curiosity, does anyone know how and why the numbering of prints got it's start? I'll give you a hint; it had nothing to do with photography.

My oversize Kim Weston print does, indeed, have the 8x10 negative glued to the back of the mount. Damn shame, as far as I'm concerned.

As I understand it, etchings and lithograhs can only be reproduced in a limited number before the stones/plates wear to the point that good prints can not be made from them, and are destroyed. Thus they are numbered to assure the purchaser that they aren't "a few extras" which were run off by the printer's assistant before he trashes the plate. The first prnts are suposed to be the best, and often made under the artist's personal supervision.

Bill_1856

10-Sep-2007, 12:30

.. I have had many prints bought but no where near what AA or Edward Weston sells... I know they are dead but they sell alot more then I might ever do......

It's my understanding that Edward Weston never sold many signed prints from any one negative, except Pepper #30, and there were much less than two dozen of them. I think that he finally raised his price from $10 to $25.
St. Ansel may have printed up to a thousand of "Moonrise," but they are not numbered. No other negative comes even close to this quantity. His final prices after announding that he was going to quit were only $250-$400. He never saw all of the big bucks the prints eventually sell for.
(This could all be B.S., so please don't trash an old man because my memory is faulty.)

Ben R

10-Sep-2007, 12:47

How much does an original AA print go for these days? How many did he make of it? Is his work not considered to be true art because he made multiple copies of a negative? Not to mention the millions of reproductions and posters, etc.

If your work is considered collectable art then it will be whether you make one or a hundred. You might not be alive when each of a 200 print run is worth a fortune, but hey, lets be honest, making one of a print and selling at a far inflated price relative to the photographic market is not going to make you either rich or famous any time soon.

If the work is considered art and considered worth having then it will be so whether there is one or far more than that. If the work is medicore, cliched or more a photograph than art then no amount of snobbery will mean that it is remembered 50 years hence, possibly not ever.

I can make a 50 print edition of a negative knowing that it's unlikely that I'll ever sell all 50 of that edition. If the punters like the snob value then why should I care, I have no pretensions of being 'collectable'. That I can then make another 50 prints in a new edition of a different size just shows how silly the whole thing is. That said, if the customer wants it then it is something worth marketing. Trying to educate a customer with what you would like to believe is your version of exclusivity will be an up hill struggle at best, most likely utterly futile. It would take some very big names to make this fashionable and until it becomes so, IMO a total waste of time.

Could also come expensive in sheet film as you made sure you had enough negatives! :D:D

alec4444

10-Sep-2007, 13:00

This has been fascinating to read. I keep thinking about the comparison to painting.... I think that if you wanted to duplicate that model you would:

1) Shoot the negative
2) Make one helluva gorgeous silver print with it
3) Make a photogravure plate with the negative
4) Destroy the negative

Then you'd be left with one original and as many stunning copies (that aren't the original) as you'd like. Sorta like the original painting and the various lithographs made from it.

An intriguing thought.

--A

tim atherton

10-Sep-2007, 13:11

bigdog

10-Sep-2007, 13:51

This has been fascinating to read. I keep thinking about the comparison to painting.... I think that if you wanted to duplicate that model you would:

paint.

Struan Gray

10-Sep-2007, 13:53

I think limited editions are like a pre-nuptial agreement. It's easy to scoff, and both parties can find ways around the letter of the law, but it's in their interest to pretend that they believe in the system.

I think I am right in saying that Sweden's pre-eminent art photographer, Dawid, usually makes two prints of his 'art' negatives. One for himself, one to sell, and a negative to file. Although he does well-paying commercial work too, he has stuck to his guns on the limited number of prints since his earliest days.

Personally, I am a fan of the disembodied image. I think there is a world of visual ideas that is seperate from the world of beautiful objects. I like both, but I prefer the former. I dream of an influential book, and actively dislike the idea of an exhibition. I am unlikely to make the Guild council.

C. D. Keth

10-Sep-2007, 13:58

An old debate that is frankly been beat to death. Yawn! Make as much money as you can off your labor as long as you are honest.

Don Bryant

Exactly. I see making photographic prints as even better than making painting reproductions. At least each darkroom print has been touched by the artist and has his or her personal work put into it. That's more that c an be said about most prints from paintings.

Greg Lockrey

10-Sep-2007, 15:05

Exactly. I see making photographic prints as even better than making painting reproductions. At least each darkroom print has been touched by the artist and has his or her personal work put into it. That's more that c an be said about most prints from paintings.

Oh come on now, we printers are artists too, just that we don't get to sign the prints but we are seeked out by artists. ;)

Jorge Gasteazoro

10-Sep-2007, 15:35

The buyer gets a securely distinguishable original. I guess I have never understood why someone would want to pay good money for a photograph knowing that any number of people have the exact same looking thing.

There you go, exactly my question.

I think I'd rather get my stuff seen by as many people as possible. While selling an edition of 1 may help validate me as an artist, I'm quite realistic about whether I'll sell even the one at a price commensurate with what I feel its (and therefore my) value is

But what if, by virtue of people perceiving your work as an "original" and more "special" they start buying it more, so instead of having one or two sales a month you have 15?

Unlike painters, photographers can't just whip up the perfect scene in their minds and put it down on canvas. We need to be in the right place at the right time.

This is no longer true Brian, digital and photoshop has enabled anybody with a computer and a vision to create what in their minds would be the perfect landscape. Regardless of wether this print is appealing or not to the viewer.

So guys, let's take this "one" idea to books, music, theater, which are all artistic endeavors. Why not print one book, better yet, just sell your manuscript to one person? An orchestra can only play a piece of music once, or only one CD

Because these are art forms that people in general recognize that not everybody can do. thus have a special meaning. Unfortunatelly photography suffers from "I can do that if only......" remember, if you buy a piano, you own a piano, if you buy a camera, you are a photographer.

Hi Jorge, What would keep a one photo from one negative photographer from setting up and firing off like ten or twenty sheets of the same image, presenting each one as an original? Granted there will be some slight change in light, clouds etc. but if done very quickly, very little. I don't disagree with your concept, I just think there is still too much potential for duplication...

Nothing, in fact many painters revisit a site they have previously painted and do another version, yet it is not considered "cheating".

It would be nice to be able to sell single photos for $15,000 to $30,000 or more apiece for an edition of 1. But most of us would rather eat than starve.

This is exactly the kind of thinking that in my opinion is holding photographers back. The idea that one wants to become so famous that you can sell your print for a lot of money. How about, not being famous, but by virtue that your work is perceived as an "original" people buy it more and you are able to sell 30 prints at $500 this giving you the $15000 you want? Does this mean that you will have to get off your ass, stop posting on the LF forum and go take pictures? Most assuredly, but isn't this the point?... :)

All of my succsessful clients that command $5-30K per painting sell prints first. They sell a lot of prints prior to when the original is finally sold if it is ever

This is in a round about way what I was trying to make people in this forum think about. Notice I did not say do not sell "reproductions". Digital allows us now to make very cheap reproductions, ink jet, litho, etc. that can be sold for a few bucks. The idea being that there would be only ONE original made from the negative, all the rest are known as reproductions.....just like in painting.

If your work is considered collectable art then it will be whether you make one or a hundred.

This is one of the myths that photographers have fallen for. Collectible art has many facets, one of them is exclusivity.

kjsphotography

10-Sep-2007, 16:15

Beautifully said Jorge.

tim atherton

10-Sep-2007, 16:26

So guys, let's take this "one" idea to books, music, theater, which are all artistic endeavors. Why not print one book, better yet, just sell your manuscript to one person? An orchestra can only play a piece of music once, or only one CD

Because these are art forms that people in general recognize that not everybody can do. thus have a special meaning. Unfortunatelly photography suffers from "I can do that if only......" remember, if you buy a piano, you own a piano, if you buy a camera, you are a photographer.

People don't think writings easy to do? Go buy a pencil and you're Hemingway (or write the great american novel on your laptop in starbucks). Probably more so than people think "anyone can do that" about photography. So why not only one "original" copy of the novel or book of poetry?

tim atherton

10-Sep-2007, 16:30

This is one of the myths that photographers have fallen for. Collectible art has many facets, one of them is exclusivity.

No it's not. That's simply untrue

Among other things, as has already been said, if that were the case the sculptures of Degas and Giacometti (for example) wouldn't be art, but their drawings and paintings would.

naturephoto1

10-Sep-2007, 16:31

People don't think writings easy to do? Go buy a pencil and you're Hemingway (or write the great american novel on your laptop in starbucks). Probably more so than people think "anyone can do that" about photography. So why not only one "original" copy of the novel or book of poetry?

Tim,

Don't get me started on the idea that "anyone can do that" about photography. After all of these years at art shows, I still hear I have photos that look just like that. Or, I could do that. Or, that isn't difficult. Or, Honey, you should blow yours up, it will look just like that. :( :eek:

Rich

Greg Lockrey

10-Sep-2007, 16:50

Back on topic: No matter how you handle your sales, one of a kind or multiple copies, you are just "prostituting your art". :rolleyes:

Jorge Gasteazoro

10-Sep-2007, 16:56

Back on topic: No matter how you handle your sales, one of a kind or multiple copies, you are just "prostituting your art". :rolleyes:

I hope you are joking..... :)

Joe Smigiel

10-Sep-2007, 16:57

I've done ambrotypes exclusively for two years now. I can't bear to sell them.

But then, that's not why I'm doing them.

Jorge Gasteazoro

10-Sep-2007, 17:04

I've done ambrotypes exclusively for two years now. I can't bear to sell them.

But then, that's not why I'm doing them.

LOL... I think this is an important consideration, I think we get too attached to our negatives. We think back to the effort it took to take them, the hours spent in the DR and the process, that somehow it makes it more difficult to part with the negatives. Why is this not the same for painters or sculptors? They work for hours, days, or even months in one piece and have no problem parting with it.

Greg Lockrey

10-Sep-2007, 17:06

I hope you are joking..... :)

I am, Jorge, but it was what my brother the doctor told me once when I responded with that he takes money from sick people.;)

claudiocambon

10-Sep-2007, 17:20

To reiterate what others have said so far, including myself, I disagree with the notion of exclusivity in the image.

A painter sells one painting because there is only one original. Photographers don't have to do that, and again, to create an artificial limit benefits the collector, not the artist, even if the price tag is high. If as an artist you make your living by selling out small editions at very high prices to the art world, a relatively small pool of collectors, then this system works for you (in a limited way, because if it sells, you should keep selling!), but the point is that it doesn't work for 99% of the photographers out there. Good for Gursky, Sherman, and such, but not the rest of us.

Simply put, you should sell your work in such a way that lets you make more work. That's the point of selling it to begin with. The small edition is the model that is often touted as the one to aspire to, but there are other ways to make a living selling prints that many established and successful photographers adhere to. Exclusivity is a notion that appeals to the greedy, but the reason why someone should treasure a print is that is a beautiful print of a beautiful image. Art for art's sake. And a lot of people do collect on that basis.

kjsphotography

10-Sep-2007, 17:49

>> A painter sells one painting because there is only one original. Photographers don't have to do that,

And this is why photography is not consider art to many. I urge you to do this. Ask 20 people this question.

When you hear the word painting what do you think?

They replied to b me with art.

Then I said what about photography? Their response a picture. Not ART but a picture.

If a photographer acted more like artist then maybe fine photographs would be considered just that, works of art as their would only be one. As long as you sell multiple copies ( myself included ) they are just that, copies a dime a dozen period. Look in the art word, on a continual basis paintings sell for hundreds of thousands or millions even from current living artist. Photographers? Not the same. As famous as John Sexton, Michael Kenna, Roman Loranc etc is they are only bring a few thousand, look at Bret Weston, same goes for him a few thousand. Now take a painter, modern day even can pull in $15K+ for a single paining but it is a one of a kind work of art!

On average paintings outsell photography by a landslide. Why? Because they are exclusive and collectors consider them art. Photographs on the other hand they don’t because Uncle Joe has a camera and he has an image just like that. Now sell the negative and let people know that this is also a work of art and a one of a kind just like a painting or sculpture even and maybe just maybe you will be selling a lot more as you know are only offering 1!

That is the difference.

Another point in this thread that is a complete lie.

Some one said that photographers have more invested and they have to travel. Many many many painters paint on site, on location and the canvas they paint on cost more than your box of 25 sheets of film . A tube of oil paint good quality can cost over $40 a tube and brushes can cost a lot of money as well. SO don’t give me this crap photography cost more as that is a line of crap. Painting cost just as much if not more.

A camera once you have it you are done, paintings you have to continually buy oils, brushes, canvases etc… They you have to prep your canvases, sand them down etc. A hell of a lot more works goes into preparing canvases then taking a photograph.

These painters paint on location as well so they also are painting from what they see. There is no difference except painters are REAL ARTIST I feel because they willing to let go of the original.

Look if a painter does not create new work they don’t eat. Why cant photography be the same way? I am guilty myself selling multiples, but this raises good points and I am going to try selling a few 1 of 1 ad see how it goes. Like I said before I want to be know as an artist and not just another photographer.

claudiocambon

10-Sep-2007, 18:07

>>

If a photographer acted more like artist then maybe fine photographs would be considered just that, works of art as their would only be one. As long as you sell multiple copies ( myself included ) they are just that, copies a dime a dozen period. Look in the art word, on a continual basis paintings sell for hundreds of thousands or millions even from current living artist. Photographers? Not the same. As famous as John Sexton, Michael Kenna, Roman Loranc etc is they are only bring a few thousand, look at Bret Weston, same goes for him a few thousand. Now take a painter, modern day even can pull in $15K+ for a single paining but it is a one of a kind work of art!

On average paintings outsell photography by a landslide. Why? Because they are exclusive and collectors consider them art. Photographs on the other hand they don’t because Uncle Joe has a camera and he has an image just like that. Now sell the negative and let people know that this is also a work of art and a one of a kind just like a painting or sculpture even and maybe just maybe you will be selling a lot more as you know are only offering 1!

That is the difference.

I disagree. Just as there are painters selling their work for hundreds of thousands, there are a few photographers doing the same, especially these days. You are not highlighting a difference between the two media, but between the select few who are the darlings of the market, and everyone else. Again, this business model works for the select few currently in favor, but it is important to remember that it is not designed to work for everyone else. If everyone is exclusive, then no one is.

Value of work can be established in many other ways than exclusivity for a photograph. Again, there are many collectors who buy prints simply because they like them, and could care less how many other prints there are of that image. As an earlier poster wrote, does 1,000 copies of "Moonlight, Hernandez..." diminish its value? Should Ansel have sold only one of those prints? No, because each and every one of the collectors who own that image love it to death. They pay a fair value for the print, not a dime a dozen, often enough to pay for future artmaking. Over the course of a lifetime, you may make much more than you think from a successful image. No, it will not be in several thousand dollar swoops, but, if you are smart about your marketing, and find/establish a large enough base of people who are interested in your work, you can make a good bit of money. I say this because at times I myself have, and it has let me make more work, which is what it is all about.

The only way to behave like an artist as a photographer is make the best images and prints you can, and charge the best (meaning the ideal combination of profitable and affordable) price for them, not by artificially restricting your work. The world is diminished if you don't get more than one print out there, especially because that one print may well not be the best version.

Ultimately this aspiration to appear exclusive when the medium of photography dictates the opportunity to do the exact opposite is politically all about giving a blowjob to the upper class (like they really need it!). It reeks of subservience to rich people's wishes, not of pursuing your own interests, which can be fulfilled in other ways. Pursue your own interests, not that of your collectors.

naturephoto1

10-Sep-2007, 18:22

Hi Kevin,

I have made comparisons between Landscape Painters and Landscape Photographers as a presentation. Some things to consider. An oil painter's costs are for his brushes, paints, and his canvas. On the other hand, the photographer has the cost of his camera (s), lenses, camera bags, tripod, film, film processing, printing costs including photo papers, frames, glass, etc.

The painter can work entirely from memory, on location, photographs, sketches, etc. They are unable to record the changing light in a single sitting with any degree of accuracy and detail. The painter can remove (not include) or change the position of elements in the painting. Additionally, the painter can change the appearance of the time of day by working with the paint colors and the shadows.

The photographer on the other hand must work with changing lighting conditions as quickly as possible to record the changing scene. The photographer works the composition through the selection of his lenses for the purpose of aiding in his composition. His shutter speed and depth of field settings (aperture) can be used to simulate the look of paintings for hundreds of years including the look of flowing water. Unless the photographer digitally removes elements in the scene, or takes the image digitally and removes elements they will be in the final rendering.

So on a relative basis, the painter is paid for the length of time that it takes to paint the finished canvas and the length of time that it takes for the paints to cure, dry, and lacquer. As a whole, the painter will complete his painting back in the studio after the change of the lighting conditions. The photographer on the other hand has very high overhead costs for his equipment and getting to the location, completes the negative, transparency, or digital file quickly, has relatively long time of completion of the finished product in the conventional or digital darkroom, and the framing requirements.

The painter can either sell his work on canvas only or framed normally without glass. The painter only has a single original (unless he paints similar pieces) but may have the opportunity to make lithos, serographs, giclees. etc.

The photographer can sell his work as a print, mounted print, matted print, or matted and framed work. The photographer has the opportunity to sell a single print, multiple prints (open ended or limited edition) in multiple sizes and different photo papers, giclee, etc.

Fewer people feel that they have the ability to paint than can pick up a camera and take a photograph. As a whole, the general public thinks that painting is an art form much more difficult to master than photography. Since such a large part of the population owns cameras and made worse by the number of people using digital cameras, they feel that it is a relatively easy craft that they can easily master.

Rich

kjsphotography

10-Sep-2007, 18:26

I disagree. Just as there are painters selling their work for hundreds of thousands, there are a few photographers doing the same.

Keyword, few. Painters do this on an average not few but many.

paulr

10-Sep-2007, 18:42

All this talk about the general public not perceiving photography as a legitemate art form is pretty irrelevant to the selling price, because that sector of the general public isn't buying much art of any kind. The exception might be low price motel-style decorative stuff ... which is just not part of the same market as the megabux paintings and photographs being refered to.

Anyone doing work that's about more than decorating a wall is either going to be selling to a more educated audience (one that that thinks of photography as art, and that knows this is hardly a new idea), or they're just barking up the wrong trees entirely.

tim atherton

10-Sep-2007, 18:53

Keyword, few. Painters do this on an average not few but many.

Kevin, if you look at the various national surveys of artist's income, if painters are doing this "on average", they're stashing the money somewhere and not declaring it... :)

Vaughn

10-Sep-2007, 19:26

I make editions of 5 with my carbon printing, editions of 10 with my platinum/palladium prints. Reasons...

1) I don't have much time to print, so I don't want to spend that limited time making the same image over and over again.

2) The curator of the gallery where I sell my work suggested it (economic considrations).

3) The chances I would damage a negative in the printing process (especially with carbon printing) are so great, I doubt I would be able to complete larger editions.

4) I have enough faith in my vision to know that I will eventually create images as good as my present best (but hopefully better.) So I am not worried about losing potential income by limiting the number of prints.

Vaughn

Brian Ellis

10-Sep-2007, 19:40

. . . I guess I have never understood why someone would want to pay good money for a photograph knowing that any number of people have the exact same looking thing.

If I like a photograph and pay a price based on my liking it why would I care how many other people have the same thing? I own numerous lithographs, most signed and numbered in sets of 100 to 200. I could care less that other people have basically the same ones, in fact until now it never occurred to me that anyone would (unless of course someone was told they were buying one of a kind and paid a premium on that basis, then found out there were others out there).

paulr

10-Sep-2007, 19:51

I own numerous lithographs, most signed and numbered in sets of 100 to 200. I could care less that other people have basically the same ones...

and if you don't care about the scarcity thing (in other words, you buy it because you like it, not because of how collectible it is) then the big edition works in your favor. You payed less than you would have if the edition was 10.

likewise you can profit from this in collecting photographs, by buying older prints rather than vintage ones. with some artists, the older ones are actually nicer, either because the photographers' style got more refined or because they final figured out how to print the thing! but the vintage ones are usually seen as more collectible, and cost way more.

naturephoto1

10-Sep-2007, 19:58

Vaughn

10-Sep-2007, 20:29

Paul, The earlier copies may cost more for resale or in the future. But as limited editions sell the later copies tend to cost more than those that were produced or sold earlier on. That tends to be the case because fewer are available as the edition sells out.
Rich

My limited editions increase in price as the edition sells out. This can work well for both me and the collector. Buying early is a edition means a lower price (and an incentive to buy). And as the edition sells and the price increases, the earlier buyers have a documented increase in the value of their prints.

Vaughn

kjsphotography

10-Sep-2007, 20:56

Kevin, if you look at the various national surveys of artist's income, if painters are doing this "on average", they're stashing the money somewhere and not declaring it... :)

Tim I think you better do some better research.

tim atherton

10-Sep-2007, 21:13

Tim I think you better do some better research.

when I was working with a grant funding body a couple of years ago, as I recall, the figures out of the US we had to work with were that average income for painters was $38,000. (Fashion designers and architects fare better... at about $60,000)

(I'm not 100% sure off-hand, but I think that also included "income from other sources" i.e. a second job)

That was based on Government sources - census data, tax data etc and the various surveys of professions.

I doubt the figures have changed that much in a couple of years

kjsphotography

10-Sep-2007, 21:20

Tim,

Go do real research. Goto galleries ask question. Talk to art buyers.

It is really that easy.

tim atherton

10-Sep-2007, 21:28

Tim,

Go do real research. Goto galleries ask question. Talk to art buyers.

It is really that easy.

ah - you mean anecdotal research...

okay. I know plenty of "fine artists" painters, sculptors and such (I've just come back from an international conference full of them). And I deal with plenty of gallery owners and curators (talking today with a curator from the Serpentine Gallery). As well as with art buyers for the government and for some big commercial enterprises like the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce and ING Art Management.

The painters you are talking about selling regularly for those figures are in the top percentiles of the game. The aren't the majority of painters out there.

Imagine, the art schools would be chockablock if graduates knew that on average they could throw off paintings for a couple of hundred thousand buck a time on a regular basis. Who'd want to be a dentist when you could do that...?

kjsphotography

10-Sep-2007, 21:42

I am curious, how many in this thread actually make there full time living from their art sales?

commercial , wedding, portraits, stock slaes do not count. I don't want to hear from hobby shooter either.

I am talking fine art only?

tim atherton

10-Sep-2007, 21:54

Okay, I just did a quick check on some sales figures. Work from some of the best contemporary US artists - outside of the few "mega-stars" - so the work of the more well known artists currently out there regularly goes for $180,000 to $250,000. There are some whose work regularly sells for somewhere between that and about a millions - but they seem to be the recently dead...

So aside from the small few whose work regularly goes for a couple of million or so (your Damian Hirsts, Richters and Kiefers etc), these are the painters who would be your household names and mainstream "celebrities" in the art world.

And there aren't really that many of them

Outside of theMira Goddards and such, the average price in mainstream upscale Chelsea galleries seems to be around 20,000 to 30,000 or so

Jorge Gasteazoro

10-Sep-2007, 21:58

I have enough faith in my vision to know that I will eventually create images as good as my present best (but hopefully better.) So I am not worried about losing potential income by limiting the number of prints.

This is what it comes down to, how much confidence you have in your talent.

Stephen Willard

10-Sep-2007, 22:04

If I am correct there are basically two camps, the limited edition and the open edition. Limited can be from one to 1000s, and open is unlimited in number. Both camps are acceptable practices in the photographic market. Neither is thought to be unethical.

Each of us will choose the best model for our own needs. Righteous words will not influence any of us and will most likely have just the opposite effect. I have chosen limited editions of 900 and 1500 with the later being used for only for my most popular selling images.

And, I can assure you, I am neither lazy nor a prostitute.

Greg Lockrey

10-Sep-2007, 22:06

If I am correct there are basically two camps, the limited edition and the open edition. Limited can be from one to 1000s, and open is unlimited in number. Both camps are acceptable practices in the photographic market. Neither is thought to be unethical.

Each of us will choose the best model for our own needs. Righteous words will not influence any of us and will most likely have just the opposite effect. I have chosen limited editions to 950 and 1500 with the later being used for only my most popular selling images.

And, I can assure you, I am neither lazy nor a prostitute.

There is the "one only" camp too.

Jorge Gasteazoro

10-Sep-2007, 22:20

kjsphotography

10-Sep-2007, 22:21

Amazing she isn't a photographer. Makes you wonder doesn't it.

tim atherton

10-Sep-2007, 22:26

Here you go, you make this kind of money with your photgraphy? and lets remember this is e bay.

http://www.artnewsblog.com/2006/05/artist-makes-25000-on-ebay.htm

I think this is exactly what we need more of. Note, most of her sales are 700 or 4000 a time - it's volume and promotion - which the internet enables. Breaking the grip of the traditional gallery system is a good thing imo

tim atherton

10-Sep-2007, 22:34

I dream of an influential book, and actively dislike the idea of an exhibition. I am unlikely to make the Guild council.

I like John Gossage's belief that the photography book is the thing to done with the work and the exhibition is essentially a waste of time

Vaughn

10-Sep-2007, 22:39

This is what it comes down to, how much confidence you have in your talent.

Editioning has it pros and cons. My quote you copied relates only to the idea that one might lose potential income if one editions a print. For example, let's say an edition of10 at $1000 each (so $10,000 in income) but down the road, perhaps one could have sold 100 for $500 each (or $50,000 in income from that one image). So editioning caused a loss of $40,000 in potential income from that image. From a business sense, I have confidence that I will continue to make images that will sell to replace that possible loss of income potential caused by small editioning.

To use my quote in any other context could lead to erroneous conclusions.

It is interesting to note that many of the old-time wetplate photographers (Whatkins, for example) would judge a negative by how many prints of it they could sell. They would make that number of prints and then scrap off the image to re-use the glass. While the cost and availability of good glass was probably the main factor, it must have hurt a little to treat one's 16x20 glass plate negative that way!

Vaughn

Jorge Gasteazoro

10-Sep-2007, 22:41

I think this is exactly what we need more of. Note, most of her sales are 700 or 4000 a time - it's volume and promotion - which the internet enables. Breaking the grip of the traditional gallery system is a good thing imo

Like her, there are many painters on E bay who are making anywhere from $1500 to $5000 a month selling their work. I will be glad to provide you with the links. And by the way, they don't fit the vaunted statistic you are so proud of.

Breaking the gallery system is going to require a new way of thinking for photographers, and that is what I was thinking when I posted this.

I know nobody in this forum is making that kind of money selling their photographs...so think about it.

Jorge Gasteazoro

10-Sep-2007, 22:52

Editioning has it pros and cons. My quote you copied relates only to the idea that one might lose potential income if one editions a print. For example, let's say an edition of10 at $1000 each (so $10,000 in income) but down the road, perhaps one could have sold 100 for $500 each (or $50,000 in income from that one image). So editioning caused a loss of $40,000 in potential income from that image. From a business sense, I have confidence that I will continue to make images that will sell to replace that possible loss of income potential caused by small editioning.

There are many ways to look at this as well. For example, what if as you say you make an edition of 10, but since this is a small edition, it frees you to create 10 more negatives for which you make another 10 print edition as well. You are now talking about $100000.

Or look at it the other way, why is it that everybody wants to make $1000 per sold print? What is wrong with selling 20 prints for $200? The answer is greed, an overblown sense of self worth coupled with the myth of the gallery system.

Anyhow, I see your point and I gotta go finish redoing my kitchen doors... :)

kjsphotography

10-Sep-2007, 22:59

It is interesting to note that many of the old-time wetplate photographers (Whatkins, for example) would judge a negative by how many prints of it they could sell.

But this was before digital where now a photographer can make millions of identical copies. We live in a new age and to separate ourselves from the masses we must take extreme measures. If we want to make a living at it we have to offer a product a digital shooter cannot.

Why would someone pay me $200 for a silver print when they can get one just as nice for $20 or 50 printed on latest ink jet printer?

One thing I can do that they cant is offer the negative with the photograph to prove to the buyer this is a one of a kind original and that is why they are paying more.

This makes it more valuable than a 1 out of X reproduction. AS like a painting there is only now one.

Another point not in relation to the quote but to Jorge assessment;

I have also been researching eBay for 6+ months now as well as auction houses and painters are out selling photographers by a landslide. Why? Because people deem painting a real art form. Many painters on ebay ( EBAY ) not galleries are pulling in like Jorge said $1500 - $5000K a month on average. My life alone who is a new artist with no name reorganization last week did over $500 in sales selling her painting. Give me a unknown photographer doing this?

One painter that does 5" x 5" originals in oil in locations get $122 - $200 a pop on average. Just do some research. Where as the common photographer on ebay with their multiples are hardly selling anything. It is a fact like it or not.

You will also see people bidding on paintings on eBay where the bids are not 1-4 like photographs but 20-40 bid per painting!

These ebay painters are not your famous painters either, they are just average people either starting out or sell only on eBay and making $2-5K a month. $24-60K a year is good money from where I am sitting if you ask me. How many of your guys are making $60K a year from photography fine art print sales? Remember this is normal for painters on eBay alone not including galleries, etc…

So really, think about it and think about why paintings out sell photographs? Because they are one of a kind and only one.

QT Luong

10-Sep-2007, 23:27

Jorge Gasteazoro

10-Sep-2007, 23:32

> So really, think about it and think about why paintings out sell photographs? Because they are one of a kind and only one.

It's a contributing factor, but probably less important than the perceived amount of work, skill, and artist's involvement and creativity. Everybody understands why a painting is unique. Even if you limit your photographs to one, you'll have a fair amount of explaining to do. It worked for Jeff Wall, though..

Isn't this exactly what we should strive to change? The idea that "I can do that".....If I enclose a 12x20 negative with the print, they just might think... "You know, maybe I cannot do this".....

QT Luong

10-Sep-2007, 23:46

This might impress other photographers, but I don't think the average buyer would pay much attention. It might even reinforce them in their perception that it is a mechanical process. But all of this is speculation until someone actually tries. Be sure to report results !

Greg Lockrey

10-Sep-2007, 23:50

Isn't this exactly what we should strive to change? The idea that "I can do that".....If I enclose a 12x20 negative with the print, they just might think... "You know, maybe I cannot do this".....

Negative size doesn't mean a thing. Most people can't tell the difference anyway. It will still be percieved as "doable". Your approach will have to be so unique that "wow, how did he do that" comes to mind first. Then you will be on to something. The photo will have to "blow you away" without becoming tiresome later. Most photographs do become boring mostly due their familiarity. Hence they are more difficult to sell. Besides, the number one reason a piece sells is that it fits the room decorum. Photos look like clipped calander art for the most part.

Jorge Gasteazoro

11-Sep-2007, 00:00

Negative size doesn't mean a thing. Most people can't tell the difference anyway.

Trust me when I tell you, people can tell the difference when you show them an 8x10 or 12x20 negative. I know this because I have shown them to people who know nothing about photography and the first thing out of their mouth is "WOW".

Greg Lockrey

11-Sep-2007, 00:07

Sure, but negative size will never be a determining factor for a print sale. The "fundamental rules of art" will. And if the piece fits the room's color sceme.

Hell, there are guys on this forum who go to the expense of using an 8x10 camera and still try to push out of focus photos...or they smear some jelly on their lens and try to call it artistic.

kjsphotography

11-Sep-2007, 00:13

Sure, but negative size will never be a determining factor for a print sale. The "fundamental rules of art" will. And if the piece fits the room's color sceme.

This is simply untrue. I have a collector that buys from me regularly and he will only buy contact prints from me regardless. He will not buy MF prints from me because he said he is spoiled by the quality prints from LF negatives.

Greg Lockrey

11-Sep-2007, 00:14

This is simply untrue. I have a collector that buys from me regularly and he will only buy contact prints from me regardless. He will not buy MF prints from me because he said he is spoiled by the quality prints from LF negatives.

One guy.

Jorge Gasteazoro

11-Sep-2007, 00:19

Sure, but negative size will never be a determining factor for a print sale.

It is when you are selling contact prints......

Greg Lockrey

11-Sep-2007, 00:22

It is when you are selling contact prints......

Most people wouldn't know if it's a contact from a good enlargement. I'll give you that there is a small minority that do (or think they do). But the real money will be made from the masses.

A lot like comparing Godiva chocolate to Hershey's. Sure Godiva is better and more expensive. They have a nice factory but Hershey has a whole town because their product is good enough to most people.

kjsphotography

11-Sep-2007, 00:32

One guy.

No not just one. There are more people than you realize that will not buy prints from 325mm or 120and will only buy LF period.

They see the difference and the quality.

Greg Lockrey

11-Sep-2007, 00:36

Perhaps in your neck of the woods, we have too many Walmarts and K-marts that sell a lot of cheap Chinese made art around here.

Jorge Gasteazoro

11-Sep-2007, 00:38

Most people wouldn't know if it's a contact from a good enlargement

Once they have seen one, they do.....

Greg Lockrey

11-Sep-2007, 00:42

Once they have seen one, they do.....

But that's still not going to make any real differece, content will.

How many 12x20's do you make before you have one that's good enough to sell? Then at what price will be necessary to break even once you sold one. In the long run, you won't be able to sell them at a high enough price to survive if you lose the negative with the sale.

Jorge Gasteazoro

11-Sep-2007, 00:52

But that's still not going to make any real differece, content will.

How many 12x20's do you make before you have one that's good enough to sell? Then at what price will be necessary to break even once you sold one. In the long run, you won't be able to sell them at a high enough price to survive if you lose the negative with the sale.

One...... You don't pull out the 12x20 unless you have worked out the photograph in your head first, that means exposure, composition, etc. This is another advantage of doing only one print per negative, the negative is now your canvas so you better make it count.

Jorge Gasteazoro

11-Sep-2007, 00:53

PS. you know what Greg? you think it is not a good idea....so now that we got it I think it is best to agree to disagree, this is becoming tiresome.

Greg Lockrey

11-Sep-2007, 00:54

One...... You don't pull out the 12x20 unless you have worked out the photograph in your head first, that means exposure, composition, etc. This is another advantage of doing only one print per negative, the negative is now your canvas so you better make it count.

You are telling me that there is never a screw up???

Greg Lockrey

11-Sep-2007, 00:59

PS. you know what Greg? you think it is not a good idea....so now that we got it I think it is best to agree to disagree, this is becoming tiresome.

I'm just trying to point out some practical factors to you in your quest. I hope you aren't leaving on a sour note.

Jorge Gasteazoro

11-Sep-2007, 00:59

You are telling me that there is never a screw up???

YOu got it in one....This is another reason why I am such a big advocate of the BTZS. Negatives are always exposed correctly. Now, there have been brain farts, where you forget to close the shutter, etc. But once you do one of those with these sheets you never make them again, and the percentage overall is very small. If your screw ups are more than 1 or 2% of your total shots, then you are in trouble bubba....

Greg Lockrey

11-Sep-2007, 01:01

YOu got it in one....This is another reason why I am such a big advocate of the BTZS. Negatives are always exposed correctly. Now, there have been brain farts, where you forget to close the shutter, etc. But once you do one of those with these sheets you never make them again, and the percentage overall is very small. If your screw ups are more than 1 or 2% of your total shots, then you are in trouble bubba....

That's what I figured.

Greg Lockrey

11-Sep-2007, 01:05

Boy, I would love to see a pair of these 12x20's used in my stereo photography....:)

Jorge Gasteazoro

11-Sep-2007, 01:08

Boy, I would love to see a pair of these 12x20's used in my stereo photography....:)

You gonna need a crane to hold the stereo viewer... :)

Greg Lockrey

11-Sep-2007, 01:10

You gonna need a crane to hold the stereo viewer... :)

Not really. I have a hyper view to handle that size already. Just my prints are digital enlargements. :)

Jorge Gasteazoro

11-Sep-2007, 01:11

Not really. I have a hyper view to handle that size already.

What is a hyper view?

Greg Lockrey

11-Sep-2007, 01:16

What is a hyper view?

It's a box with four mirrors in it kind of like a pair of periscopes and they are set for wide parrallel viewing for those who can't do the cross view method. I make 11x17 stereo pairs for this viewer. Mostly though I like using a cross view method (crossing the eyes) for the really large prints I make. I have some examples on my web site on the Stereo Page.

Jorge Gasteazoro

11-Sep-2007, 01:21

It's a box with four mirrors in it and they are set for wide parrallel viewing for those who can't do the cross view method. I make 11x17 stereo pairs for this viewer. Mostly though I like using a cross view method (crossing the eyes) for the really large prints I make. I have some examples on my web site on the Stereo Page.

Well shut, I can't cross my eyes.......looks rather neat though. If you come to Mexico one day you are welcome to try the camera....you bring your own film though.. :)

Greg Lockrey

11-Sep-2007, 01:23

Well shut, I can't cross my eyes.......looks rather neat though. If you come to Mexico one day you are welcome to try the camera....you bring your own film though.. :)

Thanks, I would like to do that someday. :)

Ben R

11-Sep-2007, 01:26

Surely should the idea to work (which I doubt, you would need very big names to get the idea in fashion and those names are making big money anyway with their multiple prints so why would they bother?) would it not make sense to make 3 negatives of each scene. One to sell now, one to sell later once your work is famous and worth far far more, and one for yourself, for you to keep.

Of course the whole thing is false, just trying to play catchup. A piece of artwork will be original be definition. Taping the negative to the back of the print means little given that you can expose multiple negatives, scan for further use and printing, you could have already made multiple prints before giving away that negative, etc, etc. It just sounds like its trying too hard does it not?

Either photography is percieved as art or it is not. Trying to twist photography so that it fits into 'art' sounds rather desperate. A bit like taking photos that people like to buy rather than pursuing your own artisitic endevours.

I appreciate Jorge's point that something has to be done in an age where there are more photos taken every day from cell phones to the mass of DSLR's then there has ever been in history. Our medium is getting saturated with frankly cliched and medicore work. It's my opinion that to rise above that fine art photography must have a huge quality advantage, but more than that, it must have something to say. A pretty picture is a pretty picture, when AA photographed what are now very cliched scenes, he was saying something, making a point. When Joe Bloggs photographs them in 2008 he isn't saying much of anything except perhaps 'pretty picture'. To have a message, to specifically aim to envoke an emotion, to provide a body of work on a specific and original theme, that is what is needed IMO to interest the modern client who has seen just one to many postcard type images.

As a customer that is what I would be thinking, I've seen so many veliva type images or the usual B&W in exhibitions, in print. When I go to a gallery and see a specific project of a body of work, that caches my attention. I have no idea what the upper class hollywood or business millionaire client is buying but if you want to try and 'prove' your work to that market then is it not trying just a bit too hard?

Greg Lockrey

11-Sep-2007, 01:35

Either photography is percieved as art or it is not. Trying to twist photography so that it fits into 'art' sounds rather desperate. A bit like taking photos that people like to buy rather than pursuing your own artisitic endevours.

It can be both. If Jorge has only a 2% error rate, perhaps it's doable after all.

Ben R

11-Sep-2007, 01:45

Struan Gray

11-Sep-2007, 01:56

I like John Gossage's belief that the photography book is the thing to done with the work and the exhibition is essentially a waste of time

It's always nice to have one's prejudices confirmed :-)

I like attending photography exhibitions, and I have always loved the atmosphere in art galleries: they work so hard to make you feel important and clever merely because you walked in the door. That said, to put my photographs on a gallery wall would feel like lecturing, and I prefer conversation. If that means I am not suited to the standard ways of making money from photography, so be it.

I don't see the point of complaining that painting has a different position in our wider culture than photography. I suppose folk bands sometimes dream of filling Wembley for a concert, but were it ever to happen they would lose as much as they gained.

I know many artists and muscians who gave up the 'chance' to make their passion their full career because they did not relish the things external to their art that they would have to do to make it work. I also know some who tried, but for whatever reason did not make it. I am baffled by the suggestion that making a good living from painting is somehow an easy thing to do.

A plug for one of my favourites: Norman Ackroyd (www.normanackroyd.com). He is a successful artist by any standard. He makes life difficult for himself by etching his plates in the field (and you thought the clearing solution for Polaroid 55 was a pain to carry). His work is very 'painterly', 'photographic' and accessible. He also sells prints (in editions :-) for relatively small sums. I would argue that he is far more typical of a successful visual artist than any of the big names on the international art circuit. He is also someone whose example I would prefer to follow.

Struan Gray

11-Sep-2007, 02:03

Just reminds me of the early photographers in the late 19th century shooting with very soft lenses on rough material with alternate processes specifically to try and gain acceptance with the art world in general. The 20th century prove that photography can be an art form in its own right. To redo the very beginning of photography (which wasn't sucessful in any case!) seems to me to be digression in the art rather than a step forward.

I agree, and with your other post.

The funny thing is, the art world has long ago expanded the definition of art away from the notion of an exclusive object. I can see why photographers make small editions - they have to sell to the market that exists - but in many ways their buyers are trying to recreate a world that expired long, long ago. The sort of power that allowed monarchs to keep painters like lapdogs has thankfully gone the way of powdered wigs and bear baiting.

jnantz

11-Sep-2007, 03:29

seems to me that there is room enough for both types of photographers -
those who want to make singular objects, and those who want to make
more than one image from the same negative.
i make singular prints (and dissassemble my negatives), and single edition hand made books.
i also sometimes make more than one image from a single negative.

at first i used to think single images were the way to go, but now it really doesn't matter to me.
while i make my living doing photography of one sort or another,
i'm not famous, and i don't think it matters much to anyone else either ...

Bruce Barlow

11-Sep-2007, 04:36

Jorge said in response to what I said::

"But what if, by virtue of people perceiving your work as an "original" and more "special" they start buying it more, so instead of having one or two sales a month you have 15?"

A good question, and a problem I think I wish I had. But maybe not.

Chances are it wouldn't be 15 of the same image, and if it were, I wonder if I'd make more prints? I doubt it. I'm much more interested in the next picture I'm going to make. I can't remember ever going back and reprinting a negative for any reason, except when I was testing papers and developers and used a familiar negative as a guinea pig. Let 'em bid it up on eBay. I'll watch amusedly.

15 different pictures? Outside of folks not knowing how they exist, I think I'd probably stick to what I do now: make about half-a-dozen final prints, knowing that 6 is a lifetime supply, and sell 5. When they're gone, too bad. Jorge, I think you were the source of the criticism of Brooks Jensen's $25-per-print pricing thread a while back, which was also an interesting discussion. But as my boxes and stacks of 5-extras grow, $25 apiece with minimal effort to unload them until they're gone sounds not so bad... Except for the part where I have to scan them and put them up on a web site so people even know that they exist. Realistically, $25 is a more likely price to sell. And as Brooks says, dollar-store pricing, if it works, helps achieve my goal of spreading the work widely and reaching an audience that won't fork over $400 or more. And cheap pricing only cheapens me if I let it. I think of it as reducing clutter in my work space.

And it's even worse. I mostly do series now, of 14 to 18 images, which I find is good for my head. It would be tough to break sets, whch creates an interesting inventory problem, but who wants to buy the whole series?

I realize that this is at least a quirky view, but in my situation I don't need to sell prints to eat, don't want to become a commercial enterprise in that way, and surely don't want to take time out of a limited lifespan to market prints. I'm blessed to be able to do exactly what I want, and that means photographing more, doing workshops, and making videos. Those are fun for me. Packing and shipping prints isn't.

Thanks for asking, Jorge. Again, a really interesting question that helped me think through the above response. It's my response, and not meant as a recommendation for anyone else.

paulr

11-Sep-2007, 06:04

I mostly do series now, of 14 to 18 images, which I find is good for my head. It would be tough to break sets, whch creates an interesting inventory problem, but who wants to buy the whole series?

one solution to this has been to sell portfolios. you basically package a series consistently (same sized mats, a portfolio case, or whatever) and offer it for a big discount over what someone would pay for the prints individually. you might edition the portfolios, not the prints.

another solution is a small edition artist's book. these can include handbound books with tipped-in traditional prints, handbound books made from high end digital prints printed directly on the rag paper, or short run books off a digital press. Steven Shore just did a series of books printed in editions of 20 by Apple's iPhoto service ... they're amazing!

it's a common issue to not want to orphan your prints from a series, and there's probably a solution that will satisfy your vision and your buyer's pocketbooks.

i think the most important thing is to serve your vision first. you know beyond a shadow of a doubt that you want this work to stay together, so you start with that. once you figure out how to print, package, and present the work, you can set out finding a market for it. maybe you'll end up making superficial concessions to that market, but there are so many markets out there that you shouldn't be forced to compromise the things you care most about, unless selling is the most important thing to you.

on another note, i think it's silly to argue about "what collectors care about." there are millions of them; many of them are unique, and some of them are nuts. Some of them DO care about contact prints. Some don't. Some will only collect daguerrotypes. Some will only collect street pictures made by African Amercian artists. I know of one guy who only collects pictures that have the word "ok" visible in the image.

The larger art market today can be seen as following trends, and among those is a much greater interest in the image than in anything related to craft. So in general, the biggest collectors don't care about something being a contact print. But you don't sell to a generalization; you sell to an individual.

bob carnie

11-Sep-2007, 06:31

I was wondering if anyone was going to mention Jeff Walls name, I did not in my first post,but Jorges thread immediately made me think of him. I am under the impression *someone correct me if I am wrong* that in Jeff Walls career he has only worked on a limited number of images that he sells, 100-300 in total, His vision is very complex and he only sells one print of each image, and then moves on.*once again some one correct me if I am wrong*
He uses a media that I am familiar with, Cibachrome , and this is the end printed product. As I know backlight cibas will fade with continuous light, I suspect that with purchase the buyer gets a one of a kind image/print. But with this purchase backup copies of the image are made and put in dark storage*cibachromes have the unique advantage of being permanent in dark storage.* if the original copy say in 30 years shows wear/fading there are backups in pristine condition.*once again I am not sure if this is what he does*
But if this is what Jeff is doing he is my *hero* as he is making top dollars for his images as well has found a way of skirting aroung the fading issue that most contempary colour artists using RA4 output will face in 20 - 30 years as these very expensive pieces going into Laywers offices start fading to cyan mud.
It has taken him years to reach this success and I am very happy for him.

I have flirted with an idea that Jorge pointed out about 7 pages ago, and that is making and 16x20 master print *solarization* then doing a scan and outputting the resulting file on digital cibachrome in very large sizes and selling them as the reproductions and keeping the original for myself.
The ciba to most people I show is as pleasing as the original fibre tritoned print.
Maybe Jorge you have changed my mind, as I am still undecisive as to going ahead and making very large mural fibres and then tri itoning them, I am currently printing the smaller fibre originals and this may be the ticket.
I am not afraid of the work as I love the process , but I have to justify financially my decision , when I am not sure of the response to my work. I do indeed want to exhibit in a gallery setting , but the moment that you do that a price tag is put on your work and in my neck of the woods a newbie to the gallery world gets approx 6-8 hundred for a 16x20 framed print that they share with the gallery and in my case a 30x40 print gets the same photographer anywhere around 1200 -3500 framed which again is split with the gallery.
To add insult , the photographer covers the cost of production of the print and in most cases the framing. The net profit to the photographer after all of this is very small indeed and if we use the one off print idea very frustrating to an emerging artist .
I see this year in year out with my clients and this is a very big deal to those trying to move forward with their vision.
I make a decent living from printing and framing shows and I am in the position of sitting back and not giving a crap whether my work hangs or not from a financial point of view, but like many here and in my world the thought of hanging a show is a very compelling thought.
As well , like many here on this site, I can my process my film, make my own prints and frame my work at 25% of what other photographers are able to do therefore the costs of putting on a show is minimized and any net profit at the end of the day is much more.
I believe it takes at least 15 years of exhibiting and hard work to start making a solid income *not projected* to think that the very first print you ever make will be the last is daunting, in fact I would say impossible for those of us who rely on a outside provider to make our prints.

seems to me that there is room enough for both types of photographers -
those who want to make singular objects, and those who want to make
more than one image from the same negative.
i make singular prints (and dissassemble my negatives), and single edition hand made books.
i also sometimes make more than one image from a single negative.

at first i used to think single images were the way to go, but now it really doesn't matter to me.
while i make my living doing photography of one sort or another,
i'm not famous, and i don't think it matters much to anyone else either ...

> So really, think about it and think about why paintings out sell photographs? Because they are one of a kind and only one.

It's a contributing factor, but probably less important than the perceived amount of work, skill, and artist's involvement and creativity. Everybody understands why a painting is unique. Even if you limit your photographs to one, you'll have a fair amount of explaining to do. It worked for Jeff Wall, though..

Bill_1856

11-Sep-2007, 06:39

Roman Loranc seems to "retire" his most printed negatives (I don't know how many prints he gets from them), while I'm fairly certain that John Sexton and Michael Smith will print whatever they have orders for.
I expect that it's a lot more problematic for those using unque materials such as Dye Transfer (does Eggleston still sell his tricycle in Dyes?).
I expect it is s little early yet to determine what effect the PhD inkjets printing will have, but expect it to be somewhere between "real individual silver prints" and the arts posters printed in the gillians by AA, Warhol, Avadon, etc.

tim atherton

11-Sep-2007, 07:07

I expect that it's a lot more problematic for those using unque materials such as Dye Transfer (does Eggleston still sell his tricycle in Dyes?).
I expect it is s little early yet to determine what effect the PhD inkjets printing will have, but expect it to be somewhere between "real individual silver prints" and the arts posters printed in the gillians by AA, Warhol, Avadon, etc.

His last show was inkjet prints. I don't think the prices were any different.

alanps

11-Sep-2007, 08:37

Not totally sure what the issue is here - if you are famed and sell a single image and destroy the negative then it will sell for a higher price and likely prove to be a good investment (due to rarity as much as anything.

On the other hand, if you continue to make prints of the same neg over your career - then the prints will change (in some cases dramatically) as each is to some degree unique.

Personally I am favour of small editions of 5-10 and then stopping at that - but that is just my take - and it impacts the pricing of the prints dramatically. I also personally object to repeated/multiple editions being made - few buyers truly understand that after that first 100 there may be many more 100's

Also to note that I disagree strongly with some of the other posters here who seem to envy the life of painters - certainly the painters I know tend to turn out very few finished pieces (less than 10 a year) and sell for just a few thousand dollars a piece (if they are lucky).

Photography will always have this battle between uniqueness and reproducibility - its for the photographer/artist to make a decision where they stand.

Vaughn

11-Sep-2007, 09:58

Or look at it the other way, why is it that everybody wants to make $1000 per sold print? What is wrong with selling 20 prints for $200? The answer is greed, an overblown sense of self worth coupled with the myth of the gallery system.

Considering the time and effort to create one of my carbon prints, I don't sell them for only $200 because I am so greedy I am not willing to sell my time at $5 an hour or less. I'd rather try for $1000 and keep the print if it does not sell. I personally think my time is worth more than $5/hr -- an over-blown sense of self-worth or not.

My 16x20 silver gelatin prints sell for $300 matted and framed...a little cheap considering the time and money invested, but reasonable.

Vaughn

paulr

11-Sep-2007, 10:30

I don't sell them for only $200 because I am so greedy I am not willing to sell my time at $5 an hour or less. I'd rather try for $1000 and keep the print if it does not sell. I personally think my time is worth more than $5/hr -- an over-blown sense of self-worth or not.

and besides, unless you're a business with a profit imperative, you have the luxury of pricing the work at whatever it's worth to you, for whatever reasons. people have the option to buy or not.

Jorge Gasteazoro

11-Sep-2007, 10:32

Considering the time and effort to create one of my carbon prints, I don't sell them for only $200 because I am so greedy I am not willing to sell my time at $5 an hour or less. I'd rather try for $1000 and keep the print if it does not sell. I personally think my time is worth more than $5/hr -- an over-blown sense of self-worth or not.

My 16x20 silver gelatin prints sell for $300 matted and framed...a little cheap considering the time and money invested, but reasonable.

Vaughn

First of all, you seem to have taken my response personally, and that was not my intention. I meant "everybody" in a generic way. I am sure you are doing what is best for you and your work.

Vaughn

11-Sep-2007, 11:31

First of all, you seem to have taken my response personally, and that was not my intention. I meant "everybody" in a generic way. I am sure you are doing what is best for you and your work.

That's the problem of using generalities loosely like that, "everybody" means everybody, and that includes me. It is not quite the same as using a generic "you". You (non-generic) should use words a bit more carefully if you wish to be understood correctly. Besides that, I found your comment to be very judgmental -- assigning the qualities of greed and over-blown sense of self-worth by the price break of prints...there are too many other factors involved for that to be an accurate or useful generalization.

Paul, I can't support my family with my print sales, but I do try to support my art with sales -- so I cannot afford to sell my work and my time at a loss. So there is a little "profit imperative" involved. It is all a matter of balance.

Vaughn

Jorge Gasteazoro

11-Sep-2007, 12:05

That's the problem of using generalities loosely like that, "everybody" means everybody, and that includes me. It is not quite the same as using a generic "you". You (non-generic) should use words a bit more carefully if you wish to be understood correctly. Besides that, I found your comment to be very judgmental -- assigning the qualities of greed and over-blown sense of self-worth by the price break of prints...there are too many other factors involved for that to be an accurate or useful generalization.

Paul, I can't support my family with my print sales, but I do try to support my art with sales -- so I cannot afford to sell my work and my time at a loss. So there is a little "profit imperative" involved. It is all a matter of balance.

Vaughn

While I tried to mend fences and let you know it was not a remark directed at you specifically, I am certainly not going to be lectured by you. If you took the comment personally and the shoe fit, then it is your problem, not mine.

Brian Ellis

11-Sep-2007, 13:03

when I was working with a grant funding body a couple of years ago, as I recall, the figures out of the US we had to work with were that average income for painters was $38,000. (Fashion designers and architects fare better... at about $60,000)

(I'm not 100% sure off-hand, but I think that also included "income from other sources" i.e. a second job)

That was based on Government sources - census data, tax data etc and the various surveys of professions.

I doubt the figures have changed that much in a couple of years

When you're talking about "income" you need to distinguish between gross and net. There's a big difference. A painter who's grossing $38,000 may be netting half or less than that. A painter who's netting $38,000 would likely be grossing a whole lot more than that after factoring in costs such as studio, travel, canvas, paints, models, etc.

These kinds of statistics can also be very misleading by not explaining how the term "painter" was defined. Did it include anyone who filed a Schedule C with a business code of "painter" or "artist" or was it limited to people who made a substantial part of their income from painting? I've always thought that "average" net incomes of photographers that I've seen from time to time are very misleading in that way. They never make it clear just who is being considered to be a "photographer." If you include everyone who files a Schedule C with a photographer business code you get a much lower, and I think misleading, number than if you limit the average to full-time professionals.

paulr

11-Sep-2007, 13:09

I know a lot of painters, and most would be ecstatic if they were even grossing $38,000! Which would put them on wellfare here in NYC if they didn't have other jobs.

Vaughn

11-Sep-2007, 13:41

While I tried to mend fences and let you know it was not a remark directed at you specifically, I am certainly not going to be lectured by you. If you took the comment personally and the shoe fit, then it is your problem, not mine.

Interesting...you make an unsupportable generalization and use poor writing skills, then you lay the blame on someone else. Communication is a two way activity. The writer has as much responcibility to make his/her point in a clear understandable way as the reader has in interpretating the writing. (sorry for the bad spelling)

But I it is my fault, too, After all, I choose to read and respond to your post.:rolleyes:

Vaughn

Jorge Gasteazoro

11-Sep-2007, 14:21

as the reader has in interpretating the writing

Regardless of "clarity" I am not responsible for how the reader interprets. You chose you take it personally, that is on you. As you say, it too was my fault for trying to make it clearer for you. I should have left it as it was since any further efforts seem to be a waste of time.

QT Luong

11-Sep-2007, 16:17

Greg Lockrey

11-Sep-2007, 16:32

kjsphotography

11-Sep-2007, 19:21

I have an in-law who paints and draws. He sells almost nothing, so he is working at nearly minimum wage as a security guard. He looks with envy at the "easy money" made by wedding photographers. He would like to have repros made of his paintings so he wouldn't have to try to sell the originals because he is attached to them, yet doesn't have equipment or enough money to invest in quality repro work. The grass is greener on the other side.

If he is good have him try selling on ebay. A lot of painters are making between $1500-$5K a month on average. And these are not known artist. The only thing is that they do sell the originals. Look up Justin Clayton for example, he does a painting a day 5"x5" and it goes anywhere from $99 to to $450, he averages $1200+ a month. If your in-law want to do it he can but he will have to put forth the effort. You can do it if you want it bad enough.

Alot of painters make small painting that they sell and they keep their big works for themselves or galleries.

tim atherton

11-Sep-2007, 19:59

As for sales, it varies. Last month I sold four b&w ink prints of my Immersive Landscape series for $895.00 each and about half a dozen smaller sales

Gordon Moat

12-Sep-2007, 12:07

. . . . . . Why is this not the same for painters or sculptors? They work for hours, days, or even months in one piece and have no problem parting with it.

When I do a painting, it is the process for me, more than the results. Sure, it can take numerous hours spanning over weeks or months, but at some point it is done, and you move on to the next idea.

The other aspect is the love/hate relationship with each painting. I start out liking the idea, then in the process start despising it, and finally when I start liking it again I know I need to stop working on it. I don't know how many other painters go through that, but it does contribute to why I disconnect from the final finished work.

I apply some of this attitude towards my photography. The idea might be a good start point that I enjoy. The rendering for me is the film, usually a transparency selected/edited out of a few shots. After that maybe one print, or sending off a scanned file to a client, then not much connection beyond making sure the print comes out the way I wanted/expected (or the client expected).

Maybe the attitude that I have from painting is why I would not consider doing limited editions, nor even producing multiple prints. After finding that one frame of film that accomplishes what was intended, then I feel a drive to move onto the next concept/idea.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat (http://www.gordonmoat.com)
A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)

billschwab

12-Sep-2007, 19:32

If we are supposed to be "artists" then we should not be afraid to let go of the negative and show that with our talent, vision and mastering of the technical part we are capable of producing more work, if we are supposed to be only as good as our last shot, why not just do one print and be done with it?An honorable position to be sure Jorge, but financial suicide if you are trying to support a family with your work. I realize not all are, but there are those of us that do not have a day job to fall back on. It has nothing to do with confidence in my work and everything to do with feeding a child and providing it with a good education. Limited editions are an accepted way of "business" in the FAP world and it is my experience after years doing this that their advent as applied to photographic art is more collector driven that it is dealer or photographer driven. Sure there are those that can command big $ for their work and therefore justify destroying a negative after one sale. For the rest of us down here in the trenches, there are mouths to feed and car payments to make. Editioning is not some scheme to artificially inflate prices, it is a means to make what can be made from artwork that is traditionally thought of as less valuable than many of the other fine arts yet still expected to be "limited" by those collecting.

kjsphotography

12-Sep-2007, 19:56

Bill I completely disagree. I have a family of 4 and I manage. There is an important thing I think Americans forget. They can either earn more or expect less and unfortunately as a corporate run society that is driven by greed most want to earn more, charge more and feel important. Me, I prefer to except less and live within my means and in doing so I can happily raise my family doing what I love without the worry of having to charge thousands for my work. In doing so, more people can own my work and I can offer them something original as I don't have to sit behind a desk pushing a pencil. I own a house, cars and have a good life and more importantly I can make it.

It is not suicide whatsoever selling one of one at all if you work at creating new work on a continual basis. How do you think painters make it? They only paint one and I know many that make a good living from selling there originals and they don’t sell for thousands either. I do not have a day job to fall back on at all and this is my main source of income ( 80% ). I don't have to sell a photograph for $1K or 5K to make it, I can get buy on my sales very happily. I prefer to sell 10-20 originals a month for $100-200 than 1 for $1000 or $2000. Yes, I do still also offer editions but I think I am going to start doing more 1/1 to force myself to get out there and create new work on a continual basis and not count on old work making me my money. The last thing in the world I want to have happen is become stale or lazy in my art by relying on old images.

After time I feel more people will buy your 1/1 work because they will feel that they are getting something unique and not just another numbered photograph that can be reproduced on a whim. As you say collectors control the market and if they feel they are getting something special they will keep coming back.

Again everyone has to do what is right for them, and some want to do edition of 10000 and that is good for there business model, but for me at this juncture I think offering something original is something I want / need to do as I want to create a work of art one time like a painting and not reproductions.

Just my humble opinion.

Kev

billschwab

12-Sep-2007, 20:15

Bill I completely disagree. I have a family of 4 and I manage. That is a good thing for you Kevin and I wish you the best with your plan. I'm all for living frugally and do so quite well, but it was a long time ago that I could support my family on $2,000 a month! It has nothing to do with "greed" or "feeling important". It has everything to do with providing for my family, having a little cushion for coming rainy days and being able to help others from time to time with their needs.

Greg Lockrey

12-Sep-2007, 20:32

That is a good thing for you Kevin and I wish you the best with your plan. I'm all for living frugally and do so quite well, but it was a long time ago that I could support my family on $2,000 a month! It has nothing to do with "greed" or "feeling important". It has everything to do with providing for my family, having a little cushion for coming rainy days and being able to help others from time to time with their needs.

Same here. The difference between being a successful artist and one that starves is just marketing.

Jon Shiu

7-Oct-2007, 11:21

Interesting story in the paper today about a successful 4 yr old abstract painter:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/10/07/PKGMSDQA6.DTL

http://www.marlaolmstead.com/

Jon

Gary Tarbert

17-Oct-2007, 17:22

Really interesting thread, the reality for me to limit to one, the single purchaser would have to really love the print as i am not famous & the price would be up around$20,000 (price based on fully sold series in my current format).
I also provide a replacement Guarentee so this would be an issue if the print started
fading or was damaged in some way.
Also i could not bring myself to destroy the original It would be a deed i would not be able to do.
we moved house 2yrs ago and a pano on 120 film was misplaced from Nz south island was lost 2yrs later i havn't got over it!!.Cheers Gary

Scott Morgan

31-Jan-2008, 21:17

I enjoyed seeing the different viewpoints on the 14 pages of this thread! Pardon me for bringing back an older thread...blame it on the new guy.

As for one-of-ones: I visited Fatali's Sedona gallery a few weeks ago. On the wall was a nicely framed page offering for sale a print that is one-of-one. The write-up said the negative was damaged by chemicals in the darkroom, and could never be used again. The price tag for this one-of-one: $107,000.

On the other hand, in Alain Briot's book, he says,"the sales of one of my images single-handedly paid for the house I currently live in." What he says (elsewhere) about the house is that it has 3 rooms specifically for his business, and he and his wife wanted a floor plan that would keep the business separate from the 'normal' living. So, with this in mind, I would guess his house cost around $300,000 to $400,000, maybe more. (He lives in Phoenix.)

Would Mr. Briot have made this kind of money with a one-of-one of that image? No.

Fatali's one-of-one is priced where it is because his other work is NOT one-of-one. Whoever pays for it will feel it has that value, because his other prints are reproducible.

If a buyer walked into a gallery where all 100 or so images were one-of-one, what would the percieved value of each then be? What I'm saying here is that maybe do a one-of-one occasionally, so as to keep the value of it high. I'd hate to miss out on the one best-seller that single-handedly pays for a nice house.

On the other hand, I see the artistic viewpoint of one-of-ones so that all prints are unique. I guess I feel strongly about it both ways. ;-)

Scott

Richard M. Coda

31-Jan-2008, 21:40

As it is public record here in Maricopa County, Mr. Briot bought his house for $170,000 in 2002, and it is 1685 sq. ft. He lives in Peoria, not Phoenix. Just an FYI, so everyone knows the facts.

Scott Morgan

1-Feb-2008, 07:20

As it is public record here in Maricopa County, Mr. Briot bought his house for $170,000 in 2002, and it is 1685 sq. ft. He lives in Peoria, not Phoenix. Just an FYI, so everyone knows the facts.

Thanks for the facts, Richard. Peoria vs. Phx would make a difference. My mistake was I was thinking in terms of today's prices. I was going off what he says in his book--that he lives in Phoenix. I understand though, that most people from out of state would not know where Peoria is, so it's easier to say Phx.
Scott

Brian Vuillemenot

1-Feb-2008, 13:52

On the other hand, in Alain Briot's book, he says,"the sales of one of my images single-handedly paid for the house I currently live in." What he says (elsewhere) about the house is that it has 3 rooms specifically for his business, and he and his wife wanted a floor plan that would keep the business separate from the 'normal' living. So, with this in mind, I would guess his house cost around $300,000 to $400,000, maybe more. (He lives in Phoenix.)

Would Mr. Briot have made this kind of money with a one-of-one of that image? No.

Scott

From some of the outlandish claims on Briot's website and articles, I would take much of what he claims with a grain of salt.

Jorge Gasteazoro

1-Feb-2008, 22:27

Who is this guy Briot? I know of a few well known photographers who have made a lot of money from one image, but they are very well known, they are better known in the advertising area, and usually the money came from an ad campaign, not from sales of a single image. I find hard to beleive this guy made $170000 out of one shot.

Clay Turtle

4-Feb-2008, 10:44

I am personally working on a series of solarizations that this question on editions is relevant and I need to answer for myself. These prints are very large, time consuming and very subjective, I now have made three different versions on smaller size just to get the right balance I am happy with. This has taken me time , money and energy, but I love the process and think I am close to start producing the large prints.
The question that is bugging me is I have invested x amount of dollars into each print. How much will I be able to sell them for , where and how many of each will I print.
I would prefer to only to make a small number of each print as they are very difficult to reproduce and after its made every one after is just copy work and I agree with you about one the one off value aspect.
I have considered making three to five prints , of each image , once they are fully toned and finished in presentation matts , I would then snip the negative and that is that.
Since you brought it up , maybe this thread will help me in the decision on how many prints of each image I should make.
Considered doing limited original solarized then make a copy neg or scan & reproducing from this source? The thing about any production is that pirating of the original is relatively easy.

David Luttmann

8-Feb-2008, 09:01

Who is this guy Briot?

LOL.

Marko

8-Feb-2008, 14:16

"Who is this guy Briot"

In our circles he is well known. To me he is someone making a decent living off his images, what many of us dream about. However, in other circles he is unknown. I don't even see his images in stores. I remember a while back the name Thomas Kinkade was mentioned, and several people had no clue who he was. I guess he is a nobody to many of us right now.

[...]

So I am not surprised when someone says who is this guy. Check out Ken Duncan, he used to mention the editions that were sold out (maybe still does) in his website. At his prices, each sold out edition is enough to buy a nice house (and there were many editions sold out). There is money to be made if your really good. We need cars, food, clothes, furniture, wall furniture, etc. There is lots of $ to be made if your really good, and good at marketing. I would say Thomas is one of the best at marketing his product, because although his images are very nice, I find there are artists with images just as nice who are not making a whole lot of $.

And that's the whole point, isn't it?

The severity of criticism seems to be directly if not exponentially proportionate to the inevitable income gap between the criticized and the critic. And the criticized always seem to be too busy making their heap to even bother acknowledging the critics. ;)

And besides, the same question - who is this fellow? - can even more pointedly be asked about any of the critics themselves.

Jorge Gasteazoro

8-Feb-2008, 14:45

And that's the whole point, isn't it?

The severity of criticism seems to be directly if not exponentially proportionate to the inevitable income gap between the criticized and the critic. And the criticized always seem to be too busy making their heap to even bother acknowledging the critics. ;)

And besides, the same question - who is this fellow? - can even more pointedly be asked about any of the critics themselves.

funny how you always take a chance to take a pot shot at me yet you don't have the balls to direct them to me. Then again what could I expect from a wannabe digihead like you.. :)

Marko

8-Feb-2008, 19:07

funny how you always take a chance to take a pot shot at me yet you don't have the balls to direct them to me. Then again what could I expect from a wannabe digihead like you.. :)

<ignore off>

Balls? What do balls have to do with this? This is, or is supposed to be, an intellectual activity here. That's what the head is for - I prefer to use my cojones for other activities.

And besides, it's only you anyway... ;)

<ignore on>

David Luttmann

8-Feb-2008, 19:09

Jorge Gasteazoro

8-Feb-2008, 19:50

<ignore off>

Balls? What do balls have to do with this? This is, or is supposed to be, an intellectual activity here. That's what the head is for - I prefer to use my cojones for other activities.

And besides, it's only you anyway... ;)

<ignore on>

If it is an intellectual activity then you are way off your neck of the woods. Specially for someone who knows little about LF. The difference between you and me is that at least I do have the balls to pursue my goal and don't just run my mouth off and then go to my looser day job like you....

PS...I guess this goes for you too lutman...

Jorge Gasteazoro

8-Feb-2008, 23:18

"hard to beleive this guy made $170000 out of one shot". Jorge

What's so hard to believe. Look at the numbers. Many of his images sell for $3000 and more. All it takes is a less then 60 images world wide. Many photographers charge similar rates.

Well, I don't know. I suppose it is possible, yet I doubt even people like Michael Kenna, Paul Caponigro or if we are talking color Dynka, Fatali etc. sold the same image 60 times for that amount. It was stated that he made this from 1 single image. I still find it hard to beleive, then again, if he does good for him...

Jorge Gasteazoro

9-Feb-2008, 01:10

Jorge, I agree with you. It shocked me too. But for those of us good enough, and willing to go full time it can be very rewarding. Take a look at Ken Duncans website, a large number of his limited edition prints at 30inch size are SOLD OUT! Why is it so easy for some of us? LOL.

Check out Ken Duncan at
http://www.kenduncan.com/gallery.php?ms=19&fn=prod&id=1198

Another guy that is pulling in the $ like there is no tomorrow is Peter Lik at http://www.peterlik.com/home.html . He has about a dozen high locations.

Ah well, I did not want to go there but there is no way you can compare the work of Ken Duncan with Briot. To me Briot's work looks like post cards and his B&W work is dismal... I sure hope the scans are not representative of the prints.

Duncan's work OTOH is gorgeous, I had not seen Lik's work nor did I know who he was, but he seems to be very good as well, if only he had stayed away from the slot canyons.... :)

I am not surprised these two guys are doing very well, yet with Briot part of my incredulity was what I saw in his web site, there is no way I would pay $3000 for any of his pics....I would for Duncan's though.. :)

Jorge Gasteazoro

9-Feb-2008, 09:36

Trisha Romance, Kinkcade, Bateman, and other famous artists are selling limited editions while the originals go for a lot more

Well, aren't you making my point for me? Notice I never said you cannot sell reproductions (made in a different manner, for example I am selling now digital reps printed on Fuji Crystal Archive), but that you should have only one original that hopefully you will be able to sell for a lot more.

Jorge Gasteazoro

9-Feb-2008, 12:01

Jorge, I understood it that you were against reproductions, that we should only sell originals (I did not read all 15 pages here). In other words sell ONE photo and burn the negative.

Not at all, I am against editions. The problem with photography is that each print made from the negative is the same. Using the model by painters you posted, I make a single pt/pd print which I sell with the negative. Before I sell it I make a high res scan of the print and I then sell those digital reproductions for less. The point being that there is only ONE pt/pd print from the negative, the rest are just digital copies, much like painters are doing today where they sell ink jet prints on canvas for less than the original.

David Luttmann

9-Feb-2008, 13:15

If it is an intellectual activity then you are way off your neck of the woods. Specially for someone who knows little about LF. The difference between you and me is that at least I do have the balls to pursue my goal and don't just run my mouth off and then go to my looser day job like you....

PS...I guess this goes for you too lutman...

As I photograph for a living....and you had previous employment.....I'd keep the comments to yourself. When you've sold 1% of the prints I have, then maybe, just maybe, I'll give some value to what you say. In the meantime, I suggest you go earn a living.

Jorge Gasteazoro

9-Feb-2008, 13:33

As I photograph for a living....and you had previous employment.....I'd keep the comments to yourself. When you've sold 1% of the prints I have, then maybe, just maybe, I'll give some value to what you say. In the meantime, I suggest you go earn a living.

LOL...wedding pics don't count.

David Luttmann

9-Feb-2008, 14:00

LOL...wedding pics don't count.

Good....as I wasn't referring to them. Nice try though.

I'll just sit back and wait for you to change the topic and start arguing again....maybe about the difference between your Copal 0 and Copal 3.....that ought to entertain us for a few more pages of your attacks.

Funny how the newbies in print sales always have such a vast knowledge of what works and what doesn't. Try selling some more first Jorge....then you can share.

LOL!

Jorge Gasteazoro

9-Feb-2008, 14:15

Good....as I wasn't referring to them. Nice try though.

I'll just sit back and wait for you to change the topic and start arguing again....maybe about the difference between your Copal 0 and Copal 3.....that ought to entertain us for a few more pages of your attacks.

Funny how the newbies in print sales always have such a vast knowledge of what works and what doesn't. Try selling some more first Jorge....then you can share.

LOL!

LOL....funny, this comming form someone who does not even have a web site to show his work....says a lot about your vast print sales.... :rolleyes:

Greg Lockrey

9-Feb-2008, 16:47

Jorge, your being facious right? You don't know David Luttman? And you are kidding about having to have a website....right?

Jorge Gasteazoro

9-Feb-2008, 17:28

Jorge, your being facious right? You don't know David Luttman? And you are kidding about having to have a website....right?

No I am not, nor does he know me and what are my sales. Yet my work is out there for all to see and even verify those editons that have sold out. You would think that someone who is proud of his work, sells so many prints and is so outstanding would have a great site to show off and let people know how their prints are selling like hot cakes...

Lets see, if we count those who are succesful in this forum selling prints we have:

Kirk Gittings....web site
Brian Kosoff....web site
QT................web site
Bill Schwab.....web site

The next two are a PITA and I don't particularly like them but I beleive them when they say they have sales

Tim Atherton..web site
Paul Raphelson...web site

Those who are full of hot air, know little about LF and just come here to run their mouth with no back up....well, we all know who they are... :)

roteague

9-Feb-2008, 17:41

"Who is this guy Briot"

In our circles he is well known.

What circle is that? I never heard of the guy until I saw his book.

roteague

9-Feb-2008, 17:42

Jorge, your being facious right? You don't know David Luttman?

Guess I might be dumb as well. I've never heard of the guy outside this forum.

Greg Lockrey

9-Feb-2008, 18:16

Greg Lockrey

9-Feb-2008, 18:20

Guess I might be dumb as well. I've never heard of the guy outside this forum.

Your'e not dumb you couldn't possibly know every photographer making a living at it. I know photographers that have sales of over a million dollars you never heard of. They just don't need to advertise into your markets, that's all.

roteague

9-Feb-2008, 19:41

I mean just look at some of the comments made on this thread, for example Alan Briot is a major hitter, but most of you here have never heard of him. Just goes to show where the interest is. He has a website and writes to many others yet few here have heard of him.

That's why I was surprised. I've been a passionate landscape guy for decades, and thought I had heard of most of the big hitters in the business. Then again, it looks like he uses a small camera, and my interests are towards LF.

Someone mentioned Peter Lik. I first came across his work in Australia - which is where he is from - around 1999/2000 timeframe. He has done quite well for himself. I heard he opened a gallery in Waikiki, which is only a few miles from my office. I haven't had the opportunity to visit it yet. Peter's work is good, not up to Ken Duncan's, but he is obviously a great businessman and does a fantastic job with marketing his work.

Jorge Gasteazoro

9-Feb-2008, 20:56

I'm just saying that one does not need a website to be successful. I heard of Kirk Gittings for example long before I had access to the net since I seen some of his archetictural work in periodicals but have never heard of the others. Unless you know the names in the first place how does one expect people looking for art to buy use the net to discover where to buy it. I deal with artists everyday some have websites and others don't. The ones that do the footwork and attend the shows are the successful ones. Those trying to living off the net soley are still working day jobs. That's the only point I'm trying to make. I mean just look at some of the comments made on this thread, for example Alan Briot is a major hitter, but most of you here have never heard of him. Just goes to show where the interest is. He has a website and writes to many others yet few here have heard of him. There are thousands of photographers and artists out here trying to make a buck, it would be impossible to know all of them even with the use of the net.

Greg, one does not have a web site to sell, in general photographers who have them rarely sell off the web site. One has a web site as a means to "advertise", to let people see they kind of work you do and maybe entice them to check out your portfolio for real, heck it is even great as a pick up technique....LOL...

I too know photographers who do very well and are not known, but they are stablished, have been around their field for years and normally are in the advertising commercial areas, they certainly do not live off of selling prints as it was implied by the wannabe..... Selling pasport photos does not count as prints you know... :)

Heck, even Michael Smith has a web site, and I know for sure there is no one, absolutely no one who hits the road and markets harder than he does. That should tell you something about my comment about web sites.

In the end as usual, the one who brags the most is the one with the least to brag about.. ;)

SAShruby

10-Feb-2008, 00:23

Greg Lockrey

10-Feb-2008, 06:09

That's why I was surprised. I've been a passionate landscape guy for decades, and thought I had heard of most of the big hitters in the business. Then again, it looks like he uses a small camera, and my interests are towards LF.

Someone mentioned Peter Lik. I first came across his work in Australia - which is where he is from - around 1999/2000 timeframe. He has done quite well for himself. I heard he opened a gallery in Waikiki, which is only a few miles from my office. I haven't had the opportunity to visit it yet. Peter's work is good, not up to Ken Duncan's, but he is obviously a great businessman and does a fantastic job with marketing his work.

In Allan's case, he was a painter in France for many years. He discovered this digital photography thing in the late '90's liked the immediacy and got hooked as it were. Not only being an established artist he is also a consumate businessman who is more than willing to share his knowlege. So he developed a following.

There are just too many photographers and artists names to keep track of. I like perusing this forum for example because there is a lot of name dropping here and it gives me an oppourtunity to check out some new work if there is a website to be found. Living in a small metro area, we have our own cliques of artists so I don't really get to see what the "big city" has to offer than on the net. I like also checking out certian peoples threads over others because I know I will always learn a new name.

Marko

10-Feb-2008, 09:46

I just make a comment about all of this. Statistically, there is a pattern of hate of Jorge Gaestazoro on this forum. Simply put, so far there are few people they can make useful comments, Jorge definitely belongs among them. From all of you, who are accusing him of defending his opinion, because he fights it to the death, are merely not even close where he is in his work so far. From all portfolios I saw, majority of them are not even close to Jorge's.

And whatever famouse name you take into your mounth, unless its your name and your work, you just waste your time. It's not your work so do not throw someonelse's work and practices to someonelse's face.

All of you, get a grip and say something which is your own and not a summary of all threads you red here. You guys are just fraking jealous.

Hate? Heavens no! This has nothing to do with the quality of one's work, not even about defending one's opinion.

No matter how good and/or talented at what you do, you will only get so much respect as you are willing to extend to others. Or not.

As for the subject in question, as an enthusiast with no commercial interest whatsoever, I have no problem saying that I would love to be able to come even close to his quality! But I also don't have the slightest problem saying that his manner and treatment of his fellow humans disgusts me to no end and no amount of talent or grandstanding can make up for that.

Nothing personal, though, the same goes for everybody else, here or elsewhere. We are all good at what we do for a living, but that does not give us license to go insulting people who do the same for a hobby, much less those in the same or similar line of work.

David Luttmann

10-Feb-2008, 10:18

True Marko.

I haven't updated my website in years. Haven't needed to. I really should though. There are quite a few years of Rangefinder, MF & LF, digital work....even a couple of Holgas and Dianes that I sell from shots on the west coast, China, Japan, California, Arizona, Utah among others. It appears someone doesn't really know the experience of others.

Funny the change in tone though. A certain person now claims the importance of a website.....when only a short time ago he didn't have one at all....and it wasn't necessary.

Always interesting to see how the argument changes when his experience changes. Now I see Crystal Archive prints as well......sacrilege. LOL. Pretty soon we'll see archival inkjet prints there too.....and hear about how great they are as well. It's nice to see people expand their thinking.

Jorge Gasteazoro

10-Feb-2008, 10:25

True Marko.

I haven't updated my website in years. Haven't needed to. Funny the change in tone though. A certain person now claims the importance of a website.....when only a short time ago he didn't have one at all....and it wasn't necessary.

Always interesting to see how the argument changes when his experience changes. Now I see Crystal Archive prints as well......sacrilege. LOL. Pretty soon we'll see archival inkjet prints there too.....and hear about how great they are as well. It's nice to see people expand their thinking.

LOL.... Remember, the FCA prints are reproductions, and the same could be said about ink jets, they are not worth the same as a REAL print. This does not expand my thinking, it only re affirms what I have said before, any bufoon with photoshop and a scanner can do what you do, you cannot do what I do. It is that simple.

I have had a web site for a few years, and it is in my profile as well as my signature, how come yours is not? Perhaps for the lack of quality? Or maybe because you don't use a LF camera, yet come here and pretend you do? Nahhh...that could not be it? ;)

Jorge Gasteazoro

10-Feb-2008, 10:40

I just make a comment about all of this. Statistically, there is a pattern of hate of Jorge Gaestazoro on this forum. Simply put, so far there are few people they can make useful comments, Jorge definitely belongs among them. From all of you, who are accusing him of defending his opinion, because he fights it to the death, are merely not even close where he is in his work so far. From all portfolios I saw, majority of them are not even close to Jorge's.

And whatever famouse name you take into your mounth, unless its your name and your work, you just waste your time. It's not your work so do not throw someonelse's work and practices to someonelse's face.

All of you, get a grip and say something which is your own and not a summary of all threads you red here. You guys are just fraking jealous.

Peter, thank you for the kind comments. The "hate" comes mostly from a couple of guys who usually come and run their mouth but have little talent and knowledge, one of them accuses me of only feeling better when I am putting down someone yet he does not miss a chance to take a pot shot at me. ;)

Heck, there are some here who do not like me, and I don't like them but who, in my opinion, ARE knowledgeable and DO have something to offer like Paulr and Atherton, thankfully with these two we have decided to agree to disagree and end the waste of bandwidth with arguments.

Regardless I have made good friends here and in other forums, some have even visted me here in Mexico so one takes the good with the bad.

SAShruby

10-Feb-2008, 11:06

I'm an immigrant from middle eastern Europe. I live in Canada for 8 years, but one feature I observed is, no offence to anyone and don't take it personally, that people have a tendency to take critique and negativism personally, not professionally. Second, If anyone is just straightforward and direct and doesn't put a napkin if front of the mouth, is being expelled from the society. Guess what, life is more that beinng your ego and comfort, life's tough, so be tough.

Fellow members, if you do not sell your work or make your living as a photographer, why are you commenting here in this thread then? This is about selling, how to increase value of you, your work. I don't sell my work, but I don't express my opinion. If you don't have an experience, please stay away from contributing, because it is just a theorizing, it feeds the rage and fire here. Ask if you're interested, but do not comment. Share what you did, ask what you intend to do...Simple.

Anyhow, Jorge and others like Paulr, Aherton, Kerry, former Kirk and other are the people of the photography. Do not run them away, Kirk is gone, Jorge was gone too, he is back and if we're going to comment like this, this site is a future disaster. Take personality out of equation, be professional, argue with facts, your own facts, don't fraking take sides with someone, support it professionaly and we will have a future here.

tim atherton

10-Feb-2008, 13:34

As for not commenting, remember this is part of photonet.

no - it's not

harrykauf

10-Feb-2008, 14:31

...life's tough, so be tough...
0
you mean "hruby"? ;-)

SAShruby

10-Feb-2008, 14:40

0
you mean "hruby"? ;-)

It depends. More like "hrubu kozu". If you can translate it.

Jorge Gasteazoro

10-Feb-2008, 14:56

As for not commenting, remember this is part of photonet, thererfore I consider it an amateur site specializing in large format. The difference between advanced amateurs and professionals is often not in the quality of work, but from where they make their living. There are many in here that are amateurs shooting 8x10 format, own high end scanners, and are able to contribute. The large format community is already small, do not suggest we make it smaller or soon we won't have large format film. Your idea is counter productive, we need everyone on board to keep large format photography alive, to show manufacturers their is still sufficient demand. Many amateurs own pro equipment, and Kirk just recently bought himself a Eversmart scanner. Chances are his info came from an amateur who also owned one. So it goes both ways.

The LF forum has not been a part of PN for many years, and I strongly beleive that the difference between an advanced amateur and a professional is precisely the quality of the work. You don't have to go far to see this difference and the reason why some here as professionals are succesful. Look at the thread on malls, power lines etc. and compare the pictures posted by those who make a living at this as opposed to the weekend warriors.

Does this mean that the opinon of an advanced amateur has no value? Of course not! But there is a turning point where the weight of the opinions is supported by the work done by those who offer it.

An opinion offered by someone like Kirk Gittins, Brian Kosoff, heck even Paulr or Atherton have more weight over those offered by the likes of Marko or Lutman.

In spanish we have a saying that loosely translated states that a loud mouth falls sooner than a one legged man. It is easy to come to forums like this and make wild claims of great print sales or pretend to have some knowledge, yet when one tries to verify these claims by searching and looking for their work, they are no where to be found. You don't believe me? Do a simple experiment, google Kirk Gittings, Brian Kosoff, Bill Schwab, Paul Raphelson (you might have to check the spelling), Tim Atherton, Brian Ellis, any of the well known particpants of this forum and you will find dozens of references, now, google david luttmann..... nothing, zip, nada...LOL. You would thinks that someone so wildy successful in selling prints, collected in all continets, extremely knowledgeable in all areas of photography would have at least one reference of his work, right? This to me is far more telling than any claims he comes to make here and I think what SAShruby is talking about. If you have no experience don't pretend to do so, and if you come across a thread by someone you don't like, leave it alone. You notice I don't particpate in those threads started by Tim A or Paulr. I think he has a good idea here.

Ole Tjugen

10-Feb-2008, 15:15

... I strongly beleive that the difference between an advanced amateur and a professional is precisely the quality of the work.

Not so much the quality of work, as the ability to consistently deliver good quality work. "Good", not "great". Great work can just as well be delivered by anyone, but most amateurs are not able to (or willing to) do the work needed to produce to a consistent high level.

profession
c.1225, "vows taken upon entering a religious order," from O.Fr. profession, from L. professionem (nom. professio) "public declaration," from professus (see profess). Meaning "occupation one professes to be skilled in" is from 1541; meaning "body of persons engaged in some occupation" is from 1610; as a euphemism for "prostitution" (e.g. oldest profession) it is recorded from 1888. Professional (adj.) is first recorded 1747 with sense of "pertaining to a profession;" 1884 as opposite of amateur. As a noun, it is attested from 1811. Professionalism is from 1856.

amateur
1784, "one who has a taste for (something)," from Fr. amateur "lover of," from O.Fr., from L. amatorem (nom. amator) "lover," from amatus, pp. of amare "to love" (see Amy). Meaning "dabbler" (as opposed to professional) is from 1786.

Regards,

Ole
(dabbler)

Martin D.

10-Feb-2008, 16:04

roteague

10-Feb-2008, 16:11

Professional = a person not participating in the LF forum, due to the lack of time

Amateur = a person participating in the LF forum, usually on the daily, in some cases on the hourly basis

Would this be a good definition? ;)

Not really, how sociable a person is has nothing to do with practicing photography as a profession.

Marko

10-Feb-2008, 16:46

It depends. More like "hrubu kozu". If you can translate it.

Rough skin? In English it would be thick skin... :)

SAShruby

10-Feb-2008, 17:01

Rough skin? In English it would be thick skin... :)

Definitely not kissing ass vannabe.

harrykauf

11-Feb-2008, 06:44

It depends. More like "hrubu kozu". If you can translate it.

I only speak czech. that sounds slovak to me.
thats why "hruby" stuck out to me.

Greg Lockrey

11-Feb-2008, 10:08

Not to stir the pot: http://www.luttmannphotography.com/ I found it very easy.:)

roteague

11-Feb-2008, 10:26

Not to stir the pot: http://www.luttmannphotography.com/ I found it very easy.:)

I couldn't find it either, so I guess I used the wrong term when searching. I looked through the site a little, until I found an image of a crippled man laying on the ground begging - I found that quite disgusting, and left the site.

Greg Lockrey

11-Feb-2008, 10:44

I couldn't find it either, so I guess I used the wrong term when searching. I looked through the site a little, until I found an image of a crippled man laying on the ground begging - I found that quite disgusting, and left the site.

That's the kind of thing you find in "third world" countries and poor neighborhoods here too. David has some nice travel/location images in B&W along with his commercial stuff. Maybe it's because I'm using my brother's "the computer geek genius" search engine. He can get anyone's W-2 information. :eek: :eek: :eek: Someday I'll have to relay that story. ;)

David Luttmann

11-Feb-2008, 10:55

I couldn't find it either, so I guess I used the wrong term when searching. I looked through the site a little, until I found an image of a crippled man laying on the ground begging - I found that quite disgusting, and left the site.

I don't mean to offend anyone. That shot though, has been a very popular 8x10 item for sale. Shot near one of the markets in HK.

Most of the stuff non-wedding related is simply fluff on the site to fill links. Part of the project for me this year is to finish my sales site to get a backlog of 5 years worth of various material on line for web sales.

The site for sales should be up and running over the next month or so. I just moved a short while ago and I'm still getting the studio up and running.

Best regards,

Jorge Gasteazoro

11-Feb-2008, 10:56

I don't think that was it. David has some nice travel/location images in B&W along with his commercial stuff. Maybe it's because I'm using my brother's "the computer geek genius" search engine. He can get anyone's W-2 information. :eek: :eek: :eek: Someday I'll have to relay that story. ;)

Thank you Greg, his web site confirmed all I needed to know..... I doubt his claims of print sales are any hwere near what he pretends them to be.

And yes it was, the first pic on gallery one is of what it looks as a destitute guy sitting on a bench.

jetcode

11-Feb-2008, 11:12

what I have learned today:

1) you have to be locatable by google to have officially made it as a photographer
2) a loud mouth falls sooner than a one legged man

yikes, and I thought musicians were a lot all to their own!

David Luttmann

11-Feb-2008, 11:14

Thank you Greg, his web site confirmed all I needed to know..... I doubt his claims of print sales are any hwere near what he pretends them to be.

And yes it was, the first pic on gallery one is of what it looks as a destitute guy sitting on a bench.

That wasn't the shot he referred to. As an aside, the "destitute" man you refer to was a nice retired gentleman I spoke to. You'll notice his newspaper beside him while he relaxed near sunset near the clocktower. Hardly destitute! LOL.

Nice twist though.

Marko

11-Feb-2008, 11:24

Clay Turtle

11-Feb-2008, 13:35

It is the quality of one's work, the ability to transcend the medium where it is viewed/perceived/accepted as art, and not just as a photograph. Photography is just a medium. I had broke the glass in a 30 x40 print from negative (?) and took it in to have it replaced. For one thing they have been the motiviating force behind organization of street (vending) gathering of local artist & their work. So to an extent I wanted to see their reaction and as they were not directly involved as (artist) vendors, I see them as a source of information regarding selling techniques or pointers.
About a year ago I had made a timid step toward selling by attending a similar event staged to provide at a RV park. As part of my preparations, I was perplexed as to how to (present) display my work. Intent of pursuing this avenue of promotion, I decided to have the prints covered with a 3mil plastic sheet. (Some of the smaller prints I went as far as 10 mil as they could be stand on their own so to speak) As I wanted long term display rather than selling the actual print.
At any rate I got rather a dubious look when I told her that the photograph was covered with 3mil plastic. Thing is I had used a link to a cibrachrome lab that seems to have been doing this same thing for a while, one link page attributed that the film actually reduced UV damage & offered the service to other art forms (ie drawings & paintings).
I signed the photos prior to having them covered. Which made sense to me because the photgraphic meium is just as much an art form as painting or drawing.

David Luttmann

11-Feb-2008, 16:37

Now if only someone could explain, rationally if that's not too much to ask, what do the limited edition photographs have to do with the Web?

After all, isn't the Web the ultimate "digital thing"? The soulless mediocrity, as the OP calls such things. Once digitized, the image, any image, becomes infinitely reproducible, and thus both cheapened (again according to the OP) AND transformed into the exact opposite of the core meaning of the word "limited".

So, to conclude, how exactly does having the website emphasizes someone's credibility as far as sales of limited prints are concerned?

Marko,

Here's a link to some more recent (and old) stuff with a new software package I was playing with. I hope to have the bugs worked out shortly with this stuff and will be able to get it up and functioning. Once I do, I'll be able to get the other 80 or so images up as well.

Oh, and a lot of these were taken with 4x5....so you can ignore you know who. LOL!

http://members.shaw.ca/daveandclaire/amanda/index.html

mrladewig

11-Feb-2008, 17:14

The LF forum has not been a part of PN for many years, and I strongly beleive that the difference between an advanced amateur and a professional is precisely the quality of the work. You don't have to go far to see this difference and the reason why some here as professionals are succesful.

Practical experience shows this is not true.

There are many folks who do not for one reason or another wish to make photography their primary or sole source of income, but who can consistently produce very high quality work.

There are professionals who in my opinion produce very poor quality work.

To me, the difference between a professional and an amateur is solely that the professional relies on photography as a primary source of income.

Keeping photography as a hobby allows one the opportunity to create art that fulfills their own vision without having to take marketability into consideration. It does not equate that the person will not have an equal mastery of technical, vision, or craft.

lee\c

11-Feb-2008, 17:17

Greg Lockrey

11-Feb-2008, 17:24

A professional has to satisfy a paying client which may/or may not be at a high standard. The amateur has to satisfy only him/her self. Again the standard is in the eye of the beholder.

David Luttmann

11-Feb-2008, 17:30

I can attest to the quality of Jorges work having seen it at his house in Mexico. I have drank his coffee and eaten food he prepared and even shot some film with him one day. I saw only a gentleman and I count him as one of my friends.

lee\c

http://www.texaschurchproj.com

That may be so....but it is quite well known that his behaviour is very often anything but gentleman like. I do not doubt that in person he may be very nice. And I don't doubt for a moment that his work looks exemplary.

mrladewig

11-Feb-2008, 17:53

I can attest to the quality of Jorges work having seen it at his house in Mexico. I have drank his coffee and eaten food he prepared and even shot some film with him one day. I saw only a gentleman and I count him as one of my friends.

lee\c

http://www.texaschurchproj.com

I certainly didn't intend to imply anything about Jorges and hope it wasn't taken this way.

On the point of limited editions, I see them as a gimmick, a cheap marketing trick to drive up price.

jetcode

11-Feb-2008, 17:58

Greg Lockrey

11-Feb-2008, 18:12

On the point of limited editions, I see them as a gimmick, a cheap marketing trick to drive up price.

I don't know if it's about driving the price up but more about having something that the everyday person can purchase affordably. Perhaps I'm too pedestrain in my thinking.

domenico Foschi

11-Feb-2008, 18:53

On the point of limited editions, I see them as a gimmick, a cheap marketing trick to drive up price.

What about considering the opportunity that by having limited editions you can change somewhat your prints at different stages?
It has happened to me that I have printed some images after a few years and I have felt the need to do some changes.
Editions have existed for a long time in the Art world.
If a medium allows this why should I not consider it?
The approach of making one print only seems to me trying to make it as important as a painting, missing the point that it is a completely different medium.
Hell, Sculptures come in editions!

nathanm

11-Feb-2008, 20:05

Destroying the negative is good, but not quite enough. It only gets you part way to becoming a true artist. For example last week I completed my most recent masterpiece.

I traveled on foot with my camera gear through the most remote and treacherous countryside where few men have ever dared to go, and none have photographed. I faced freezing cold, biting winds and packs of poisonous badgers to get to a most rare and beautiful scene which many said existed only in legend. Along the way my backpack came apart, with most of my film and lenses tumbling down a sheer cliff face. The camera and a single film holder still left in the back were all that I could save as I grasped in vain for the tumbling equipment. But I had to press on.

Now exhausted, low on food and water and near death I finally reached the incredible location. It was truly more grand than the tales had told! With my numb and frozen fingers I was barely able to get everything set up just in time for the few moments of perfect light which shone through the crack in the mountainside. Just as the beams of light reached their peak I snapped the shutter. Before I could reinsert the darkslide the sun was gone and the valley was plunged into darkness. There would be no second shot.

I collapsed in the snow and slept for what seemed like days. When I came to I began setting up a makeshift darkroom where I developed the precious single negative. After hours and hours of dodging and burning I finally achieved the most beautiful print ever seen. I then set the negative on fire and cast the melting sheet into chasm below. The print was signed, dated, encased in a box of molten carbonite and finally thrown into the Atlantic ocean.

Few living people will even know of this masterpiece, and no one is likely to find it. Perhaps one day thousands of years from now, future archaeologists will discover the print unearthed in a dried lake bed and witness the true artistic majesty which shall smite their hearts.

domenico Foschi

11-Feb-2008, 20:13

mrladewig

11-Feb-2008, 21:58

On the point of limited editions, I see them as a gimmick, a cheap marketing trick to drive up price.

and that trick has doubled the value of a photograph I have which has been out of print for 7 years now

Well what did that do for the artist who made the print? How much did they earn from that later sale? I'm assuming you're talking about a print from another artist which you purchased. But I would say that yeah, gallery owners like the limited edition because they can use it to pressure a customer into buying. And collectors like the limited edition because it helps them determine a consistent price for their piece.

But, if the print is particularly good by a previously undiscovered artist, who is to say that an unlimited edition would not also gain value at the same pace? Art is unique to the artist, the subject and indeed the individual piece, so I can't see that there would be a way of really tracking this.

Maybe I'll change my viewpoint down the road, but this is how I feel about the subject now as someone who is just starting to sell prints. As fair disclosure, I do not intend for photography to be my primary source of income.

Colin Graham

12-Feb-2008, 08:04

....Perhaps one day thousands of years from now, future archaeologists will discover the print unearthed in a dried lake bed and witness the true artistic majesty which shall smite their hearts.

A ripping good yarn Nathan. Thanks for the laugh.

Jorge Gasteazoro

12-Feb-2008, 08:44

Or, someone ridiculing an idea about which he knows nothing.... it seems this has become prevalent in this forum.

Colin Graham

12-Feb-2008, 09:03

Crap, does that mean I actually have to read the thread now? ;-)

I've been taking myself too seriously all week, and this helped me snap out of it. I honestly don't think the intent was to ridicule anyone.

nathanm

12-Feb-2008, 09:17

I'm just having some fun Jorge, please don't take it so seriously. Here's my real answer:

As a fan of art I've always been turned off by the seemingly elitist and exclusive nature of it. On one hand the lone original seems kind of cool, but really, if exclusivity\limited editions are a virtue unto themselves then does that mean all the images I've kept to myself that no one else has seen would be the ultimate artistic achievement? Hmmm. Personally I would rather share stuff with other people if they find something worthwhile about it. Art is an incredibly personal pursuit, but if you never share the good stuff with the world it seems somewhat pointless.

If I see a painting or photo I really like, more often than not I can't afford it and even if I could buy it I'd not be able to pay the rent. This is not the case in other art forms like music where just about anyone can share in the experience for an affordable price. No the studio recording isn't the same as seeing the band live, but it really shouldn't be. It's a separate art form entirely. If music were to function as 2-D art then a band would record an album, auction off the master tape and be done with it? Where's the fun in that? Only ONE person gets to enjoy it?

To destroy the original negative just strikes me as being unnecessary. Of course anyone is free to do so. Although if you're doing digital printing then then negative kind of stops being the true source of the image anyway, it's more like an archival backup that if all the rest of the image work was lost it could be done over, but it wouldn't be exactly the same thing.

The nature of the photography medium is instrinsically one of duplication. My feeling is that if I can somehow create an image other people would like to own, who the heck am I to say they can't have a copy? Why would I limit it to only X amount (as long as the production of copies didn't consume all my time of course)? And why should any one owner of my image like it any more or less based upon the knowledge of how many other copies exist? All that should matter is if it's a good image, not whether or not someone else has the same thing. I don't really see the benefit in art being such a limited entry thing that only a select few can appreciate, I would rather that it functioned more like music. But ultimately the artist can do whatever they want.

jetcode

12-Feb-2008, 10:17

Nathan the next time you print a one up masterpiece burn your house to the ground, but keep the print somewhere else for gods sakes so you can buy a new house with the proceeds of the sale

paulr

12-Feb-2008, 11:00

ITo destroy the original negative just strikes me as being unnecessary.

Destroying a negative seems to me at least as artificial as deciding on an arbitrary limit. It's always suited me just fine to decide "I'm going to make ten of these," and then to put it in writing as a promise, so that anyone who buys knows exactly how many others there are in the world.

It's all based on the honor system, but so far I haven't heard many complaints about abuse. And there are reasons that it's nice to have the negative. Sometimes I've gone back and reprinted an edition, when I've felt I could do better. In these cases I have not increased the total number of existing prints (I've gotten rid of the old ones). And the negative is important to have for any kind of reproduction or bookmaking project.

There's one aspect of the edition system which should at least be acknowledged: it's become a custom. Like other customs, there are some rational reasons behind it, but also the expectations of the community (which may be as much about habit as anything else).

A similar example is tipping in American restaurants. I know a lot of Europeans, and some Americans, who think it's the stupidest, most unfair system imaginable. And they may be right. But it's a social custom, and if you break it as a means of protest, you won't be seen as a reformer ... you'll be seen as a cheapskate. You probably won't want to show up at that restaurant again, for fear of what might get done to your soup.

In certain arenas of the art world, you'll be stacking the odds against yourself by bucking the custom of limited editions. It won't seem as outrageous as refusing to tip, and no one will likely spit in your soup, but you may end up making things even more difficult for yourself. This is in a world where gaining acceptance and gaining customers is more than hard enough already for most people.

nathanm

12-Feb-2008, 11:28

Nathan the next time you print a one up masterpiece burn your house to the ground, but keep the print somewhere else for gods sakes so you can buy a new house with the proceeds of the saleIt's not a bad idea, but what I really want to do is scratch the whole photography thing entirely and just sell tickets to the public where they can win a chance to peek at the ground glass under my darkcloth without even taking a photo. Then of course the client must choose to either sign a non-disclosure agreement about what they have seen in there or submit to a surgical lobotomy. But again, these are just half-measures. If I was a real purist I would wait until I had found the greatest scene, frame it up in camera and then gouge my eyes out as punishment for having viewed my own work. As I am not prepared to do this, I must accept that I will only ever be a marginal hack.

jnantz

12-Feb-2008, 12:13

i see nothing wrong with getting rid of a negative after a print is made.
i have been doing this for since 1987-88. i don't do it with everything,
just the ones from which i want only one or two prints, or photograms i make.

jetcode

12-Feb-2008, 12:14

I'd rather sell a lot of images that make people happy then one image that makes someone rich

Kuzano

12-Feb-2008, 12:45

My only comment, as a 30 year veteran of marketing, is that, If all the angst, and increased blood pressure were captured in one place, the energy developed would not even begin to change an art and commodity market in photography that has been developing for over 100 years.

On the other hand, if all the time wasted on this argument had been spend capturing images, I can assure you that some truly salable images would have been captured that could have been sold for good money, no matter which technique had been used. Capture and Destroy or Multiply and Sell

Those who want to create one image and destroy the negative are operating from Vanity and Arrogance. Those who want to sell maximum numbers for the best possible prices, using a balance of originals, limited editions and posters are operating from a working and proven business model.

Jorge Gasteazoro

12-Feb-2008, 13:08

Those who want to create one image and destroy the negative are operating from Vanity and Arrogance. Those who want to sell maximum numbers for the best possible prices, using a balance of originals, limited editions and posters are operating from a working and proven business model.

Really?.... So what you are saying is that the photographer who does not hold in reverence the negative, wants to promote photography as an art and at the same time wants to make enough money not to have to worry where the next McDonalds burger is going to come from is arrogant and vain. Yet the one who puts his future in the hands of galleries and their demands, continues to follow a proven model (which by the way a proven model does not necessarily make it right) like a lemming is a nice well rounded person.... :rolleyes:

I wonder how come those here who want to make people happy, sell a lot of prints cheap don't ask their doctors to work for peanuts so that we all can be healthy?

David Luttmann

12-Feb-2008, 13:09

I'd rather sell a lot of images that make people happy then one image that makes someone rich

That’s been my approach. A number of prints I’ve sold have sold many more than 10 or 12. I see no reason to limit the size of the issue other than to provide an ego increase to some people.

Maybe it works for them in terms of pricing as we all have different markets. But when I sell 30 or 40 prints that are 11x14 or 16x20, I set my price and live with it. It has worked for me for many years and I see little reason to change.

David Luttmann

12-Feb-2008, 13:11

I wonder how come those here who want to make people happy, sell a lot of prints cheap don't ask their doctors to work for peanuts so that we all can be healthy?

Selling a lot of prints cheap can make lots for the photographer. But I must agree with what you're saying....although it pains me :)

jetcode

12-Feb-2008, 13:42

Kuzano

12-Feb-2008, 14:18

Really?.... So what you are saying is that the photographer who does not hold in reverence the negative, wants to promote photography as an art and at the same time wants to make enough money not to have to worry where the next McDonalds burger is going to come from is arrogant and vain. Yet the one who puts his future in the hands of galleries and their demands, continues to follow a proven model (which by the way a proven model does not necessarily make it right) like a lemming is a nice well rounded person.... :rolleyes:

I wonder how come those here who want to make people happy, sell a lot of prints cheap don't ask their doctors to work for peanuts so that we all can be healthy?

YOU say Arrogant and Vain, as if that's a bad thing. You also imply that I judged Arrogant and Vain somewhat below those who use the accepted "business model" that sell the most volume of photography.

Frankly, the art and image world is one of the few places in the world where a healthy respect for arrogance and vanity can be financially rewarding. I discovered my own vanity early in life and I have been self-admittedly vain throughout my life. A common companion of vanity, is arrogance, which I also practice. It has worked for me in positive ways both socially and financially.

So no, I don't decry the artist/photographer who wants to print one image and "burn" the negative. That is simply a choice one makes somewhere along the process of developing his or her own place in the market. I respect that. My point was that it takes more arrogance to step out and work that way. I also think it takes longer to get to the greater rewards. I do know one artist who works in a similar fashion to your "capture and burn" model, so let me throw this out for your consideration. In his work, he sells the original negative attached to the original print, in an archival envelope. His agreement with the buyer is that the negative can only be used to create a new print in the event of some damage or quality loss on the original. For the most part, this is a viable arrangement and documented. His buyers are usually in a financial position that he can protect himself easily from abuse of this agreement. I don't think this is uncommon in photography original sales. He does however, also sell limited edition prints and posters. He has a collector following.

So, it follows that photographers can pick and choose marketing styles, combining many of them to produce a more stable base of income. I think the artist who does "capture and burn" alone is bound to have a rocky road to approach the top of the heap in income.

So, I do think you may be on a right track for you. It appears from your posts that you simply should consider harnessing your arrogance a bit, from simply aggravating people, to the point where it is beneficial to you. I think you may reach your goals, provided you simply listen to other's ideas with a bit more understanding and respect.

I don't know enough about you from this blind internet communication to make judgements about you. I wish you the best. The one thing, I will say in summary, however, is that you seem to take a bit of pleasure in pi$$ing people off.

On the internet, we call that "being a troll"

paulr

12-Feb-2008, 14:19

I'm wondering if anyone here who dislikes the idea of limited editions has ever felt pressure about it.

I can only imagine it coming up in one setting: approaching a commercial gallery that has a clientelle of serious collectors. A gallery owner might suggest that you'll make more money if you edition your work. They might even suggest that their customers won't buy your work unless the editions are limited (which is the same as saying, "we can't represent you unless you do it." At that point you simply make a decision ... their way or the highway.

Depends on your priorities. Personally, I don't see the sales model as something I need to control like the creative process. And I can use all the help I can get when it comes to selling work. The last thing on my mind is trying to change the system (hell, I'm barely even a PART of the system!)

Outside of that, who cares? If you have strong reasons for not wanting to (and I'm assuming you must, since this conversation keeps coming up), then don't. It will probably never be an issue if you're selling at craft fairs, local storefront galleries, or online, and if that business model is working for you.

If someday you want to move to a gallery/clientelle that expects limited editions, then you'll have some decisions to make.

Kuzano

12-Feb-2008, 14:21

I had a large mis-shapen grin on my face as I typed that, and I suspect my ears may have slightly sharpened to a point.

I happen to be a bit of one myself.

domenico Foschi

12-Feb-2008, 15:02

I believe that everybody has the right to choose the way they do business they way they want, provided it is done in an honest manner.
Having said this I would like to clarify that in my previous post in no way was I implying that limited editions are the only way to go.
On an impulse I commented in the witty post of Nathanm,...maybe I shouldn't have.
Jorge, I still admire your passion and utter devotion to the medium and I hope there are no hard feelings, certainly not on my side.

Jorge Gasteazoro

12-Feb-2008, 15:07

My point was that it takes more arrogance to step out and work that way.

Seems to me you are confusing arrogance with determination and self assurance. Arrogance rarely has foundation, self assurance is borne out of the success one has had in the past. Two very different things.

I don't know enough about you from this blind internet communication to make judgements about you. I wish you the best. The one thing, I will say in summary, however, is that you seem to take a bit of pleasure in pi$$ing people off.

Funny, yet you make value judgements..SO let me get this straight, YOu don't sell prints, not you have any intention of making your living from doing so, you just joined this forum a few months ago and feel qualified to pass judgement and decide I am a troll. I suppose you then expect me to be nice to you.... well let me tell you, typical of a marketing person, you seem to like to hear yourself talking and providing worthless opinions... I have a great joke for you.

A marketing guy comes driving at full speed in his sport car into a ranch and as he meets the owner and his ranch hands he asks him "If I tell you how many head of cattle you have, would you let me have one of your sheep?"...

The ranch owner thinks about it and agrees.

The marketing guy whips out a lap top, a PDA, a cell phone, demmands that NASA re routs a satellite to the ranch area, applies a fibonacci algorithm and has a supper computer in Los Alamos claculate the number of heads of cattle. After 30 minutes and about $500,000 worth of resources wasted he comes out with the answer. "You have 5371" heads of cattle. To this he proceeds to get off the car, opens the passenger door and gets the animal in his car.

The rancher when he sees this asks the marketing guy "If I guess what you do, will you give me my animal back?" The marketing guy agrees and the rancher without thinking for a second tells him "You are in marketing, aren't you?"

The guy, surprised says "well yes, how did you know?" To which the rancher answers:

"You ocme here on a worthless vehicle, unannouced and uninvited. You ask me to pay you for something to which I already know the answer and you dont know a thing about my bussiness......now give me my damn dog back!"

Sound familiar.

Jorge Gasteazoro

12-Feb-2008, 15:10

Jorge, I still admire your passion and utter devotion to the medium and I hope there are no hard feelings, certainly not on my side.

Not at all Domenico, I know you to be one of the good and EXPERIENCED guys here.

jetcode

12-Feb-2008, 21:07

Why is it that the people who buy Kinkades work are persecuted by those who wish they had a fraction of the bankroll Mr Kinkade has enjoyed from his art.

If you want to wait until you are 350 years old before you cash in on your art help yourself. Personally I think if people derive satisfaction from his work, and there are many who do, then why should they be trashed as a collective?

paulr

12-Feb-2008, 21:12

jetcode

12-Feb-2008, 21:47

Please keep in mind that Mr. Kinkaide's version of limited editions has little to do with the version you'll find in a serious gallery. I suspect most galleries and collectors would consider his scheme at best ethically questionable. But those people are unlikely to even look at what's going on over on planet Kinkaide.

I've only been to the gallery and last I heard an original will run $50k and up. Some people really like the fantasy worlds he creates because it is far more comforting then the 6 o'clock news.

paulr

12-Feb-2008, 23:03

I've only been to the gallery and last I heard an original will run $50k and up. Some people really like the fantasy worlds he creates because it is far more comforting then the 6 o'clock news.

I wasn't questioning the value of Kinkaid's work (it's a bit off topic, but I'd be happy to question it for hours, preferably while drunk). My point is that his editioning scheme is completely different from the one used by photographers in the more legitemate arenas of the art world. And in fact his version would probably be considered unethical, and probably wouldn't be accepted by serious galleries (like any of the AIPAD members) or their customers.

So anyone looking for examples of limited editions in photography should probably look to someone besides the Painter of Light(TM).

Marko

13-Feb-2008, 00:12

Dakotah, it is easy to make fun of a man so successful (referring to the link). Many people have fallen to alcohol (rich, poor, famous). But he made it, is rich, his marketing worked (till he faltered). You or I would be so lucky. I'll look to him for success, and avoid a few of the pitfalls he made if I can. The article you linked just shows someone who went out of his way to try to hurt someone, rather then help. Looks more like jeaolousy to me. He sounds more like a loser who cannot stand someone making more money while taking a catnap then he earned all year. You want to be succesful? Then look to others who are successful, not complaining losers.

That's human nature. One in million hits the millions, the rest become critics. The former are too busy to criticize, while it's usually all the latter are good at. ;)

Clay Turtle

13-Feb-2008, 06:59

"and the same could be said about ink jets, they are not worth the same as a REAL print.

Jorge, I disagree with your low respect for inkjets. With the introduction of ultrachrome and vivera ink (and our far superior papers today), archival issues are resolved and inkjets are accepted by the finest galleries. Inkjets have exceeded cibachrome, RA4, dye transfer, and lithographic prints for long life, and the quality of the images are equal or superior. The key is the artist, his imagination, skills, not the printing process. You can use inkjet, or any alternative process today, but the paper is of the same fine quality. You cannot blame inkjets, any fault today rests with the artist and not his equipment. I still would like to know what you mean by a REAL print?

I disagree with your view of destroying the negative or giving it away with the original,worldwide? Having one original will make you unknown, more copies makes you better known, lots of copies sold very well known. Robert Bateman prints are everywhere, every gallery. Less then a 100 copies is not even enough to distribute throughout the galleries in North America. Eventually, if you become very famous, you might find each original is in demand from day one and can sell for extreme prices, and you won't need editions…you sneeze and people will pay for your handkerchief, your shoes, your signature. Smaller editions are okay only in the short run (bit more rare, bit higher price), but you lose in the long run, leaving you with insufficient assets for your retirement.What does he mean by real print is of course a print directly from the negative. On the other hand, it could be a copynegative? As it was commonly means of securing the original while having a copy to print from.
Destroy the negative? What are you nuts! Once sold some negatives to a newspaper, they only wanted to use (pay) for certain frames which they cut from the roll. That was the last time I ever did any work with the paper as they had slached with a razor knife threw the middle of the negatives adjoining frames . . . Well, maybe I should back up a bit, recently I did try rockland silver chemistry on some bad negatives just to see if it would work on them . . consideration of a metallic silver negative as end product.

As for inkjet prints, if the customer wants an inkjet, they can order it & if they want something else then hey what ever floats their boat . . . as long as they ae willing to pay for it

jnantz

13-Feb-2008, 08:18

Those who want to create one image and destroy the negative are operating from Vanity and Arrogance.

i make 1 or 2 prints because my negatives are found and hand made
and i get rid of them after i make the prints, or they change while i am
making the print so i can't make another.
the books i make by hand are the same way, 1 or 2 copies ...
none of this has nothing to do with vanity or arrogance.
( and people i have sell them to don't seem to mind having a 1 or 2 off )

paulr

13-Feb-2008, 08:57

That's human nature. One in million hits the millions, the rest become critics. The former are too busy to criticize, while it's usually all the latter are good at. ;)

I don't buy it. I don't begrudge guys like Gursky and Matthew Barney their millions (or the Rolling Stones, Radiohead, Spielburg, etc. etc.).

But some, like Mr. K., are in a special category. i look at their work and think, "what a waste that people are throwing their hard earned money into such a dry and shallow well."

roteague

13-Feb-2008, 10:35

But some, like Mr. K., are in a special category. i look at their work and think, "what a waste that people are throwing their hard earned money into such a dry and shallow well."

I have to admit to having never been in one of his galleries, but I have read one of his books, and find myself in agreement with a lot of what he says. Personally, I think one of the big reasons he is reviled (not accusing you, BTW) is because he professes his Christian beliefs openly - that seems to be the kiss of death in the art world.

FWIW, I like his work, and see nothing shallow in it at all.

jetcode

13-Feb-2008, 11:20

But some, like Mr. K., are in a special category. i look at their work and think, "what a waste that people are throwing their hard earned money into such a dry and shallow well."

Are you drinking?
What could it possibly matter to you whether someone likes Harry Potter or not?

paulr

13-Feb-2008, 11:43

Are you drinking?
What could it possibly matter to you whether someone likes Harry Potter or not?

Not drinking. Sadly.

And the art in question costs a lot more than a paperback, and it's money that in my opinion would serve people better if it were spent on art that had more depth and more life. There are many good artists who are hurting for those dollars.

That's all. For unedited rants, try this thread: http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=5454

Marko

13-Feb-2008, 11:55

I don't buy it. I don't begrudge guys like Gursky and Matthew Barney their millions (or the Rolling Stones, Radiohead, Spielburg, etc. etc.).

But some, like Mr. K., are in a special category. i look at their work and think, "what a waste that people are throwing their hard earned money into such a dry and shallow well."

De gustibus non disputandum est. You can't measure art any more than you can objectively delineate taste. On the other hand, we live in a highly materialistic and competitive society in which one's gross income has become the primary measure of one's success.

Therefore, any criticism of a successful artist by his/her less (monetarily) successful peers needs to bridge their income gap in order to be credible.

jetcode

13-Feb-2008, 12:14

Not drinking. Sadly.

And the art in question costs a lot more than a paperback, and it's money that in my opinion would serve people better if it were spent on art that had more depth and more life. There are many good artists who are hurting for those dollars.

That's all. For unedited rants, try this thread: http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=5454

OK I get that - I happen to like his work and yes I see the storybook fantasy that is being portrayed, the hand touched giclee's, the big marketing machine, etc. Art is a funny business and photographic art even more odd because of the nature of duplicity.

I think part of the draw is people want to find a reprieve from the harsher aspects of life, Mr Kincade's work caters to fantasy worlds where everything is soft and fluffy, well lit, warm, and gentle. Color, lighting, and choice of media help seal the deal for many. It's not a fluke that his galleries feature his work exclusively. Where are the galleries next door featuring other artists? Representation, recognition, and visibility are everything.

Clay Turtle

13-Feb-2008, 15:57

i make 1 or 2 prints because my negatives are found and hand made
and i get rid of them after i make the prints, or they change while i am
making the print so i can't make another.
the books i make by hand are the same way, 1 or 2 copies ...
none of this has nothing to do with vanity or arrogance.
( and people i have sell them to don't seem to mind having a 1 or 2 off )

Interesting work, I like the look but then I like Kinkade's what I áve seen of it. (Where I used to live a ''Painting with Light" was next door to the photo shop where I bought film, etc) I have noted that some of the photographers are using alternative to the traditional methods . . . so why did you? Why do you think this has become a more general trend?

jetcode

13-Feb-2008, 20:09

Critics are famous for relentless trashing - I just wonder where they are with their art?

Vaughn

13-Feb-2008, 20:16

Critics are famous for relentless trashing - I just wonder where they are with their art?

Spooky thing I read on our Art Dept walls at the university...

"Art critisism is an art form."

domenico Foschi

13-Feb-2008, 21:24

Spooky thing I read on our Art Dept walls at the university...

"Art critisism is an art form."

Everything is an Art form if it's done well.

tim atherton

13-Feb-2008, 21:25

Therefore, any criticism of a successful artist by his/her less (monetarily) successful peers needs to bridge their income gap in order to be credible.

That may possibly apply in some circumstance but only if the person in question is an artist, but in the case he is no such thing, but rather a successful purveyor of kitsch - something very different.

tim atherton

13-Feb-2008, 21:28

As for quality... I have not yet seen an inkjet print to match the look of a well printed Ilfochrome/Cibachrome or even a Fuji Supergloss type R.
.

Just because you haven't seen them doesn't mean they aren't there - which indeed there are.

Vaughn

13-Feb-2008, 22:07

Everything is an Art form if it's done well.

True, but then so is masterbation, but it is not worth noting so on the walls of higher education (except on the bathrom walls, perhaps).

Criticism is basically an intellectual exercise. In its worse form is nothing more than a type of mental masterbation, satisfying only the originator...and of course, those who get enjoyment from watching others (but then it is still not art, but entertainment.) At its best, it can leave the audience with greater understanding and appreciation...and actually move people.

So criticism is something that can be brought up to the level of art, but not an art form in of itself. My opinion, of course.

Vaughn

domenico Foschi

14-Feb-2008, 01:08

True, but then so is masterbation
Vaughn

What's wrong with masturbation?:D

domenico Foschi

14-Feb-2008, 01:10

Oh shoot, this will get in the Google search engine.
My career is over....:(

jetcode

14-Feb-2008, 04:04

Everything is an Art form if it's done well.

I tend to separate subjective qualifiers from the notion of art - who is the ultimate authority of "if it's done well"?

Clay Turtle

14-Feb-2008, 06:17

"Destroy the negative? What are you nuts!"

Funny, I thought the same Clay. It is Jorge that prefers to either destroy the negative or give away the negative with the original. In other words, let the other guy get rich off your work using your negative. Doesn't make sense to me. Yes, I agree with you. All though we may have different reasons.

As the watch word of this section seems to be pro=>money, I tend to think that any statement here tends to be overlooked. But I do have one selling experience that has stayed with me over the years.
After returning from Nam, I went to visit a childhood friend but they had moved, selling their house, the then current occupant & his wife were long haired hippie types but we became friends. They seemed a bit out of place & spoke often about the lack of cultural activities. turns out he was the regional seller of art reprints. Now I would know an Escher from a Monet but he wanted me to help him with his route ( college campuses) in the state.
To make a long story short, one reprint of a famous painting really struck me as being odd. It is called Starry Night, I think? I took one look at it & thought that guy must have been as blind as a bat! Now some may say it was ranked so highly because of the notoriety of the painter, others might think that because of painting on the ceilings in some chapel someplace had caused his loss of sight & for this reason he was famous. Later I dealt with some of those who do paint & learned that that for many it was about the sculptured effect of his style. The best inkjet print I have seen came off a low end home printer set at 1200 dpi for this same reason. I wonder maybe that was what influenced Kinkade?

paulr

14-Feb-2008, 07:11

Selling the negative with the print is a choice you might make, for whatever reason, but you'd better charge a lot. There's plenty of precedence for this in the commercial world. Some clients do a buyout of all rights to the image in perpetuity, which either literally or practically includes the negative, and the right to do whatever they want with it.

And as you can imagine, it doesn't come cheap.

Most art photographers are in the business of selling a print (often made in limited numbers), but no rights to the image. Most commercial photographers are in the business of selling limited rights to an image (full page ad in magazine x, page 3, october, circulation of 25,000. that kind of thing), but no print (any print included is typically a machine print for utilitarian purposes, and might get scribbled on by art directors and prepress people).

But with a full buyout the client gets the whole farm.

This is one of the reasons paintings usually cost more than photographs. The one-of-a-kind nature of painting is the obvious reason, but less obvious is the legal meaning of the sale. When you buy a painting, it's a full buyout ... you get all the rights. When you buy a print (photo, lithograph, etc.) you buy the object and the right to look at it, but nothing else.