The business of modern day (color nature) photography

[QT Luong]

I am continuing a particular aspect of the discussion of Stephen Willard's thread http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=42075 ("The ethics of modern day photography") here, since there are so many other topics discussed there.

I'd to refrain from discussing the muddled terrain of ethics, but rather question whether color nature photographs that are perceived as unmanipulated do sell better, as Stephen affirms. Based on the statements of some successful photographers in this field that strenuously emphasize the lack of computer manipulation in their prints, there seems to be some support for this idea.

Amongst people who asked me questions, either through email or at my recent show, there were also quite a few who wanted to know the extent of manipulation. I don't know if it was out of curiosity or out of concern.

A tangent to the discussion here:

"There is one saving grace that LF digital photographers have over the digital camera guy, LFers can prove their prints are a real life experience by simply allowing the original negative or slide to be inspect by any customer. I intend to anounce on my website that I am willing to make all negatives available for inspection. "

Did anyone ever ask you to see the film ? Never happened in my experience.

However, several years ago, my wife and I were at Galen Rowell's Mountain Light Gallery in Bishop. It turned out that they had a (repro ?) 35mm slide to show to customers exactly for the purpose you mention. To both of our eyes, the saturation was clearly higher in the print than on the slide. Personally, I don't mind a bit of extra saturation, but it is a big turn-off for my wife, while I don't think she'd care that you removed a branch.

[vinny]

I agree that most of the questions regarding media type come from photographers. But, I have had people ask about my process and I enjoy sharing that info with them. I've been to a few shows where the photographer was asked those questions by folks who knew nothing about photography or the prints hanging in front of them.
Galen Rowel's work is "over done" in several aspects and I agree with QT there.
For the most part I think people who like what they see could care less about the details. That's good and bad because sometimes I want a buyer to know what they are getting and why it looks as good as it does. Hanging a calendar of someones images on your wall is nice but hanging real photographs of the same images is a different experience. I'm rambling now. Shoot more. Keep film and photo paper alive!

[QT Luong]

If the Mountain Light gallery has a slide ready to show to customers, it probably means that a certain amount of them is asking "are the colors real", right ?

The remark about how process should be irrelevant to art buyers does make sense. However, I notice that while technical information (even as basic as the type of camera) is almost absent from art world books, it is often present in books of nature photography (the subject discussed in this thread).

Regarding the presence of technical information on websites, there are many photographers that derive more income from teaching than selling prints. Under this circumstance, it makes sense to offer information of interest to other photographers. As far as I am concerned, so far I make money only from image buyers, however, I like to share some information with fellow photographers. If I didn't provide that information, I'd have to expend more time replying to emails.

[Paul Kierstead]

Galen Rowell sort of presented his work as part adventure, part photography. The adventure and the place were part and parcel of the work; although much of it stood alone on aesthetics, it was enhanced quite a bit by the story and the exotic setting. Not to diss his work, but it was almost travel photography. If his shots were manipulated, then the setting and the story would seem to be a lie. I think, in his case, there is value in lack of manipulation.

Lets take someone like Edward Weston. Would the pepper disappoint us deeply if we were to find it was manipulated?

Or for even more literal, would Aspens be that great of a disappointment if we discovered there was a fair chunk of manipulation? There is no story and no context to that shot; it is just a beautiful, enchanted and somewhat idealized view of a piece of forest.

[Bruce Watson]

There's an underlying cause of all this I think. Perhaps. At least in my view.

The public seems to have a few misconceptions about art and photography. You can sift it out from their questions and comments. My personal favorite I've been asked a several gallery openings is "Why should I pay that much for a photograph?" A close second is "Is that real?"

The first question seems to indicate that they think art photography is somehow cheap and easy. They think that all you have to do is show up and press a button. That there's no travel or equipment involved, no rent to pay, no family to support. To them it all comes down to the cost of the paper and the chemicals / inks. And clearly, clearly, there's no talent involved. Anyone can do it. After all, their experience says that all you have to do is push a button on their point-'n-shoot, import the digital capture into PE, and print the ones they want to keep. Or they take the film to WalMart and pick up their prints in an hour. How hard can it be?

The second question seems to indicated that they aren't readily able to distinguish between photo-journalism and art. They often seem to think that all photography is documentary.

These two big misconceptions, that it's somehow easy and that it's somehow documentary are why websites fill up with all kinds of explanations and technical details IMHO. Because what we have to do as art photographers is to educate the public. It's sad that this is the case but it is, very clearly, indeed, the case. Especially if you are not in a big city where there's been much more exposure of art photography to the public.

Like it or not, we have to justify our art to the public. That's what it really comes down to IMHO.

[Nathan Potter]

I have a weak hunch that unmanipulated landscape prints do sell slightly better than obviously manipulated prints. But this only among astute collectors of photographs and people with an intimate connection to the natural scene. This will be a small group and involve only those who sell and buy high end photographic prints. There are other mitigating factors at the high end of course and I think a big one is craftsmanship.

An example of craftsman ship in color printing is found in C. Burkitts work, a pre-eminent Ilfochrome worker. While I think his images are somewhat static the quality is what sells despite that there is some manipulation (masking) on occasion.

Manipulation of color nature images that is disconnected from the essence of the scene will inevitably turn off serious collectors IMHO.

In the case of the popular tourist market, at the low end, I doubt that there is enough expertise amongst buyers to care about serious manipulation of color or poor tonal balance in the case of B&W.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

[Drew Wiley]

As someone who has spent many years in the mountains, and was even raised in the high Sierra, I personally find the prosititution of its scenery to be something very distasteful. The images presented by Mountain Light are of course mainly 35mm snapshots souped-up often beyond recognition as anything realistic except to
the relatively naive tourist audience they are intended for. Many picture books are
essentially going the same direction. But this tendency has no influence on what I
personally do. People who buy my prints are a completely different crowd, and I
suspect that the majority of persons on this particular forum wouldn't even be
involved with large format unless they had a higher standard in mind to begin with.
But let's face it - if you want to make money fast, open a McDonald's franchise, not
a gourmet restaurant.

[Marko]

I am continuing a particular aspect of the discussion of Stephen Willard's thread http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=42075 ("The ethics of modern day photography") here, since there are so many other topics discussed there.

I'd to refrain from discussing the muddled terrain of ethics, but rather question whether color nature photographs that are perceived as unmanipulated do sell better, as Stephen affirms. Based on the statements of some successful photographers in this field that strenuously emphasize the lack of computer manipulation in their prints, there seems to be some support for this idea.

Amongst people who asked me questions, either through email or at my recent show, there were also quite a few who wanted to know the extent of manipulation. I don't know if it was out of curiosity or out of concern.

A tangent to the discussion here:

"There is one saving grace that LF digital photographers have over the digital camera guy, LFers can prove their prints are a real life experience by simply allowing the original negative or slide to be inspect by any customer. I intend to anounce on my website that I am willing to make all negatives available for inspection. "

Did anyone ever ask you to see the film ? Never happened in my experience.

However, several years ago, my wife and I were at Galen Rowell's Mountain Light Gallery in Bishop. It turned out that they had a (repro ?) 35mm slide to show to customers exactly for the purpose you mention. To both of our eyes, the saturation was clearly higher in the print than on the slide. Personally, I don't mind a bit of extra saturation, but it is a big turn-off for my wife, while I don't think she'd care that you removed a branch.

Manipulation is such a loaded, emotional word. As such, it is not well suited for rational discussion, at least until is more precisely defined. But in order to do that, another, more fundamental question in this context needs to be posed: are we talking about art or documentary photography here?

If it is documentary, than the ultra-saturated over-the-moon colors so liked by some of the practitioners, film or digital, are anything but unmanipulated and have nothing to do with the original scene. Showing the film won't do anything to ascertain factuality because the very choice of film IS a part of the manipulation itself, along with the use of filters at the time of exposure, as well as processing method. Colors as recorded on such films do not exist in nature and therefore such capture cannot be factual.

Showing a digital RAW file would do much more to show the original scene as it existed at the time of capture, as it could be processed in a manner controlled enough to reproduce the original colors of the scene. That, of course, only if the original colors are somehow known either by shooting a DC grid at the same time and place using the same camera, lens and exposure or by taking a series of colorimetric measurements.

If it is art that we are talking about, then the first question that pops to mind is: does it matter at all? The very purpose of art is communicating the artists vision. There is nothing factual about that, if there were, it wouldn't be art to begin with, would it? And if so, why does it matter if a stray piece of human detritus is removed post-capture to better maintain the representation of that vision? Doesn't such an intervention actually increase the factuality of the image because it becomes closer to what the artist saw in his mind's eye?

Finally, talking about manipulation again - where does processing end and manipulation begin? Do dodging and burning, unsharp masking, contrast adjustments or even masking represent processing or manipulation? How about soft focus or diffusion?

Why does technology used matter at all? If those methods are considered part of creative processing in the traditional lab why would they be viewed differently in Photoshop?

[QT Luong]

As far as business (the subject of this thread) is concerned, one could do worse than TK...

[Kirk Keyes]

An example of craftsman ship in color printing is found in C. Burkitts work, a pre-eminent Ilfochrome worker.

"Christopher Burkett"

[Bill_1856]

Fatali?

[mrladewig]

For the sake of this argument it does appear that placing an emphasis on "no manipulation" does help increase sales when it is marketed to the general public in the touristy types of places.

Mr Lik and Mr Fatali are two examples of fairly successful landscape photographers who have built their marketing around the notion that they don't use a computer or filter to manipulate the image. But their galleries are also built as a rather flashy sites and they contribute to the marketing of their images. For example the Peter Lik gallery in Key West, FL had private viewing rooms for the images.

But they have their dumb gimmicks too. For instance the Michael Fatali "Waiting for the light" stat. If you're not smart enough to look on the calendar to calculate when the full moon will occur... But at the same time, we all know that sometimes you often get blue skies or overcast but rarely get clearing storm.

But Van Camper is largely right. People are in general attracted to high saturation high contrast images. They have some mistrust of digital because its well known how easily digital images can be manipulated (paste in a different sky sort of stuff), but they don't know that this is rarely done (dispite Mr. Willards claims to the contrary). But they also don't care whether you used an Arca Swiss or a Canon DSLR. In general they want to know that the images will match the couch and that it is of high quality.

[Dave Wooten]

If one's business is that of making money selling landscape prints then it becomes a means to an end. It is quite accepted for wedding photographers to "enhance" the beauty of the bride and not always be totally documentary. If the photographer delivers what a satisfied customer wants and appreciates, who am I to judge anothers successful means to an end and or business practices.

[Drew Wiley]

I'd like to put my cards on the table. My philosophy of photog is to help people see
something I actually saw. It's about perception. The choice of film and printing technique all contribute to this, and there's no such thing as a totally realistic way to do this; but the first impression is nonetheless real. Otherwise I'd be a painter. Those
people who appreciate this will buy my prints, assuming they can afford them. But I'm not going to stoop to the level of a Kincade or Fatali just to make a buck on a sucker.
You'd have to pay me fifty grand to put a Kincade on the wall, and then I'd nail drywall over the color-blind abomination. But that's taste, not business. The fact is, what Kincade does is on the very borderline of legal fraud. Having someone in Mexico put a few dots of paint on a glorified poster is not an honest definition of a painting.
Fatali is a different case. He can print. But when he sandwiches two or three transparencies together and claims he actually witnessed the scene, it's dishonest.
Never mind his run-ins with Smokey the Bear. I have certain friends who make a decent living selling honey-soaked digital prints I personally dislike due to a lack of
sophistication, but I have no desire to take them to task for it. They're having fun and
doing what they enjoy to support themselves. But they're not lying about how they got there.

[Patrik Roseen]

From looking at the discussion here and also previous threads on related topics, it seems there are as many views as there are people in the discussion.

I have noticed that people use different words for nearly the same thing, but there seem to be subtle differences.

Is a photograph the same as an image?
Is an image the same as a print?
Is a photograph art?
Is an image documentary?
Is a print art?

So what is it we are producing and selling...and what are people buying?
Do people buy the same as we are producing?

Those who are successful sellers...is it because they produce what people want to buy or what people think they buy?

If all a buyer wants to have is an image over the couch...why bother selling them an unmanipulated photograph, or spending 14 days in the dessert capturing the scene on one filmsheet in the first place?
If a buyer wants to buy art...why explain in detail how it was created killing the magic?
If a buyer wants to buy a photograph...will a manipulated image be accepted?

.................................
To me a photograph means capturing a scene on one film sheet or digitally in one raw.

Most digital captures require some manipulations to get the colors right when presenting. I would still call this a photograph.

If something is added by sandwiching filmsheets, massive dodge and burn, or using digital tools the result would be an image. Depending on the amount of 'manipulation' it might get into the field of art.

Whether this image is art depends on the 'artist' or the judgement of the viewer.
.....

I have understood the question as talking about a 'photograph' - and if I was buying a photograph I would not accept something where manipulations were made either removing or adding to what the scene looked like in the camera.
If I was buying an image or even art...anything would be accepted.

[Drew Wiley]

If you want to make a lot of money quick open a McDonald's franchise, not a gourmet restaurant. Better yet, be a drug dealer. It wasn't that long ago that the FBI shut down a major gallery doing something only slightly more egregious than Kincade. In fact, there was a full-time FBI contingent assigned to just one town known for its tourist galleries, and they got several convictions. There are certain legal definitions of fraud where the act market is concerned. When you walk into one of those places
and see slick salespeople talking you into spending thousands of dollars for an "investment", when the artwork is worth less than the frame itself, that's not the kind of business model I care to follow. In some cases, I've seen wholesale price lists for certain items selling in the thousands, with the net cost actually under twenty
dollars! Taste is a different subject and no doubt far too complicated to apply a blanket rule to. Sometimes I get a literal visceral feeling of nausea from viewing photos
or paintings. I've spent my whole life basking in the light of an outdoor world so beautiful that I simply want to share some tiny piece of it. Why would anyone want to
fabricate an imaginary substitute? Could it be that in this age of digital golf and electronic tiddlywinks, people just haven't bothered to actually see?

[Bill_1856]

Clyde Butcher's hominy about selling color landscapes (which he did very successfully before going full-time B&W) was that they weren't purchased for the image, but how it would match O.T.C. (Over The Couch).:)

[Bruce Watson]

If you want to make a lot of money quick open a McDonald's franchise...

I think you got that backwards. If you want to make a lot of money, be smart like McDonald's and start selling franchises. Or better yet, be McDonald's lawyer. The franchisee always gets the short end of the stick, and usually it's extremely short indeed.

[Marko]

I've spent my whole life basking in the light of an outdoor world so beautiful that I simply want to share some tiny piece of it. Why would anyone want to
fabricate an imaginary substitute? Could it be that in this age of digital golf and electronic tiddlywinks, people just haven't bothered to actually see?

Not that I totally disagree with the nausea part, although I have a pretty good idea where I could be stricken by it so I tend to avoid those places to begin with.

But as for why would anybody want to "fabricate imaginary substitute" - isn't it exactly what you are doing when you "want to share some tiny piece of it"? Only in a way that conforms to your own vision.

If you really want to share the experience of the beautiful outdoor world, you should open a country inn or something along those lines and let the people see the real thing.

[Drew Wiley]

I was a painter before I learned photography, know the difference, and appreciate both for different reasons. I own a set of watercolors better than anything you can buy anywhere, period. All handground from rare pigments all over the world. I grew up
close to a famous painter. Marketing is a different subject. I certainly have my share
of smart ass MBA's to deal with - they come from the day labor line at Starbucks and usually end up there again six months later. Don't need their help. If I get hungry I can
always go back to architectural or commericial photography - would much rather do that than prostitute my landscape work to the lowest common denominator of taste.

[Patrik Roseen]

There are books written about how to succeed in marketing yourself as a photographer...but I do not see how that answers the original question.

I do not either understand why Mcdonalds or drugdealing was brought into the discussion.

Bad taste or good taste could be debated without anyone being able to define which is which.

The cost for producing art has very little to do with the price of art, except for in some cases (cost for gold or similar) where the material might be reused for something else. If your production cost exceeds the price people will pay, you either have to lower your costs or go out of business.

But, the original question was if a color photograph would gain a higher price if it was perceived as unmanipulated.
As I said, I think a photograph should be unmanipulated, otherwise you are selling an image or possibly art.
If the buyer is not interested in buying a 'photograph', but merely looking for an image, they might not care how it was done.

[Drew Wiley]

Patrick - let me clarify my remarks a little bit, based on the example of local circumstances here in California, which might be analogous to certain other geographical markets. There's an absurd abundance of digital color prints being sold in
street fairs, seaside galleries, moutain resorts, etc. - usually for suprisingly low prices,
even below the cost of production and framing. In addition there are a handful of very
talented large-format photographers who have a strong enough reputation to sell digital work out of their homes at good prices, but really make more money on consultations and workshops. Then there's the third category, where high prices are
commanded by largely fraudulent sales means in swank tourist galleries, which sometimes do indeed attract law enforcement action. All this has actually soured a number of potential buyers on digital prints per se, and UNLESS they are being sold very resonably - say two hundred dollars or so - serious buyers are avoiding digital altogether and opting for handmade work (contemporary or vintage) - and are in fact
leaning heavily towards non-computer black-and-white. Traditional darkroom prints do seem to sell for much higher prices right now unless, again, some sort of deceptive sales practices are involved. My own next gallery strategy will be wholly based upon this premise, but that's a couple years away. For now, I have to concentrate on rebuilding my stock of large color prints. Although it's healthy to have a bit of contention on this subject, provided it's not personal, I am objective enough to inquire what the situation might be in other geographical markets with a potentially different demographic. And frankly, I've never sold a print to a tourist. I apologize for potentially
seeming a little abrasive, but I honestly believe that most people shooting large format wouldn't be doing so unless they had distinct pride in their craftsmanship, whether the output is darkroom, digital, or purely commercial.Once the subject of certain "painters" came in as a hypothetical business model, the analogy of junk food was inevitable. I have always strived to deal only with galleries with a high ethical standard, and would
rather not sell a print at all than do so by misrepresenting either the permanence or
"investment" value of a work. If I am fortunate enought to have my own gallery
completed in a few years, I will also insist on a completely honest representation of
whatever is being sold. And if a work is "creative" in the sense of being a hybrid or composite image, containing major alterations, I would insist on disclosure.

[QT Luong]

Then there's the third category, where high prices are
commanded by largely fraudulent sales means in swank tourist galleries, which sometimes do indeed attract law enforcement action.

Could you explain in more detail which kind of fraud is involved ?


All this has actually soured a number of potential buyers on digital prints per se, and UNLESS they are being sold very resonably - say two hundred dollars or so - serious buyers are avoiding digital altogether and opting for handmade work (contemporary or vintage) - and are in fact leaning heavily towards non-computer black-and-white.


Which serious buyers ? In most high-end contemporaries galleries that I see (where prices start much higher), APPs are the standard. Of course, almost all vintage work is B&W. Or do you refer only to buyers of nature photography ?

[Drew Wiley]

I could give several concrete examples of how galleries sometimes operate at the fringe of the law or unethically, irrespective of medium. I encountered a lot of this in
Carmel back when I used to show heavily there, a town which has seen a number of art fraud incidents (fortunately, not among the better-known photography galleries or photographers themselves). It has also been a serious issue in the tourist areas of San Francisco, which incidentally are controlled by organized crime. And this has nothing to do with whether the framed print is realistic, imaginary, landscape, still life, etc. A friend of mine was attempting to collect prints and went to a very large gallery in SF and was sold a "lithograph" by a well-known artist for $2500, which the salesperson explained would be a great investment, since it would be worth $6000 in a few years. My friend was naive. It was actually a mass-produced photolithograph (poster) which cost $16 wholesale, and had a long-term value of zero. This amounted to a misrepresentation of both the media involved, its market volume, and reasonable expectations of its potential value -and in the states of California and New York, and possibly others, is highly illegal. Several prominent galleries in northern California habitually operate this way. Another example - a gallery in Carmel offered as "original paintings" a selection of work which was assembly-line produced in Mexico, but under the auspices of being some great French artist. The
gallery owners made millions over the years on the scam, but eventually went to prison. What Kincade does is to produce paint-by-numbers templates, have them filled in by workmen in Mexico and elswhere, and then put two or three dots of paint
on the finished work himself in order to evade California art fraud laws. The mentality of his galleries, however, is just as slick and deceptive as those around fisherman's wharf in SF - and contrary to a previous post made here, he hasn't made billions on art itself, but on a 90's style stockmarket bubble which includes real estate, redistribution of branded goodies, and quite a few other things in which investors have taken serious losses. But lese I ruffle any more feathers, I won't go into any details which people can easily research for themselves. But this kind of thing is just like someone selling you a mass-produced high-quality reproduction of
one of Ansel Adam's works and claiming it came from his own hand. The topic of fraud itself should be fairly self-evident. But I need to postscript this with a second post to prevent this subject from getting overly complicated.

[Drew Wiley]

Now to continue, and tie this a bit to the original thread ...I'll use an example of a well-known photographer who doesn't do large format - so hopefully will not step on
anyone's toes here. Galen Rowell lived next door to a backpacking buddy of mine, and had his R-prints made by another friend of mine. I didn't know him particularly well, but in one conversation only about a year before his death, it was perfectly apparent that he did not consider himself a serious photographer at all, but an adventurer who told stories with pictures, who, with the help of his family and the
Geographic, invented the photographer personna for marketing purposes. And in fact, other than the exotic places he went, and his deserved reputation as a climber,
he was close to a zero on the art scale. But his theme tied in perfectly to the SUV and outdoor-adventure mania of the late 90's, and he made some decent money in
stock imagery for advertising. He also sold a fair number of books, so he took on
Bill Atkinson to manipulate the scans for publication - and this is how the company
drifted into print sales and digital imagery. Otherwise, he told me, he would have never thought about digital. His second wife had a good business mind and a lot of
money - so they cashed out here and moved to Bishop to establish Mtn Light Gallery
as the center of the stock market business and to sell prints to tourists on Hwy 395.
Then they were both tragically killed in a plane crash. Over this course of time, quite a few people have remarked to me how phony his prints are starting to look.
I have driven by the gallery without even going in, and shaken my head at the images in the windows. They aren't fake scenes, but hyped colors which grossly exaggerate natural hues. Reflections in streams are sometimes even more saturated
than the sky above. Galen's son has even been heard bragging about how much digital allows the scene to be altered. Now I'm not here to pass judgment on their marketing strategy, but am pointing out that at lot of people, in this area at least,
are so turned off by this potential abuse of digital that they won't have anything to do with it. I know people who make their living with computers, and are highly skilled at Photoshop, who demand handmade darkroom prints. I think this is unfortunate, because I have friends like Joe Holmes and Ctein who go out of their way to use digital technology to obtain "realistic" hues (although they are inevitably
somewhat imprinted to the pallete of the color films they used for many years beforehand). In my own case, I have a huge investment in darkroom materials and
experience, and enjoy darkroom work - but I certainly don't condemn the use of the
newer media. But the short answer, finally, is that those who are willing to spend a little more serious money on contemporary photographic prints of any type of subject (not just landscape) seem to be putting a premium on fine darkroom work.
There seems to be a revolt against the mass-produced and mass-marketed nature
of digital (whether this is deserved or not). I, for one, am banking on this trend.

[Kirk Gittings]

There seems to be a revolt against the mass-produced and mass-marketed nature
of digital (whether this is deserved or not). I, for one, am banking on this trend.

I read statements like this periodically on this forum yet traveling around the country visiting well known photo galleries and museums I see no evidence of this supposed trend. Most that I see are showing the artist and leaving the choice of media up to the artist. Indeed I regularly see digital prints selling at very high end prices at the best of galleries suggesting that collectors will pay a premium for digital prints from the right artist.

[Drew Wiley]

Kirk - thanks for your observation. Perhaps the demographic situation around here is
indeed a little peculiar. We have some out-of-town tourists who, just like anywhere
else, will pick up an oversize postcard of the local scenery and hang it above the sofa. But a lot of those local people with serious money actually work in the digital industry and seem to regard traditional photography as something of higher intrinsic value. Quite a few famous printmakers have also arisen in this general area, so there is a distinct sense of photographic tradition. And some of the very best local digital printmakers cut their teeth on decades of darkroom work first. But - as someone previously remarked - why not just open a bed-and-breakfast inn so people can see the "real" outdoors? And this is almost the crux of the issue. Around here, people can simply drive a few miles to see the redwoods, or a couple of hours to the Sierra. Northern Cal has a lot of outdoorsy people, and they aren't going to spend a lot of money for something they can easily see in person. But what they will buy is a unique way of looking at these kinds of things, along with a distinctly high level of craftsmanship. And this seems to separate the men from the boys in terms of asking price and general interest. Otherwise, the subject is again street fairs and
two-hundred dollar inkjet prints. I'm personally getting so far behind drymounting and color printing that I can't even travel out of state this year. So your feedback is certainly interesting. And indeed, "nature photography" galleries around here also sell almost exclusively digital work - but in neighborhoods specifically oriented to
the tourist trade. Time will tell if my instincts are correct; but so far at least, I have
had people well heeled in the computer industry who have hired me for personal
photography and demanded strictly "real" darkroom prints! And not too long ago,
when I still had some time for architectural photography, certain clients would demand a few "real" Ilfochrome prints to give a first impression of their projects, before they filled out the miscellany with digital images. People are interesting.

[Kirk Gittings]

Sorry to take this off topic. Drew, my experience with architects is a bit different too. I have worked for some of the best, and right now for example, I am completing a few contributions for Antoine Predock on a book about him. After assessing the architects needs, I make the decision about the best type of photography to shoot. They leave that up to me as I am the professional photographer. More often than not for the last two years, I decide to shoot DSLR digital.

[Drew Wiley]

Kirk - if I seriously went back into architectural photog I'd have to go digital because of modern production schedules - everybody wants it yesterday. But fine art print sales are a little different. I know of several recent sales by contemporary photographers in the six figure range (multiple prints), either to individuals or museum contracts, where handmade color prints were mandatory - no digital allowed. I'm not really free to divulge the details, but this is the kind of money someone can actually make a living with. On the other hand, I've seen a lot of galleries trying to sell large digital photographs at high prices, and they might do it once in awhile, but largely they
are really hurting. I think there's a syndrome out there where people go web surfing to
see what 30X40 prints, for example, are "supposed" to sell for, or what the lab that made the prints told them they should sell for. But perceived value is inevitably related
to scarcity. I even sometime sell prints as "one of a kind" at a premium price. The
perceived fact that digital prints can be mechanically reproduced on demand might make them convenient for the decor market, but this becomes a distinct minus when people are considering the intrinsic merit of the print.

[Jeremy Moore]

I know of several recent sales by contemporary photographers in the six figure range (multiple prints), either to individuals or museum contracts, where handmade color prints were mandatory - no digital allowed.

That's very interesting. I know of a couple of collectors who will no longer purchase handmade color prints and prefer inkjet because of the known longevity issues surrounding RA-4.

[Patrik Roseen]

Drew, thanks for the very extensive explanations of the situation from your own experience. I will follow this discussion with even more interest now...and I think your posts have taken this to a higher level. Hope to see more...

[Kirk Gittings]

I know of several recent sales by contemporary photographers in the six figure range (multiple prints), either to individuals or museum contracts, where handmade color prints were mandatory - no digital allowed. I'm not really free to divulge the details, but this is the kind of money someone can actually make a living with

Drew, This is exactly what I find frustrating about these claims of a "trend" away from digital towards traditional printing in the fine art market place. There is never any quantifiable evidence presented. You may think you see it in your part of the art world and I think I don't see it in mine. This simply doesn't constitute any evidence of a trend.

As a matter of fact, the largest growth I see by far, in terms of media in the contemporary photo art market, is in digitally enlarged chromogenic prints (even in b&w). I find this quite ironic because C prints are some of the least archival of the media available, though there is certainly some beautiful prints made on it.

[Drew Wiley]

Kirk - your angle of view is certainly valid. But let me add a few more parameters to this general discussion. First, many of the more solid print sales are not initiated at retail galleries. And I have no interest in spoiling anyone's inside track on these matters, since that's how they (and myself) potentially find income. Second, regarding
permanence, the current generation of C-print, namely Fuji Crystal Archive, is EXACTLY
the same material used for both digital printing and optical enlargement, except for minor options in sheen and contrast. It has excellent display permanence, but less dark permanence than Ciba and possibly DT (it eventually yellows). A lot depends on the type of lighting. Inkjets might or might not be more permanent, again depending on the specifics - but at this point we're mixing oranges with apples, since inkjets have a very different look. In my own case, it's a hell of a lot easier to sell a Ciba than
a Type C because it looks very, very photographic - the detail is extreme. Third, of course I'm biassed, since I'm consciously intending to market darkroom prints, and am noting those cases for whom it has worked, and why. Yesterday I was chatting with Joseph Holmes again, and he's a strong advocate for inkjet precisely because he's a paid consultant for Epson. Same with Charlie Cramer, who does work for HP. But in terms of those actually selling PRINTS and not information, the people I personally know who are doing well, are in fact selling darkroom work, and a lot of this is black and white. Now I'm not going to predict what vintage print sales do in the auction market in NYC or SF, since this is unrelated to what we do while still alive. But I am
suggesting that there are some significant things happening that aren't amenable to obvious statistics. Geographical trends are part of this too, so the feedback of different persons in different areas is valuable.

[Kirk Gittings]

Yesterday I was chatting with Joseph Holmes again, and he's a strong advocate for inkjet precisely because he's a paid consultant for Epson. Same with Charlie Cramer, who does work for HP.

So these guys are just hired guns and shouldn't be taken seriously? That seems a bit dismissive.

[Drew Wiley]

Kirk - some of "these guys" are long-time friends of mine, and we respect one another's
opinions. I happen to be an optical technophile, while others might be digital technophiles. I am in regular contact with some of the people who hold significant patents on digital printing devices, but do their own personal printing by "obsolete" methods, including handcoated emulsions and antique tricolor cameras! And in response to another post, in my personal circle of previous and potential clients, individuals tend to be very concerned with issues of how a print was made, permanence, correct lighting, etc. And I run into a fair number of digital photographers who, for personal reasons, hope to a acquire a darkroom and experiement with large format. Darkroom is anything but dead, and it still holds a mystique for a number of
print collectors. This isn't a slam on those who prefer digital output, but I do believe
that in certain areas there's an undercurrent deserves to be watched. And different
media truly look different. I know that a lot of people, including myself, tend to slam
Fatali on the ethics issue - but do you think that his images would actually be selling
well if they were C-prints or inkjets? Only Ciba has that kind of look. But it's nasty and
expensive to work with, and difficult to frame and properly light. And some for images
it's undoubtedly the wrong medium. But in my limited horizon nobody is simply looking
for something to have over the sofa - they care about the artist and the technique.

[Kirk Gittings]

Drew. Well there it is. That's the crux of our different views. You are measuring the market with Fatalli and I am looking at Gursky

[Drew Wiley]

No Kirk, I'm not measuring the market by Fatali. It's just an illustration. If you prefer, I
could use the illustration of Christopher Burkett with Cibacrome, or of Joe Holmes' most
productive days in print sales. My personal business model is slowly congealing into something different from all the above. I don't want to beat this subject to death, but
am suggesting that large format photographers should look at options other than the
stereotypical. I realize that many outdoor photographers don't do their own color prints, and that labs are heavily gravitating toward digital; or they might prefer the option of acquiring inkjet gear of their own, as many have already done. But one thing
Charlie Cramer remarked to me last year is quite informative. He said that he converted
from DT printing to digital because it was so much easier and he didn't have to stay up
all night, but that he pitied anyone trying to make a living making color prints nowadays because it had become too easy and wouldn't bring good prices anymore.
The same thing has transpired in stock imagery. There are still a number of people out
there, however, who perceive handmade work having intrinsic value. That doesn't mean a tricolor carbon print will sell for more than an inkjet, if at all, but that among
informed people interested in photography, it well might. I am constantly encountering
young people from the best art school in the area, who are massively trained in digital
photography and Photoshop, who ask to take darkroom lessons, or inquire about large
format. I rarely have the time to accommodate them, but the interest is still there,
even if the schools consider it an obsolete topic. They know the look and philopsophy
tend to be different and find it intriguing. This doesn't mean I'll never print digital myself - who know's what kind of film or paper will be available a decade from now?
But "classic" photography seems anything but dead right now.

[Drew Wiley]

postscript, Kirk - regarding Gursky, this seems to fall more into archtitectual photography than the landscape topic at hand, although I have personally taken many
images where the two pigeonholes overlap. And yes, in this day and age, that kind of
large print would commonly be printed digitally, but would in fact hold even more detail
on a Ciba or direct C-print. I sometimes make Fuji C-prints from 8x10 internegs, and
they have somewhat better detail than Lightjet or Chromira prints. Don't want all my
eggs in one basket, however. I personally consider Fatali to be glitzy and touristy, as
far as the content is concerned, but he does frequently work with reflections and fine
detail which Cibachrome is reknowned for. That's what I was referring to. I've seen
prints of reflections in windows done this way too on Ciba, more in line with architectural themes. But I shoot for the medium, and print some things on C, some on
Ciba, once in awhile something for DT, and of course B&W. This isn't about writing
ironclad constitutional amendments, but about realistic options. If it wasn't intrinsically
fun, why would we be shooting large format anyway? It ain't cheap! I'll bet there's a
number of people on this forum who could sell substantially more prints if they could
only get them in front of the public more often. Sometimes the galleries with their
stereotypes actually get in the way.

[Jeremy Moore]

I guess I'm with Kirk on this one as I am looking at prints by the likes of Alec Soth and Gregory Crewdson. These guys are selling and selling for some big prices (especially Crewdson) and their work is inkjet.

[cjbroadbent]

... Yu take it home, hang it, 8-10 yrs later decide to repaint, add new sofa, decide picture got tiring, doesn't fit the new style, so it ends up downstairs.

I'm suggesting here that a photograph is in the wrong place hanging on a wall; and that it should live closed between the pages of an album (book) to be seen briefly and occasionally and with purpose.
A charcoal sketch seems to be able to hang in full view for ever without getting stale, I suggest that a photographic print on the wall tires fast because it lacks abstraction.
I guessed, early on, doing calendars, that a photograph that hangs there for a month goes stale unless it has a static subject and some abstraction. The 'decisive moment' loses it's edge after a while.
I also learned (reading Ogilvy) that an ad page with a photograph is successful if it gets seven seconds viewing time.
Exhibitions are fine and temporary and a print gets a 7+ seconds viewing between the chit-chat. But I do feel that a true (saleable) product at the end of the show would a hand-made book of contact prints on good paper rather than the framed enlargements off the wall. Does anyone follow me there?
This side-steps the Big, Endlessly Reproducible, Digital Print Controversy. But it does make it easier to answer the awkward questions I've been getting so far:
Like "How many other copies out there and what's the limit?" (answer to date, "Not many, it takes me all day just to make one good print, I only print one-at-a-time, on demand, the prints never come out the same and anyway I'm a septuagenarian". And like "Ink-jet or traditional?" (Answer, "Iron and silver salts and gold toning but don't hang it in the veranda").
Maybe there is something special about a hand-made book. It puts the craftsmanship back into the end product of photography and rebuilds the idea of an 'original print". It is also less likely to end up in the dump when the furniture changes.

[Sal Santamaura]

...That doesn't mean a tricolor carbon print will sell for more than an inkjet, if at all, but that among informed people interested in photography, it well might...Drew, who is currently making and selling tri-color carbon prints? Thanks in advance.

[Colin Graham]

A great CMYK carbon printer-http://www.colorcarbonprint.com/

[Drew Wiley]

The carbon printers have their own forums and about all you have to do is google the subject. Besides Todd Gangler there's the related Fresson process still going, a
gallery in Toronto dedicated to color carbon, and quite a number of practitioners
scattered worldwide. Bostik & Sullivan are tinkering with the idea of supplying materials, but commercial production of tissue has always been a roller-coaster affair due to gelatin aging (cross-linking) in stored pigmented tissue. The last one of
these prints I actually handled by someone local was purchased by a very successful
advertising photographer. He paid several thousand for the tiny thing. Maybe not a
great "art" work - just some wildflowers - but that was a PRINT, something you'd
really want to collect. It had intrinsic beauty and was the result of a week of work.
So when you're talking the "landscape" topic, there's more to consider than just wall
decor. Handmade books is another option, portfolios. Some of the finest color prints,
like dye transfers, shouldn't even be hung in light for long. But they still fetch high
prices for the range of color digital can't achieve yet (and I do emphasize "yet" for
those folks who somehow imagine I'm philosophically stuck in the past!)

[Miguel Curbelo]

I'm suggesting here that a photograph is in the wrong place hanging on a wall; and that it should live closed between the pages of an album (book) to be seen briefly and occasionally and with purpose.
That is exactly how I feel about it as well, which has led me to believe that a photograph is to some extent a literary medium, not to be viewed in isolation, but within the context of a related set of images, to be "read" as it were -like a book of poems.

[Drew Wiley]

Well spoken, Miguel! Even when prints are hung on a wall their ability to interrelate
and convey something intangible yet eloquent is something which, in my opinion,
separates a perceptual master from a wannabee. But even a single print is capable
of containing a complex story within itself, which might take time to appreciate, but
is utterly different from the aim of advertising images, which grab your attention
instantly but generally lack sustaining interest. A great print, or set of prints, should
have progressing layers of things to discover, just like a prized archaeological site!

[cjbroadbent]

Well, if you hold an 8x10 contact print in your hands, it's a private sensation that's both tactile and visual and it's not behind glass.
I was talking about a book of original prints. A photographer has a long way to go before he sees his stuff in photogravure. So I'll try again: Put it on the wall for an exhibition where everyone can see it, but sell it in a book or in a box.

[Wayne]

I don't see artists using different media being asked what kind of stone was used for their sculpture, or what brand of acrylic paint or canvas was used,

Artists other than photographers always provide SOME useful description of their work without being asked, eg "oil on canvas". There is a trend among digital photographers to use none, since "only the image matters".

I was at an exhibition where all of the photographers labeled their work as "photograph" or "archival photograph". When I inquired about this the curator replied "I have wondered why photographers seem reluctant to be more specific about media and process".


Wayne

[Drew Wiley]

I might be the artisan schizophrenic of this group, but I have no problem with all of the
above at the same time. I like making and framing big prints, but also like assembling sets of related little images in a portfolio box. I can make very bold images or very quiet ones. I can throw a Nikon around my neck or haul an 8x10 the next day, or go from color to black-and-white with equal ease. But I don't know why everything has to be so pigeonholed - as if you did this, you can't do that too. I enjoy it when someone says how much they like a particular image, but the next guy can't stand it. It's fascinating to note the visual physchology involved. But if everyone likes a particular print, or everyone dislikes it, then I'm worried. And I also suspect that in these difficult economic times it might be wise not to place all your eggs in one basket unless you've got a pretty remarkable running start.

[Mike Putnam]

I'm sorry to have gotten involved in this thread so late as there has been some very interesting input. To a certain extent, I think everybody is correct for their own perception of a given situation. To address QT's original question, I do have some observations. In my little market in my specific corner of the world, I think the perception that an image may be manipulated does effect sales negatively. Of course this is a very specific market. We are in a moderately touristy and very outdoorsy area where buyers/collectors tend to want images that are a representation of something they have seen or heard about but they want it to look like they think it looked, rather than what it actually looked like. They may have hiked to a certain spot at noon in mid-August and they are still enraptured at how beautiful it was and how it looks just like my sunrise shot that I took in June. That being said, I do get lots of respect purely for the fact that I still use a 4x5 film camera for all of my prints. They seem to think this erases the possibility of manipulation, of which I do very little, but I do go back again and again until the conditions are optimal for any given location, which buyers also seem to appreciate. My sales are strong and growing considerably every year and I don't think the same can be said for the purely digital photographers in our area. In summary, in this particular market, buyers seem to want images that are attractive and are not manipulated or at least have the possibility of being un-manipulated.

[Drew Wiley]

Dakotah - No, you don't have to worry about Al Capone on a trolley car. Opening a
waterfront business is an altogether different matter, to the tune of 5% of your gross. But that has nothing to do with what most of us are actually doing. But let's say you
place some work in one of those kinds of galleries, and either it gets ruined or you never get paid. I've seen it happen, more than once. Yeah, I've been represented by SF galleries myself, but I did my homework first.

[Stephen Willard]

Hi QT,

I do not have time to wade through this entire thread, so my response is based upon the initial question without consideration of any responses. My apologies.

Here are four data points to consider about landscape photography that are taken from real-live market conditions, and not what we photographers believe is appropriate or not.

1. All of Thomas Mangelson’s landscape photography is optically done. He does have ability to do it digitally as he does with his wildlife images, but I can assure you the reasons why he chose to print optically is because his patrons are gun shy of the digital photographer for good reason.

2. I just finished a show recently. Every person I talked with who was SERIOUSLY considering making a purchase wanted to know about my process. When I explained to them that I use traditional methods they were relieved and excited. It is my experience that the patron who buys art wants to know about the human struggle of creation. The patron who buys art is not a photographer, but rather one who has a deep love for art. They love to hear about how the photographer struggles in the field as apposed to his struggles with Photoshop. They want to know that the image they are about to purchase is about human might and human intelligence, and not about computer might and artificial intelligence. The key word is human, and to that end, they absolutely LOVE my narratives that I post with each image because they get to hear my voice. I believe that Mangelson’s experience with the serious patron has been the same as mine, and it is why his latest work is done with traditional methods.

3. I just had my work accepted at a gallery in an upscale mall, and the owner asked me how long do I spend working with Photoshop to make each of these images. When I told him I used traditional methods from developing my own film to printing my own images, he got REAL excited and his response was, “Now I can sell that!”.

4. Open shutter in Durango Colorado just sent me a flyer about a show of Paul Caponigro work. The filer explicitly mentions that all images are “hand printed on silver gelatin paper”. I have been to Open Shutter and other galleries, and if the images are digitally printed the sales person will not talk about the photographers process. Period. They will talk about how how beautiful the photograph is, but that is it, and for good reason.

I believe the “digital workflow” you have outline on your website will scare the hell out of the art patron. Their perception will be that you are just a geek who creates fake landscape photographs. If I were you, I would get rid of that stuff and starting talking about how you LIMIT the application of digital in the creative process, as opposed to how you currently glorify the digital workflow. I would highly recommend that you explicitly state where you draw the line. I believe it is vital that you talk about how you persevere the optical reality of the original scene, and that all manipulations are consistent with the ethics employed by the famous photographer Ansel Adams in creating the expressive image. I believe it is imperative that you offer your patrons a warranty of authenticity by your willingness to make arrangements for the patron to come and inspect the original slide. I would talk extensively about your struggles in the field, and that 95% of the edits and effort reside in the field and not sitting at the computer.

If you do change your message and are open about your ethics, then I think that will go a long ways to addressing the art patrons fears. However, if you do not and resort to silence, then they will go elsewhere. They are highly educated, very intelligent, and know more then you think. Just ask Mangelson.

[Stephen Willard]

Sometimes in this weather the clouds are dramatic, so I shoot from inside my van, and don't even care about the foreground. I will use the clouds shots for another image.

This is a posting to Kirk Getting's thread on high wind, and painting in skies like Van confesses to do, I believe undermines landscape photography. To counter this behavior, I am motivated to offer a warranty of authenticity that allows the patron to inspect the original negative to ensure the print has preserved the optical reality of the original scene. If he is not satisfied in anyway, then I will refund his money.

[Kirk Gittings]

Stephen you are mistaken, I have never nor have I ever advocated painting in skies.

[Stephen Willard]

Stephen you are mistaken, I have never nor have I ever advocated painting in skies.

Kirk, I know you have not, but Van did as a posted reply to your "high wind" thread.

[Jim Becia]

Hi QT,

I do not have time to wade through this entire thread, so my response is based upon the initial question without consideration of any responses. My apologies.

Here are four data points to consider about landscape photography that are taken from real-live market conditions, and not what we photographers believe is appropriate or not.

1. All of Thomas Mangelson’s landscape photography is optically done. He does have ability to do it digitally as he does with his wildlife images, but I can assure you the reasons why he chose to print optically is because his patrons are gun shy of the digital photographer for good reason.

2. I just finished a show recently. Every person I talked with who was SERIOUSLY considering making a purchase wanted to know about my process. When I explained to them that I use traditional methods they were relieved and excited. It is my experience that the patron who buys art wants to know about the human struggle of creation. The patron who buys art is not a photographer, but rather one who has a deep love for art. They love to hear about how the photographer struggles in the field as apposed to his struggles with Photoshop. They want to know that the image they are about to purchase is about human might and human intelligence, and not about computer might and artificial intelligence. The key word is human, and to that end, they absolutely LOVE my narratives that I post with each image because they get to hear my voice. I believe that Mangelson’s experience with the serious patron has been the same as mine, and it is why his latest work is done with traditional methods.


I believe the “digital workflow” you have outline on your website will scare the hell out of the art patron. Their perception will be that you are just a geek who creates fake landscape photographs. If I were you, I would get rid of that stuff and starting talking about how you LIMIT the application of digital in the creative process, as opposed to how you currently glorify the digital workflow. I would highly recommend that you explicitly state where you draw the line. I believe it is vital that you talk about how you persevere the optical reality of the original scene, and that all manipulations are consistent with the ethics employed by the famous photographer Ansel Adams in creating the expressive image. I believe it is imperative that you offer your patrons a warranty of authenticity by your willingness to make arrangements for the patron to come and inspect the original slide. I would talk extensively about your struggles in the field, and that 95% of the edits and effort reside in the field and not sitting at the computer.

If you do change your message and are open about your ethics, then I think that will go a long ways to addressing the art patrons fears. However, if you do not and resort to silence, then they will go elsewhere. They are highly educated, very intelligent, and know more then you think. Just ask Mangelson.


Steve,

Your statement abou Mangelsen is clearly false. Here is part of an article from Popular Photography. This is in Popular Photography Feb. 2007

"Mangelsen uses three Nikon DSLR models (D2x, D2xs, and D200) with a number of zoom lenses covering focal lengths from 12mm to 400mm, as well as a 600mm prime, and 1.4 and 1.7 teleconverters. He still shoots some 35mm film with a Nikon F6. "I'd prefer to have everything on Velvia," he sighs.

Fujichrome Velvia still rules, though, in his increasingly popular panoramic work made with his Fujifilm GX 6x17 medium-format specialty camera and 90mm to 300mm lenses.

He may be an artist who is most often out in the wild, but Mangelsen is also a serious businessman with an up-to-date marketing approach that can be summed up in one word: control.

Thomas D. Mangelsen, Inc. (Images of Nature's parent company, based in Omaha, NE) is a nearly self-contained operation, from design and manufacturing straight through to retail sale. That's unusual, for either a photographer or a retailer.

The company fabricates the framed, finished final prints at headquarters with a staff of 15, including two full-time frame joiners and one full-time frame cutter, says Henricksen, the president. It even publishes its own books.

Mangelsen does outsource the actual photographic printing, though, mostly digital/photochemical hybrid processes, to two labs in Arizona. "Printing requires a substantial commitment in equipment and expertise," Henricksen says. "We leave that to the professionals." It would be prohibitively costly to make those investments given the company's relatively small size, he adds."


I have been doing art fairs for about 8 years now. And while I shoot film and then scan and print, I see little evidence in what you say. Most photographers out there in the art fair circuit have switched over to digital and many of them are extremely successful. Please notice I said scuccessful, not good, not realistic, just successful. If you are tying to reach a "collectible" crowd, that might be a different story, then again, maybe not.

But clearly, Mangelsen uses digital cameras for his wildlife, and he also does not print everything optically!

Jim

[QT Luong]

Jim, I think Stephen is writing here specifically about Mangelsen's panoramic landscape photography, not his wildlife work - which Stephen acknowledged being done digitally in another thread, because when working in a smaller format, digital is clearly superior.

My best client so far thinks that there is something special with film, however when I tell her that (in smaller formats), prints from digital capture are superior (ie 1Ds II/III vs. 35mm) she doesn't hesitate a moment in choosing them over images shot on film.

[Drew Wiley]

The problem is, this subject is all over the map, and each respondent makes sense
within their own context. A multi-gallery workflow, especially with small format, would
dictate a method of multiple reproduction utilizing digital lab work, especially if the
primary photography wants to be in the field at lot. And some "landscape" photography
is more inclined to the "nature"/ "outdoor adventure" mode. On the other hand, there's
people like me whose work is oriented toward the fine-art market, and personally-made
prints are mandated.

[Jim Becia]

Jim, I think Stephen is writing here specifically about Mangelsen's panoramic landscape photography, not his wildlife work - which Stephen acknowledged being done digitally in another thread, because when working in a smaller format, digital is clearly superior.

My best client so far thinks that there is something special with film, however when I tell her that (in smaller formats), prints from digital capture are superior (ie 1Ds II/III vs. 35mm) she doesn't hesitate a moment in choosing them over images shot on film.

QT,

Went to a Mangelsen gallery yesterday in Galena, Il. All of Mangelsen's 6X17 work or any film is scanned and output through either a Lightjet, Lamda, or Chromira. If this is considered "optical" then I don't see this as being any different than what most of us that scan and output using Fuji Crystal Archive or an for that matter - inkjet.

Steve mentioned that you should be willing to show you slides to your customers to prove that you are "optically pure." Wonder how Steve does this when he can only show them a negative. Don't know about you, but a negative in front of me doesn't tell me much about the color in the scene. So Steve can say whatever he wants about the colors in his image and no one really can say much about that issue as his negative really proves nothing. But you are supposed to do it with your work! If this only about putting in skies or removing park benches, I agree, I'm not a big fan of that and don't do it with my work, but then again, it's up to the individual doing the work.

Personally, I don't care how or what people use. What I do dislike is the "putting down" of photographers who happen not to use the methods of the "self righteous."
And there are several out there - Steve with his "optical correctness," Burkett with "veracity," Fatali with his "no filters, no digital," Drew with his "handmade," etc. And even Manegelsen uses the term "optical" when describing his technique - all his filmwork is scanned. Seems to me this is a sales pitch and put down of other methods and techniques or at best adds confusion to an already beleaguered art form. Shoot and print however you like.

And Steve shouldn't use Ansel Adams as an example as Adams would do whatever was necessary to get the vision he wanted - the sky in Moonrise over Hernandez and I forget the other one with the horses where he got rid of the rock letters on the hillside. That certainly would be not be considered "optically correct!"

Again, I don't care what someone does, just stay off the high horse. Jim

[Drew Wiley]

Jim - first of all, I've never seen a digital print that I'd consider true optical quality;
and this is not a predjudice - I'm friends with some of the best digital printers in the
business, and side-by-side their own optically-printed samples are distinct from their
digitial work. Of course, if you're comparing things with routine clock-in, clock-out lab work, then that's a different story. This is not a slam on digital output. Some of
these people spend up to a week correcting a single image - quite a different story
from those who simply honey-coat the colors in Photoshop. Second, there's no such
thing as a completely realistic film or print output - we all make choices about what
we choose to emphasize, deemphasize, etc - which is something distinct from inventing a fictitious scene, like Hollywood and Fatali sometimes do - or like screen-savers on monitors, where you see New Zealand lupines pasted in front of the Alamabma Hills in the eastern Sierra, with the peaks of Patagonia in the background. Third, printmaking is not about a "high-horse" or a "sales pitch". You
mistake an image for a print. My hero in this respect is Brett Weston - he burned
his negatives so nobdody else could print them. I wouldn't want anyone else printing
even my color work (unless you're talking about a conspicuously secondary medium
like a book). And in my case, people do expect a PRINT made by me personally,
not just an image. And when I do sell something, I am selling prints which somehow
contains my own visual signature. Just because I'm basically an outdoorsman, who
loves to hike around with view cameras, does not mean I fit into the stereotype of
a "scenic" photographer. An actual handmade personal print is always the motive.
If you've ever seen the trouble and expense some of us have taken to achieve fine
prints in the darkroom (or hypothetically, digitally too), you wouldn't be so loose
with your words.

[Jim Becia]

Jim - first of all, I've never seen a digital print that I'd consider true optical quality;
and this is not a predjudice - I'm friends with some of the best digital printers in the
business, and side-by-side their own optically-printed samples are distinct from their
digitial work. Of course, if you're comparing things with routine clock-in, clock-out lab work, then that's a different story. This is not a slam on digital output. Some of
these people spend up to a week correcting a single image - quite a different story
from those who simply honey-coat the colors in Photoshop. Second, there's no such
thing as a completely realistic film or print output - we all make choices about what
we choose to emphasize, deemphasize, etc - which is something distinct from inventing a fictitious scene, like Hollywood and Fatali sometimes do - or like screen-savers on monitors, where you see New Zealand lupines pasted in front of the Alamabma Hills in the eastern Sierra, with the peaks of Patagonia in the background. Third, printmaking is not about a "high-horse" or a "sales pitch". You
mistake an image for a print. My hero in this respect is Brett Weston - he burned
his negatives so nobdody else could print them. I wouldn't want anyone else printing
even my color work (unless you're talking about a conspicuously secondary medium
like a book). And in my case, people do expect a PRINT made by me personally,
not just an image. And when I do sell something, I am selling prints which somehow
contains my own visual signature. Just because I'm basically an outdoorsman, who
loves to hike around with view cameras, does not mean I fit into the stereotype of
a "scenic" photographer. An actual handmade personal print is always the motive.
If you've ever seen the trouble and expense some of us have taken to achieve fine
prints in the darkroom (or hypothetically, digitally too), you wouldn't be so loose
with your words.


Drew,

I'm not being loose with my words. I've never seen one of your photos so I will respond to a few of your comments that seem to imply other work is somehow not up to your standards.

When I sell my work, it certainly is my visualization that shows up in the photo. Nobody hikes around as hard as I do when I'm out photographing. Not that that means anything in and of itself. Somehow you imply we are just scenic photographers. That doesn't bother me if you think that. You've never seen my work in person - you can call it whatever you want.

My motive is in showing an image that shows my personal visualizaion printed as well as I possibly can. (Not sure you're any different in this matter, but somehow you think everyone else's work is somehow inferior because of our methodology.) I work as hard as anyone to come up with a print as fine as anyone else puts out. However, I just happen to do my printing in a different manner. So?

Most of my commentary in the previous thread has to do with Steve's hypocrisy. Like you said, photography is not exactly about realism. So, when Steve or anyone else maintains a staunch stand about "optical correctness," and implies somehow that any form of printing that somehow uses some part of a digital workflow is somehow inferior (be it inkjet, Lighjet, etc) I find that it somehow implies an inferior image. Please note that you could spend hours or days on an image and make the best possible photo of a terrible scene/composition - what do you have? You would have a well handmade, but terrible photograph, at least in my book.

Drew I have no problem with you or anyone else doing things "your way." Just remember, it's not the only way. And please don't think that "your way" is the best way for everyone else. If it's the best way for you - I respect that. But please don't think that my visualizion and work it somehow cheapened because of my methodology.

Steve somehow puts Mangelsen on a pedestal because of his optical printing, please note that Mangelsen outputs everything after being scanned. Also, if he prints a digital image to Ilfochrome, is that considered optical output in your book? I'm just curious where you draw the line.

Drew, please take my verbal sparring in a good context. My intention here is not to denigrate anyone's methodolgy. I've enjoyed this, makes me think.

Jim Becia

[Stephen Willard]

Two to three years ago a sales person at Mangelson’s Broomfiled gallery told me that his panoramic landscape images were printed using Ilfochrome. I was just told that the Boomfield gallery is now closed. On the same day I visited the Broomfield gallery, I also visited the DIA gallery, and the manager told me again the panoramic landscape images were printed using Ilfochrome. The DIA gallery is his most profitable gallery. Neither the sales person nor the manager at the galleries were photographers. Both had their degrees in art history.

I was just at the DIA gallery a few weeks ago, and I could tell that his wildlife shots were done digitally. I could tell they were printed on Fuji CA papers because that is what I use for my own work. I could not tell how the panoramic images were printed, but the reds in those images looked like the reds you get from Ilfochrome. I can say that they were NOT printed on Fuji CA papers. The paper he uses for his landscape images were different and more vibrant. This probably means that they are not lightjet prints because lightjet uses Fuji CA papers. I did not speak to any sales person about how the images were printed the last time I visited his gallery.

I only reference Mangelson’s galleries because I was told his gross sales are between 10 to 20 million a year. I have no idea if those figures are true or not. As with any debate, one tries to reference authoritative figures such as Mangelson to make their point, and that is why I site Mangelson’s work.

I have never stated that altering the optical reality of the images is impure or evil. However, should you engage in such activity, I believe there will be consequences in the market place for such behaviors.

[D. Bryant]

However, should you engage in such activity, I believe there will be consequences in the market place for such behaviors.

And those that do that will also burn in hell!

[D. Bryant]

Jim - first of all, I've never seen a digital print that I'd consider true optical quality;
and this is not a predjudice - I'm friends with some of the best digital printers in the
business, and side-by-side their own optically-printed samples are distinct from their
digitial work. Of course, if you're comparing things with routine clock-in, clock-out lab work, then that's a different story. This is not a slam on digital output. Some of
these people spend up to a week correcting a single image - quite a different story
from those who simply honey-coat the colors in Photoshop. Second, there's no such
thing as a completely realistic film or print output - we all make choices about what
we choose to emphasize, deemphasize, etc - which is something distinct from inventing a fictitious scene, like Hollywood and Fatali sometimes do - or like screen-savers on monitors, where you see New Zealand lupines pasted in front of the Alamabma Hills in the eastern Sierra, with the peaks of Patagonia in the background. Third, printmaking is not about a "high-horse" or a "sales pitch". You
mistake an image for a print. My hero in this respect is Brett Weston - he burned
his negatives so nobdody else could print them. I wouldn't want anyone else printing
even my color work (unless you're talking about a conspicuously secondary medium
like a book). And in my case, people do expect a PRINT made by me personally,
not just an image. And when I do sell something, I am selling prints which somehow
contains my own visual signature. Just because I'm basically an outdoorsman, who
loves to hike around with view cameras, does not mean I fit into the stereotype of
a "scenic" photographer. An actual handmade personal print is always the motive.
If you've ever seen the trouble and expense some of us have taken to achieve fine
prints in the darkroom (or hypothetically, digitally too), you wouldn't be so loose
with your words.
You may wish to look at some of Charles Cramers work.

And by the way, just because a photo is difficult or expensive to make doesn't make it a better photograph.

[Jim Becia]

Two to three years ago a sales person at Mangelson’s Broomfiled gallery told me that his panoramic landscape images were printed using Ilfochrome. I was just told that the Boomfield gallery is now closed. On the same day I visited the Broomfield gallery, I also visited the DIA gallery, and the manager told me again the panoramic landscape images were printed using Ilfochrome. The DIA gallery is his most profitable gallery. Neither the sales person nor the manager at the galleries were photographers. Both had their degrees in art history.

I was just at the DIA gallery a few weeks ago, and I could tell that his wildlife shots were done digitally. I could tell they were printed on Fuji CA papers because that is what I use for my own work. I could not tell how the panoramic images were printed, but the reds in those images looked like the reds you get from Ilfochrome. I can say that they were NOT printed on Fuji CA papers. The paper he uses for his landscape images were different and more vibrant. This probably means that they are not lightjet prints because lightjet uses Fuji CA papers. I did not speak to any sales person about how the images were printed the last time I visited his gallery.

I only reference Mangelson’s galleries because I was told his gross sales are between 10 to 20 million a year. I have no idea if those figures are true or not. As with any debate, one tries to reference authoritative figures such as Mangelson to make their point, and that is why I site Mangelson’s work.

I have never stated that altering the optical reality of the images is impure or evil. However, should you engage in such activity, I believe there will be consequences in the market place for such behaviors.

Steve,

Just because an image is printed on Ilfochrome doesn't mean it isn't scanned and then output using a digital enlarger. You use Mangelsen as an example for "optical correctness, yet his process is part of what you dislike. His new panoramics I saw are not on Ilfochrome, but I guess on a Fuji Supergloss. There are other printers such as Chromira and Lamda out there. I not an expert, but I believe any of them can be set up to use Ilfochrome (including the Lightjet), just has to run through the right chemistry (according to Photocraft).

I may step on some toes here, but referencing Mangelsen (while he does sell prolificly) doesn't impress me. I'll leave it at that.

Steve, you still didn't answer my question about your advice to QT. Please explain your statement to QT where you stated he should allow his customers or potential customers to view his slides to make sure they are "correct." And please tell me if you follow your same advice. And please also tell me that your prints look exactly like the scene you photographed and that you altered nothing optically. And I'm not talking removing or adding objects here. Who gets to decide what and how much color adjusting gets done before it crosses the line? Then I'll take what you say with a grain of salt.


As D. Bryant states, "just because a photo is difficult or expensive to make doesn't make it a better photograph." I agree. Also his reference to Charles Cramer's work is right on. I've seen Cramer's photos/prints many times and they are first rate (regardless of what ever he chooses to use.) Jim Becia

[Stephen Willard]

Jim, my lack of response to your questions is not in disregard to your concerns, but rather I have to get ready to hang my work at a show this afternoon. I will get back to you sometime tomorrow 11/17/08.

[Drew Wiley]

Thank you for your various responses to my comment. But let me clarify that I am not at all a one-shoe fits everybody person. I am personally a darkroom printmaker,
not a stock photographer, but I do admire high-quality work in any photographic medium, and am certainly not inherently predjudiced against digital methods. I was merely pointing out a visual distinction. For instance, an Ilfochrome or Fuji Supergloss made digitally cannot equal the resolution of large-format film printed directly on these materials. In other respects the digital might come out better. It all depends on the specific image and the operator. But that's a minor point, since Ilfochrome is rarely being done by commercial labs anymore due to expense, disposal issues, and health hazards. (I have a color drum processor which actually
wheels outdoors to limit my exposure to chemicals.) Another reason that I don't
put all my eggs in one basket is that supplies keep changing. By working with several color processes I have a little better odds of surviving the next extinction of
a preferred media. But each print media takes a lot of work to master, and each
has its inherent benefits and limitations. It's just like choosing a particular film for a
particular job. You marry the media to the subject, and combine this with your personal vision, which is never a true representation of reality, but a personal
interpretation of it. But it is something you actually saw and perceptually responded
to. And I regard this form of operation to be something quite distinct from inventing
scenes which never existed, or turning them into gussied-up honey-and-jam-on-top-
of-sugar-cubes prostitutions of scenic stereotypes. I'm not necessarily pointing my
finger at anyone on this forum, and hope you can understand my point.

[roteague]

The paper he uses for his landscape images were different and more vibrant. This probably means that they are not lightjet prints because lightjet uses Fuji CA papers.

Bob Carnie in Canada prints to Ilfochrome using a digital printer, not a Lightjet though something similar (I don't remember which). So, it can be done.

(BTW, I'm not arguing for or against here, just an FYI)

[randy larson]

After reading this entertaining discussion, I thought I would give my opinion, for what it's worth. I shoot 4x5 and 6x17, with the majority of my prints sold at these sizes: 13.5"x40",17"x50"; 24"x30" and 32"x40". I will sell about 75 prints this size in 2008. I have West Coast Imaging scan my transparencies and I print on an Epson 9800 on several different papers.

I will use a sale from last week as an example and a discussion this morning with the gallery manager. The gallery is in Duluth, MN and sells fairly high end art(jewelry, furniture, original paintings) and color photography by Craig Blacklock and myself. On Saturday(November 8) a customer walked in and bought 7 framed pieces-both Craig and I print digitally-he prints on a watercolor paper and calls them giclee. This sale was over $7k, and obviously the fact that these prints are digital made no difference. I talked to the gallery manager this morning and we had an interesting discussion. She said that nearly 50% of her customers interested in our prints do ask if they are digital, or what giclee means, but she has never lost a sale because of this fact. She said that subject matter, color and an emotional reaction to the work are the determining factors, and that as long as they are satisfied with the permanence and quality of the print, that it is digital is not a factor.

I have found this nearly universal in the customers I deal with in direct sales and some of the home shows I do. People are surprised and interested that I still shoot film, but the printing method is not important to them, only the result. I do not doubt that there may be collectors who insist on traditional prints, especially in black & white, but this is not my customer. I also doubt that many of us have this type of customer.

In the end, I am most interested in improving my work-better technique, better vision, better printing and presentation. The concern over traditional vs. digital print methods is the least of my concerns in selling and producing the best work I can. I think photographers can get too hung up on equipment and processes, and this can hinder our ability to do our best work.

Also, in the spirit of full disclosure, I know Jim Becia well and am very familiar with his work. I do not know anyone that works harder at his craft, and I believe his prints rival the work of anyone's, digital or traditional/optical. Also, I don't believe we should assume that someone is compositing a sky in an image just because we do not think the shot is worth making ourselves.

Randy Larson
www.randylarsonphotography.com

[Stephen Willard]

Hi Jim,


Just because an image is printed on Ilfochrome doesn't mean it isn't scanned and then output using a digital enlarger. You use Mangelsen as an example for "optical correctness, yet his process is part of what you dislike. His new panoramics I saw are not on Ilfochrome, but I guess on a Fuji Supergloss. There are other printers such as Chromira and Lamda out there. I not an expert, but I believe any of them can be set up to use Ilfochrome (including the Lightjet), just has to run through the right chemistry (according to Photocraft).


Jim, I use both Fuji CA papers and Fujiflex CA papers. The later is what people call super gloss. I use Fujiflex for my larger prints because it uses a polyester base and has a lower coefficient of expansion then resin coated papers, an thus, it is more dimensional stable and is less like to crack do to temperature and humidity changes. I do not believe that he uses any of these papers for his panoramic landscape images, but it is hard to tell, and I could be wrong.

When I talked with the manager and sales person a while back, they were very explicit that only traditional darkroom methods were used to print his landscape images. The word “traditional” at that time was not used to mean what it does today so they used words like “optical enlargements”. This does not mean that he has not changed his methods since that time. Perhaps out of concern of Ilfochrome’s survival in the digital age, he may have switched. In any case, I have emailed the company and inquired about his methods for printing landscape images. If I get a reply, I will post the response regardless of the outcome.



I may step on some toes here, but referencing Mangelsen (while he does sell prolificly) doesn't impress me. I'll leave it at that.

I only site Mangelsen work as one data point of many that I am using in my efforts to understand the fine-art market and how I want to position myself in that market. I am not a professional market researcher, and my conclusions based all of the data I have collected could be faulty. I have talked with photographers, gallery sales people, gallery owners, tons of art patrons who are likely to buy landscape photography, surveys from those who have purchased my work, clients who have purchased my work, and even the discussion I have had on this website to help formulate my position in the market place. I hope to be able to formalize that position on my website sometime by next spring. Thus, Mangelson is not God, but rather nothing more than one data point of many. That is all.



Steve, you still didn't answer my question about your advice to QT. Please explain your statement to QT where you stated he should allow his customers or potential customers to view his slides to make sure they are "correct." And please tell me if you follow your same advice. And please also tell me that your prints look exactly like the scene you photographed and that you altered nothing optically. And I'm not talking removing or adding objects here. Who gets to decide what and how much color adjusting gets done before it crosses the line? Then I'll take what you say with a grain of salt.

First of all, as I have stated many times before, I am still playing with lots of different ideas, and none of them have been implemented yet. I am still investigating the problem, collecting data, and generating new ideas.

My posting to QT’s question is just a response and nothing more. My recommendations are based on my primitive market research that may not be correct, or then again, may be dead on target. QT is much smarter than myself and will consider my comments and how it applies to his circumstances. It is a simple as that.

However, please note the issue you and others have raised about my colors and the hypocrisy of my behavior have not fallen on deaf years. To address this issue, I am looking to Ansel Adams to help me establish a measurable numerical threshold of when my manipulations have exceeded his ethics for maniplutating the image. My intent is to find a book that shows a “before and after” image of his modifications and then actually do density readings directly from the book to measure the actual level of changes he makes to the gray values of the print. The more such images I can find that show a “before and after”, the better my thresholds will be. I can then extrapolate that to my color analyzer that can measure deltas for both the color values and gray values. I will first take readings of just the negative in my enlarger, and then I will take another set of reading with all the masks and other technologies I have developed installed in my colorhead to determine the differences. If those differences exceed my thresholds based on Adams behaviors, then I can conclude I am heavy handed with my manipulations, and I need to reduce the level of changes I have made. Of course this is just another idea of many ideas I am considering.

Jim, I had hoped that you would have jumped in far early in the last thread I posted about this issue. Unfortunately, you were away. I did not feel comfortable using your name until you participated. All of your concerns, questions, and challenges to my thoughts are valid, and I have discounted nothing you have said. Thanks.

[QT Luong]

Hi Jim,
When I talked with the manager and sales person a while back, they were very explicit that only traditional darkroom methods were used to print his landscape images. The word “traditional” at that time was not used to mean what it does today so they used words like “optical enlargements”. This does not mean that he has not changed his methods since that time. Perhaps out of concern of Ilfochrome’s survival in the digital age, he may have switched. In any case, I have emailed the company and inquired about his methods for printing landscape images. If I get a reply, I will post the response regardless of the outcome.

If "traditional printing" is a selling point, then you should be able to find that in his brochures and website. I have a comment about that, which also ties in with the contention by Drew that galleries in San Francisco tourist area are "fraudulent".

I recently walked into the gallery of a successful landscape photographer who will remain unnamed. His website clearly mentions digital processing. Yet the gallery person used the "darkroom" term in reference to his work. When explicitly asked whether the photographer used computers, she replied "no" twice.

When asked about the origin of the intense colors, she cited the high silver content of the paper used (Fuji Supergloss, for which see claimed a 500 year lifetime),
at this point the term "laser printed" came out (I did not point out the contradiction).

I do not know whether this was out of misunderstanding or part of a deliberate plan to mislead, but since this was a part of sales pitch, it would indicate that some people might prefer it if computers are not used.

[Kirk Gittings]

I am looking to Ansel Adams to help me establish a measurable numerical threshold of when my manipulations have exceeded his ethics for manipulating the image.

I seriously doubt that AA expected his personal aesthetic to become some kind of ethical aesthetic standard, an aesthetic straight jacket limiting peoples creativity.

[Stephen Willard]

I seriously doubt that AA expected his personal aesthetic to become some kind of ethical aesthetic standard, an aesthetic straight jacket limiting peoples creativity.

Kirk, you are absolutely correct, but he is well respected and a well know photographer whose methods for print making are honored and respected by a large audience of art patrons. I, on the other hand, am a nobody, so I use his standards as guide lines to limit my methods and technologies in the darkroom and provide assurances to my customers that my art is consistent with AA's ethic of manipulating and creating an expressive image. It is where I have chosen to draw the line. It does not mean you have to do that, although I highly recommend that you consider such a boundary.

[Kirk Gittings]

I highly recommend that you consider such a boundary.

Unbelievable.......

[roteague]

Unbelievable.......

What is wrong with his suggestion? We all have boundries, one way or another. You may not agree with his, but its his right to set them.

[Drew Wiley]

P.H. Emerson considered the "sundowners" unethical because they would dodge/burn.
He would have crucified AA for using filters. I split a public retrospective with AA some
years back using images which I printed before I ever even saw an actual AA print,
or even ready any of his how-to books. And I was chosen for that gig specifically as a counterpoint. Why the hell would I want to print like someone else? I'm with Kirk here.

[roteague]

however when I tell her that (in smaller formats), prints from digital capture are superior (ie 1Ds II/III vs. 35mm) she doesn't hesitate a moment in choosing them over images shot on film.

Frankly, that is a matter of opinion, and nothing more.

[randy larson]

So Ansel Adams is the benchmark, the gold standard for tolerable manipulation? I'm afraid I have difficulty with this concept and trying to use an objective measurement for what is acceptable. May be you should carry a color meter with you when you make the shot and measure the intensity of all the colors in the scene. Then you could set an acceptable level above this, say 5% on saturation. Also, Adams varied the amount of manipulation he did on specific images as his feelings changed. He admitted that his Moonrise Over Hernandez looked quite different in his later prints than it did in earlier prints. Which image do you choose to measure?
Randy

[randy larson]

Stephen,
Your 'Dark Storm and Wild Buffalo' image is far more manipulated than anything on my website, yet because you use traditional print methods vs. my scanning of film and digital output, your images have more veracity and truth?
Randy

[Drew Wiley]

I forgot to ask the name of that store that still sells the same film and paper as AA
used in 1942 - for that authentic look, y'know.

[Stephen Willard]

So Ansel Adams is the benchmark, the gold standard for tolerable manipulation? I'm afraid I have difficulty with this concept and trying to use an objective measurement for what is acceptable. May be you should carry a color meter with you when you make the shot and measure the intensity of all the colors in the scene. Then you could set an acceptable level above this, say 5% on saturation. Also, Adams varied the amount of manipulation he did on specific images as his feelings changed. He admitted that his Moonrise Over Hernandez looked quite different in his later prints than it did in earlier prints. Which image do you choose to measure?
Randy

Hi Randy, my motivation for choosing a bench mark to govern my manipulations was motivated by the complaints and a cry of hypocrisy when I recommended digital people LIMIT their changes and not alter the optical reality of the image while I have supposedly made unlimited changes to my pumped colors. So now that I have proposed limiting my color value changes to levels practice by AA, I find that the same people who were complaining about my pumped up colors in the first place, are now complaining about my attempts to restrict my color changes. Interesting...

So which way do you want it? Pumped up or restricted. You choose.:(

[Stephen Willard]

Stephen,
Your 'Dark Storm and Wild Buffalo' image is far more manipulated than anything on my website, yet because you use traditional print methods vs. my scanning of film and digital output, your images have more veracity and truth?
Randy

I suspect that most of my patrons will see Dark Storm and Wild Buffalo as a stunning and beautiful image, but I can assure you, there is a lot more to the image then what meets the eye. It is one of my first attempts at creating an image that is thematic in nature, employs symbolism in color and element, is confessional in nature, and was an extremely painful composition for me to produce. To me it is a story about the anger and defiance that lives within me and all of the emotional scares that come with that experience. I am considering talking more about this in a thread I may post in the future entitled "A definition of fine-art Landscape Photography". However, I have not made a decision about this yet.

So is it manipulated? Yes, but not to the extent you may think, and far less than some of the changes AA has made with many of his photographs. None of the changes altered the optical reality of the original scene. All the changes made are motivated by theme and story, and none of the changes I made had anything to do with beauty. To give you a sneak preview, the beams of light are symbols of spears of blood, the dark storm is a symbol of the dark side of mainstream culture, and the green prairie is where I live in solitude and separate from mainstream culture with the wild buffalo and of course my llamas.:)

[Kerik Kouklis]

So which way do you want it? Pumped up or restricted. You choose.

Uh, no. YOU choose. Not Ansel, not anyone on this forum. Just you. Make your own artistic choices and run with them. Otherwise, you're not being true to the only one who really cares about your work and that is you.

[Edwin Beckenbach]

Stephen,

I have to admit that your standards confuse me. Regardless, that is an amazing image. It gives me a sense of beautiful calm under the weight of impending doom. Really nice work.

[Stephen Willard]

Stephen,

I have to admit that your standards confuse me. Regardless, that is an amazing image. It gives me a sense of beautiful calm under the weight of impending doom. Really nice work.

Edwin, thank you for the compliment. As you may have noticed, I do not get many such comments.

[Matt Magruder]

So is it manipulated? Yes, but not to the extent you may think, and far less than some of the changes AA has made with many of his photographs. None of the changes altered the optical reality of the original scene. All the changes made are motivated by theme and story, and none of the changes I made had anything to do with beauty. To give you a sneak preview, the beams of light are symbols of spears of blood, the dark storm is a symbol of the dark side of mainstream culture, and the green prairie is where I live in solitude and separate from mainstream culture with the wild buffalo and of course my llamas.:)

In all seriousness, is this a joke? or an attempt at overly ridiculous artspeak?
just curious.

[Stephen Willard]

In all seriousness, is this a joke? or an attempt at overly ridiculous artspeak?
just curious.

Matt, this is not a joke nor is it art speak. I have always been very frustrated and fascinated with the expressive image and the ill defined transformation we go through from an internal state of being to a two dimensional image. No one seems to have an answer or definition to this transformation. If I can define that transformation in the same manner as AA has with the Zone system to manage the craft of photography, then I can achieve a deeper understanding of it and become more effective at managing the end result of the expressive image.

So I have set out on a journey to bring more clarity to that transformation by borrowing from fiction which uses story, theme, and symbolism and applying it to landscape photography as of means of defining the process one goes through to photograph what he saw and felt and create an expressive image. With this approach all edits in the field and manipulation in the darkroom are explicit in nature and are governed by the theme and symbols you are trying to achieve to create a thematic expressive image. With this approach my changes are no longer muddied feel good kinds of manipulations, but rather are executed with purpose and direction.

I have only produced three images in this manner, and I can say it is extremely difficult to do. You have to know exactly what you doing, where you are going, and what you are looking for long before you can got out into the world and find it. However, that said, each subsequent time I tried it, it got easier, and the resulting images grew in strength and power. Indian Paint Brush it another example of a thematic expressive image.

I am still experimenting with this approach to photography and still have a lot to learn. I do believe that I should post a thread about this and engage in debate to help me bring further clarity to this method. However, I would have to talk about deeply personal things in a very public form to provide examples of what I am doing, and I am concerned that members will say hurtful things.

[Jim Ewins]

Art? what a bunch of egos! That photographer who thought it easy to make easy money at a McDonalds displays a lack of knowledge. Get over it - make an image, enjoy it, make money or no, it is your business. If you wish to control others work - go into politics.

[randy larson]

Stephen,
I don't doubt that the image we're talking about makes a beautiful print. I just don't understand how using traditional methods has more truth than digital printing, when both are capable of being manipulated. Also, picking a photographer to use as a benchmark seems difficult at best.

I have to admit, the rest of your explanation of your image making lost me. I think Charles Cramer said, when asked about his motivations for making an image said, 'I see something pretty and photograph it', is probably closer to my thinking. I have never been able to understand artist statements like yours.

The bottom line for me is that I don't care how you make your art, just go ahead and try to fulfill your vision. Just be careful being critical of methods others use. Good luck in your photography.
Randy

[Mark Sampson]

That's the great thing about art, and/or photographs; they can not be defined or explained by numbers or words. So it's a pointless task to try.

[Jim Becia]

Hi Randy, my motivation for choosing a bench mark to govern my manipulations was motivated by the complaints and a cry of hypocrisy when I recommended digital people LIMIT their changes and not alter the optical reality of the image while I have supposedly made unlimited changes to my pumped colors. So now that I have proposed limiting my color value changes to levels practice by AA, I find that the same people who were complaining about my pumped up colors in the first place, are now complaining about my attempts to restrict my color changes. Interesting...

So which way do you want it? Pumped up or restricted. You choose.:(


Steve,

If I may chime back in here. I think you are missing the overall theme of this discussion. It's not a question of manipulations/adjustments vs. optical correctness. To me it's a question of you saying "do as I say, not as I do." Personally, I don't care about your printing or for that matter your capture methods. Has little to do with this discussion. It's your "insistance" that these methods are somehow a benchmark. And trying to come up with a benchmark using Adam's work seems silly to me. He woud do whatever was necessary to make the photo the way he visualized it. Also, I think trying to compare what a b&w scene should look like is another "silly concept." Let me explain that. I could photograph a forest scene. With certain b&w filters, the leaves could be made to be light, medium gray, or even toward black. Which one is correct? - the one the photographer chooses.

Steve, we are not complaiining about about your "pumped up colors." That's not it at all. It's when you talk about other photographers not using a printing/capture method that is supposedly not up to your standard of "optical veracity" - that's when we disagree. My response in this thread started when you stated that QT should show his slide to potential or real customers. You still haven't told us whether you do anything like that. Again I don't care whether you do it or not, but why tell or suggest that someone else do it when you don't.

And of course, in an earlier thread, you made several comments directed at me, and to my way of thinking and "seeing," you were so off base about the shot I took and that I was going to "paint" in the sky. If and when I ever get that scanned, you will be the first to see it. You don't get to decide what is appropriate or not. Let me worry about whether I take a crappy shot or not. Believe me, my circular file sees plenty of film and failures.

It's not about how I, QT, AA, Randy (I finally get to put name along side of AA) or any other does his work. You need to find your way and stick with it. Just don't put down others. I dislike it when Burkett (I like his work), Fatali (again, like some of his work) and others talk about veracity, or no filters, no digital. To me it's a sales pitch and put down at the same time. Let's talk about vison instead. Their work is good enough where these comments are not necessary. As a quick note about Burkett's work. Randy lent me a dvd on Burkett. On it Burkett states that once his slide goes into his enlarger, he never looks at it again during the whole printing process. He works on it until he gets the print he wants. Doesn't sound like he's really trying to be true to his slide. Again, I don't care, but veracity in printing, please......

I just think you need to step back and decide what's best for you and not worry about what someone else is doing. Trying to put a "number to quantify" the process like photography won't help you. Steve, just put you heart, soul, and vision into it and that's all that needs to be done. Just leave the naysaying out of it.

I enjoyed meeting you on Kebler, wish you had brought these issues up while we were talking out in the field.

Jim Becia

[Drew Wiley]

There seems to be a lot of mythology going on here. A sheet of transparency film is not reality, and it takes a lot of work to get this to dovetail with the inherent limitations of a print material. I saw Burkett's name mentioned. He has an enlarger
and registration carrier system worth close to a hundred grand. If he just stuck a sheet of film in there and made a straight print onto Cibachrome, it wouldn't look real
at all. Several masking steps are involved to control not only the contrast of the scene
but the color balance, highlights,etc. And then you still end up seeing the world through Cibachrome's eyes, as well as your own, and the inherent bias of the film,
lenses, etc that you chose. No different in black-and-white. If you want to bring out
the texture of something - which actually exists and you actually saw - you might filter
the scene in such a manner that something else changes too. Everybody knows this.
You end up with a real scene, so to speak, but interpreted through your individual
perception and the exact media route you chose. I've used up to eight masks on a
single Ciba image. This wasn't for the sake of falsifying the image, but for restating reality onto an idiosycratic medium. But I'd never claim the final result exactly
matched the real world - it can't!

[QT Luong]

Steve,

That's not it at all. It's when you talk about other photographers not using a printing/capture method that is supposedly not up to your standard of "optical veracity" - that's when we disagree.
[...]
You need to find your way and stick with it. Just don't put down others. I dislike it when Burkett (I like his work), Fatali (again, like some of his work) and others talk about veracity, or no filters, no digital. To me it's a sales pitch and put down at the same time. Let's talk about vison instead. Their work is good enough where these comments are not necessary.

I also used to feel that way about those statements too.

However, if anything, a brief incursion into the art world has shown me that the work almost never talks by itself. With rare exceptions, the most successful artists are those with the best promotion, not the "best" art.

Now, if that sales pitch works (and whether it does or not is the main subject of this discussion), it does make sense for Stephen to use a variation of it. From a *business* point of view, his idea to refer to AA about tonal manipulations sounds interesting, since AA is so known and accepted.

[Eric Brody]

Drew,
At a gallery on the Oregon coast that features Christopher's work, they have small signs below each image specifically stating that they are NOT digitally manipulated. Of course they are masked, certainly burned and dodged but people paying the thousands that his work commands presumably do not want "digital" manipulation.

Eric

[Kirk Gittings]

Don't we have an obligation to educate the public rather than pander to naive mythologies (meaning that "traditional work" is not manipulated or less manipulated)?

Back in the day we used to have to argue that prints were manipulated to prove that photography was in fact a plastic artistic medium!.

I got a little of this digital backlash from a couple of long time collectors of my silver prints when I first started printing digitally, but I stuck to my guns arguing that I could make them a silver print from X negative but it would look very different from the silver and in my opinion on some negatives, inferior, because I did not have the same tonal control with a traditional print. This was never an issue with museums just the odd long term collector. Understand I still print traditionally in silver, there is nothing quite like the experience of chemical processing, but ultimately it is about the image I am trying to create and not the process I use to get there.

[Stephen Willard]

Hi Jim, I intend to respond to your posting in a subsequent response later today or tomorrow, but I first would like to move this discussion to a higher level and closer to The Business of Modern Day Color Nature Photography[/I. I veered off topic in my last few responses. Sorry.

[I]I think everyone has completely misunderstood what I am trying to say. I am NOT trying to tell anyone how to do their art. What I am trying to do is SHARE some market realizations I have about selling photography to the members of this community because I CARE about the success of this community. These realizations come from my unskilled efforts at market research and all the different people I have talked with and observed.

Based on certain market realities I have discovered, I highly recommend you change how you do photography so that you can position yourself in the market place to realize increased sales. This is all I am trying to say. If increased sales is not your goal, then you can disregard anything I have to say. All of the things I have learned are derived from Colorado markets and may not apply to your market.

So what I have learned is as follows:

1. I believe landscape photography sales only garnishes about 3% of the sales and the rest goes to the landscape painter. We photographers get the scrapes. So my real competition is not with digital photographers, but rather with landscape painters.

2. Art patrons love primitive art and the HUMAN MIGHT that is required to mold primitive materials into beauty. Thus, landscape painting is more appealing to the art patron because it is viewed as more primitive in nature, and it takes years for the artist to develop the talent to put paint on canvas. To the art patron, landscape photography is simply an act of tripping the shutter to get an image. Clearly, most art patrons do not see photography as a serious art form. Digital photographers are even lower on the scale because they have to use computers to fix their inability to do art. Please note, that this is perception of the art patron, and IT IS NOT WHAT I THINK.

3. Art patrons love to hear about the artist physical process. I just received my monthly flyer from a very successful upscale gallery. It profiled six artists and describes each of their primitive processes in great detail. It was seven pages long and printed on really nice paper. None of the artists were photographers. If you fail to articulate a process and preferably a primitive process, then the art patron will NOT think of you as an artist. They want here about your struggles with the process in creating art. They do NOT want here about post production, work flow, Mb, Mp, inkjet, computers, and Photoshop. Those words will kill sales. This is why sales people at galleries prefer to sell traditional photography over digital because there is a plausible process that they can talk about which they cannot do with digital. This is why the sales person QT talked with at a gallery said the photographer uses traditional methods when QT new he used digital methods, Again if you fail to articulate a physical process then you are not a artist. Period.

4. 97% of the art patrons think digital landscape photographers are a bunch of computer geeks who make fake photographs. Remember only 3% of the art patrons buy photography. The easier Photoshop makes it possible for the digital landscape photographers to breach the optical reality of the original scene the more suspicious the art patron is of the digital world. However, I would like to mention an experience I had with a digital photographer at his gallery. When I entered his gallery and without saying anything about digital, he handed me a pamphlet that detailed his process and how his digital tools only played a very small part in creating the photograph. It also outlined the types of digital edits he did. He then took over to a photograph and walked me through the steps outlined in the pamphlet to demonstrate how minimal his edits were. He was very professional and very believable, and I believe he was very effect at countering the notion that digital photographers are a bunch of computer geeks.

5. Most art patrons know about AA and hold him in high regard as an artist. Most patrons I talked with did not know about Weston, Strand, Stieglitz, or other renowned photographers.

6. Most art patrons are women, and women’s artistic sensibilities are very different than men’s. There are photographs that I sell just as fast as I can hang them, and then there are photographs that I think are very beautiful that never sell. I believe this has everything to do with women’s notion of beauty.

7. Most art patrons are NOT photographers, and gallery people know that photographers do NOT buy photographs. (this is a generalization with exceptions of course).


Those are the most important axioms that I have discovered about the art patron market. So based on these observations, here just a few of the things I plan to do to position myself in the market.

1. I am going to clearly articulate the physical process I use and how much of a HUMAN effort it is to execute. I am going to talk about how it takes longer for me to make a photograph than an artist takes to make a painting. I have been working on some compositions for over five years now

2. I am going to clearly articulate my artistic vision and why my photographs are fine-art images.

3. I am going to talk about how I follow standards that are consistent with AA’s ethics and practices. Do I think AA is God? No I do not, but his coattails can help someone like me who is a nobody sell photographs, so I am using him as my benchmark.

4. I am going to offer a warranty of authenticity that my photographs do not breach the optical reality of the original scene. This will be one tool of many I hope to use to arrest the patrons fear that modern day landscape photography is about fake images and are not about real live experiences. (Jim to answer question, no I have not implemented this yet.)

5. I am going to try to understand women’s artistic sensibilities and produce images that are aligned with their notion of beauty. Does this mean I am not go to also produce images that I love to create. No it does not.

I suggest to all of you that you consider some of the things I have noted here, not because I am trying to control your artistic lives, but rather because I want to see you more successful in the market place, and nothing more. In reality, I have been practicing many of these things already, and I think it is paying off. As I have stated before, my sales are up over 400% form last year despite our dismal economy.

The bottom line is I want all us to have a bigger share of that 97%, and I think some of the things I have suggested will help us get there.

[Drew Wiley]

QT - In the fine-art aspect of landscape photog (as hypothetically opposed to decor
or stock imagery), I think you have to differentiate between auctionable vintage
collectibles (like AA and BW) and those of us still alive. I think it is a good thing for
aspiring photographers to study the techniques of previous masters, just as painters
have always done. But in this specific kind of market you either develop your own visual signature or you're toast. I've discovered that if potential clients want an Adams' print or a Weston, that is what they're going to buy. They don't want yet another wannabee. Adam's general technique and nominal subject matter is very easy to imitate - his poetic sensitivity is not. Of course, there's always going to be a clown
or two who seizes his fifteen seconds of fame by resorting some sort of creative gimmick; but in the long run, you have to walk the walk and not just talk the talk.
It can be a pretty sophisticated market when they already have a Weston print or two
on the walls. So if I end up getting hung next to one of these, it's because my way of
seeing things had its distinct appeal. Yeah, I've made a handful of prints which have
been justifiable accused of resembling something AA could have done, and even a
couple that could be confused with B.W. You see something in a certain kind of light and say, now this would look really great printed in this particular manner. But overall,
I've got a different way of looking at things. You could take exactly the same Southwest pueblo, shot from the same angle, say by Edward S. Curtis, Laura Gilpin,
A.A., and among us, Kirk, and each would present a distinctly different vision, both
spatially and in terms of how the print was rendered. An informed and sensitive collector will appreciate these differences. The last thing they want is mere generic
subject matter. (And please do note the SPECIFIC market I am speaking of.)

[Drew Wiley]

Eric - special effects awards were handed out in Hollywood long before the word "digital" entered the English vocabulary. The problem is that right now, from an
art standpoint, digitial photography tends to be an adoloescent, flagrantly self-conscious medium. The best digital printers I know cut their teeth on darkroom, so already developed a sense of poise in their vision. But there's plenty of others who just go ape. For example, whenever I've driven past "Mtn Light" Gallery in the eastern Sierra, I think to myself, this place should be renamed "Digital Hype". Having spent my whole life in the Sierras, I think I know what alpenglow is, as well as what it's not. I have a remarkable shot taken when the ash from Mt Pinatubo blanketed the earth - a strange blend of apricot and lavendar hues in the sky. If I ever printed it, people would just assume I digitally altered the scene, and ask why I didn't enhance it even more. But what Chris Burkett does is not special effects. He works within the limitations of the Ciba medium to good effect. Masking is essential to get good color reproduction. But what hues you choose to emphasize or deemphasize will depend on the exact technique. If I printed the same transparency it would come out different because I use a different masking protocol, equally involved, and use an additive enlarger instead of subtractive. And as I hinted in my previous post, a lot depends on
just who your audience is. Just about every gift shop across the country which sells
ceramic chipmunks calls itself an art gallery. On the other hand, there actually is a
discrete and sophisticated market for exceptional work.

[D. Bryant]

The problem is that right now, from an art standpoint, digitial photography tends to be an adolescent, flagrantly self-conscious medium.

Drew this is such a specious generalization. Frankly you need to come down off your mountain and look at the work that is being produced with traditional, hybrid, and pure digital methods. I think you will discover that there is good work being produced accross the board so to speak. The word 'good' is of course somewhat suspect since it is subjective but I use it in the context of the style of work you show on your web site - primarily traditional subject matter.

I sorry but I can't disagree more with most if not all of your statements in this thread.

Cheers,

Don Bryant

[QT Luong]

[...]
Those are the most important axioms that I have discovered about the art patron market.

I assume that by "art patron" you mean those who buy landscape art (including photography) ? Because those "axioms" are clearly incorrect when it comes to high-end contemporary galleries.

[Drew Wiley]

Don - I'm sure I'll ruflle some more feathers, but about 90% of the "landscape" photog
I encounter in commercial galleries, or websites for that matter, I'd classify as oversize
postcards - cutesy mellifluous stereotypes of natural beauty. Digital just makes it a
little easier to dump more honey and jam on things; but this can certainly be done
conventionally too. Fine. If that's what makes people money, this thread is indeed about the business of outdoor photography. I have no problem with digital as a media
per se. What irritates me are those who never bother to look at anything in depth; it's just too easy to concoct some stereotype on a screen. I'll be the first guy to admit that any twelve-year old with a cheap digital camera can probably post cleaner images on the web than I can. and could care less. For me, the web is just a modern business card, nothing more. But the fact simply is that when I personally sell prints,
whether they are priced for a middle-class income or priced upwards, it's to a relatively
sophisticated audience. Never once in my life have I sold a print to a tourist. And yes,
sometimes other photographers are the most likely to buy, because some of them
can appreciate what went into the print. I'm certain that there's a lot of skilled photographers out there who can turn out a very nice framed image, whether digital or
darkroom. I do enjoy looking at the work of others. What I don't appreciate is when
photographers treat the landscape like a commodity just to sell. We already have oil companies, strip miners, and developers to do that. And if you ask me who that might be, I'd leave it with the analogy, that if you're coloring nature like a cheap whore, that's probably the level of your visual appreciation. Nothing personal (not pointing at anyone on this forum - just raising a flag to defend my own position).

[Stephen Willard]

I assume that by "art patron" you mean those who buy landscape art (including photography) ? Because those "axioms" are clearly incorrect when it comes to high-end contemporary galleries.

QT, no enterprize is exempt form the forces of the market place including the automakers, banking industry, and high-end any-kind of gallery.

If my axioms are not correct for the high-end contemporary galleries, perhaps you could highlight what marketplace forces act on those galleries and how they differ from mine. I am not raising this challenge to be condescending, but rather perhaps there are things I have overlooked that may also apply to all galleries. Keep in mine QT, we are taking about landscape photography and is that something that would be sold in contemporary gallery? If not, then it is not applicable to the business of modern day nature photograhy which is what this thread is about.

If anyone else sees anything wrong with my axioms, please chime in. I make no claims that my axioms are complete nor correct, but it is the best I could come up with at this time based an my research. Try to be specific and provide as many data points as you can to support your claim.

The more complete our list of axioms are about the landscape patron market, the more effective we can be at exploiting this market.

Thanks

[Drew Wiley]

Stephen, I think you're in a world of complete make-believe. I'm not exactly sure what
you mean by "high-end" galleries; but I can confidently state that what constitutes
predictable taste in the fine-art business is as fickle as a teenage romance. The very first thing that will get thrown out the door is your meticulously plotted axioms. Why not make photographs that you believe in, that you enjoy making and stimulate your creatively, and then go around showing them to potential galleries until you find one that likes your work and has a realistic niche for it? I've already stirred a bit of fuss
on this thread by pointing out my own little niche in this market - which actually exits
(I'm banking on it) - but each of us ultimately has to get our feet wet and learn things
through the school of hard knocks. And you don't really know the psychology of how
people will respond to particular images until you get them in front of people's eyes.
Gallery owners have their own idiosyncrasies and tastes, as well as monetary issues.
It does take persitence and luck, but if you don't really believe in your own work, and
feel compelled to imitate something else, how will you get anyone else to believe in it?

[QT Luong]

Stephen, I just wanted to make sure you were talking about nature landscape. It is indeed correct that in general, this type of photography is not exhibited in high-end contemporary galleries (= that sell contemporary photography for mid-4 to 5 fig range) or museums, where patrons seem to care more about the conceptual underpinnings of the work, its "relevance" and place in this history of the medium, and the stature of the artist, rather than the factors you mention here. More often than not, those patrons would also automatically classify all - and not just 10% - color nature landscape as "decorative", regardless of the (possibly justified) opinion that people like Drew have of their own art.

[Drew Wiley]

QT - Just for the record, other than a one-man gig or two, my first gallery experiences
were with recognized abstract expressionist painters, one of whom now routinely fetches six and even seven figures per work. And my photographs were not nature
"abstracts" at all. The prints just happened to hang well with this type of theme and
appealed to the same kind of patron. Ironically, one of the first people to purchase a
couple of my prints was a famous photographer known for his bold abstractions. So
you just never know until you try.

[clay harmon]

I'm guessing this means any place that sells a photo too large to put a stamp and an address on.


Stephen, I'm not exactly sure what
you mean by "high-end" galleries;

[Stephen Willard]

I would like to make some comments that are aimed directly at LF digital landscape photographers. A prerequisite to this posting is my posting on page 11 of this thread which I note seven axioms that characterize the art patron market and their behaviors.

Those axioms are not kind to the digital solution. However, they are statements of market place realities, and LF digital photographers cannot afford to ignore those realities. So I would like to offer some unsolicited advice which is the worst type of advice, but I do so not out of hubris, but out of genuine concern.

He are some things to consider:

1. Do not breach the optical reality of the original scene. To do otherwise is tantamount to committing market place suicide. If you are currently engaged in such activity, then stop doing it immediately. Unlike DRSL photographers, LF photographers start with film and can prove the optical reality of the original scene has been preserved in the final print. Offer a warranty of authenticity to your patrons and back it up with a full refund of their purchase if they are not satisfied. Allow them to come to your place of business or house and inspect the slide or negative. This will arrest potential art patrons fears that digital landscape prints are fakes. Chances are, very few people will actually do such a thing, but just knowing you are willing to do this says a lot about your character and ethics as an artist.

2. Align your digital edits with the types of tonal manipulations Ansel Adams used to create his prints. AA and his printing methods are held in high regard among a large audience of art patrons. Develop as suite of guide lines that you use to govern the type of digital edits you apply to your prints that are consistent with AA's printing practices. For color edits, you can extrapolate from AA's b&w changes to develop guide lines for your color edits. By doing this you are LIMITING your digital tools with respect to the total effort needed to create a photograph in the eyes of the art patron. They will respect for this, and how you practice your art with such rigor and discipline.

3. Down play the digital aspects of your discipline and focus on the HUMAN effort that you bring to your process for creating a landscape photograph. Talk about how there is no substitute for excellent field skills and getting it wright in the field in the first place. No computer can fix a bad photograph. Period. Talk about what that means to create and edit in the field. Quantify your efforts in terms of time, and that it can take days, weeks, months, and years before the appropriate atmospheric conditions can be realized. Talk about the challenges of shooting in the wind, rain, hail, and snow. Talk about the bitter cold and the scorching heat the LF photographer must endure. Talk about the HUMAN sacrifice you must make, the challenge to the physical body and mind, and HUMAN defiance that is needed to endure the elements of nature in order to make a photograph. Benchmark all of this against the landscape painter who can do all of this with the stroke of brush in a warm studio, but you, as a landscape photographer, have no such privilege, and that the creation of of a landscape photograph is far more elemental and primitive in execution then the creation of a landscape painting. Remember, our real competition is not between fellow photographers, but rather the landscape painter.

4. Do not use computer geek nomenclature. Remove all references to Photoshop, workflow, and any other computer technical nomenclature from your vocabulary and website. These words make art patrons nervous because they do not understand it, and it smells like geek talk for fakery. It is okay to use the word digital, but that is it.

5. Be open and forthright with what you are doing and articulate what your process is in terms of the HUMAN endeavor. If you are silent, or worse yet tell people on your website you use traditional methods when you are using digital methods as I have seen, then the art patron will figure it out and suspect that you are hiding something and conclude you are engaged in producing fakes. It is imperative that you articulate your physical process. Art patrons need to hear that. They need to know about your struggles with your process to create a photograph. Talk about how you preserve the optical reality of the original scene; talk about how you restrict your digital edits to the levels practiced by AA; and talk about your struggles in the field. Art patrons need to be assured that the photograph they are about to purchase comes from an an extraordinary individual who harbors a very special gift.

Hope this helps..

[Struan Gray]

You forgot to mention how we should deal with the international communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.

You are too tightly focussed on the workings of a specific localised phenomenon: the North American "Fine Art" nature market. Your use of words like 'art world' and 'high end gallery' makes no sense at all from a broader perspective, and is simply wrong internationally.

There is more to nature than a cutesy facsimile of sublime awe.

[Jim Becia]

The problem is that right now, from an
art standpoint, digitial photography tends to be an adoloescent, flagrantly self-conscious medium. The best digital printers I know cut their teeth on darkroom, so already developed a sense of poise in their vision. But there's plenty of others who just go ape. For example, whenever I've driven past "Mtn Light" Gallery in the eastern Sierra, I think to myself, this place should be renamed "Digital Hype". Having spent my whole life in the Sierras, I think I know what alpenglow is, as well as what it's not. I have a remarkable shot taken when the ash from Mt Pinatubo blanketed the earth - a strange blend of apricot and lavendar hues in the sky. If I ever printed it, people would just assume I digitally altered the scene, and ask why I didn't enhance it even more. But what Chris Burkett does is not special effects. He works within the limitations of the Ciba medium to good effect. Masking is essential to get good color reproduction. But what hues you choose to emphasize or deemphasize will depend on the exact technique. If I printed the same transparency it would come out different because I use a different masking protocol, equally involved, and use an additive enlarger instead of subtractive. And as I hinted in my previous post, a lot depends on
just who your audience is.

Drew,

From this body of statements, there are few that bother me. Sounds like your the sole arbiter of alpenglow. Saying that Mountain Light should be renamed "Digital Hype" - wow. I've been there a couple of times. No sure I would go that far. Galen Rowell and his work do not need to be defended by me. His work can stand on its own. However, if you are going to state that, how the hell can you not say that Burkett is not "Ilfochrome Hype"? Have you ever seen Burkett's print of Resplendent Leaves at Sunset (it's on the cover of one of his books)? It's mind blowing, it's overly saturated with colors that are out of this world, but you're saying that because it's printed using Ilfochrome materials, it's perfectly acceptable. And much of his work is like that. (Personally, I don't care and I like the image, I tend to see colors like this.) So, hypothetical question, someone stands next to Burkett and takes said shot with a digital camera and comes up with an image comparable. According to your reasoning, one is OK because it's Ilfochrome and the other is digital hype. You're on a pretty high horse here. Jim

[Jim Becia]

I would like to make some comments that are aimed directly at LF digital landscape photographers. A prerequisite to this posting is my posting on page 11 of this thread which I note seven axioms that characterize the art patron market and their behaviors.

Those axioms are not kind to the digital solution. However, they are statements of market place realities, and LF digital photographers cannot afford to ignore those realities. So I would like to offer some unsolicited advice which is the worst type of advice, but I do so not out of hubris, but out of genuine concern.

He are some things to consider:

1. Do not breach the optical reality of the original scene. To do otherwise is tantamount to committing market place suicide. If you are currently engaged in such activity, then stop doing it immediately. Unlike DRSL photographers, LF photographers start with film and can prove the optical reality of the original scene has been preserved in the final print. Offer a warranty of authenticity to your patrons and back it up with a full refund of their purchase if they are not satisfied. Allow them to come to your place of business or house and inspect the slide or negative. This will arrest potential art patrons fears that digital landscape prints are fakes. Chances are, very few people will actually do such a thing, but just knowing you are willing to do this says a lot about your character and ethics as an artist.[QUOTE]


Steve, first of all, what is a LF digital photographer? Am I to assume that they use large format film and then scan and print? I will repeat again, I think this silly. Now if you are only talking about showing said piece of film so that you can prove a tree, rock , etc., was there, I guess it might make sense in your case. However, if you are saying that to prove color fidelity, then you are going to have problems with that. And you better start shooting a few pieces of transparency film at the same time to prove it.

2. Align your digital edits with the types of tonal manipulations Ansel Adams used to create his prints. AA and his printing methods are held in high regard among a large audience of art patrons. Develop as suite of guide lines that you use to govern the type of digital edits you apply to your prints that are consistent with AA's printing practices. For color edits, you can extrapolate from AA's b&w changes to develop guide lines for your color edits. By doing this you are LIMITING your digital tools with respect to the total effort needed to create a photograph in the eyes of the art patron. They will respect for this, and how you practice your art with such rigor and discipline.


AA woud do whatever he could do to get the print he wanted. I don't see how you could even quantitfy this. He got rid of rocks on a hillside, he dodged in whole skies. I wouldn't even attempt using this type of hype, but go ahead. I ocassionally get questions of my work, my response is that I do adjust my film however, my prints are about 95% of what's in the film. I do take two exposed pieces of film - one 4X5 and one 5X7 so the cutomer can see the size of the film and some of the colors in the film. But I leave it at that.


3. Down play the digital aspects of your discipline and focus on the HUMAN effort that you bring to your process for creating a landscape photograph. Talk about how there is no substitute for excellent field skills and getting it wright in the field in the first place. No computer can fix a bad photograph. Period. Talk about what that means to create and edit in the field. Quantify your efforts in terms of time, and that it can take days, weeks, months, and years before the appropriate atmospheric conditions can be realized. Talk about the challenges of shooting in the wind, rain, hail, and snow. Talk about the bitter cold and the scorching heat the LF photographer must endure. Talk about the HUMAN sacrifice you must make, the challenge to the physical body and mind, and HUMAN defiance that is needed to endure the elements of nature in order to make a photograph. Benchmark all of this against the landscape painter who can do all of this with the stroke of brush in a warm studio, but you, as a landscape photographer, have no such privilege, and that the creation of of a landscape photograph is far more elemental and primitive in execution then the creation of a landscape painting. Remember, our real competition is not between fellow photographers, but rather the landscape painter.


I can't disagree with most of this on the surface, however, I find that as a rule, very few of my customers care about this. This could also lead to a situation where one of your best selling photos ends up being one of the "easiest" you make. How hard it takes to get an image probably doesn't make too much of a difference to anyone other than the person buying it, and then that has little to do with why they buy it in the first place. As for competition, don't kid yourself, you are competing against other photographers also.

4. Do not use computer geek nomenclature. Remove all references to Photoshop, workflow, and any other computer technical nomenclature from your vocabulary and website. These words make art patrons nervous because they do not understand it, and it smells like geek talk for fakery. It is okay to use the word digital, but that is it.

5. Be open and forthright with what you are doing and articulate what your process is in terms of the HUMAN endeavor. If you are silent, or worse yet tell people on your website you use traditional methods when you are using digital methods as I have seen, then the art patron will figure it out and suspect that you are hiding something and conclude you are engaged in producing fakes. It is imperative that you articulate your physical process. Art patrons need to hear that. They need to know about your struggles with your process to create a photograph. Talk about how you preserve the optical reality of the original scene; talk about how you restrict your digital edits to the levels practiced by AA; and talk about your struggles in the field. Art patrons need to be assured that the photograph they are about to purchase comes from an an extraordinary individual who harbors a very special gift.



Steve, in #4 you talk about removing all references to Photoshop, computers, etc. yet in #5 you be open and forthright. For those of us who scan, that really can't be done, and on top of that, I will not apologize for my methodology and process. I and (I would venture a guess) other photographers are very comfortable in our processes and vision. This gets back to some of my original contentions about the hype that is being spread out there. Just because you use your methodology does not somehow make your work better. Period. When I discuss my work with a potential customer, many times the talk comes down to trying to see something differently than other photographers, the composition, or the light, etc. Also, I never have used the word "fine art" in describing my work. I leave that to others who want to use that nomenclature. I photograph what I like to photograph. I don't try to guess what the buying public wants. If I did. I would go to Europe and photograph there, or I would photograph flowers. There are two sure fire ways to sell, at least on an art fair circuit. Be careful, because you could find your "hype" being your sellling point, not your vision.

Hope this helps..


And Steve, you can take what I say with a grain of salt as I am no expert when it comes to marketing, but I just dislike it when substance takes a back seat to methodolgy. "Handmade photos," "optical reality/veracity," etc., all take a back seat to substance and vison as far as I'm concerned. Jim Becia

[clay harmon]

Here is a question: Does this purported 'Fine Art Color Nature Photography' market really exist in any meaningful way outside postcards, dorm room posters, books and calendars? Who buys this type of work? The only examples that fit this definition that I have ever seen inside a real home are two of Christopher Burkett's prints. Is the primary market for this type of work interior designers who do commercial spaces? I wonder, because I do occasionally see some large color nature prints in the waiting rooms of dentist's and doctor's offices. If that is the case, then the customer is really the designer more than anything else.

In the gallery world which does one-off print sales, I just do not see much color nature work that exists outside some sort of external narrative framework. For instance, there was a show at John Cleary gallery here in Houston last year by a photographer that was documenting the current-day appearance of the Lewis and Clark expedition's pathway. It was very good work, but its main interest to people was in the external narrative that it supported. It was digital inkjet printing by the way. Very well done. And I did not hear a single potential buyer at the opening even ask about the process. The value was in the conception of the project more than the mechanics of its execution.

I guess I am just not convinced that there is much of a market for one-off print sales in this so-called 'market'. Here is an exercise: Turn on the TV during prime time and surf to any of the inane sitcoms that are always on. Check out the interiors of the 'homes' in these shows. Look at what is on the wall. It is mostly black and white photographs of various sorts. What does this mean? Well, either there is only one set designer in Hollywood, or else they are reflecting some sort of home decorating zeitgeist peculiar to Southern California. The point being that, like it or not, this sort of domestic decorating style is being blasted across the airwaves into living rooms across the country, and I think subconsciously black and white photography will encounter less resistance from buyers precisely because people have been subtly saturated in it through the medium of television.

[clay harmon]

Oh, and the term 'optical reality'. WTF?

Does this mean a 7.5m fisheye lens on a 35mm camera seems somehow more real than a inkjet print with a fence photoshopped out of it? What about a pinhole? No optics there. This whole elaborate framework of photographic good versus evil seems pretty ridiculous. Its just a picture of a tree. It won't be feeding and clothing a poor kid in Africa or anything.

[Stephen Willard]

You forgot to mention how we should deal with the international communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.

You are too tightly focussed on the workings of a specific localised phenomenon: the North American "Fine Art" nature market. Your use of words like 'art world' and 'high end gallery' makes no sense at all from a broader perspective, and is simply wrong internationally.

There is more to nature than a cutesy facsimile of sublime awe.

Struan, you absolutely are correct. On page 11 where I posted the the seven axioms, I made a disclaimer that my market research was based on Colorado USA markets and may not be entirely applicable to other regional markets. I have not retained a world wide marketing organization to come up with these axioms. They are based on my own efforts to understand what I must do sell my work here in Colorado, and so far the outcome is has been pretty good with increased sales.

You have three choices. You can embrace them, you can modify them for your region of the world, or you can reject them entirely. In any case, if you or I are wrong about the art patron maket, then we will experience a decline in sales or no sales. It is as simple as that.

[willwilson]

I scanned a few responses and then commenced to reading the entire thread. Interesting Discussion...

I am a visual artist. I paint. I draw. But mostly I photograph.

I think there are two colliding schools of thought at work here:

1) The pure artist (Whatever that is?)
2) The photographer "artist" as a business.

Pure Artist (man thought sounds highfalutin) :

Ansel Adams, anyone question Ansel's photographic material of choice or work-flow? No, we hold it as a standard. It makes his work more interesting to know how he produced it, but his work stands on its own. Did he sell tons of prints and build an empire of photography (I'm being a little dramatic here)? Was he a good businessman...I think so, does that effect his work? Maybe? Do I care? No. Do I think he was one of this centuries greatest artists? Yes.

Does it matter what medium (Oil, Pastel, Watercolor, Sculpture, Photography) you choose as an artist? Yes, it defines you and your work. We all choose photography for different reasons, but to be an effective artist we need to at least be searching for those reasons if we don't already know what they are. We must all choose a path. I don't care how you create your art. Your process should fall in line with your vision. I think judging another artist's process based on some set of rules is ridiculous.


Photographer Artist as a Business:

This type of working professional is more product oriented. You create a product that fits a market and try to sell as much of it as possible! Kinkade is a perfect example. He is a master at creating consumable art products. The consumer becomes the driving force behind the work as opposed to the artist.

Then there are hybrid approaches like Damien Hirst:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/17/arts/design/17auct.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

[Drew Wiley]

I'm clearly on the wrong forum, or at least the wrong thread. It's been interesting,
but ...

[Stephen Willard]

And Steve, you can take what I say with a grain of salt as I am no expert when it comes to marketing, but I just dislike it when substance takes a back seat to methodolgy. "Handmade photos," "optical reality/veracity," etc., all take a back seat to substance and vison as far as I'm concerned. Jim Becia

Jim, I am not saying you cannot use photoshop, but rather do not talk about it, and what ever do, do not glorify it or your computer. Instead, talk about all the other things that you do to make a photograph. Talk about the HUMAN part that is needed to make the photograph. That is what my art patrons like to hear.

[Stephen Willard]

My previous posting has an error. The "Original Posted by" is suppose to be Jim Becia and not Stephen Willard. Sorry.

[Stephen Willard]

I scanned a few responses and then commenced to reading the entire thread. Interesting Discussion...

I am a visual artist. I paint. I draw. But mostly I photograph.

I think there are two colliding schools of thought at work here:

1) The pure artist (Whatever that is?)
2) The photographer "artist" as a business.


Willwilson, there are a lot of people on this sight that would agree with you. However, the discussion here is about "The Business of Modern Day Nature Photography" and that is why my postings and others are focusing on the business aspect.

My hope is that after the holidays, I will post a thread titled "Does Commercialism Degrade the Artistic Experience". Based on your posting I think you and a lot of other people will conclude that it does. I on the hand, intend to argue strongly that commercialism is vital to flourishing art, and that to create art in the absence of commercialism will lead to mediocrity and foolishness. Those are very inflammatory adjectives that will invoke a healthy debate. However, the discussion in this thread is about commercialism and that is what I am focused on now.

Good observation though...

[QT Luong]

Here is a question: Does this purported 'Fine Art Color Nature Photography' market really exist in any meaningful way outside postcards, dorm room posters, books and calendars? Who buys this type of work? The only examples that fit this definition that I have ever seen inside a real home are two of Christopher Burkett's prints. Is the primary market for this type of work interior designers who do commercial spaces? I wonder, because I do occasionally see some large color nature prints in the waiting rooms of dentist's and doctor's offices. If that is the case, then the customer is really the designer more than anything else.

In the gallery world which does one-off print sales, I just do not see much color nature work that exists outside some sort of external narrative framework. For instance, there was a show at John Cleary gallery here in Houston last year by a photographer that was documenting the current-day appearance of the Lewis and Clark expedition's pathway. It was very good work, but its main interest to people was in the external narrative that it supported. It was digital inkjet printing by the way. Very well done. And I did not hear a single potential buyer at the opening even ask about the process. The value was in the conception of the project more than the mechanics of its execution.


There is certainly a market for color nature photography prints. Some photographers make a living in it, sometimes a very good living. The intersection of this market with that of the "art world", "serious" colllectors, "high end" galleries, "non-decorative" work is not empty, since Drew seems to be part of it :-) Now the question is how large this intersection is. I think it is pretty small.

[willwilson]

The most successful "Nature Photographers" were artist's first and business people second. You might achieve short term gains by following the needs of the consumer, but I believe that it would be very difficult to follow that path without it restricting your true artistic vision. Kinkade is not famous because of his art, he is famous because he sells tons of product. It's the WalmART mentality.

That said there are obviously a wide ranging positions one can take on that ladder, from Kinkade to Mangelsen to AA to Rothko. There is a place in this world for all types of visual creation.

[Drew Wiley]

It seems almost futile to weigh in again. I apologize if it seems to some of you that I'm
on a high horse. But if you ever decide on an actual fine-arts path, just be prepared
for a stampede of horses. In that sphere, some of your aforementioned role models don't even warrant getting stomped on - they simply don't exist. There are a handful of flakes in the museum circuit and so forth, but there are even more level heads who
are very visually sensitive and highly appreciative of good photography. They have
their own venues, which photography doesn't always dovetail with - but this doesn't mean they're blind to it. QT suggested that fine arts is not the easiest path for a landscape photographer. I agree. But within my own neighborhood there are a couple of people doing quite well at it. And a notable newcomer to the nothern California community of printmakers is Roman Loranc. I've discovered that people are a lot like cats. If you only feed them dry food, they're content with it. But once they've sampled canned food or real meat, their taste discernment goes way up. It is pretty
rare that even an exceptional artist can get through life without a backup plan financially. But if some of you do decide to go after big game, I'd recommend packing
more than a BB gun.

[Stephen Willard]

There is certainly a market for color nature photography prints. Some photographers make a living in it, sometimes a very good living. The intersection of this market with that of the "art world", "serious" colllectors, "high end" galleries, "non-decorative" work is not empty, since Drew seems to be part of it :-) Now the question is how large this intersection is. I think it is pretty small.

QT, this is one of my secrets that I have not been forth coming about in my conversations here. I am not willing to talk much about this, but it is not small by any means. My market research in Colorado, and I suspect else where, shows there is a hue demand for very high-quality landscape photographs, but the gallery infustructure in Colorado, and most likely else where, has not recognizing that demand nor is it providing products to serve that demand.

[Drew Wiley]

Stephen - the limitation of venues has always been the primary problem for those
hoping to sell prints. Some people get by with street fairs and so forth, but that's not
a lifestyle which appeals to everyone -certainly not me. The unfortunate fact of life is
that the gallery business is very risky. And certainly some of those "high-end" galleries you speak of are essentially tax write-offs or hobbies for very wealthy people. In other words, they aren't actually making money. Although we have all taken our jabs
at Fatali, as a businessman he does have one thing right ... location, location, location.
But ideal locations mean high leases, unless you've got the ability to buy property
outright and then endure the overhead costs to run the establishment. I personally
think outside the box, and won't prematurely let the cat out of the bag in terms of my own impending market model. I do expect some speed bumps and hurdles over the next
couple of years as the logistical details get worked out. But what works for me might
not be appropriate for someone else. Glad to see you're stuggling with possibility,
however. There have been several times in my own experience when a particular
gallery venue proved an impediment rather than help to sales. That's why I've largely dropped out of that scene and look forward to the next phase.

[Jim Becia]

Jim, I am not saying you cannot use photoshop, but rather do not talk about it, and what ever do, do not glorify it or your computer. Instead, talk about all the other things that you do to make a photograph. Talk about the HUMAN part that is needed to make the photograph. That is what my art patrons like to hear.

Steve,

I certainly don't glorify my use of Photoshop, but I not ashamed to say I use it. It's simply a way of getting my image on film to the paper. Look, I'm not a marketing expert (I've stated this in previous post.) I have made a living the past two years solely doing art fairs. No, it's not a glamorous life, but it lets me do the one thing I love and that's photograph. I work from May through mid Septemeber. When I met you, I was in the midst of a 5 week trip. Now, I certainly am not getting rich, matter of fact, I get my bills paid with enough left over to travel. But I wouldn't trade it for anything else.

There is actually a pretty good market in the art fair business selling color landscape photos. Some shows are great, others don't cut it. My experience is that customers buy what they like and of those that buy, they never ask about the printing methodology. I am not talking about a fine art market, and again, that's a term I have never used nor try to use.

Drew keeps bringing up a "fine art" market. You keep mentioning "art patrons." I guess I just sell to people that enjoy my images. I take glorified postcard landscape shots according to Drew. So what? My only contention in this discussion keeps getting missed, and that is content overrides methodolgy. Both you and Drew never respond to this. I do talk about my images with my customers, but from a content point of view.

Please note, I'm not trying to persuade anyone that my way is the right way, it's just one way. Everyone should do it their own way, I only think that putting other methods down isn't an effective tool. That has been my contention. Jim

[Drew Wiley]

Jim - I wasn't critisizing street fairs. I admire that you can make a living doing what you like. I've seen some pretty good work at street fairs. It's just not a lifestyle
realistic for me. And there's nothing wrong with digital; for many photographers it's
the more practical route. Doing digital does not mean one is automatically excluded from the "fine-art" market either. It all depends. Of course, every gallery around
calls itself a fine-art establishment. But let me use an illustration from my own
experience. When I once did gallery gigs down in Carmel - a town with a handful of
really good photography galleries and a lot of really awful painters - all my own sales were to local residents, including photographers, who had familiarity with a
tradition of excellence and could collect whomever they wanted. I recently received
word that a couple of my prints have resurfaced in another collection down there;
so its nice to know they were well cared for. These people could afford a vintage
Weston or Adams print; and a few of the famous photographers still alive took the
trouble to contact me and chat about my relatively youthful work. (I had only been
printing for about six months, doing strictly color. Didn't even try black and white
until a lean spell a decade later, when I was trying to save money!) The shows were arranged by an individual with an career in museum collections, who took a temporary job in a commercial gallery as a change in pace. You either resonate with
these kinds of people of you don't, if you're lucky enough to bump into them. Hanging a sign on the window which says, "fine art" won't make any difference. It's
just a cliche. And I get the feeling that at least a few individuals on this thread haven't been doing their homework. You won't learn that much just by surfing the web. Take some time in the better museums, look at some of the past masters of
the medium long and hard, and ask yourself why they were chosen instead of
someone else. I'm not suggesting that the "experts" are routinely right or should
mould your own vision, but that there is indeed a kind of perceptual chemistry involved. And it's certainly not my way or the highway! I have plenty of good friends
whose photography I hate, and sometimes even go on outings with them. But I'd
never discourage them. But some of them are just as annoyed as I am at the liberties certain individuals have taken to doctor up scenes - especially after they
attended a workshop in which the nature photo guru told them that they had to
dramatically enhance the colors if they want to sell a images! But why does an audience appreciate one species of creativity, or even manipulation, and not another? Well, I'm not going to digress into the esthetic question itself - but for practical purposes, you need to know who your audience potentially is. As they say, one man's medicine is another man's poison.

[Stephen Willard]

Steve,
I certainly don't glorify my use of Photoshop, but I not ashamed to say I use it. It's simply a way of getting my image on film to the paper. Look, I'm not a marketing expert (I've stated this in previous post.) I have made a living the past two years solely doing art fairs. No, it's not a glamorous life, but it lets me do the one thing I love and that's photograph. I work from May through mid Septemeber. When I met you, I was in the midst of a 5 week trip. Now, I certainly am not getting rich, matter of fact, I get my bills paid with enough left over to travel. But I wouldn't trade it for anything else.

Jim, I am for anyone who can sell a photograph. Its an uphill battle to sell photography as art, and your efforts are just as noble as Burkett. In a way, I hope we are all in this together, instead of everyman for himself.




There is actually a pretty good market in the art fair business selling color landscape photos. Some shows are great, others don't cut it. My experience is that customers buy what they like and of those that buy, they never ask about the printing methodology. I am not talking about a fine art market, and again, that's a term I have never used nor try to use.

From my limited experience with art fairs, the emphasis is on SMALLER prints matted and sleeved in a plastic rap at an affordable price rather then bigger stuff with a bigger price tag. People do not buy smaller prints as an investment, but rather as something nice to put on the office wall that makes one feel good. A lot of people who are hubris will refer to your market as DECORITIVE or TRINKET art which is a condescending term that places you at the bottom of the heap. Pay no attention to such terms.



Drew keeps bringing up a "fine art" market. You keep mentioning "art patrons." I guess I just sell to people that enjoy my images. I take glorified postcard landscape shots according to Drew. So what? My only contention in this discussion keeps getting missed, and that is content overrides methodolgy. Both you and Drew never respond to this. I do talk about my images with my customers, but from a content point of view.

The minute you take the same smaller photograph and make it BIGGER, frame it in a real nice frame, put a bigger price tag on it, and place it in a gallery, then it becomes a fine-art print. At that point the buyer goes from being a shopper to fine-art patron and becomes more discriminating about their purchase. The photograph now becomes not only an investment, but also serves as bragging rights. The fine-art patron will place that bigger expensive beautifully framed print in a very prominent place in their home, and they want everyone to know that they can afford to take ownership of a photograph that was created by a gifted artist and NOT a gifted Photoshop geek.

Now let me tell you about my marketing strategy which echoes the progression I just outlined. If you buy one of my prints that is 11x14 or smaller, then I will sell it to you as an "unsigned photographic reproduction" which is just a less offensive term for decorative art. It is not intended to be sold as an investment. If you buy the same print 16x20 or larger, then it is sold as "signed limited edition fine-art print", and for $195 you can purchase the print matted and framed in a nice black metal frame on my website. All of these terms are outlined on my website. If you attend the two different gallery shows my work will be exhibited on the opening night of Dec 5th, then the same print will now be framed in a real nice cherry wood frame and cost you $450. Of course, if I commanded more regional recognition, then it could be sold for $1000, but at this time, I lack such fame and stature.:(

The minute you market your work as a investment, make it bigger, and more expensive, then the seven marketing axioms I noted on page 11 of this thread must now be enforced because that is what the art patron wants. Those upscale galleries that are very successful are very very very good at pitching the seven axioms. The successful artist is also very very very good at pitching the seven axioms. If you are breaching the optical reality to produce photographic prints for art festivals, then you cannot migrate those prints to high-end markets. If you do, then you will eventually get caught and be shamed. The standards of behavior and quality of work is much higher at the fine-art level.

Some people call this stuff a game, but it is not a game. There is lots of money, livelihoods, and reputations at stake, and it is the dead serious Business of Modern Day Nature Photography.:eek:

Jim, I hope this makes things a little bit clearer for you.:)

[Stephen Willard]

Stephen - the limitation of venues has always been the primary problem for those
hoping to sell prints. Some people get by with street fairs and so forth, but that's not
a lifestyle which appeals to everyone -certainly not me. The unfortunate fact of life is
that the gallery business is very risky. And certainly some of those "high-end" galleries you speak of are essentially tax write-offs or hobbies for very wealthy people. In other words, they aren't actually making money. Although we have all taken our jabs
at Fatali, as a businessman he does have one thing right ... location, location, location.
But ideal locations mean high leases, unless you've got the ability to buy property
outright and then endure the overhead costs to run the establishment. I personally
think outside the box, and won't prematurely let the cat out of the bag in terms of my own impending market model. I do expect some speed bumps and hurdles over the next
couple of years as the logistical details get worked out. But what works for me might
not be appropriate for someone else. Glad to see you're stuggling with possibility,
however. There have been several times in my own experience when a particular
gallery venue proved an impediment rather than help to sales. That's why I've largely dropped out of that scene and look forward to the next phase.

Drew, I would love to hear what you are up to, but I understand. When you get there let us know. I am always on the look out for new ideas and fresh approaches. Please use the private messaging system to inform me when you are willing to talk about it so that I do not miss any threads you may post. Good luck.

[Jim Becia]

Jim, I am for anyone who can sell a photograph. Its an uphill battle to sell photography as art, and your efforts are just as noble as Burkett. In a way, I hope we are all in this together, instead of everyman for himself.




From my limited experience with art fairs, the emphasis is on SMALLER prints matted and sleeved in a plastic rap at an affordable price rather then bigger stuff with a bigger price tag. People do not buy smaller prints as an investment, but rather as something nice to put on the office wall that makes one feel good. A lot of people who are hubris will refer to your market as DECORITIVE or TRINKET art which is a condescending term that places you at the bottom of the heap. Pay no attention to such terms.



The minute you take the same smaller photograph and make it BIGGER, frame it in a real nice frame, put a bigger price tag on it, and place it in a gallery, then it becomes a fine-art print. At that point the buyer goes from being a shopper to fine-art patron and becomes more discriminating about their purchase. The photograph now becomes not only an investment, but also serves as bragging rights. The fine-art patron will place that bigger expensive beautifully framed print in a very prominent place in their home, and they want everyone to know that they can afford to take ownership of a photograph that was created by a gifted artist and NOT a gifted Photoshop geek.

Now let me tell you about my marketing strategy which echoes the progression I just outlined. If you buy one of my prints that is 11x14 or smaller, then I will sell it to you as an "unsigned photographic reproduction" which is just a less offensive term for decorative art. It is not intended to be sold as an investment. If you buy the same print 16x20 or larger, then it is sold as "signed limited edition fine-art print", and for $195 you can purchase the print matted and framed in a nice black metal frame on my website. All of these terms are outlined on my website. If you attend the two different gallery shows my work will be exhibited on the opening night of Dec 5th, then the same print will now be framed in a real nice cherry wood frame and cost you $450. Of course, if I commanded more regional recognition, then it could be sold for $1000, but at this time, I lack such fame and stature.:(

The minute you market your work as a investment, make it bigger, and more expensive, then the seven marketing axioms I noted on page 11 of this thread must now be enforced because that is what the art patron wants. Those upscale galleries that are very successful are very very very good at pitching the seven axioms. The successful artist is also very very very good at pitching the seven axioms. If you are breaching the optical reality to produce photographic prints for art festivals, then you cannot migrate those prints to high-end markets. If you do, then you will eventually get caught and be shamed. The standards of behavior and quality of work is much higher at the fine-art level.

Some people call this stuff a game, but it is not a game. There is lots of money, livelihoods, and reputations at stake, and it is the dead serious Business of Modern Day Nature Photography.:eek:

Jim, I hope this makes things a little bit clearer for you.:)


Steve,

We differ on many accounts. First and foremost, I will NEVER sell a photo/print with the intention that it is an investment. There is so little work out there that qualifies as an investment. It's bought because it's enjoyed. Let me give you an example of my buying of photos. Seeing that I have my color work at home, when I buy a photo it happens to be black and white. I don't do b&w, but I do like it. I own about 20 to 25 b&w photos - inkjets, platinum, silver, gravures, etc. Their purchase price ranges from a whopping $20 up to $500. Many are by unknowns, but a three are by well knowns - primarily Roman Loranc. Not once in my buying process did I ever think about investment value. I fortunately own one of his "Two Hearted Oaks." When I bought it at the Ansel Adams Gallery a vew years ago, I didn't know who Roman Loranc was. There was no sales pitch "buy it, it's a good investment." I simply bought it because it was (at least to me) a stunning image. Roman Loranc starts his sizes at 8X10. Now I might consider his work fine art. I learned a long time ago, that at least for me, enjoyment trumps investment. I also owned a gallery and frame shop for nearly 16 years. This was back in the days when "limited edition" prints were a hot commodity (I saw prints go from $150 to $5000.) Mind you, limited edition prints are basically "glorified" posters. I had great success with my business, but never, not once, did I ever use the "investment angle" as a sales pitch; yet that was very common with this type of product. It was very simple, buy it because you like it.

Next point, I sell my work at sizes that range from 8x10 up to 40x50. Somehow the idea that bigger qualifies it as fine art or invest is silly (at least to me.) My framing is excellent, matter of fact, in terms of quality, nobody does it better. Mind you, I use the best materials, mats, etc. Again, framing doesn't make it fine art in my book. I don't care it someone wants to call my work decorative. I simply want people to buy it because it's enjoyable.

Steve, you don't follow "optical reality" and you don't have the defining statment on it by any stretch of the imagination. Please define it without using AA, and who becomes the arbiter. I'll tell you why you should leave AA out of it. I went to Barnes and Noble and pulled out his book - Examples - Then Making of Forty Photographs. It's eye opening what he does all in the name of getting his image on paper. He states at the beginning that content and vision are of foremost importance. In "Winter Sunset" he does the equivilant of "cloning" out rocks on a hillside because it didn't go with his vision of the scene. All that being said, I have no qualms with my work, I probably do less adjusting than you do (from what I have seen on your website) even though I use Photoshop. Again, I don't care.

You're convinced that your marketing hype is extremely important, I simply don't see it that way. I simply see it as hype. For all your anecdotal evidence, there's just as much evidence to the contrary. Jim Becia

[Jim Becia]

Jim - I wasn't critisizing street fairs. I admire that you can make a living doing what you like. I've seen some pretty good work at street fairs. It's just not a lifestyle
realistic for me. And there's nothing wrong with digital; for many photographers it's
the more practical route. Doing digital does not mean one is automatically excluded from the "fine-art" market either. It all depends. Of course, every gallery around
calls itself a fine-art establishment. But let me use an illustration from my own
experience. When I once did gallery gigs down in Carmel - a town with a handful of
really good photography galleries and a lot of really awful painters - all my own sales were to local residents, including photographers, who had familiarity with a
tradition of excellence and could collect whomever they wanted. I recently received
word that a couple of my prints have resurfaced in another collection down there;
so its nice to know they were well cared for. These people could afford a vintage
Weston or Adams print; and a few of the famous photographers still alive took the
trouble to contact me and chat about my relatively youthful work. (I had only been
printing for about six months, doing strictly color. Didn't even try black and white
until a lean spell a decade later, when I was trying to save money!) The shows were arranged by an individual with an career in museum collections, who took a temporary job in a commercial gallery as a change in pace. You either resonate with
these kinds of people of you don't, if you're lucky enough to bump into them. Hanging a sign on the window which says, "fine art" won't make any difference. It's
just a cliche. And I get the feeling that at least a few individuals on this thread haven't been doing their homework. You won't learn that much just by surfing the web. Take some time in the better museums, look at some of the past masters of
the medium long and hard, and ask yourself why they were chosen instead of
someone else. I'm not suggesting that the "experts" are routinely right or should
mould your own vision, but that there is indeed a kind of perceptual chemistry involved. And it's certainly not my way or the highway! I have plenty of good friends
whose photography I hate, and sometimes even go on outings with them. But I'd
never discourage them. But some of them are just as annoyed as I am at the liberties certain individuals have taken to doctor up scenes - especially after they
attended a workshop in which the nature photo guru told them that they had to
dramatically enhance the colors if they want to sell a images! But why does an audience appreciate one species of creativity, or even manipulation, and not another? Well, I'm not going to digress into the esthetic question itself - but for practical purposes, you need to know who your audience potentially is. As they say, one man's medicine is another man's poison.


Drew,

I think you have taken my statements wrong. I personally do not care about a fine art market. That's a term I'll leave to others like yourself and Steve. I'm not sure what you mean by "doctored up scenes." I am simply saying that there is hype in both marketing camps. You talk about "digital hype" and I guess I'll call what a Burkett or Fatali does as "Ilfochrome hype." And you know what, I like their work in general. But I would never demean or put it down simply because of methodology or because it's "not real" (whatever real is in photography). Enough said. Jim

[Stephen Willard]

Jim, I make no claims that I am correct other than being correct for myself and providing something for others to think about. I have never sold a print as big as a 40x50 as it appears you have. All of my conclusions are based on informal means of collecting data and are probable NOT statistically viable.

About the only thing I can say with a reasonable level of confidence is that all the commercial buildings such as banks and doctors offices always seem to have paintings on the walls rather then photographs. Now I am sure you could sight a bank that has some photographs on display in their lobby that would contradict this generalization, but all generalizations have exceptions.

This will be my last posting for this thread because I am pooped and cannot talk about this anymore. If anyone directs a question or challenge directly to me I will not respond, not because I do not think you are important, but rather I cannot talk about this anymore.

Over and out!

[john borrelli]

Maybe buyers of photography are asking if the image has been digitally processed because they think-something we photographers have been grappling with for some time-that perhaps photographers have gone too far with photoshop-type processing of their images.

How far is too far? Well that's a tough one. To come up with a single standard for this would be impossible, but I feel I can empathize with that previous poster's intentions.

For any one who owns early and late books by Galen Rowell or David Muench, as examples, it is not difficult to see an "evolution" in their images. The saturation in the colors became more intense over the years. One might after a little research even be able to locate a dramatic change in color saturation levels over time for the same image.

I do not sell photography, but I have noticed even in my own digital printing that I now use the cloning tool, for example, much more than I ever would have just a few years ago. I do not do documentary photography so I have rationalized that it is OK to add a few colorful leaves to distant tree branches to help hide a pale bright sky, or to take out that distracting blurry blade of grass in the foreground, but sometimes I feel like I am engaged in a process that is not quite "photographic" anymore.

In fact,after reading this thread, I am thinking it might be time to get out some black and white film and let my analog lab do the processing for a while.