PDA

View Full Version : Which one has more value?



andress007
19-Nov-2010, 18:36
A: http://pics.livejournal.com/minitema/pic/00029bkg

B: http://pics.livejournal.com/minitema/pic/0002a5sh

Mike Anderson
19-Nov-2010, 19:01
To me A. By far. Much more interesting. But B isn't bad.

...Mike

Jan Pedersen
19-Nov-2010, 20:40
Non of the two have any value in my opinion. The first A makes it obvious that the photo was taken at an exhibition. The second B is obviously taken at the same place straight on.
Both are photos of someones creation (Good or Bad) which could cause you problems with the C (Copyright)

andress007
19-Nov-2010, 20:45
I meant the value of the *original* paper prints (not those snapshots shown)

Brian C. Miller
19-Nov-2010, 22:01
Well, A has a LF border, and B has the border cropped out.

Why would either one be more valuable based on the border?

Jack Dahlgren
19-Nov-2010, 22:03
both should be 1/2 off coz missing right arm.




... and pants

lenicolas
20-Nov-2010, 05:20
who is this picture from?

Exhibition prints sell higher than smaller proof prints, but often, you'll see vintage proofs sell for a lot of money when they were made by the deceased artist himself.

I once heard a curator say : "the prints that have been made the soonest after the photo was taken are worth more than the later prints". [He illustrated with showing two prints of Ansel Adams, the later one being bigger and better printed, but still worth less than the vintage one...]

But imo, this is only true for older photographs.
Nowadays, a working photographer who is carefull about how many prints he issues will never see those prints out-priced by mere proofs...
Obvious example : Andreas Gursky is known for issuing only a couple of prints a year, most prints being one-off... Even in fifty years from now, what would you pay the most for : a unique giant print with his signature on it or a vintage lightjet A4 proof?

Emil Schildt
20-Nov-2010, 06:07
I'm thinking Newton...(?)

I have seen this image many times, but asal, I can't find it with a normal search on gooogle...

IanG
20-Nov-2010, 07:16
I don't think there's any validity in comparing these two images which are clearly both suffering from the copying (rephotographing) process.

If it's a Newton image then his original prints are a consistently high quality, however book illustrations can be quite inferior and dull like the 3nd image in this thread.

Ian

Frank Petronio
20-Nov-2010, 07:32
It's an Avedon photo of Stephanie Seymour, a frequent subject of his. And it is impossible to tell from the lack of information presented, starting with size, quality, and history. And even then, I doubt anyone on this forum would know.

Emil Schildt
20-Nov-2010, 07:58
It's an Avedon photo of Stephanie Seymour, a frequent subject of his. And it is impossible to tell from the lack of information presented, starting with size, quality, and history. And even then, I doubt anyone on this forum would know.

Avedon... RIGHT... (I'm getting old...:o )

182.000$....... :eek:

http://www.artnet.com/magazineus/news/artmarketwatch/artmarketwatch12-22-08_detail.asp?picnum=4

mdm
20-Nov-2010, 14:56
Seen in isolation, it is a sad, sad photograph. With a little context, it is a defining example of what Richard Avedon was all about. Thank you for showing me this one.

David

andress007
20-Nov-2010, 17:04
A: is sold today for $362,989! :eek:

Both are silver prints 48x61". Looks like print costs itself $989 + Mr Avedon's signature for $362,000

Brian C. Miller
21-Nov-2010, 00:43
Hmmm, the accompanying article, Can Erotica Save the Art Market? (http://www.artnet.com/magazineus/news/artmarketwatch/artmarketwatch12-22-08.asp), reminds me of a discussion years ago on a different camera forum. We had been discussing what sold and what didn't, etc., when one fellow piped up and said that he never had problems selling his pictures. So we asked, what do they look like? And we were presented with a photo of a hot 20-something with a miniskirt flashing bright red undies. And with a collective slap to our virtual foreheads, we said, "Of course!"

Ari
25-Nov-2010, 16:48
Finally, Avedon's name came up on this forum.
If I remember the anecdote correctly, the idea of frontal nudity was hers, and Avedon was deeply ashamed (at the time of the interview) of showing private parts in one of his photos.

mdm
25-Nov-2010, 17:14
Thats interesting. It is a super interesting photograph. I thought that it was an expresion of the truth as he felt it of his sister and her story. Perhaps his relationship with his model was tinged with memories, and if it was her idea, then she shared some experience and feeling with his sister. That must have been a revelation to him.
But he still chose that photograph after it was made and signed the print somewhere. Perhaps that photograph was the catalyst to his understanding. I think it is an important photograph and an excelent example of his work.

William McEwen
26-Nov-2010, 08:28
The photograph is in several of Avedon's books including his "Autobiography," which is a tiny bit of text and 99.999 percent photographs.

I'd never heard the story of Avedon being ashamed of this photo, but he couldn't have been to ashamed, because he used the photo a lot.

William McEwen
26-Nov-2010, 08:33
Hmmm, the accompanying article, Can Erotica Save the Art Market? (http://www.artnet.com/magazineus/news/artmarketwatch/artmarketwatch12-22-08.asp), reminds me of a discussion years ago on a different camera forum. We had been discussing what sold and what didn't, etc., when one fellow piped up and said that he never had problems selling his pictures. So we asked, what do they look like? And we were presented with a photo of a hot 20-something with a miniskirt flashing bright red undies. And with a collective slap to our virtual foreheads, we said, "Of course!"

Brian, I might have already told the story here, but my highest $$ selling print (by far) is one of a topless woman holding a violin, very unlike my regular work. It was purchased at auction a few years ago for a price that exceeded what it would have cost the buyer to buy directly from me.

I was astonished. I mentioned it to friends, and I was surprised by the number of people who told me it's one of my best photos.

So I guess there is a lesson there...

John NYC
26-Nov-2010, 09:17
To me personally, it has zero value. Taking a striking portrait of a beautiful supermodel who poses for a living is pretty -- in relative terms -- easy. Taking a striking portrait of someone's grandfather is much harder... And more satisfying to see (to me) when done well. I would never pay a third of a million dollars for this photograph even if I had endless funny money to spend.

I also will not pay a third of a million dollars for a picture of your grandfather... So don't you even try.

Frank Petronio
26-Nov-2010, 10:27
Obviously a bird with a bush is worth $362,989.

I think it is funny that masters like Avedon and Penn, who only happen to use view cameras, while shooting world leaders and setting the tone for the culture of their day (while making fortunes and becoming famous themselves) are rarely mentioned on this forum versus those crusty old bohemian coots from California whose big claims to fame were that they used a view camera outside to do some pictures of rocks and trees....

William McEwen
26-Nov-2010, 11:46
I think it is funny that masters like Avedon and Penn, who only happen to use view cameras, while shooting world leaders and setting the tone for the culture of their day (while making fortunes and becoming famous themselves) are rarely mentioned on this forum versus those crusty old bohemian coots from California whose big claims to fame were that they used a view camera outside to do some pictures of rocks and trees....

Frank, it seems to me portrait photographers aren't mentioned here as often as the landscapers. Avedon, Greenfield-Sanders, Sander, etc. should show up more often.

BTW, Penn used a view camera for still lifes, but he stopped using them for portraits in the late 1940s.

I asked him why, and his answer is in my book "People and Portraits: Reflections and Essays," published in 2001 and still available for sale.

Jack Dahlgren
26-Nov-2010, 11:51
Penn used a view camera for still lifes, but he stopped using them for portraits in the late 1940s.

I asked him why, and his answer is in my book "People and Portraits: Reflections and Essays," published in 2001 and still available for sale.

Tease

William McEwen
26-Nov-2010, 12:07
Tease

Ha ha.

One of the things I'm proudest of in that book:

I uncovered a central fact about Penn's "corner" series of portraits. Something a view camera photographer would figure out.

Penn used a view camera to photograph many portraits of people wedged into a corner.

It dawned on me that doing so solves a view camera photographer's problems: Keeping the person still, and keeping them in place.

So I asked Penn if that was his motivation.

He responded yes, but "only partly."

Out of all the millions of words written about Penn, no one ever figured that out until I did.

I'll never stop talking about that.... :)

William "Trying to Type With One Hand As I Pat Myself on the Back With the Other" McEwen

Frank Petronio
26-Nov-2010, 12:08
and his answer is in my book "People and Portraits: Reflections and Essays," published in 2001 and still available for sale.

Oh Yeah? Well my response is in my book that is also for sale (and there is still time to buy mine in time for the Holidays)... http://www.blurb.com/my/book/detail/1741446

William McEwen
26-Nov-2010, 12:11
Tease


It's this:

Penn told me that switching from a view camera to MF for portraits was keeping in "the natural evolution of the medium."

I didn't bother pointing out that singlehandedly reviving the platinum printing process in the 1970s and using it for all one's work for the rest of his life is certainly not in keeping with the natural evolution of the medium...

William McEwen
26-Nov-2010, 12:13
Oh Yeah? Well my response is in my book that is also for sale (and there is still time to buy mine in time for the Holidays)... http://www.blurb.com/my/book/detail/1741446

Ha ha.

http://www2.xlibris.com/bookstore/bookdisplay.aspx?bookid=10493

Robert Hughes
3-Dec-2010, 07:21
I'd love to get Frank's book, but have 3 teenagers in the house. I'm afraid it would scar them for life...