Does a Photograph's medium change your opinion of it?

[Tin Can]

I almost never turn off my tiny 50" 4K TV

It is very good at slide shows

This too will pass

Rumi

[pdmoylan]

As much as I hate to accept it, it seems to me the original photographic print as marketable art is essentially dead - Covid has contributed to this situation of course. My experience is that young people don't want large prints (or even small ones) in color or B+W prints on their walls. Small family images and perhaps pics of wildlife/nature are still acceptable. It's difficult to give prints (or self published photo books) away to family, while as much as they might appreciate the gesture/thought and the images, they are frequently stuffed away somewhere in due course. And those who have the funds will default to paintings over photo prints (with some deviation I am sure) for investment purposes. Photographic prints have lost their sale and intrinsic market value due to market oversaturation of images of course, but IMO, due to a relatively short lifespan.

Until such time that an original photographic print can have the same longevity as a painting/sculpture (i.e. indefinite), for the most part, photo prints will be dismissed as second rate display art, if one can consider it as art to begin with. I am dubious that technological breakthroughs will be realized to extend the lifespan of original photo prints indefinitely. So for all of the great print craftspersons that have emerged from the heyday of photo printing, the few that remain will be considered experts in an anachronistic medium. There will be exceptions I am sure. I believe well situated image makers such as Sexton and Butcher will continue to sell original images to the extent that they continue to receive media attention. We've already seen that large format color print sales have plummeted and with the loss of durst lambda print capability (chromira prints are not as good, and forget giclee images), it is difficult for me to offer prints for sale as they rarely meet my expectations.

I have tested color inkjet images, and IMO they are completely unacceptable for LF color image output.

Though I find it interesting that the market has come up with selling digitized images using secure digital tokens to assure uniqueness of the art (this eliminates the possibility of multiples of the same print in the market), I think it unlikely this will evolve for photo images as well.

Our hearts want our images to last in the minds of the viewer for a lifetime and longer, but the reality is we are lucky to have one person view an image for more than .6 seconds.

BTW, we have already seen how the digital camera market has been transformed by the image production available via phone cameras. If the market will not support large prints of analogue or digital sourced images, why bother with highest resolution cameras? Digital viewing isn't going away and for now, nor is Covid. Art galleries are displaying via zoom (for the most part), so again, why bother producing images that will produce large prints?

As much as I have loved 4x5 film images, the craft and the end result, there is no practical reason to continue using this medium.

So if I compare a digital vs film image produced by say Rodney Lough Jr, assuming they have similar aspect ratio, a) I frequently cannot tell which is analogue and which digital from my computer, and b) how many are going to buy these images given current market trends. I wish him the best in sales, but I am unconvinced there is a continuing viable market. I wish I were wrong.

So original medium is inconsequential, and while print output is very important to me, there is no demand and the best quality prints are no longer realizable.

[Thad Gerheim]

Pdmoylan, sorry you feel this way.

I have had my best year out of twenty years selling photos, nine years of having a gallery. People who come into the gallery can see a difference in my large prints that were drum scanned, from mostly 5x7 film, than digital capture. Every year I have more and more young people carrying there 35 mm film cameras with them come into the gallery and become more inspired.

I have had collectors buy my work at a fraction of the price of some of the other work they have collected. There seems to be a certain irony to that when I find out the photo is going in the same house or room as the high priced icons.

[Tin Can]

PD

You are depressed

not everybody is

Waltzing Matilda

we all are swagmen

[Ethan]

Analog photography and printing is definitely seeing a resurgence, one that I am a part of; I hadn't done any analog photography until around 4 years ago. I think part of the reason for it is precisely that phones now have somewhat decent cameras in them. A nice digital image no longer holds the appeal it did 10 years ago, since practically everyone has a camera in their pocket which is probably better than the DSLRs of 10 years ago. Because digital images are so common these days, shooting analog sets people apart, it's not something everyone can do, and that makes the images more valuable.

Also, in response to the last couple posts, and the general topic of this thread, I don't think anyone cares about the medium of a photograph as much as us photographers. I'm sure big time collectors care about the difference, but an average person thinking about buying a piece of art to put in their new apartment or whatever generally doesn't realize there is a difference between a print from their home office color copier and an Epson P900, let alone the difference between a silver gelatin print and a platinum palladium one.

[pdmoylan]

[QUOTE=Thad Gerheim;1615741]Pdmoylan, sorry you feel this way.

I have had my best year out of twenty years selling photos, nine years of having a gallery.


Thad, from my canvassing, you are the pretty much the exception. Perhaps your regional focus and location has something to do with it. Hopefully the market will rebound in a year or so?

I really enjoy your majestic B+W work. Well done!

[Tin Can]

laughing out loud

Suggest you leave your dingo scat at the front door before entering this domain.

A pseudo expert in Non-Art and now Psychoanalysis as well? Upon self examination, perhaps Freud would be your next nexus of knowledge?

[John Layton]

Oh, dear...what would Freud think of these?

[cowanw]

Sometimes a Hoodoo is just a Hoodoo.

[John Layton]

better be careful though...could be a hoodon't, or even a hoodunnit!"

Probably would need a panel of experts to be sure...like maybe H. Bosch, S. Dali, S. Freud, and - for good measure (or as moderator?)...Henry Moore! Would love to be a fly on that wall!