The business of modern day (color nature) photography

[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.