Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,449   Posts: 1,570,078   Online: 865
      
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 33
  1. #21
    TheFlyingCamera's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Washington DC
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    8,467
    Blog Entries
    51
    Images
    437
    I'm not saying to deny the consumer information. I'm just saying don't fixate on technique to the point it obscures or displaces the content. I don't think anyone other than a museum and/or academician would care about an Ansel Adams test strip, but unless the customer asks for your burning and dodging patterns/chemical formulas/studio lighting set-ups, don't present that information prior to engagement with the potential buyer or you run the risk of converting your work from art to technical exercise.

    Denise- in your case, because you are doing something unique, it does merit discussion and explanation. That said, I know you also don't hang a separate page-long blurb about each print on the wall - like everyone else, the label reads (for example)

    untitled bottle #2
    hand-coated silver gelatin print
    2009, #3 of 10
    $400

    I guess I feel the way I do about this also from my day job doing software development. At heart I'm a geek and I geek out on explaining technical stuff to people. But I have to remember that 99% of my customers don't know and don't care about how I'm going to build a list in SharePoint for them - they just want to know that when they click on a link, they can put data in and get data out. The technical documentation is there for the 1% who want to know.

  2. #22
    dwross's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Oregon Coast
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    847
    It's a table full of puzzle pieces waiting to be pulled together. I really enjoyed this Vimeo of Neil Gaiman giving a commencement speech. http://www.apug.org/forums/forum50/1...irational.html

    All his advice to new grads in the arts (every artist, actually) was excellent, but his observations about the changing nature of distribution was profound. Any rules you thought you knew about how to get your art recognized are probably in the dustbin. It's not just photography and our digital 'revolution'.

    I live in a very dynamic and creative arts and sciences community, and I volunteer at the reception desk of our Visual Arts Center. Not that many years ago, there would be 'weaving' or 'glass' or 'acrylic' or 'watercolor', or 'pottery' -- i.e. broad, uni-dimensional, recognizable categories. Today: "glass mosaic embedded in encaustic, floating in a framework of acrylic-painted tapestry." Some of it really works, some not so much. Some I say, "Wow!" is that gorgeous (or ugly)! I don't care in the least how it was made." Others pieces (like or dislike, it doesn't seem to matter) I want to follow the artist home and learn every detail. So far, for the life of me, I can't decide what prompts my deeper interest in the process.

    I don't see myself ever putting exhaustive labels next to every print, or bending a viewer's ear about my technical process, but some dialogue tool has to be in place for the person who is honestly interested. I just hope it doesn't come down to a 'requirement' that you have a book for sale or a Youtube link to go to, or some new elaborate set of rules we haven't even thought of yet. Right now, nothing would surprise me. There are a lot of us out on the ground competing for the same pairs of eyes and pocketbooks. Sometimes, that makes people nuts. Of course, a little crazy is often an excellent thing. It's going to be interesting.

    d
    www.thelightfarm.com
    Dedicated to Handmade Silver Gelatin Paper, Film, and Dry Plates.

  3. #23

    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    6
    As a professional printmaker of photogravures, etchings, etc., I don't think most serious collectors spend much time worrying about the "purity" of an image with regard to the intrusion of digitalia. Collectors are usually curious about process, but they don't usually allow digital/non-digital to dictate the worth of an art object to them. The borders between media are so porous these days, it seems fetishistic to me to fixate on whether any digitization is used on an image. I think situational ethics dictate that one be transparent about how an image was made if gallerists, curators, or collectors inquire. But, as has been stated earlier, nobody thinks about this as hard as you will. I use everything from 30"x40" copy cameras and view cameras to scanners and digital cameras to make images and can't imagine limiting myself to one way of working anymore. IMO, thinking digital "intrusion" into image making cheapens photography or is "easier" than the old school wet processes is reactionary oversimplification. In some respects, digital is easier in the ways it allows an image of some competence to be created. But if anything, that "ease" makes it even harder to make great art. How so? The greater plethora of choices digital imaging introduces requires ever greater restraint, insight, and developed aesthetic sensibilities to harness productively. Case in point - we've all seen WAY too many beautiful but vapid digital images of hyped up HDR landscapes too good to be true. All this reminds me of Fred Picker's funny anecdote about an attendee to one of his large format workshops. He said "You've spent days teaching me how to expose and develop film, days on printing, and how to set up and use the camera. But, you've still not told me where to point the camera!"

  4. #24

    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Perthshire, Scotland
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    7
    When I started this thread I didn't expect to get so many responses. There are clearly differing ideas about how important disclosing a digital step in the process is and I respect and appreciate all of the opinions expressed.

    For me, if I ever become a competent enough platinum printer to be able to sell my prints I will feel the need to find a simple way of labeling them so as to differentiate between analog and partially digitally processed prints. After 40 years as a self employed provider of services the habit of ensuring that clients know exactly what they are buying from me is too deeply ingrained. That doesn't mean I think for one moment that I am right and others are wrong regarding the subject of this thread.

    Many thanks everyone for your input.

    Mike

  5. #25

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Istanbul, Turkey
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    652
    Quote Originally Posted by BellM View Post
    ...ensuring ... clients know exactly what they are buying from me...
    * "Palladium Print", or,
    * "Platinum/Palladium Print", or,
    * "Platinum Print"
    + (maybe)
    * "on <...> paper?"

    ???

    Hoping you'll find a labeling / disclosure method that works both for you and your clientele.

    Regards,
    Loris.
    Last edited by Loris Medici; 06-11-2012 at 06:51 AM. Click to view previous post history. Reason: Clarification in the quotation

  6. #26

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Los Alamos, NM
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,063
    Most people who make Pt/Pd prints use digital negatives these days. It allows them to make big prints and to control many factors which result in better prints. The practice has definitely resulted in better quality from the best printers. There are undoubtedly some people who would prefer, and possibly pay more for, contact prints from a camera negative. As long as you can make quality prints, there will be a market either way. The best marketing approach may be to be honest and to give full details: e.g. "Platinum print from an 8X10 camera negative printed on sized Arches BFK paper."

  7. #27

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Istanbul, Turkey
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    652
    Not trying to be argumentative here, but I must admit I really don't understand / like this (kinda scorning) undertone I feel from many messages; "printing pt/pd with any digital step in between is: impure / dishonest / ..." This can be the element in the agenda of "some" (not all!!!) APUG members, but it really isn't for the rest believe me. Let the art outshine your technique. (Unless it's something extraordinarily exceptional - maybe...)

    Regards,
    Loris.

  8. #28

    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Perthshire, Scotland
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    7
    Loris, I appreciate your comments and respect your opinion. But the answer to your comment below is, in my mind, simple.

    Hoping you'll find a labeling / disclosure method that works both for you and your clientele.
    100% analogue from camera to print. For full details see here (and a link)

    or

    Printed from a digital negative. For full details see here (and a link)

    Regards and thanks to all who posted.

    Mike

  9. #29

    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Perthshire, Scotland
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    7
    By the way my point is not that one is better than the other but simply that it's different and in my opinion is worthy of a simple explanation.

    Mike

  10. #30
    Bill Burk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    3,515
    Images
    46
    It would be funny to include a QR code on the print with all the details.

    Not to be scolding, but to appreciate. The analog process depends on a lot of factors coming together in an amazing coincidence that it works at all, that the artist had a hand in it all, and the result (constrained by self-imposed restrictions) is beautiful.

    It is noteworthy that what used to be inconceivable (large PT/PD from miniature formats) (PT/PD from negatives that were not developed to long scale) is now possible. True it was possible to produce suitable internegatives - but the masters used original camera negatives and processed them (pretty much by feel) to fit the print.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin