If like Eggleston you can sell a digital pigment print for $578,500. What is to stop the artist printing off another 500,000 copies or whatever, which would surely devalue the first one sold?
“The contemplation of things as they are, without error or confusion, without substitution or imposture, is in itself a nobler thing than a whole harvest of invention”
That would devalue them all. The first buyer, though, would be getting screwed.
Does anyone believe Marshall McLuhan's saying "The medium is the message." ?
"Photography, like surfing, is an infinite process, a constantly evolving exploration of life."
The law of supply and demand always applies. One could sell one for $578,500, or sell 57,850 prints at Ikea, or various interior decorators for $10. To each his/her own. One could also do both. Whatever it takes to make a living.
Originally Posted by cliveh
I guess I live in and serve a different market then, a more inquisitive and cultured clientele, certainly with deeper pockets. Because in most cases, once the raw talent hooks the viewer with that "Curb Appeal", they are very interested in what they are looking at and what the life of the artist is like...how do they spend their time and what did they do to arrive at the final product. Every single magazine and newspaper who publishes an article about a featured artist goes into quite a bit of detail about the process.
Originally Posted by blansky
Even though digital output is starting to catch on in some of our local galleries, darkroom prints from super talented photographers who could sell an image printed on a McDonald's sack it is so good are doing better than their digital counterparts with a real print, not a computer made one.
And that is the rub really, these are buyers that often use computers, some are even photo enthusiasts who have dabbled in photoshop to create things...even they tend to have more regard, respect and a restless admiration for those who do none of it via what everyone else in the world uses for nearly everything, the great big democratizing funnel known as the computer.
I have been seriously selling fine art prints for about 7 months now and in that time, my prices have doubled, my sales have too and whenever a potential buyer is on the fence about an image that they otherwise love, once they find out it never came close to a damn computer, out comes the checkbook.....
So yes, if you are showing amazing work *and* it is 100% pure photography, no computer anything, depending on who your market is, it can and often will have more value and as film use becomes even more niche, this trend will only continue.
But it HAS to be great work, period.
"I'm the freak that shoots film. God bless the freaks!" ~ Mainecoonmaniac ~
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
With the proviso that "digital photography" isn't photography at all, it's "digital picture-making", both forms, digital and photography, have been fine arts for a very long time.
Originally Posted by cliveh
Digital pictures are produced by a work flow exactly analogous to paintings and drawings. And the relationship of digital pictures to things in the real world is the same as that enjoyed by painting and drawing. The triumph of realism in Western art has been a great success story for at least the last 800 years and notwithstanding some essays into abstraction realist work, painting, drawing, and digital, continues that success. The only block holding back the full appreciation of digital work is its misidentification with photography.
Photography, the making of pictures out of light sensitive materials, is not just slightly different to digital it falls into an entirely different CLASS of image making. It belongs to those process in which the image has an indexical (apologies to Charles Sanders Peirce) relationship to subject matter. This small group of processes includes death masks, life casts, wax impressions, brass rubbings, coal peels, silicon rubber moulds, papier mache replicas, and photography. Of these photography is by far the most appreciated; deservedly so.
Last edited by Maris; 10-15-2012 at 06:27 PM. Click to view previous post history.
Photography, the word itself, invented and defined by its author Sir John.F.W.Herschel, 14 March 1839 at the Royal Society, Somerset House, London. Quote "...Photography or the application of the Chemical rays of light to the purpose of pictorial representation,..". unquote.
I'll second this sentiment here in Santa Fe. The galleries that are selling inkjets are hurting and the silver printers and other methods seem to still have a better market appeal. There's a crap ton of galleries here and the sharpened, colorful inkjet prints, I think, are becoming so ubiquitous that I don't find it strange that someone pulling out a checkbook feels a bit hesitant in plopping down fat cash for something you can find practically anywhere. Granted, the images still need to be amazing to get the sale in the beginning. I saw this first hand when I heard a couple of tourist talking about some works in a gallery here in town. "Oh, these are wonderful images. I really like this one" followed by the next series, equally beautiful and done by the same photography except done in silver "Honey, these are darkroom prints. WOW, that's spectacular". They had noted "Darkroom Enlargments - Fiber - Gold Toned".
Originally Posted by PKM-25
Dick Sullivan shares some of this view in a recent post on his blog: http://thecarbonworks.com/blog/?p=1309
Isn't a sensor, light sensitive material? And analogue at that? Please, let's be fair at least.
Originally Posted by Maris
"A CCD image sensor is an analog device. When light strikes the chip it is held as a small electrical charge in each photo sensor. The charges are converted to voltage one pixel at a time as they are read from the chip. Additional circuitry in the camera converts the voltage into digital information."
Once again, when we are talking about film vs digital capture, within the "fine art" realm, we are really blurring the line and that is NOT the market/buyers main concern. How many of you who actually sell prints through galleries have had buyers ask if the image was captured on film or digital? I've sold a decent amount of prints, between $800 and $1,500 and that question never came up. What matters is 1) Content. 2) A handmade print via a 100% traditional (for silver) or hybrid approach as is the case for most pt/pd, carbon, gravure prints produced today. One more time, in reference to Clive's original post (easy to get sidetracked here), I don't believe that digital capture/photography will elevate film capture/photography to a higher level simply because of its potential status as fringe, niche, whatever.
Last edited by MaximusM3; 10-15-2012 at 08:42 PM. Click to view previous post history.
while i respect your opinion i think you are not exactly correct.
as i have posted before, in a similar posting you have made over the years ..
a sensor is light sensitive the only difference is that i can be used over and over again.
over the years, i have also read (that you believe) a photographic print isn't a photograph either,
it is just the negative that is the photograph ... anything that can capture an image with light
is a photograph, photograph means light drawing .... a sensor, a piece of emulsified film, or paper
even a sheet of cheap construction paper that fades in sunlight ... its all drawings with light ..
i don't know if the sensor revolution will increase the value of chemical based photography,
and i don't really care .. seeing most of the things i do will only increase in value
after i meet Professor Sandiford ( john malcovich ) and pull an art school confidential ...
How are the inkjet black and white doing? Is it just over saturated color that is becoming boring, which I think can easily happen?
Originally Posted by Klainmeister
I couldn't think of anything witty to say so I left this blank.