|
|
|
-
Who is the fool here? Peter Lik seems to be doing ok, and likely laughing off these arguments all the way to the bank  I think it's overpriced, mass produced, over-doctored crap, but hey, he made it work for himself so good for him I guess. Also brings to mind a certain Thomas Kinkade.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Peter-Lik-Gh...item3ccb144c78
-
Possibly an artist can keep ink jet prints high by agreeing to limit supply. After printing an agreed editions of prints, the image is erased. But how can buyers know for sure? I remember before Brett Weston died, he burned his negs. But digital image files can be flawlessly duplicated. During the 80s, photography wasn't considered art. Now it is. Are those against ink jet prints the same as those that rejected photography as art? Maybe people like me need to keep an open mind. History will tell if giclee prints will hold its value or not.
"Photography, like surfing, is an infinite process, a constantly evolving exploration of life."
Aaron Chang
-
 Originally Posted by blansky
How are the inkjet black and white doing? Is it just over saturated color that is becoming boring, which I think can easily happen?
I don't know, but what I have heard is that a handful of the more popular photo galleries here have been ditching up and coming digital printers in favor of silver or alt processes. Now is this the collector's that are driving this or the average consumer...I don't know. But without naming names, two prominent galleries here have indicated that the inkjets are not commanding the same price to justify hanging them on the wall for commission. What I was told by a sales person is that when a print reaches the $800-1,000 range, the buyer becomes more concerned with the methods involved in the production. Everything under that seems to not matter, but around that price and above, the person purchasing wants to know they are getting something original or handmade.
I read your larger post Blanksy and I agree with you %100. But here, this is what the market is indicating.
-
Originally Posted by Klainmeister
I don't know, but what I have heard is that a handful of the more popular photo galleries here have been ditching up and coming digital printers in favor of silver or alt processes. Now is this the collector's that are driving this or the average consumer...I don't know. But without naming names, two prominent galleries here have indicated that the inkjets are not commanding the same price to justify hanging them on the wall for commission. What I was told by a sales person is that when a print reaches the $800-1,000 range, the buyer becomes more concerned with the methods involved in the production. Everything under that seems to not matter, but around that price and above, the person purchasing wants to know they are getting something original or handmade.
I read your larger post Blanksy and I agree with you %100. But here, this is what the market is indicating.
Exactly!
-
Originally Posted by Maris
With the proviso that "digital photography" isn't photography at all, it's "digital picture-making"
That is truly one of the most bizarre and self-evidently false statements I've ever heard someone make about photography. Photography is about capturing light via a light sensitive surface -- film, digital, platinum, whatever -- with or without a lens.
-
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
-
I thought if the image wasn't captured with a Hasselblad with Zeiss made lens onto a Kodak film, it wasn't a photograph....
Develop, stop, fix.... wait.... where's my film?
-
Originally Posted by Maris
... 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...
This must be what intrigues me about the photograph of the death mask of Abraham Lincoln by Steichen. What could you call that? Self-indexing-cross-reference?
Reading Adam's autobiography. I'm still getting my head around the idea that Steichen wouldn't give Ansel Adams the time of day. So now I feel like I have to take sides (I'd side with Adams).
You know I appreciate Silver Gelatin prints and other analog prints. But lately, as I consider art that I might appreciate in the future... I think it may be more important to appreciate the artist first, then ask what process they followed to get those results.
-
Originally Posted by MaximusM3
Who is the fool here? Peter Lik seems to be doing ok, and likely laughing off these arguments all the way to the bank I think it's overpriced, mass produced, over-doctored crap, but hey, he made it work for himself so good for him I guess. Also brings to mind a certain Thomas Kinkade.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Peter-Lik-Gh...item3ccb144c78
Lik's Ghost is not doctored. It is the real thing.
The listing is a private buyer selling off at a profit in the UK. Peter Like is Australia-based though travels the world.
Lik's works do not command such astronomical prices. Here in Australia the highest paid for his work has been AUD$18,640 for a panorama of a settler's ruin in outback South Australia, printed to Ilfochrome Classic by ChromaColour (out of business).
.::Garyh
♦
Canon EOS1N ('Brutus', 1993—), TS-E 24mm f3.5L, 20mm f2.8, 17-40 f4L, 70-200 f2.8L
Pentax 67 ('Pentaximus', 2010—) + SMCP 45mm f4, 55mm f4 & 165mm f4LS;
Zero Image 6x9 multi-format pinhole (2008—); Sekonic L758D;
Olympus XA, Nikon Coolpix P7700
"If you're not having fun, then you're not doing it right!"
♦
-
Originally Posted by Mainecoonmaniac
Possibly an artist can keep ink jet prints high by agreeing to limit supply. After printing an agreed editions of prints, the image is erased. But how can buyers know for sure? I remember before Brett Weston died, he burned his negs. But digital image files can be flawlessly duplicated. During the 80s, photography wasn't considered art. Now it is. Are those against ink jet prints the same as those that rejected photography as art? Maybe people like me need to keep an open mind. History will tell if giclee prints will hold its value or not.
When buying photography of any kind you have to trust that the limited editions are truly limited. It's no harder to print hundreds of analog prints than it is to print digital prints. Obviously time consuming but you could easily print a hundred analog prints in a day.
As for when photography was considered art, I could have bought a portfolio of George Hurrell's work back in the 80s for $3000.
I couldn't think of anything witty to say so I left this blank.
-
Originally Posted by blansky
It's no harder to print hundreds of analog prints than it is to print digital prints. Obviously time consuming but you could easily print a hundred analog prints in a day.
Really? how does that work?? Once you have an image done, finished, on your screen, an Epson 7890 can crank out 100 IDENTICAL 11x14 prints in about 8 hours. Do you really think you could get 100 complex prints, that require dodging, burning, maybe masking, bleaching, toning, washing, drying in 8 hours?? AND do you truly believe that it is not harder to produce 100 beautiful silver gelatin prints than it is spitting out inkjets, even after counting maybe one hour of post processing work in front of a screen? Please, let's get real.
When I do gravure, even after I get a plate finished, it probably takes me 4-5 hours to get five prints that I consider worthy of being framed, sold, or for a gallery show. It is NOT the same, for as much as you want to believe otherwise.
|
|
Adv Reply
