Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 68,696   Posts: 1,482,502   Online: 955
      
Page 5 of 15 FirstFirst 1234567891011 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 143

Thread: Fine Art Status

  1. #41
    MaximusM3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    NY
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    755
    Images
    6
    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

  2. #42
    Mainecoonmaniac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,723
    Images
    6
    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

  3. #43
    Klainmeister's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Santa Fe, NM
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,493
    Images
    30
    Quote Originally Posted by blansky View Post
    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.
    K.S. Klain

  4. #44
    MaximusM3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    NY
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    755
    Images
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by Klainmeister View Post
    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!

  5. #45
    ParkerSmithPhoto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    744
    Images
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by Maris View Post
    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.
    Parker Smith Photography, Inc.
    Atlanta, GA

    Commercial & Fine Art Photography
    Portrait Photography

  6. #46

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Central Florida, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,810
    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?

  7. #47
    Bill Burk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    2,910
    Images
    46
    Quote Originally Posted by Maris View Post
    ... 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.

  8. #48
    Poisson Du Jour's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Victoria, Australia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,377
    Images
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by MaximusM3 View Post
    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).
    .::Gary Rowan Higgins

    One beautiful image is worth
    a thousand hours of therapy.


    "It is horrifying that we have to fight our own government
    to save the environment."
    .::Ansel Adams






  9. #49
    blansky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Wine country in Northern California
    Posts
    5,029
    Quote Originally Posted by Mainecoonmaniac View Post
    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.

  10. #50
    MaximusM3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    NY
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    755
    Images
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by blansky View Post
    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.

Page 5 of 15 FirstFirst 1234567891011 ... LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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