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.