Bill, poor reproduction is one of the risks you take when you have any work reproduced by someone else. I've seen my work reproduced in magazines, newspapers, billboards, etc for nearly 30 years. I understand though that what I consider a poorly executed reproduction of my work may be viewed by the general public as still being a nice print. I have approval of the art but you know how it is, they show you a printers proof and then 2 weeks later go back on press and print 10,000. The printer's proofs are a joke, you need to be on press during the actual print run.
Originally Posted by billschwab
I continue to license my work because I am not in the position where I can afford to travel 5-6 months a year shooting as I do, spend a ton on equipment and supplies and not have some return on investment. I don't need to tell you how expensive this profession can be. I need to support myself and my work through the sale of prints and the licensing of my work. However that said I still cringe at poor reproduction.
A few years back the NY Times put my then NYC show on the recommended list ("the short list" as it's known) and was kind enough to reproduce "Breakwater" on the art listings page. However a panoramic format did not fit so they chose to crop the image to a square. They also reproduced it very badly, total mud. Part of me was really happy to have gotten the attention, part of me was concerned that my work, with my name attached to it, looked really bad and was now very public. This was not the first time this sort of thing has happened.
I know I can't have my cake and eat it too, but I think that I do have a right to feel dissappointed and that poor reproduction of my work doesn't reflect my efforts and ability. These situations can be both embarassing and possibly promotional at the same time. You don't feel the same way when it happens to you?