fine art prints
Posted: Fri Nov 25, 2011 4:18 pm
Was just wondering how digital generated images are selling in the galleries versus traditional film and wet darkroom images. Anyone got a feel for this?
Jim
Jim
Film Photography & Darkroom Forum
https://www.digitaltruth.com/forum/
I'm not certain about this, but I suspect that digital prints probably outsell silver gelatin prints.pirateoversixty wrote:Was just wondering how digital generated images are selling in the galleries versus traditional film and wet darkroom images. Anyone got a feel for this?
Jim
Yes, promotion is important. I saw yesterday, at a small used camera shop, a large print for sale in the area reserved for prints for sale. The composition was abysmal, a small group of people very far in the distance walking under some trees. They were so small you could hardly see them, and they were facing away (taken with a short lens, probably a wide-angle or normal-length lens). They were placed dead center in the frame. In other words, it was rank beginner's work. I can only surmise that the print was there because the author was aggressive.foolscape wrote:Really, if there is one thing I leaned by reading the writings of Ansel Adams (and about him written by others), as well as about any artist or photographer, it's that those who are tireless self-promoters sell the most prints. That's how Weston, Adams, and Steiglitz got to be who they were. They got into galleries and museums by force of will as much as skill. The same goes for today's photographers. If more digital printing photographers are pushing themselves into galleries, then more digital prints will be sold. I don't know if the buying market (as small as it is) cares much anymore. About Weston, Adams, et al's prints, most by them on sale these days have been printed by people hired to emulate the original artist's prints. They don't command the price, nor the long-term value of the originals. This probably doesn't actually answer the question, since I really don't know much about the art market. I just thought I'd add a practical point about self-promotion.
--Gary
Some collectors might not care about how a print was produced, but I do and I would insist that a B&W photo that I liked (whoever the photographer may be) was produced by traditional methods, but I am only speaking for myself on that point.foolscape wrote: If more digital printing photographers are pushing themselves into galleries, then more digital prints will be sold. I don't know if the buying market (as small as it is) cares much anymore.
About Weston, Adams, et al's prints, most by them on sale these days have been printed by people hired to emulate the original artist's prints. They don't command the price, nor the long-term value of the originals.
This probably doesn't actually answer the question, since I really don't know much about the art market. I just thought I'd add a practical point about self-promotion.
--Gary
Yeah, I have looked at it (the UK mag) a few times, but I don't see the point, really.Keith Tapscott. wrote:Some collectors might not care about how a print was produced, but I do and I would insist that a B&W photo that I liked (whoever the photographer may be) was produced by traditional methods, but I am only speaking for myself on that point.foolscape wrote: If more digital printing photographers are pushing themselves into galleries, then more digital prints will be sold. I don't know if the buying market (as small as it is) cares much anymore.
About Weston, Adams, et al's prints, most by them on sale these days have been printed by people hired to emulate the original artist's prints. They don't command the price, nor the long-term value of the originals.
This probably doesn't actually answer the question, since I really don't know much about the art market. I just thought I'd add a practical point about self-promotion.
--Gary
I have no interest in buying digital monochrome images and that's why I didn't renew my subscription with Black & White Photography (UK magazine) when it expired. The magazine is almost about 100% digital-imaging now.
Ornello wrote: Yeah, I have looked at it (the UK mag) a few times, but I don't see the point, really.
foolscape wrote:While we're on the subject of personal preferences, I'd like to add a few "dittos" to the previous few posts. Most of what passes for photography that I've seen recently in galleries, both physical and virtual, is pointless. Notice that I said "most," because there's some good stuff out there as well. But, there's a lot of blurry, badly composed, boring, amaturish work out there masquerading as pro photography. What ever happened to beauty as an ideal? What ever happened to compositional techniques and dynamics. I understand the urge to "paint outside the frame" as it were, because an art form can get shackled by its own dogma, but there is a point at which it becomes like navel gazing. Also, being a whiz at Photoshop does not mean that one is a good photographer.
--Gary
Ornello wrote: Yeah, I have looked at it (the UK mag) a few times, but I don't see the point, really.
I couldn't get these links to work for me.Ornello wrote:
http://www.originalwoodsculptures.com/w ... um.////jpg////
After it becomes somewhat easier, the dilettantes start getting involved.
http://static.photo.net/attachments/bbo ... 84.////jpg////
In the final stages, when it becomes very easy, come the women.
http://image.shutterstock.com/display_p ... 27.////jpg////
That's weird.Keith Tapscott. wrote:I couldn't get these links to work for me.Ornello wrote:
http://www.originalwoodsculptures.com/w ... /////jpg//////
After it becomes somewhat easier, the dilettantes start getting involved.
http://static.photo.net/attachments/bbo ... /////jpg//////
In the final stages, when it becomes very easy, come the women.
http://image.shutterstock.com/display_p ... /////jpg//////