$1m for a backlit photograph!

From a business point of view, there are serious financial inputs for the construction of the site, test shots, not to mention what Bob Carnie has said about his lab equipment for processing.

If you work on a costing basis of one month of work, in the form of all the background footslogging required to put this together. Then there is the time for test shooting, developing and printing out colour corrected test prints. Add to that, the actors fees and various other people associated with the construction and deconstruction of everything, you could be looking at a realistic total valuation of $20,000 to $30,000.

From a business point of view there should be a profit margin to allow one to re-invest in the business. This is where margins come into play, are they fair margins, or over the top margins.

Something like a 100% margin, is pretty much at the top end of the scale in business, anything above that is cream. Taking this to a logical business perspective working on the top end of my valuation of $30,000 + 100% margin, you would be looking at $60,000. $100,000 would be well into the cream end of a business transaction.

$1,000,000 is looking a bit like a dream come true for the artist photographer. It will certainly give him some street credibility, and, probably push other pieces of his higher up the scale.

I will be looking forward to seeing this in the flesh.

Mick.

Mick Fagan said:

...Does anyone know of this photographer?

I did google, but the information was only what I saw in our local newspaper...

Click to expand...

These may be of interest:

http://www.bridgemagazine.org/online/features/archive/000027.php
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/museo/3/jeffwall.htm
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0268/is_n6_v31/ai_14376665/

kb244 said:

IT makes them sound more importatant to those who just see a guy untagleing ropes. And it helps to justify the purchase in their mind.

If I remeber correctly the highest price ever paid for a 'photograph' was about 2.4 million at a Southerby's auction. Was some picture from the turn of the century on long island, NY, showing a hazy shape of the moon shining thru some trees. Course if you put that in perspective with the highest 'paintings' have gone for, 1 mil and above is not that common to see for just a photograph.

Click to expand...

Actually it's an original print by Weston that was auctioned and it was taken in Westchester, NY not Long Island. Best guess in Mamaroneck - I think the print dates from around 1909?.

As to paintings, Pollacks and other post-WWII US moderns etc. now regularly go well into the tens of millions (USD) nowadays.

I'm not sure what this whole thread is driving at except that fine arts at the highest levels command extremely high prices.

As to back-lit chromes - I wonder whatever happened to the Kodak collection that used to be displayed on the giant backlit screen in NYC's Grand Central Station before we tossed all that visual "pollution" out of the grand old gal when we restored her to original glory?

Large, expensive, and a limited number of copies is no question. But for a living photographer to sell such an image for $1,000,000 does seem quite high. What should be a value of such an image, I can not really say.

Rich

That is quite the knot. I like the image. Better than an a blurry image of an image.

Then again we could look at this this way:

A film photographer of some reknown successfully sells a large Cibachrome to a major museum and announces this sale on APUG.

Fellow APUG'ers congratulate him and revel in how the fine arts world has recognized the inherent value of film-based work.

Nah. That would never happen here. We wouldn't want to see a film photographer get a big sale and obtain major recognition - would we?

:confused:

copake_ham said:

Actually it's an original print by Weston that was auctioned and it was taken in Westchester, NY not Long Island.

Click to expand...

No... It was Stiechen....

Bill

billschwab said:

No... It was Stiechen....

Bill

Click to expand...

You're correct - and it's even rarer.

But it's just a "photo" according to one poster. So, obviously not worth much - who would buy such a thing?

I find the 1mil sale , hard to believe as well as mind blowing, I have always thought that the high prices paid for Colour Images on RA4 and even backlight Ciba quite suprising. What is perplexing to me is that it is widley know that the viewing shelf life of a colour print made from negative is somewhere between 15years and 40years give or take on either side due to viewing conditions. The fact that colour negatives have the same shelf life as the print is not widley known.
this is where I find a huge problem with the sale of this media, not only will the print fade within an artists productive lifetime but as well so does the negative.
I got out of a successful family run wedding portrait opportunity in 1978 for this exact reason , and some of the people who continued with colour and huge expensive wedding package sales are now in deep shit, because all their lifes work and the clients images are fading off the wall.
Prime example , go into any High School in North America and look at the Principle walls of portraits. You will see the Black and White Images still in good shape that were taken before the switch to colour. All the images up until lets say 8 years ago are in serious fade condition and the last two principles prints look good. *how long *
This fading, is the only factor I find hard to comprehend in purchases of this magnitude. Both Burtinsky and Wall are very, very talented artists and I am happy for their success.
I think this is why I am drivin to print fibre black and white prints and try to learn the colour gum over platinum.
I think that a permanent colour process would be a great gift to preserve the images of these talented working photographers.

Hi Bob,

Unfortunately beyond the exteme cost, the proprietary processes that were used by EverColor (now out of business) and the equivalent to make pigment type color prints were at best very difficult to prepare consistanly. I only had 8 ever made of an image in my APUG Gallery (and my avatar) based on a 16" X 20". The images and image quality were beautiful and outstanding; they have yet to be matched by prints coming off of LightJet or Chromira. I have 5 of the 8 left. I have no idea what the selling price should be. When Henry Wilhelm had tested the process, he suggested as I recall a life expectancy of 250??, 500?? years. He suggested that the epoxys holding the pigments together would fall apart before the pigments would fade.

Rich

Hi Rich

I made some ultrastables years ago at Maine Workshops, at that time I was overly enthused about the process. Unfortunately the tissues became extinct and extremely complicated to make oneself.
I have been talking with Kevin at Bostick and Sullivan and they are introducing Y, M , Cy and K tissues next year and I am going to make a go of trying this process with a lot of help from Sandy King as a mentor.
I am not sure if I will be able to separate the film properly on my lambda and as well get all the complicated steps to make a good print.
But this is one of my career goals to be able to make permanent colour prints in a controlled environment with repeatable results.
I don't think I will approach this project from a commercial interest but realistically only from a personal fufillment point of view.
All colour workers should consider the life expectancey of their work , and do not believe the marketing hype associated with all the new colour processes promising longevity but delivering much less.
I do offer all the colour end processes at my lab which kind of contradicts my personal beliefs but in the end , it helps pay the bills so that I can continue in niche projects.

I know this photographer and he has worked very hard at his art his whole life. He's quite modest and in the last dozen or so years he has started to win some major art awards.

I know it's hard to justify and quantify vast amounts of money for one piece of work. As far as I'm concerned he deserves his success and I'm happy for him.

I thought dye destruction prints (cibachromes) were supposed to last much more than 30 years... (100 years was the life expectancy I once heard they have)...

Dye transfer was supposed to be really long lasting, but now it's gone (thanks to Kodak, I think). There might be some people who still have a small stock of the film that is necessary to make colour separation matrices for the Dye Transfer technique (Ctein, for example).

As for the price payed, I saw a few Jeff Wall prints in Paris (in the late '80's) and was impressed indeed. I think that it's good for the art market to move in that direction (for photographs to be sold at those prices) because it makes people undestand the value of art in general. I think that since some photographs (by Weston, Stieglitz, Le Gray etc) have reached huge selling prices at auctions (up to a million US$, maybe more) people have been more respectful to photograply in general and more people have understood that photography is a form of art that could be compared to the "noble" ones, like painting or sculpture.

Hi George,

Unless things have changed, the last estimates that Henry Wilhelm had for Ilfochromes was 29 years and Fuji Crystal Archive Photo paper was 60 years. But all of Wilhelm's tests have been done done as accelerated testing, under his set of guide lines for the number of lumens of light at a specific temperature, relative humidity, for a certain number of hours per day. This is not necessarily accurate for the results, but it is useful for the relative comparison of the life expectancy of the images. Also, as I recall, Wilhelm had an estimate of 1000 years dark storage of Ilfochrome, but people normally do not keep their images in the dark.

Rich

Hi Rich... this is impressive... if Ilfochrome only lasts 29 years, how long will "normal" (not Fuji's crystal archive) C-prints last then ? I mean, if they were so fragile, how come some pictures my mom has on her kitchen shelves are still there (not faded) since 1980 ? I know, some have faded and some not. And UV plays a major role (more than visible light), so if the spot where they're hanged or placed is out of the reach of dangerous E-M radiation, then they'll last longer. But I am sure the UV emitted by the FL tubes Jeff Wall places in his backlights must be absorbed by some filter he uses in the acetate that diffuses the light (and is placed behind the print). So, his prints will probably last more than 29 years on display at the museum (unless they place them in front of a window !!).

Bob Carnie said:

This fading, is the only factor I find hard to comprehend in purchases of this magnitude.

Click to expand...

Wasn't there a time when museums were actually purchasing multiple copies of color images, showing one and freezing the others for the future? It seems I remember this connected to the Chicago museum.

As for the Wall print, more power to him and all who make their living off their art. This thread reminds me of a funny letter to the editor in the Detroit News in the early 1980's. My friend Tom Halsted purchased on behalf of The Detroit Institute of Arts one of the few prints of Charles Sheeler's "Wheels". At the time it was a record price paid for a photograph... $69,000. People in Detroit were quite divided, many thinking he had wasted good money. One person wrote something to the effect of, "Why not just have the Detroit News photographer take a picture of it? It would be a lot cheaper!" Now it is thought of as one of the most prized works the museum owns and is undoubtedly worth millions. - Really stunning too!

B.

Hi George,

Yes, I appreciate what you are saying. But, Wilhelm has made these estimates based upon his guidelines, and I am not sure how much color fade that he is using as a reference. I have also heard that some groups (Kokak?????) had suggested their papers would last 100??? or more years. Obviously the testing is all done differently under a different set of guidelines- there is no standard as far as I know. Yes as I understand it, light, and in particular UV light is most destructive. But the questions of temperture and relative humidity will also contribute.

Obviously keeping photos out of UV and particularly long periods of sunlight (particularly direct and to a lesser extent indirect/reflected) will lessen the shortening of the lifespan. Also, flourescent light as I understand it also has a fair amount of UV and contribute to shortening the life of the image. Using a UV protective glass (usually absorbing or filtering 97% UV) or acrylic (usually absorbing up to 98% UV) will lessen the color fade and contribute to lengthening the life of the image. TruVue recommends (for their UV or Museum Glass [which is UV protective]), to minimize damage of artwork (including photos) to avoid exposure to direct sunlight, fluorescent light, high heat, or high humidity.

Rich

Good Point Bill

I am now in the middle of creating some backlight cibachromes for the ROM in Toronto. If all goes well the images are being floated into real glass , a process I am not familiar with. The images I produce will be sent to Europe to do this glass technique.
The back lights will be illuminated with a complicated series of LED's which as suggested is not as aggressive as front light would be..
As well extra images will be produced to go into dark storage as you suggest.
Regarding Wilhelms reporting of the life span of cibachromes of 29 years, I believe you can go to Ilfords headquarters in Europe and see framed cibachromes dating back to the Late 50's or Early 60's. One of my technicians was sent to the factory for training and told me of them. I have never been to Europe to see for myself.
I would not be suprised that Jeff Wall has put a few images away for dark storage. I was not kidding in my initial post about his purchases of material that is way beyond what our lab would even consider or hope to produce in one year.
Good for Jeff , I hope he keeps on selling more images at this rate.

billschwab said:

Wasn't there a time when museums were actually purchasing multiple copies of color images, showing one and freezing the others for the future? It seems I remember this connected to the Chicago museum.

As for the Wall print, more power to him and all who make their living off their art. This thread reminds me of a funny letter to the editor in the Detroit News in the early 1980's. My friend Tom Halsted purchased on behalf of The Detroit Institute of Arts one of the few prints of Charles Sheeler's "Wheels". At the time it was a record price paid for a photograph... $69,000. People in Detroit were quite divided, many thinking he had wasted good money. One person wrote something to the effect of, "Why not just have the Detroit News photographer take a picture of it? It would be a lot cheaper!" Now it is thought of as one of the most prized works the museum owns and is undoubtedly worth millions. - Really stunning too!

B.

Click to expand...

Web Page Deal

Sean said:

I am currently working on a piece myself. It is 1 web page, it's basically all white with a single question mark dead center. This page will be available for $5,000,000 US. The museum that purchases the page will setup a computer terminal and provide the ip address of this terminal to me. It will be the only terminal in the world able to view the page. It is a one of a kind work of unprecedented rarity. Museums can conatct me via the contact link. Serious inquiries only.

Sean

Click to expand...

Will you accept a Wells Fargo Money Order?

Bob

Well, I finally saw the $1,000,000 photograph.

I wouldn't say it's bad, but I wouldn't say it's terrific either.

Having never seen backlit Cibachromes before, I can only go on Duratrans which I have processed quite extensively, albeit many years ago. I did pull out a couple of Duratrans when I got home to compare, quite interesting.

Firstly from a technical point, it is very well done, with one major exception (later).

The colour balance, is absolutely spot on. Density, is also spot on. Centre to edge fall-off, I couldn't detect any.

Basically, pretty much perfect, except for one thing.

There is a vertical black line, which is a join mark, running right through the centre. This line is approximately 2.5mm thick, would you believe.

Nothing I saw in the original newspaper article and picture, or on the web, seems to show this glaring black line.

Apart from the black line it's pretty well executed. As for a piece of art, well I'm not so sure, perhaps I will need some time to have more reflection.

It's displayed really well and you can view it from 20 metres away. The thoughtfully placed viewing seat is positioned about 6 metres in front, which is perfect for viewing.

What is quite interesting, is that it has been placed alongside one of Andy Warhols self portraits, done a year before his death. Portrait number 8 of 9, I think. Warhols portrait is a fair bit larger than this piece, it doesn't dominate it, but if his self portrait was backlit, it would leave it for dead, I think.

That's my 2 bob's worth, anyone living in Melbourne should have a look, it's free and it's the most expensive photograph in the world!

Mick.

the beauty is where the imperfection lies

"Basically, pretty much perfect, except for one thing.

There is a vertical black line, which is a join mark, running right through the centre. This line is approximately 2.5mm thick, would you believe."

---------
i should preface this by saying i have had the pleasure of meeting jeff and talking to him extensively about his work. he is truly one of the most intelligent artists i have met and equally friendly.

without going into TOO much about the theory behind his work...

for Jeff, this line represents the material limits of representation and mimicry. the line obviously comes from when he began making these large prints and being limited by the size of the rolls of material he could acquire. instead of attempting to hide the seam he chose to slightly exaggerate it understanding the subtle materiality of the medium he chooses to work with - something which interestingly enough not many people (photographers included) consider; the materiality of photography. by now, he could certainly have film manufactured in a wide enough format to accomodate his needs, but he chooses to continue to work with it. he sees this seam as a crucial formal element that retains the idea that representation in general is very much in fact "material" and any attempt at representation is inherently limited by its medium. it is this mimicry which makes his work more akin to a painting than anything else. in fact, and this may be hard for some here to grasp, he is more interested and owes more to a specific history of painting much much more so than any history of photography. in fact, any attempt to discuss the history of photography with him turns right back into a discussion of the history of painting (both for him are one and the same -- a history of representation) and the limits of the respective mediums. for Wall, in viewing his "photographs," one must be open to the idea that viewing his work is like viewing a painting - and any critique of the work MUST take this (and its histories) into account.

perhaps Wall is not that well known of a figure in the photographic community and perhaps what i have mentioned above has a lot to do with it. but rest assured, he has been somewhat of an "art superstar" for some time now hiring the best set production crews from hollywood, amassing an impressive studio of assistants and technicians, and having one hell of a facility with one multi-level brownstone gutted and dedicated entirely to sets and another building with a production lab one could only dream of having access to. his work has been receiving quite healthy sums for some time now so this new acquisition is nothing really out of the ordinary. he is one of the most respected contemporary artists in the pedagogical community and is certainly one of the most important artists of the late twentieth century.
... phew!

in the end, what i find interesting about this whole discussion is the massive divide between the "photography" community and the photograph-as-medium art world -- and the intolerance therein.

no, no... it's not ansel adams, is it? not a robert doisneau poster. no - so it must be garbage...! This sort of reminds me of Hitler's arguments against what, at that time, was called 'modern art'. This is one of those times I find it embarrassing to even be on here. Sorry. I like you guys generally... but, sorry.

Addendum: also - if you understood how much planning, effort, thinking and WORK goes into a SINGLE image, it'd make your head spin... and, just maybe, you might look at it differently. It's like looking at a Malevich painting and saying "my four year old could do that"... well, actually - no he couldn't. Understanding roughly how a picture is made is not the same as understanding.

Johnathan, I am with you a little bit, but in the end a photograph like this selling to a museum for this price is really mostly about the ego. The ego of the museum and the ego of the photographer and/or his reps. I understand your perspective as a commercial photographer on the amount of work that goes into a single image, but in the end you have to ask yourself what is it really. Is it really something new, interesting, worthwhile? I don't balk at the price paid, I just think that it glorifies an artificial work that doesn't provide much in the way of expression except to say "look at me and how big and impressive I am!" In the end I think it is a manipulation of the system. Imagine yourself looking at this image in 100 years, Are you going to give a sh*t? I would hasard a guess and say no.

Patrick

Patrick. I don't think it's ANYTHING like that. At all. That's like saying - Britney Spears created an artificial niche for herself to manipulate the pop music market just to feed her ego. What a piece sells for is generally a reflection of it's 'status' within the dialectic (excuse the five dollar word please!) of the art world. It's part of a very important narrative of what's going on right now, part of the zeitgeist, if you will. The art 'market' is normally a reflection of the importance of a piece of work WITHIN the dialectic or narrative... just as, let's say, Andy Warhol was a very important fixture within that narrative in the 60s (and you can just hear the throngs of people screaming out "a lithograph of a bunch of SOUP CANS, for chrissakes!!!! worthless CRAP!!!"). Jeff didn't make the rules here. Nor did I. It's just the way things work.

I'm only a commercial photographer on the side. What goes into my work is NOTHING. It's got nothing to do what Jeff does. That's not commercial work. I just take snapshots compared to that work. The guy spends probably MORE than $50K making each photo (studio rental, full time staff, rentals, make up artists, models, etc etc etc...) and in some cases, close to a year (and sometimes more) - on a SINGLE image. That's what I was talking about. But it's effort well spent for him, isn't it. If he's going to make good money. I doubt that he saw ANY of that $1M though. Wasn't it sold at auction?? That means it was someone else's property. Not his. Works that sell at auction or for private sale RARELY go through the artist.

Johnathan I agree largely with what you are saying and will leave it at that. The tragedy that you touch upon is that artists benefit very little from their work as you mentioned. I really find this abhorrent in general. How much did he make from his original work? Maybe a few thousand. He does benefit in the end though because of the prestige. What will his next work sell for? A lot more than this one. I think we can both agree that the whole scene is pretty twisted in the end.

Best regards

Patrick