Approaching galleries in the new year with this series

I am approaching galleries in the new year with this series. Right now, I have 60% of the images I like.
Here is my problem.
The JPEG of the lambda ciba represents the tonality, color, and contrast of my vision
The JPEG of the toned solarization represents the archivability aspects of a traditional print, but does not have the color or contrast I want from this work.
The JPEG of the b&w neg is an unsolarized scan of the original neg, and I do not see this series this way.

I have considered a more dramatic toning with Iron Blue for shadows and a deeper color for the highlights. The reality is that I would only be able to produce three images a day of any one image, and matching in the Future would be impossible.
Do I keep the edition to three? and price the work high and keep the series in fiber.
Do I move to the CIBA version and raise the edition and price the work lower?
I believe the fiber will be more archival, but will never match the color gamut that could be achieved with Lambda cibas. So you can see I am in a bit of a confused state as to which method to pursue.
Any thoughts or comments would be appreciated.

Images? What do you like? That is what I would propose to show, forget about the rest.

Thanks for getting in touch. I like the JPEG of the lambda ciba represents the tonality, color, and contrast of my vision

I am in a confused state too after reading that...

As far as I am aware as a very long-term printer of both Ilfochrome Classic (defunct) and RA4, there are no "lambda cibas"; do you mean RA4 prints, where they can be produced, and on the media that unfortunately doesn't come anywhere near as close to the real llfochrome Classic prints?

RA4 machine prints are best produced from .tif files, not (lossy) JPEGs, with wide-gamut print profiling. The limited media available for these (lambda) RA4 prints means results may be sub-optimal compared to in the now distant past. When I was RA4 printing the choice of media was Kodak's Endura Metallic media — that was discontinued around 2 years ago.

rorydancarl002 said:

Thanks for getting in touch. I like the JPEG of the lambda ciba represents the tonality, color, and contrast of my vision

Click to expand...

Well and good, but the rest of us are no more enlightened as to what specifically you are referring to...

rorydancarl002 said:

Do I keep the edition to three? and price the work high and keep the series in fiber.
Do I move to the CIBA version and raise the edition and price the work lower?

Click to expand...

This sounds to me like a question you might also discuss with gallery owners to get a feeling for how they respond to this choice with regard to expected interest/sales and price points. Not that your decision should be based on just that, but given that the marketing aspect is part of the question, I'd be inclined to get some solid footing on that part as well. Artistically speaking - you're the boss. If you feel the digital print best expresses what you want to convey...well, that's a clear position, isn't it?

Taylor Nankervis said:

RA4 machine prints are best produced from .tif files, not (lossy) JPEGs, with wide-gamut print profiling.

Click to expand...

Depends a bit (lot) on the printer involved. Either way, it sounds like a moot point since he seems to be happy with the print as it is.

Taylor Nankervis said:

The limited media available for these (lambda) RA4 prints means results may be sub-optimal compared to in the now distant past.

Click to expand...

In what way?

koraks said:

In what way?

Click to expand...

RA4 prints, where they can be produced, and on their specific media, do not have any of the archival or visual/aesthetic qualities that were so strikingly evident (as their selling point) with the Ilfochrome Classic media (ultra high gloss CPSK/CPSK1). This is the major disappointment we have all bitterly lamented with the (not-unexpected given foretellings) demise of IC (back in 2010): there just is no equal, and despite occasional favourable commentary, certainly not Fuji Crystal Archive; shiny that may be, but it is still not the knock-'em-out-clean finish of IC. The media I can see available from the small number of remaining printers (which I do not use) is not even using Kodak's materials now, but Fuji, and even then only when the machines are able to be operated!

Okay, you're specifically comparing Ciba/Ilfochrome to RA4. There's a fundamental difference there. I had the impression you were pitting Fuji against Kodak paper, in which case there are differences that may shift the balance to either side based on subjective preferences, but the story of objective quality (measurable parameters) is a different one. I notice that Fuji's product offering is misunderstood or misrepresented by many today.

Anyway, I didn't intend to drag this discussion into a technical direction, which I think is mostly irrelevant save perhaps commentary on archival properties of the various alternatives OP puts forth. @Taylor Nankervis as someone who has stated or at least implied several times that you have considerable experience selling your work, perhaps you could comment on the question that OP asks (and which in my view isn't too difficult to grasp).

The way I understand it, he has produced proof prints that are digitally exposed on RA4, he has done solarized, toned prints on silver gelatin B&W paper as well as a benchmark 'straight scan' - and he's now considering doing another straight print with more dramatic toning to approximate his vision. This would result in 3 possibilities for the edition: (1) a digitally exposed chromogenic print, (2) a solarized, toned silver gel print and (3) another toned silver gel print. I assume both 2 & 3 are darkroom prints made with an enlarger. These different choices have implications for not just aesthetic appearance, but also the valuation/price point, archival stability, desirability for certain audiences and of course ease of manufacture and hence practical edition size and repeatability of identical prints in the future. The question as I see it is how to balance these various considerations in choosing how to go forward.

koraks said:

Anyway, I didn't intend to drag this discussion into a technical direction, which I think is mostly irrelevant save perhaps commentary on archival properties of the various alternatives OP puts forth. @Taylor Nankervis as someone who has stated or at least implied several times that you have considerable experience selling your work, perhaps you could comment on the question that OP asks (and which in my view isn't too difficult to grasp).

Click to expand...

Okaaaay. I will refrain from any more technical discussion; the root problem is I do not have a clear understanding of what the OP is doing re galleries, other than the replies from you. I still do not understand what is meant by a "lambda ciba"; a couple of phone calls with (retired) colleagues in print production drew a blank. Galleries have to make a profit from the sale of artists' works. They select works based on the providence of the individual artist, the quality and interpretation of their work and the likelihood of their oeurvre resulting in a purchase. But there is something else far and above this...

...As it is getting near my dinna time, I have to hurry off here. Now, if I were to go on about selling Ilfochrome Classic prints (none sold for at least 6 years now, but some RA4 and giclåe prints have), I can tell you, necessarily at the mo' with the brevity, is not to do it cheaply, produce up to a standard and never, ever down to a price. It is expensive enough to print to IC, but the expense is often doubled or tripled in matting and framing to museum-grade conservation standards that galleries look upon as a careful, caring and professionally considered finishing. I would not even send JPEGs by email to a gallery, but arrange an appointment with the Director and show them the actual 'real-thing-before-their-eyes' print. Maybe even leave that print with them for consideration (but a comprehensive folio is better than a single print!).

I must away now for my cocktail franks and gin.

Taylor Nankervis said:

Now, if I were to go on about selling Ilfochrome Classic prints [...] is not to do it cheaply, produce up to a standard and never, ever down to a price. It is expensive enough to print to IC, but the expense is often doubled or tripled in matting and framing to museum-grade conservation standards that galleries look upon as a careful, caring and professionally considered finishing.

Click to expand...

I think it's evident that OP is currently doing a project for which the prints are still being produced, so they're not Ilfo/Cibachrome.
Having said that, the snippet above suggests you approach pricing on a "cost price plus" basis; i.e. you consider in particular the costs to manufacture (matted, framed, as-presented) print as the basis for valuation. I wonder if that's representative for the art we generally see in galleries, at least around here. For sure, the artist-photographers I know do not approach valuation in this way; they don't even think about the cost of production, but the price is set often by or at least in discussion with the gallery keeper that represents them and sells their work.

Then again, we may be referring to different segments; if you're looking at 'art' in the sense of interior decoration, so basically a commodity (glorified IKEA posters), then yes - a cost-price based approach makes sense. I have a feeling this is not the world OP is moving in (or at least trying to get into). Based on what you said before here on the forum (e.g. about your prints being held in private collections) I assume you're also in the fine arts segment where manufacturing cost is really not a key driver in price determination. For the commercial aspect of your photography career, how have you handled this, also in conjunction with the galleries that have represented you over the years?

Taylor Nankervis said:

I would not even send JPEGs by email to a gallery, but arrange an appointment with the Director and show them the actual 'real-thing-before-their-eyes' print.

Click to expand...

That's kind of self-evident, isn't it? I know of nobody who struck a deal with a gallery without meeting with the gallerist in question several times; first contact often is at an exhibition for instance in an educational setting (graduation work etc.) where actual works are being shown and there's an opportunity for the artist and the gallerist to interact.

Of course, I'm going only by what I know about this world, which is second-hand based on what artists tell me. So I would appreciate it if you could share your first-hand experience on this.

I am confused, where are you getting Lambda Cibachromes made in 2025?