BTW, if I could burn web posts....
Destroying Negatives to Limit Print Production...
-
A
- Thread starter Shawn Rahman
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale Azo #2
- Started by Peter Schrager
-
For Sale FS: Ebony 4x5 Focusing Screen
- Started by B.S.Kumar
-
For Sale FS: Arca-Swiss F-Line/Classic/Discovery 6x9 Accessories
- Started by B.S.Kumar
-
For Sale Zeiss Ikon Contax II + Carl Zeiss Sonnar 50mm f/2 _ German rangefinder camera
- Started by Manual Camera
Forum statistics
As long as the photographer isn't destroyed to limit print production. Thinning out is hard for some persons. Some people can't get rid of anything and some people streamline everything. If you produce so little then it's probably a big deal but if you are constantly working then it piles up.
Didn't Edward Weston have his negatives printed after his death by someone, Hint, Hint, relative.
Maybe that's why Brett decided to "eliminate" the negatives. If you think of the "Last Supper" and the ends that has been gone through to preserve it, would a print without a negative be given the same care or is there the attitude that another print can be made?
It's a debate without an answer, only the photographer can decide what will be saved and what will be destroyed.
Didn't Edward Weston have his negatives printed after his death by someone, Hint, Hint, relative.
Maybe that's why Brett decided to "eliminate" the negatives. If you think of the "Last Supper" and the ends that has been gone through to preserve it, would a print without a negative be given the same care or is there the attitude that another print can be made?
It's a debate without an answer, only the photographer can decide what will be saved and what will be destroyed.
I agree with Graham Broadbridge in Sydney. Looking from a buyers perspective... if I spent a lot of money on an art piece, I'd want to know exactly what I'm buying. Is this a personal indulgence or a serious investment? If it's an investment, then the "reproductivity" determines the value and whether I'd want to purchase that particular art piece. As a photographer and an artist, it breaks my heart to destroy a negative, but the photograph tells me if it's worth destroying or not.
Torching negatives strike me as being utterly pretentious. I keep all my negs as a record of how my photographic skills have advanced over the years.
This is a hobby for me so even to crank out a couple, no two prints are exactly the same and after a while I want to print something else. So in my case it will be my attention span that restricts the number of prints made.
Bill
This is a hobby for me so even to crank out a couple, no two prints are exactly the same and after a while I want to print something else. So in my case it will be my attention span that restricts the number of prints made.
Bill
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2004
- Messages
- 1,320
- Format
- Sub 35mm
I do not know what the big deal is here. A painter paints one original painting and sells it, once sold it cannot be reproduced, a sculpture makes one sculpture, once it is sold, it is never to be reproduced again.
The way I see it you are either an artist or a photographer. If someone makes one print ( canvas ) form the negative ( finished artwork ) and decides to destroy the negative good for them. The have chosen to treat photography as any other art form and make only one.
This is not pretentious or stupid, it is a bold move by saying, look I am not a photographer but rather an artist and I will only make one of the artwork I create.
Furthermore who cares what anyone here thinks. Everyone has the right to handle their artwork how they see fit. Calling people stupid is just immature and complete ignorance.
Get over it.
The way I see it you are either an artist or a photographer. If someone makes one print ( canvas ) form the negative ( finished artwork ) and decides to destroy the negative good for them. The have chosen to treat photography as any other art form and make only one.
This is not pretentious or stupid, it is a bold move by saying, look I am not a photographer but rather an artist and I will only make one of the artwork I create.
Furthermore who cares what anyone here thinks. Everyone has the right to handle their artwork how they see fit. Calling people stupid is just immature and complete ignorance.
Get over it.
I got rid of all of my best negatives.........damn. Twenty years ago, I put them in an envelope for safe keeping, labled the envelope "Good negatives" and promptly lost it. Got to be some place in the house, but I'll be damned if I can find it.
I do have prints and have been able to scan them, but it's not the same. Ugh!
John
I do have prints and have been able to scan them, but it's not the same. Ugh!
John
da vinci made 3 identical paintings of the mona lisa?
i know duchamp made one
http://www.people.virginia.edu/~djr4r/LHOOQ.html
I saw some other Monas painted on black velvet. In fact I photographed one of them and made a bromoil print from the negative!
Gene Laughter
Uniqueness of paintings and sculpture
Hi guys
A lot of sculpture is created specifically to be editioned and a lot of those are done by artisans and not the original sculptor, i.e. a mold is made and (the possibility of infinite) multiples are made. The same is now true of paintings in the commercial world, an original is made and then an edition of reproductions are made (just recently I was passing a framing store which had a large sign announcing the release of a new print by an artist of some snow leopards, in an edition of 850 with, wait for it , 85 Artists Proofs, for a framed price of £380 ($700 approx.) and I'm sure it will sell out. With 935 prints to sign do you think he or she has looked into buying one of those signing devices presidents, pop stars etc. use.
I think the problem we face as artists working with cameras (also known as PHOTOGRAPHERS) is that because it seems that all you have to do is press a button there is nothing to it. I would imagine if you got, for example, a Jerry Uelsmann print and one of mine (had to choose somebody and I've ignored the whole world of digital manipulation to help keep some readers cool under the collar) and showed them to the great unwashed they would consider the Uelsmann to be art and mine to be a photo (leaving aside what you valued reader might think of the merits or otherwise of mine and Jerry's work) for the simple reason that his look like they take a lot of effort and mine just the click of a button, which they could probably do if they could be bothered (is this starting to sound like a modern art rant or what, and I promise to put a full stop in here soon).
And as to the uniqueness of the old masters isn't it true that many of them had studios full of artisans knocking out copies of the paintings. The reason that the old masters in particular are so highly prized, though wonderful many of them may be, is simply because they survived, can you imagine what the market for them would be like if there were many more of them in circulation now.
As to where I stand on the whole editioning thing, while there is interest in an image of mine I will produce it, If an edition has sold out I do it in another medium. Mind you only 2 of my silver gelatins have sold out an edition, which I have now done as large digital prints, but mostly it is my unique polaroid 20x24s that I have done editions of.
be well and enjoy
Seamus
www.seamusryan.com
Hi guys
A lot of sculpture is created specifically to be editioned and a lot of those are done by artisans and not the original sculptor, i.e. a mold is made and (the possibility of infinite) multiples are made. The same is now true of paintings in the commercial world, an original is made and then an edition of reproductions are made (just recently I was passing a framing store which had a large sign announcing the release of a new print by an artist of some snow leopards, in an edition of 850 with, wait for it , 85 Artists Proofs, for a framed price of £380 ($700 approx.) and I'm sure it will sell out. With 935 prints to sign do you think he or she has looked into buying one of those signing devices presidents, pop stars etc. use.
I think the problem we face as artists working with cameras (also known as PHOTOGRAPHERS) is that because it seems that all you have to do is press a button there is nothing to it. I would imagine if you got, for example, a Jerry Uelsmann print and one of mine (had to choose somebody and I've ignored the whole world of digital manipulation to help keep some readers cool under the collar) and showed them to the great unwashed they would consider the Uelsmann to be art and mine to be a photo (leaving aside what you valued reader might think of the merits or otherwise of mine and Jerry's work) for the simple reason that his look like they take a lot of effort and mine just the click of a button, which they could probably do if they could be bothered (is this starting to sound like a modern art rant or what, and I promise to put a full stop in here soon).
And as to the uniqueness of the old masters isn't it true that many of them had studios full of artisans knocking out copies of the paintings. The reason that the old masters in particular are so highly prized, though wonderful many of them may be, is simply because they survived, can you imagine what the market for them would be like if there were many more of them in circulation now.
As to where I stand on the whole editioning thing, while there is interest in an image of mine I will produce it, If an edition has sold out I do it in another medium. Mind you only 2 of my silver gelatins have sold out an edition, which I have now done as large digital prints, but mostly it is my unique polaroid 20x24s that I have done editions of.
be well and enjoy
Seamus
www.seamusryan.com
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2007
- Messages
- 15
- Format
- 35mm
jnanian said:
<< photography's greatness and biggest flaw is that many prints can come of one negative. >>
Sorry, but my first reaction to this is "utter tosh!"
I respect your right to that view, but cannot agree with it. I am also wondering what the other and lesser flaws are, that are implied. It is the very nature of photography to reproduce. I can only see rapacious and greedy motives in such deliberate limiting acts. I may well be missing something here of course and am willinto have that pointed out to me.
If one is inclined to limit, in any way, the 'production run', then just stop printing when you are done. In the event of accident, or genuine loss, an original from a limited run can then always be generated if you are satisfied about the bona fides of the loss, or whatever. Destroying a negative seems to me to serve only to satisfy others, rather than the creator or originator.
<< photography's greatness and biggest flaw is that many prints can come of one negative. >>
Sorry, but my first reaction to this is "utter tosh!"
I respect your right to that view, but cannot agree with it. I am also wondering what the other and lesser flaws are, that are implied. It is the very nature of photography to reproduce. I can only see rapacious and greedy motives in such deliberate limiting acts. I may well be missing something here of course and am willinto have that pointed out to me.
If one is inclined to limit, in any way, the 'production run', then just stop printing when you are done. In the event of accident, or genuine loss, an original from a limited run can then always be generated if you are satisfied about the bona fides of the loss, or whatever. Destroying a negative seems to me to serve only to satisfy others, rather than the creator or originator.
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2007
- Messages
- 15
- Format
- 35mm
A further thought from me. I believe that photography has grown to be a formidable tool for recording history, especially analog photography. All our negs currently may seem insignificant at present, but those of you that have a family history of photography will know the value of those early images. They were probably not valued especially when first created, but with growing time, so does their value. And I don't necessarily mean monetarty value either. This alone, I believe is good enough reason to archive every image. It is easy and cheap, at least for analog images.
The current rash of digital imaging, I believe is putting historical recording in jeopardy simply because I don't believe current practices for archiving digital are secure or permanent enough, at least in the hands of the majority. Such loss could have the same effect as deliberate destruction. The ultimate loss of an image and/or work of art.
The current rash of digital imaging, I believe is putting historical recording in jeopardy simply because I don't believe current practices for archiving digital are secure or permanent enough, at least in the hands of the majority. Such loss could have the same effect as deliberate destruction. The ultimate loss of an image and/or work of art.
If you think your work has immense value, then I suppose burning a negative might be something philosophically important to you.
However, do not let ignorance of the definition of "editions" be the cause.
The definition of an "edition" takes into account size of print, type of print, and number of prints.
A limited edition of 30 prints simply means that there are 30 prints of THIS SIZE, printed THIS WAY.
Guess what? It doesn't mean you can't print an edition of 30 more at a different size or a different technique.
However, do not let ignorance of the definition of "editions" be the cause.
The definition of an "edition" takes into account size of print, type of print, and number of prints.
A limited edition of 30 prints simply means that there are 30 prints of THIS SIZE, printed THIS WAY.
Guess what? It doesn't mean you can't print an edition of 30 more at a different size or a different technique.
I would disagree. What makes something art is not how it's printed or whether it can be printed again or not.
I think us photographers sometimes forget that before photography there was printmaking.
Are Rembrandt's etchings and prints not art? Only his paintings that were based on his prints?
What about Christo? You can't buy Christo's "Gates" or "Wrapped Reichstag" or "Pink Islands". But you can buy his sketches, thumbnails, plans, and hundreds of other items that went into the making of his installations.
This discussion is less about art than about BUSINESS.
If your work is in demand, and you limit access to your work for whatever reason, that's simply a business decision. Has nothing to do with whether it's "art" or not.
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
- Messages
- 29,833
- Format
- Hybrid
i dunno jeffrey ...
i think whether or not someone wants to make more than one print,
or destroy the means to make that print through a negative
( or contact print with a positive print /paper internegative )
it is up to them.
it is obvious after reading this thread, what is good for one person, isn't best for another,
and that is fine by me, since we would live in a bland place if everyone thought the same ...
-john
i think whether or not someone wants to make more than one print,
or destroy the means to make that print through a negative
( or contact print with a positive print /paper internegative )
it is up to them.
it is obvious after reading this thread, what is good for one person, isn't best for another,
and that is fine by me, since we would live in a bland place if everyone thought the same ...
-john
For the sake of art and goodness.
Quite often, I also destroy the prints ... for the good of art, and society.
Quite often, I also destroy the prints ... for the good of art, and society.
Making one of an image does not make it art, regardless of medium.
history has shown that whether or not a neg is destroyed/burnt has NOTHING to do with it's value far down the road - it has only to do with the pretense of it's manufacture.
If all other things ARE then, in fact, equal - then why not hang onto the neg??
If all other things ARE then, in fact, equal - then why not hang onto the neg??
Is it possible that you misread jnanian's intent? It sounds like you are hearing 'Photography's greatest fault is that many prints can come of one negative.' I wonder if jnanian was actually saying, 'ironically, the fact that many original prints can come of one negative is not only photography's great strength, but also its biggest drawback at the same time.'
Does that make sense?
PS: I don't care if it does, 'cause I'm now filthy rich on account of possessing at least two jnanian unique originals!! Bidding starts at $70,000 (US, not Australian!)
J
Does that make sense?
PS: I don't care if it does, 'cause I'm now filthy rich on account of possessing at least two jnanian unique originals!! Bidding starts at $70,000 (US, not Australian!)
J
Hmm ... comparing photographic art to paintings and sculptures is flawed I think. But what do I know?
Might as well speak my controversial mind now: I think the process of making photographic art is the making of the negative AND the making of the print. Destroying one half of the equation is like having someone else choose your paints or chisels.
Regards, Art.
Might as well speak my controversial mind now: I think the process of making photographic art is the making of the negative AND the making of the print. Destroying one half of the equation is like having someone else choose your paints or chisels.
Regards, Art.
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2007
- Messages
- 15
- Format
- 35mm
Jon, I can only go on whan jnanian wrote. It is that with which I disagree. Congratulations on your good fortune to possess something of that monetary value. Does that fact improve or alter in any way how you enjoy them?
As far as "many originals coming from one negative" is concerned, I can quote my experience at that attempt. They are ALL different, simply because they ARE hand made. There is always some (Many) variables in the process, which just happens to be one of the differences between analog and digital photography. The more complex the printing, the more those variables will 'identify' one print from another. At least at my hand that is so!
Cheers,
Erl
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
- Messages
- 29,833
- Format
- Hybrid
Jon, I can only go on whan jnanian wrote. It is that with which I disagree. Congratulations on your good fortune to possess something of that monetary value. Does that fact improve or alter in any way how you enjoy them?
As far as "many originals coming from one negative" is concerned, I can quote my experience at that attempt. They are ALL different, simply because they ARE hand made. There is always some (Many) variables in the process, which just happens to be one of the differences between analog and digital photography. The more complex the printing, the more those variables will 'identify' one print from another. At least at my hand that is so!
Cheers,
Erl
erl
jon koss said better what i had tried to write.
negatives are a double edged sword.
yes, i know photographic reproductions are all different,
just as ones coming out of a computer are different as well ...
i am glad you enjoy doing what you like to do, i like to do what i do too
-john
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |