Do you collect?

[gbenaim]

Photographs, that is, not equipment. If so, whom do you have in your collection, and where do you usually buy photos? Just curious, as I'm starting to sell my own work and am also interested in starting a collection of other people's stuff.

GB

 

[Ian Leake]

I collect photographs, but slowly. Some are bought, some are traded; and some I see in the real world, some are from online sources. I'm interested in photographs that appeal to me; and also photographers who show consistency and maturity, who have a different view of the world from the crowd, and who have mastered their craft. The photographer's name isn't important to me, nor is the medium (so long as it's not a machine made print), nor is the subject.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

I'm unfortunately unable to afford to collect the work of folks who I'd like to own - John Dugdale, Herb Ritts, Connie Imboden, Reuven Afanador and so on, so I settle for their books. So I'm now collecting antique photos by unknown photographers (working on anonymous Dags for now... the occasional cased tin or ambro as the fancy strikes me). I've also got a vintage albumen print of the Doge's palace in Venice, taken in 1860 +/-. I've got a few images by folks here gotten through print exchanges/trades/purchases (Jeremy Moore, Dan Lin, Jim Collum) and friends (Garrie Maguire).

 

[david b]

I am going slow but have a few Edward Ranney, Van Daren Coke, Jim Stone, Samuel McFarlane.

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

Well, I have a Spencer Tunick and soon a Ctein, so I guess I have a collection....

 

[reellis67]

As T.F.C. stated above, I don't have the funds to collect the photographs of the people who's work I admire, they just cost too much. I do collect prints from people here from the print exchanges, or did when I had the time to participate, and I collect the (very) occasional print from people at art shows, but other than that, no. If I did buy the prints of others I'd likely display them in my library (a spare bedroom lined with bookshelves) or on the walls with the other types of art that I have purchased over the years. Sadly, as much as I like photography, I tend to buy paintings and (etching) prints mostly, when I find something moving, because I can afford them...

- Randy

 

[dpurdy]

I would rather collect cases of film and unopened boxes of paper to print on. When I exchange with others I put the work in a drawer and only look at it if I am cleaning the drawer. If I had a stack of valuable prints I would find a buyer for them and then spend the money on film and paper.
Dennis

 

[david b]

oh yeah, I have two Spencer Tunick photos as well.

 

[nze]

I have some old known as Nadar, or other egyptian explorer. some daguerotype and old carbon and a lot of modern platinum print from platinum printer.

I now start a pinhole collection

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

oh yeah, I have two Spencer Tunick photos as well.

Nice, but are you on any of them? I know I am on mine.

 

[gbenaim]

Those of you who have only your own work hanging on your walls, is it because you don't like anyone else's work better, or just can't afford it. Thos of you who hang yours next to others' at home, how does your own work look/stack up next to what you've bought from others?

 

[Ian Leake]

I have about the same number of my prints and other people's prints on my walls, although I don't have enough wall space or framing budget for all the prints I'd like to hang.

What I really don't understand is the idea that it's only worth owning someone else's work if they're a big name. That implies to me that it's the name of the photographer that's important not the print. There's loads of really, really good work out there at very reasonable prices. A good original print can often cost less than a night out in a bar, and it's far more meaningful.

I strongly believe that everyone should own and display original artwork. Owning artwork isn't a competition (my Weston trumps your Adams), nor is it about investing - it's about enriching your life, expanding your horizons, and bringing pleasure to the people who see it.

 

[reellis67]

I have about the same number of my prints and other people's prints on my walls, although I don't have enough wall space or framing budget for all the prints I'd like to hang.

What I really don't understand is the idea that it's only worth owning someone else's work if they're a big name. That implies to me that it's the name of the photographer that's important not the print. There's loads of really, really good work out there at very reasonable prices. A good original print can often cost less than a night out in a bar, and it's far more meaningful.

I strongly believe that everyone should own and display original artwork. Owning artwork isn't a competition (my Weston trumps your Adams), nor is it about investing - it's about enriching your life, expanding your horizons, and bringing pleasure to the people who see it.

Bravo sir! If only more people thought this way (the last paragraph in particular)...

I can't speak to the cost of photographs being less than a night out, sadly, since I have not yet found any in the $50-100 US range (approximately my range at the moment) that were not digital prints, but I wholeheartedly agree that people should both own and be able to appreciate original artwork though.

- Randy

 

[removed account4]

hi gb

i collect photographs ..
mostly portraits i find in second hand shops.
i have a few photo albums i also bought, and they were "pre-filled" with vacation photos ---
turn of the century ( last ) tourist photographs and post cards of exotic places (ancient world ).
i also have a ton of 1920s formal portraits that were given to me ... as well as others who are still alive
and kicking

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Another fun one to collect are old stereoviews. Most of the late 19th/early 20th century stereo cards are actually lovely albumen prints. And most are quite inexpensive, unless they show something of historical import or are otherwise documented to be quite rare. I've got maybe two dozen - I don't think I paid more than $20 for a single one.

 

[reellis67]

Another fun one to collect are old stereoviews. Most of the late 19th/early 20th century stereo cards are actually lovely albumen prints. And most are quite inexpensive, unless they show something of historical import or are otherwise documented to be quite rare. I've got maybe two dozen - I don't think I paid more than $20 for a single one.

I've got boxes and boxes of those - can't get enough of 'em! They usually can be had cheaply and they are a real treat to view. I'm slowly, slowly, slowly, filling out my collection of Waldack's Magnesium light views of Mammoth Cave, which run about $20 for most, and upward of $200 for the one that shows the whole crew (no, I don't have that one...)

- Randy