Galleries to see high-quality large optical prints in the US?

[Pieter12]

...some photographers would rather not print that large. Michael Kenna and Robert Adams come to mind. Why get hung up (pun maybe intended) on print size? There can be some really terrible large prints on gallery walls, the size certainly does not work to their advantage.

 

[GregY]

A little unfortunate you limit yourself to "prints bigger than 24" on the wide side. Otherwise, there are plenty important galleries that show the work of many wonderful photographers, from the past to the present. To just name two galleries that I am very familiar with: Howard Greenberg Gallery and Tom Gitterman gallery. The first quite large, with many known photographers, the second a smaller gallery but run by someone who makes no distinction between a collector or a student coming in. He gives time and his wonderful knowledge to anyone interested.

Agreed. Wherever I travel in the world, I make a point of visiting galleries exhibiting photographic prints. Size is of little interest to me. To this day, th most impressive prints I've see are those of Vittorio Sella, whose mountain work was exhibited at the Whyte Museum in Banff in 1999.

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

I remember reading that Robin Bell made an enlargement print on paper size of 30x40 inches from a 35mm negative.
It was a portrait of Mick Jagger titled 'Diamond Geezer ' because Mick has a diamond embedded in one of his teeth. I don't know what the film was.
Tri-X perhaps?
That print must be in a Gallery somewhere.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I sure as heck wouldn't go out of my way to see some oversized modern inkjet re-strike of a classic vintage silver image. That kind of thing is fine for hospital lobbies or office walls; but there a thousands of them out there, quality-wise just one step above mass-produced posters.

And I think I'm right to suspect that those who think it's all the same really haven't seen a lot of the real deal. Sure, all kinds of after-the-fact "corrections" can be made via scanner and re-profiling. But still, the flavor is off. I'd rather have a small scoop of real ice cream than a bucket of imitation ice milk.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Going back to Taylor's earlier post, I once stumbled into Peter Lik's former Lahaina Gallery. I've also encountered his Las Vegas gallery. Some of the worst tourist trash I've ever seen. Yeah, he had his fancy sales people with their baited "investment" hooks. I chatting with a couple of them, and told them they'd have to pay me $50,000 dollars to hang one of those abominations on my own wall, and then I'd reserve the right to drywall over it so I didn't have to look at it. Those big things are so blatantly Photoshopped and falsely colored that it's hard to even call them photographs with a straight face. And now with Ai on the horizon, why bother with a camera at all, if that kind of nonsense is your game plan? ... Not the kind of gallery to go to if you want to see sensitive quality work.

 

[Pieter12]

I remember reading that Robin Bell made an enlargement print on paper size of 30x40 inches from a 35mm negative.
It was a portrait of Mick Jagger titled 'Diamond Geezer ' because Mick has a diamond embedded in one of his teeth. I don't know what the film was.
Tri-X perhaps?
That print must be in a Gallery somewhere.

Or it could have sold, be in a collector’s home or museum. Or in a drawer somewhere.

 

[Taylor Nankervis]

Going back to Taylor's earlier post, I once stumbled into Peter Lik's former Lahaina Gallery. I've also encountered his Las Vegas gallery. Some of the worst tourist trash I've ever seen. Yeah, he had his fancy sales people with their baited "investment" hooks. I chatting with a couple of them, and told them they'd have to pay me $50,000 dollars to hang one of those abominations on my own wall, and then I'd reserve the right to drywall over it so I didn't have to look at it. Those big things are so blatantly Photoshopped and falsely colored that it's hard to even call them photographs with a straight face. And now with Ai on the horizon, why bother with a camera at all, if that kind of nonsense is your game plan? ... Not the kind of gallery to go to if you want to see sensitive quality work.

Yes, true, things have changed (sorry Bob Dylan...), but there was a time, now in the distant past, when his photographs, printed by us in South Australia, were pure, unbridled and absolutely beautiful Ilfochrome Classic (Linhof 6x17) prints that sold for a fortune. Somewhere along the line he got hooked (badly!) onto the Fauxtoshoppe gravy train in the somewhat deluded belief that adding floss and fantasy would also add value. Well, it did not. Personally I do not like any of his work, and it is a bit of a shame knowing his history that generated so much wealth for him; besides which, Australia has a large number of photographers of the landscape genre — producing, in Mr Wiley's own words, "sensitive, quality work" —to who dedicate their life and effort to producing much better work than expat-Mr L, free of floss, artifice ... without touching a thing. We let the landscape speak for itself, not as an exhibition piece for the falsetto tune of Adobe software.

If Ilfochrome Classic was still available, I would still be printing to it. It has been gone 15 years, and I now print to RA4 or giclée (when wider gamut is required). Dr Seuss once said, "Don't cry because it's over, smile because it happened". And that is the philosophy a lot of us fall back to comparing the heady days of the past with the subdued but ever-hopeful days of the present and future..

_______________________________________
Postscript:
I just had a recollection that somewhere around 2007-08 we were being provided with digital files from Peter for printing to Ilfochrome. I did not see many of these as my production was entirely analogue, not digital-to-analogue — a separate operating area; it was a new service introduced as a result of experiments and consultation with Switzerland.

 

[thomascn6113]

Going back to Taylor's earlier post, I once stumbled into Peter Lik's former Lahaina Gallery. I've also encountered his Las Vegas gallery. Some of the worst tourist trash I've ever seen. Yeah, he had his fancy sales people with their baited "investment" hooks. I chatting with a couple of them, and told them they'd have to pay me $50,000 dollars to hang one of those abominations on my own wall, and then I'd reserve the right to drywall over it so I didn't have to look at it. Those big things are so blatantly Photoshopped and falsely colored that it's hard to even call them photographs with a straight face. And now with Ai on the horizon, why bother with a camera at all, if that kind of nonsense is your game plan? ... Not the kind of gallery to go to if you want to see sensitive quality work.

If I recall correctly one of Liks pictures, the one with the moon, was proven to be blatantly photoshopped. Kind of like that Nat Geo where entire pyramids were moved!

 

[Taylor Nankervis]

If I recall correctly one of Liks pictures, the one with the moon, was proven to be blatantly photoshopped. Kind of like that Nat Geo where entire pyramids were moved!

Yes, it was a composite. Likely one of the A-to-D outputs (before entirely digital work); he shot a number of moon scenics though, and some were in-camera – the Linhof 6x17, rather than stripped and composited through Fauxtoshoppe.

I am surprised (irritated!) at the apparent disregard for describing in truth the making of those many ULF photographs. This may be a contributing factor to a marked uptick of aversion to viewing and splurging on his big and overpriced works, IDK. We see similar follies and travesties with Ken Duncan prints in Australia e.g. the series he did on Norfolk Island in the South Pacific with TV talking head, Ray Martin, were absolutely false in their overzealous colouring and gaudy HSB twerks. But pundits still bought the prints.

 

[koraks]

Fauxtoshoppe

I am surprised (irritated!) at the apparent disregard for describing in truth

Would you like to talk about it?
Seems like your perspective would be an interesting counter-point to the general tendency of "whatever it takes if the artist feels it's necessary". It would especially be interesting to discuss what the basis for a more normative stance on the matter would be.

 

[Ardpatrick]

...some photographers would rather not print that large. Michael Kenna and Robert Adams come to mind. Why get hung up (pun maybe intended) on print size? There can be some really terrible large prints on gallery walls, the size certainly does not work to their advantage.

What’s wrong with being interested in big prints? The OP is clearly interested in print-making and the particular look of large analog prints. That’s a legitimate part of the ‘craft’ and it’s not in itself a value judgement on one photograph vs another, one size vs another, nor one technique vs another.

Large analog print making is a whole different proposition to making small analog prints. Printing large involves working from rolls, with very different tray arrangements, drying techniques etc etc. it’s a distinct craft and is simply different to deciding whether to print an image to A4 vs A1 size on an Epson. I’ve done a bit of mural sized fiber printing in the past. Once you’ve struggled handling huge chemical sodden sheets of fiber paper in the dark without getting any paper kinks, you’ll never mistake those prints for anything else. It’s where I recognize my limits. I’m about to send a 4x5 neg to master printer JP Bauduin in Brussels. An older guy who can effortlessly turn out a 165 x 125cm toned fiber print for me. That’s a lifetime of experience.

And all due respect to the lab owner from Toronto but labs have been convincing photographers that digital is indistinguishable from analog for as long as there’s been digital. They are absolutely different to an educated eye. And that’s not a film Luddite speaking. Ask Canon, Nikon, Fuji, Epson etc if they are different and they’ll all agree with me. You can try to make them look the same but they are not the same. And that’s not a value judgement.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Nearly all the Lik picture's I've seen were ridiculously PS'd. Not only things in the scene blatantly rearranged, but ludicrously colorized. Hence my old joke that he probably hired kindergartners, put them on LSD, and handed them cans of fluorescent spray paint. That's not photography.

In one of his galleries, it was nearly all big inkjet prints, and rather poorly executed ones, technically. And loud, loud, loud ... I literally got nauseated, and had to exit after a few minutes. The disrespect for natural light was absolutely appalling ... taking nature and making a street whore out of it.

The other gallery, in Lahaina, was all relatively large sample images backlit transparency mode. Somewhat better done, but equally gaudy or tacky. Tasteless tourist fare for those who want something scenic opposite their black velvet Elvis rug.

One thing his production facility in the Vegas area is highly skilled at is mounting really big print media flat. And charging significantly for that is realistic. Throw out the print and keep the frame.

Well, to exit my rant with something a little more objective : Size should be relative to what works best for the image as well as the viewer. Not every image works well small on a book page, for example; and many sensitive classic images sure as heck don't work well when they're blown up large, big for sake of big. If someone just wants a big splash of color above their sofa, that's a legit decor decision, but so is the choice of wall paint.

I've deliberately limited my own color print size capacity to 30X40 inches (plus overall framing) for logistical reasons - size of my darkroom space, largest size that can be conveniently crated and shipped by ordinary carriers, largest mounting equipment I wanted to invest in, etc. But regardless of big or small, I fill them with relevant hue and detail content generally involving large format originals. MF comes into play as well, but certainly not in the largest prints. I don't believe in any of that "normal viewing distance" nonsense. That might be fine for airport lobbies; but I like my prints to be fully rewarding right up close too.

 

[Craig]

If you ever see an exhibition by Allan W King it is work seeing. His prints are spectacular.

About The Artist • Allan W King - Fine Art Photography

My preference is to photograph with large format view cameras utilizing sheet films ranging in size from 8 X 10 up to the ultra-large 12 X 20

platinumvisions.com

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I sure as heck wouldn't go out of my way to see some oversized modern inkjet re-strike of a classic vintage silver image. That kind of thing is fine for hospital lobbies or office walls; but there a thousands of them out there, quality-wise just one step above mass-produced posters.

And I think I'm right to suspect that those who think it's all the same really haven't seen a lot of the real deal. Sure, all kinds of after-the-fact "corrections" can be made via scanner and re-profiling. But still, the flavor is off. I'd rather have a small scoop of real ice cream than a bucket of imitation ice milk.

Clyde Butcher has both kinds mounted in his gallery. Sure, there's a big difference in price, but I couldn't tell the difference just looking at them.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Going back to Taylor's earlier post, I once stumbled into Peter Lik's former Lahaina Gallery. I've also encountered his Las Vegas gallery. Some of the worst tourist trash I've ever seen. Yeah, he had his fancy sales people with their baited "investment" hooks. I chatting with a couple of them, and told them they'd have to pay me $50,000 dollars to hang one of those abominations on my own wall, and then I'd reserve the right to drywall over it so I didn't have to look at it. Those big things are so blatantly Photoshopped and falsely colored that it's hard to even call them photographs with a straight face. And now with Ai on the horizon, why bother with a camera at all, if that kind of nonsense is your game plan? ... Not the kind of gallery to go to if you want to see sensitive quality work.

Lik's saleswomen are hot. Maybe that's the key. His presentations are terrific. I looked at his arches picture at sundown, presented in a dark room with a back-lit 60"+ photo. You sit on a couch looking at it and you feel like you're out there in real time. That sells. Rather than knocking him, maybe there's something to learn from him about salesmanship.

 

[Pieter12]

I sure as heck wouldn't go out of my way to see some oversized modern inkjet re-strike of a classic vintage silver image. That kind of thing is fine for hospital lobbies or office walls; but there a thousands of them out there, quality-wise just one step above mass-produced posters.

And I think I'm right to suspect that those who think it's all the same really haven't seen a lot of the real deal. Sure, all kinds of after-the-fact "corrections" can be made via scanner and re-profiling. But still, the flavor is off. I'd rather have a small scoop of real ice cream than a bucket of imitation ice milk.

I recently exhibited a print at a local show. I did not have time to make another darkroom print and did not want to put up the one that hangs on my wall. I took that print to a very good local digital shop, he scanned it and printed it. Pretty much indistinguishable from the original. And the original had very deep blacks and subtleties in the shadows. Maybe you haven't seen really good digital work. Or just have a bias.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

If I recall correctly one of Liks pictures, the one with the moon, was proven to be blatantly photoshopped. Kind of like that Nat Geo where entire pyramids were moved!

Bad comparison. Lik is a commercial artist selling his photo art, photoshopped and all. NatGeo presents itself as a science outlet that presents nature as it is, no cloning allowed.

 

[DREW WILEY]

My own substantial background in sales (photography was a moonlight second income) was to sell high quality which didn't need fabricated BS to get it across the threshold. When I look at just about anything made by Lik, I am filled with disgust by how unreal it looks, and in a tacky manner geared to stereotypes. I'm not reminded of real time looking at anything at all, but rather, get filled with disgust by the flagrant cheap whoring of nature.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Nearly all the Lik picture's I've seen were ridiculously PS'd. Not only things in the scene blatantly rearranged, but ludicrously colorized. Hence my old joke that he probably hired kindergartners, put them on LSD, and handed them cans of fluorescent spray paint. That's not photography.

In one of his galleries, it was nearly all big inkjet prints, and rather poorly executed ones, technically. And loud, loud, loud ... I literally got nauseated, and had to exit after a few minutes. The disrespect for natural light was absolutely appalling ... taking nature and making a street whore out of it.

The other gallery, in Lahaina, was all relatively large sample images backlit transparency mode. Somewhat better done, but equally gaudy or tacky. Tasteless tourist fare for those who want something scenic opposite their black velvet Elvis rug.

One thing his production facility in the Vegas area is highly skilled at is mounting really big print media flat. And charging significantly for that is realistic. Throw out the print and keep the frame.

Well, to exit my rant with something a little more objective : Size should be relative to what works best for the image as well as the viewer. Not every image works well small on a book page, for example; and many sensitive classic images sure as heck don't work well when they're blown up large, big for sake of big. If someone just wants a big splash of color above their sofa, that's a legit decor decision, but so is the choice of wall paint.

I've deliberately limited my own color print size capacity to 30X40 inches (plus overall framing) for logistical reasons - size of my darkroom space, largest size that can be conveniently crated and shipped by ordinary carriers, largest mounting equipment I wanted to invest in, etc. But regardless of big or small, I fill them with relevant hue and detail content generally involving large format originals. MF comes into play as well, but certainly not in the largest prints. I don't believe in any of that "normal viewing distance" nonsense. That might be fine for airport lobbies; but I like my prints to be fully rewarding right up close too.

Drew, Isn't there room for different tastes in this world? Or most we all like the same things?

 

[Pieter12]

Bad comparison. Lik is a commercial artist selling his photo art, photoshopped and all. NatGeo presents itself as a science outlet that presents nature as it is, no cloning allowed.

Art Wolfe, a long-standing National Geographic photographer, famously cloned the Zebras in his Migrations book. The image probably didn't run in Nat Geo, but many others have. I don't think they severed relations over it.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

My own substantial background in sales (photography was a moonlight second income) was to sell high quality which didn't need fabricated BS to get it across the threshold. When I look at just about anything made by Lik, I am filled with disgust by how unreal it looks, and in a tacky manner geared to stereotypes. I'm not reminded of real time looking at anything at all, but rather, get filled with disgust by the flagrant cheap whoring of nature.

I'm sure you made a good second income. But Lik has made tens of millions opening galleries throughout the world. Someone likes his work. By the way, no one says you have to like his work or want to duplicate it. But after attending his galleries, could you take away anything in salesmanship and business approach that would help you or others here who want to sell our work, different as it may be from Lik?

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Art Wolfe, a long-standing National Geographic photographer, famously cloned the Zebras in his Migrations book. The image probably didn't run in Nat Geo, but many others have. I don't think they severed relations over it.

View attachment 410231

I don't understand your point. NatGeo, unlike Lik and other artists, has a stern policy that their photographers cannot clone their shots. The following is from a 2016 article:

But, in an article published in the magazine's latest issue, Goldberg (Editor in Chief ) promised that National Geographic's editorial team is working hard to "keep covertly manipulated images out of our publications" — a manual task she admitted has become more difficult in "the era of Photoshop."

"A few decades ago it was easier to spot photo manipulation because the results were a lot cruder," she wrote. These days, spotting a fake requires some "forensic digging," according to National Geographic Director of Photography Sarah Leen.

"Just like we require our writers to provide their notes, we require photographers on assignment to submit 'raw' files of their images, which contain pixel information straight from the digital camera's sensor," Goldberg wrote. If the raw file isn't available, the editorial team asks "detailed questions" about the image, and will sometimes reject it as a result of what they find out.

"We ask ourselves, 'Is this photo a good representation of what the photographer saw?'" Leen said. That answer "always must be yes," Goldberg added.

National Geographic Tackles Photo Manipulation

Keeping manipulated images out of the magazine has gotten harder as of late.

www.pcmag.com

 

[DREW WILEY]

Hi, again, Alan. Everybody knows that Lik was following Kinkade's marketing playbook. Besides the obvious slick sales people, both men developed special modes of presentation. Among other innovations, Kinkade developed an especially sophisticated paint by numbers computer program that allowed paintings of his to be mass produced by an assembly line of painters in Mexico, but using colors to match client's own chosen home decor colors.

Lik blatantly rearranged and grossly colorized things using PS. But he did develop a facility able to mount really big prints or transparencies smoothly, targeted to the over-the-top decor audience. But what's the point if it's just oversized feel-good mortuary calendar postcard fare?

I hesitate to phrase all this the way I really feel. I'm understating it. And I don't give a damn how much money anyone makes at it. That doesn't impress me in the least. All kinds of "investment" cons make people rich.

Lik seems to have four galleries at the moment, one in Honolulu (the main gallery in Lahaina burned down in that terrible fire), one in Vegas, one in La Jolla, CA, and now one in Park City, Utah, the ski resort town.

 

[Pieter12]

I don't understand your point. NatGeo, unlike Lik and other artists, has a stern policy that their photographers cannot clone their shots. The following is from a 2016 article:

But, in an article published in the magazine's latest issue, Goldberg (Editor in Chief ) promised that National Geographic's editorial team is working hard to "keep covertly manipulated images out of our publications" — a manual task she admitted has become more difficult in "the era of Photoshop."

"A few decades ago it was easier to spot photo manipulation because the results were a lot cruder," she wrote. These days, spotting a fake requires some "forensic digging," according to National Geographic Director of Photography Sarah Leen.

"Just like we require our writers to provide their notes, we require photographers on assignment to submit 'raw' files of their images, which contain pixel information straight from the digital camera's sensor," Goldberg wrote. If the raw file isn't available, the editorial team asks "detailed questions" about the image, and will sometimes reject it as a result of what they find out.

"We ask ourselves, 'Is this photo a good representation of what the photographer saw?'" Leen said. That answer "always must be yes," Goldberg added.

National Geographic Tackles Photo Manipulation

Keeping manipulated images out of the magazine has gotten harder as of late.

www.pcmag.com

It is not difficult for a skilled photographer to present false metadata. Opening an image in Photoshop does not mean that it has been manipulated. Most RAW files are unusable straight from the camera.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Hi, again, Alan. Everybody knows that Lik was following Kinkade's marketing playbook. Besides the obvious slick sales people, both men developed special modes of presentation. Among other innovations, Kinkade developed an especially sophisticated paint by numbers computer program that allowed paintings of his to be mass produced by an assembly line of painters in Mexico, but using colors to match client's own chosen home decor colors.

Lik blatantly rearranged and grossly colorized things using PS. But he did develop a facility able to mount really big prints or transparencies smoothly, targeted to the over-the-top decor audience. But what's the point if it's just oversized feel-good mortuary calendar postcard fare?

I hesitate to phrase all this the way I really feel. I'm understating it. And I don't give a damn how much money anyone makes at it. That doesn't impress me in the least. All kinds of cons make people rich.

So many people here applaud cloning and anything goes mentality regarding Photoshop, and now AI. I disagree because I feel it will kill photography and is, in fact, not photography. In that we probably agree. Why bother getting out in the cold to shoot real pictures when you can sit at home in bed and make computer photos with AI?

Having said that, many here and elsewhere, including my own photo club in my NJ community, accept cloning in, cloning out, and everything is allowed. People decorating their homes have a different perspective on it and want Lik's colors to complement their spaces. So they buy his stuff. You're arguing that only an SUV should be allowed. There; 's no room for sedans or pickups. Should we go back to the Ford Model T where the only color available was black?

Is there something about salesmanship we can learn from him that's legitimate? Leaving aside his photos, do you see any value in having a gallery in let;s say Las Vegas rather than Peoria? Does it pay to hire effective and attractive salesmen or women? Can photos be better presented and sold in modern, well-lit galleries as Lik as done? Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
.