Keith Carter gallery vs National Geographic

[jtk]

Keith Carter Ghostlight — PDNB Gallery | Photographs Do Not Bend Gallery | Art Gallery in Dallas, Texas

www.pdnbgallery.com

This stuff is easy to like and apparently very marketable. I'd like to see the prints.

In what way is it different from Photrio's standard-aspiration scenic photography?

Does the technically non-standard technique make a big difference vs National Geographic standard work?

 

[faberryman]

I like his work. And at $1600 for a gelatin silver print, he is practically giving it away. Certainly after the galley takes its 50% commission.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I like his work. And at $1600 for a gelatin silver print, he is practically giving it away. Certainly after the galley takes its 50% commission.

A good reason to get to meet the photographer and buy prints directly when possible.

 

[lecarp]

I like his work. And at $1600 for a gelatin silver print, he is practically giving it away. Certainly after the galley takes its 50% commission.

The bulk of those $1600.00 prints are pigment.

 

[runswithsizzers]

What fun! Thanks for sharing!

I think the major strengths of Keith Carter's images (the swampy ones) are subject, lighting, and composition. I am guessing the images might be equally powerful - possibly more so - if presented more traditionally(?)

I do enjoy looking at pictoralist-style work. But the subjects and compositions of Carter's swamp photos are so strong, I would like to pull back the veil and see them a little more clearly. (But, perhaps if viewing the prints in real life, at actual size, the subjects would appear more clarity?)

A little research (not much) did not reveal anything about what methods Carter used to make the Ghostlight images. It shouldn't matter, but...

When I see a modern photo that has a distressed or historical look, sometimes I feel like the photographer is trying too hard. Trying to make the print somehow more "arty" by use of special effects. It's similar to how I feel when I see a digital photo with grain, dust, and scratches added in post-processing -- it seems like an affectation.

But here is the funny thing. If I know beforehand that what I am calling "the distressed or historical look" is a necessary and unavoidable result of the photographer working with some arcane alternative process, then I'm fine with that. Only if I suspect the photographer has taken a technically proficient negative and manipulated it to look artificially historical does it sometimes irritate me. It's like listening to music. If a vinyl LP has a few pops and crackles, I can tolerate that as part of the analog experience. But the same noise would be intolerable on a CD recording.

Silly, I know. I should be able to like (or not like) a photograph based only on what I see, and not on what I know. But every photograph is viewed through the prejudices of the viewer (and yes, I have a few).

 

[faberryman]

The bulk of those $1600.00 prints are pigment.

Quite right. Still, seems like a modest price.

 

[DREW WILEY]

lecarp - I doubt any of them are actual pigment prints, not at that price. You must mean ordinary inkjet instead. It's misleading to generically term inkjet prints "pigment prints", even though galleries often incorrectly do that for marketing reasons. Inks potentially involve various ingredients.

 

[jtk]

lecarp - I doubt any of them are actual pigment prints, not at that price. You must mean ordinary inkjet instead. It's misleading to generically term inkjet prints "pigment prints", even though galleries often incorrectly do that for marketing reasons. Inks potentially involve various ingredients.

It'd be good if someone was interested enough in this question would actually ask the gallery, rather than damning galleries in general.

I visit galleries whenever I have the opportunity, I'm a skilled inkjet printer, and I've never seen the misrepresentation that's alleged here.

 

[jtk]

What fun! Thanks for sharing!

I think the major strengths of Keith Carter's images (the swampy ones) are subject, lighting, and composition. I am guessing the images might be equally powerful - possibly more so - if presented more traditionally(?)

I do enjoy looking at pictoralist-style work. But the subjects and compositions of Carter's swamp photos are so strong, I would like to pull back the veil and see them a little more clearly. (But, perhaps if viewing the prints in real life, at actual size, the subjects would appear more clarity?)

A little research (not much) did not reveal anything about what methods Carter used to make the Ghostlight images. It shouldn't matter, but...

When I see a modern photo that has a distressed or historical look, sometimes I feel like the photographer is trying too hard. Trying to make the print somehow more "arty" by use of special effects. It's similar to how I feel when I see a digital photo with grain, dust, and scratches added in post-processing -- it seems like an affectation.

But here is the funny thing. If I know beforehand that what I am calling "the distressed or historical look" is a necessary and unavoidable result of the photographer working with some arcane alternative process, then I'm fine with that. Only if I suspect the photographer has taken a technically proficient negative and manipulated it to look artificially historical does it sometimes irritate me. It's like listening to music. If a vinyl LP has a few pops and crackles, I can tolerate that as part of the analog experience. But the same noise would be intolerable on a CD recording.

Silly, I know. I should be able to like (or not like) a photograph based only on what I see, and not on what I know. But every photograph is viewed through the prejudices of the viewer (and yes, I have a few).

I would like to see the prints and I suspect I'd love them. There's plenty of information about his work online.

Bio | kcstudio Main

www.keithcarterphotographs.com

 

[jtk]

 

[DREW WILEY]

jtk - the bad habit is ubiquitous, all over the internet as well as in seemingly every gallery dealing with photos here in the Bay Area. Across the whole country in fact. But that does not change a thing with respect to proper identification itself. And actual pigment printers deserve to be distinguished form inkjet machines which by design require compromises due to the tiny tiny nature of what has to pass through those nozzles tiny themselves, which prohibit many pigment particles. Yeah, it's remarkable technology capable of its own thing, but true pigment printing ain't one of them. That label should be legitimately reserved for things like carbon, carbro, Fresson, gum printing, etc.

 

[jtk]

Why attack galleries for using the "ubiquitous" and useful terminology. Virtually nobody knows what an "actual pigment printer" is. Perhaps you will produce a "correct" link.

You may have read that Shakespeare invented the English language. That's probably true (even though a Canadian made that claim). Virtually nobody spoke "proper English" before Shakespeare (and Marlow) started playing with it. It didn't even exist. Shakespeare is undoubtedly online this very instant, communicating with people who make wonderful inkjet prints.

 

[lecarp]

lecarp - I doubt any of them are actual pigment prints, not at that price. You must mean ordinary inkjet instead. It's misleading to generically term inkjet prints "pigment prints", even though galleries often incorrectly do that for marketing reasons. Inks potentially involve various ingredients.

I obviously made the mistake of thinking it would be common knowledge they were ink-jet.

jtk - the bad habit is ubiquitous, all over the internet as well as in seemingly every gallery dealing with photos here in the Bay Area. Across the whole country in fact. But that does not change a thing with respect to proper identification itself. And actual pigment printers deserve to be distinguished form inkjet machines which by design require compromises due to the tiny tiny nature of what has to pass through those nozzles tiny themselves, which prohibit many pigment particles. Yeah, it's remarkable technology capable of its own thing, but true pigment printing ain't one of them. That label should be legitimately reserved for things like carbon, carbro, Fresson, gum printing, etc.

Exactly!

What does it say about the value of a printing process when those promoting it (selling) are afraid to call it what it is?

 

[DREW WILEY]

Selling prices are arbitrary. A falling-apart, faded, brittle color cardboard collage by singed by Matisse or Picasso might sell for hundreds of thousands of dollars, while a masterpiece of solid hardwood furniture might sell for a tiny percent of that. Likewise, commercially printed color inkjet, outputted in multiples, in a rather mediocre frame from an Eggleston image might fetch $20,000 dollar in a gallery, while an absolutely exquisite handmade carbon print by an unknown might be lucky to fetch $200.

But in terms of the specific terminology, yes it does need to be addressed and defined in some consistent legal manner, so as to avoid misrepresentation. That is the standing policy in the States of NY and CA, for example, concerning selling lithographs. A real lithograph involves an inherently limited quantity due to the nature of the press medium itself - an etched copper sheet, or stone plate, etc, made by artist himself. But a photolithograph is something copied or scanned, and then outputted to offset reproduction, which can then crank out fancy posters in the tens of thousands if needed. Using the same term, "lithograph", for both categories is therefore illegal, since it has long been the basis for deceptive pricing to naive "investors", thinking that their $4,000 has been well spent for something that only took $4 to make, and that is worth far less than the frame itself the gallery displays it in.

In this case, an assumption is being made that there is some kind of absolute permanence to any image categorized as pigment. Well, every serious painter knows that not all pigments are created equal in that respect, and that most are not in fact indelible to UV. And in the case of inkjet inks, just a little study of the underlying patents will show that they are complex blends of fine pigments, rather typical photo dyes, and lakes (dyed inert pigment particles), and therefore themselves a mixed bag.

 

[kfed1984]

What is a pigment print proper? Are we referring to traditional color carbon and dye transfer prints or something else?
If we are referring to traditional methods, is color carbon easier than dye transfer?

 

[Pieter12]

Speaking of 50% commission, how about when the gallery just keeps all the money? Or keeps the photos? Happens more often than you'd think.

 

[Vaughn]

...
If we are referring to traditional methods, is color carbon easier than dye transfer?

No...which is one of the reasons dye transfer replaced full-color carbon as the prime method of color reproduction in the 1930s.

 

[kfed1984]

No...which is one of the reasons dye transfer replaced full-color carbon as the prime method of color reproduction in the 1930s.

Thank you. I cannot find a simplified explanation of the dye transfer process. I just started in large format B&W but want to try color still-life prints some time in the future. There's some information on alternative dye transfer materials that can be used today, but it seems a bit complicated. Maybe color carbon would be easier technically-speaking, but more laborious to print.

Aside from that, what is a pigment print? Does this refer to dye transfer, color carbon or something else (ink-jet)?

 

[jeffreyg]

I agree with those who expressed that the print process should be accurately described. When I sell or give away a print I make it clear as to the process ie hand coated platinum palladium gold on what ever paper used, ultrachrome inks on 100% cotton paper or silver gelatin on fiber paper I have no reason to misrepresent and a legitimate gallery or seller honors that

ABOUT | JEFFREY GLASSER

HOME | SCULPTURE and PHOTOGRAPHY

 

[Vaughn]

...

Aside from that, what is a pigment print? Does this refer to dye transfer, color carbon or something else (ink-jet)?

A print made with pigments. Really a very loose definition. The definition of 'pigments' is very wide itself..."a substance used for coloring or painting' -- seems covers any color that comes out of an inkjet printer. Another defintion is;" the natural coloring matter of animal or plant tissue"

Archival Pigment Print is at least better than Giclee.

For $1600 for a 16x20 inkjet print, one should be given a second to stash away from light.

 

[kfed1984]

The bulk of those $1600.00 prints are pigment.

Pigment print refers to ink-jet, some other digital process, or manual print-making?

 

[kfed1984]

A print made with pigments. Really a very loose definition. The definition of 'pigments' is very wide itself..."a substance used for coloring or painting' -- seems covers any color that comes out of an inkjet printer. Another defintion is;" the natural coloring matter of animal or plant tissue"

Archival Pigment Print is at least better than Giclee.

For $1600 for a 16x20 inkjet print, one should be given a second to stash away from light.

If it's ink-jet, I think it should be less that $100. Strictly because there's not much actual print-making involved. Selling ink-jet to me feels like selling sand at the beach. I think what really makes more sense is to sell digital works as NFTs, limited edition NFTs. A digital image that exists in the digital limited-edition realm, which is perfectly legitimate. Once you own one of these NFT editions, you can print it however you like with ink-jet.

 

[Pieter12]

If it's ink-jet, I think it should be less that $100.

Depending on the size of the print and the paper it is printed on, a good out-sourced inkjet print can cost as much or more than a silver gelatin print. You are paying for more than the print, you are paying for the image.

 

[Vaughn]

They should be sold at what the market can bear, I suppose. And Pieter is correct, it is more than a colored piece of paper. This fellow limits the edition to 25...which if one were to go with my idea above, it probably should be that the owner sends the aged print back to the photographer, who documents its destruction and its numbered replacement. For example, if one bought #16 of 25 and colors shift over the years of display, the photographer replaces it with a new printing, #16 (2nd generation) of 25. If wishes were fishes...

If one is paying $1600 for the image -- it would be nice to hang it on the wall and have it stick around for awhile.

 

[kfed1984]

Depending on the size of the print and the paper it is printed on, a good out-sourced inkjet print can cost as much or more than a silver gelatin print. You are paying for more than the print, you are paying for the image.

Sure, but the artist's involvement and the type of medium used in the print adds a ton of personalized value. If he was around today, its like comparing Albrecht Durer's original copper engraving print to a "better" laser-printed copy with "better ink" out-sourced by him. I think the copper engraving print made personally by him would be $1600, and the "better" laser print less than $100.

Like one Canadian philosopher said "The Medium is the Message". Although this statement is meant more for public television media, I think it also applies very well to prints.

It's one thing to have Ansel Adams making prints with own hands with own chemicals, vs. him selling out-sourced dot-matrix ink-jet prints with "better" inks. I don't know....