Magnum's Square Print sales - Easy way to collect and invest or money grab?

[calebarchie]

Considering I've sold many of my 20x20cm giclee pinhole prints for $740, conservation matted, I am at a bit of a loss why Magnum is only asking for $100 for a snap of one of history's most iconic photographs. So working along an economy of scale and fast repeatability, these would be giclee reproductions from archive scans. I might just go for the James Dean photo!

Garyh I will take some photos under an objective for you after work today. Chromogenic prints are still cheaper and faster (at a given quality point) to produce today, magnum may well be taking advantage of this (6" roll printing out all day)

 

[faberryman]

Considering I've sold many of my 20x20cm giclee pinhole prints for $740, conservation matted, I am at a bit of a loss why Magnum is only asking for $100 for a snap of one of history's most iconic photographs. So working along an economy of scale and fast repeatability, these would be giclee reproductions from archive scans. I might just go for the James Dean photo!

What is an archival scan? How does that differ from a regular scan?

 

[MartinCrabtree]

Like any art, you should buy it because you like it, therein lies the value.

Agreed.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

What is an archival scan? How does that differ from a regular scan?

Archival scan -> taken from Magnum's vast trove of these for print reproduction, such as for these anniversary prints. No difference to a scan by any other name.

 

[MattKing]

What is an archival scan? How does that differ from a regular scan?

Not archival - archive.
As in creating a digital copy of the image in order to store, preserve and make it easy to distribute it widely.

 

[hoffy]

OK, alternative view time!

Take this poster from Trent Parke:
Dead Link Removed

16x20 poster for $49

OK, not archival print on photographic paper, but I do wonder about its longevity......

 

[calebarchie]

Here are some from phone, 60X through protective sleeving if you must know and signature for comparison. Make of it what you will.

 

[plummerl]

It's actually pretty easy to figure out what they are printed on. Read the Specs & Shipping page for each photograph! Here is the Spec for the Dennis Stock photograph:

• Format: Digital C-Print

• Size: 6 x 6 in (15.24 x 15.24 cm)

• Image Size: 5.5 in (14 cm) on the longest side

• Printed on Fuji Crystal Archive Matte paper

• Estate Stamped

The spec is the same for all of them, except for dimensions.

 

[moose10101]

It's actually pretty easy to figure out what they are printed on. Read the Specs & Shipping page for each photograph! Here is the Spec for the Dennis Stock photograph:

• Format: Digital C-Print

• Size: 6 x 6 in (15.24 x 15.24 cm)

• Image Size: 5.5 in (14 cm) on the longest side

• Printed on Fuji Crystal Archive Matte paper

• Estate Stamped

The spec is the same for all of them, except for dimensions.

Yes, they’ve been very clear about the process and materials.

 

[billbretz]

could these prints be treated as something that could possibly increase in value, or is it just a money grab

Maybe and absolutely.

If you want to flip a print you can make money. eBay sellers have already doubled or more their investment in < 1 year, sometime months on some of these. Perhaps they are taking advantage of folks who don't understand the economics or the recent availability. Now, if every buyer, or even a slightly larger percentage, did this you'd find the "investment" quite poor at this time. Over time I'd guess the $100 would be better off in an index fund.

As to money grab: Magnum isn't doing this out of charity. If it weren't a money machine on some scale they would not be in their what, I don't know, fifth round of these? And Nat Geo, VII have followed in same vein (or Magnum is following one of them?).

But as others have noted, 'invest' in what you enjoy. If/when time comes to sell you may enjoy some return.

 

[tezzasmall]

I've just checked the FAQ and this is what is said about the prints in general:

• Dead Link Removed
  All prints are archival quality and are approved by the photographer. We work closely with our photographers to ensure that all editions are presented according to their intentions. To be precise, these are digital C-Prints on Fuji Crystal Archive Matte paper.

Terry S

 

[faberryman]

If museum quality means archival quality, why don't they just say archival quality, and leave the museum designation out of it. I am sure a museum would rather have a silver gelatin print from a black and white negative than a machine-made C-print from a scan.

 

[plummerl]

Amazing thread. Wilhelm rated the Fuji paper as having a lifetime of 40 to 218 years, depending on storage and lighting. How long do you want a $100 print (an excellent one at that) to last? Just buy it to enjoy looking at it. They really are very nice.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

These may be inkjet prints from scanned silver gelatin print. It's for viewing but not necessarily for collecting.

 

[Richard Man]

If museum quality means archival quality, why don't they just say archival quality, and leave the museum designation out of it. I am sure a museum would rather have a silver gelatin print from a black and white negative than a machine-made C-print from a scan.

You may be sure, but if you actually talk to museums, they don't care. They get arts done in all sort of materials, and they just need to know how best to preserve that particular set of materials.

 

[plummerl]

These may be inkjet prints from scanned silver gelatin print. It's for viewing but not necessarily for collecting.

Again, these are Fuji Crystal Archive (silver halide) prints, not inkjet.

 

[calebarchie]

If museum quality means archival quality, why don't they just say archival quality, and leave the museum designation out of it. I am sure a museum would rather have a silver gelatin print from a black and white negative than a machine-made C-print from a scan.

Please actually go to a Museum. MCA Australia only has one set of silver prints in its permanent collection last time I checked.

https://www.mca.com.au/collection/artist/maynard-ricky/

 

[faberryman]

Why would you think I haven't been to a museum. I recently saw the Diane Arbus exhibit at the SFMOMA, the Danny Lyon exhibit at the De Young, and a Photography Department retrospective at the Art Institute. None of the prints were machine made C-prints from scans.

 

[calebarchie]

Because they are generally about art & culture, not how prints are made

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

Again, these are Fuji Crystal Archive (silver halide) prints, not inkjet.

I stand corrected .

 

[Down Under]

Poisson Du Jour (#9) and hoffy (#21) pretty much summed it up for me. I'm fortunate enough to have a small and greatly cherished collection of ORIGINAL prints by several famed 20th century photographers - notably HCB and one recently acquired beautiful enlargement by Minor White, which came my way at little more than what Magnum intends for us to pay for their 'Jig Lees'.

As PDJ wrote, gicles are good keepsakes, but for serious collectibles, they aren't for me. I derive much pleasure from holding an original fiber base print as a small work of art made by hand, even if that hand wasn't that of the photographer. For several decades Magnum had the almost exclusive services of one of the finest master printers in Europe and I assume the HCB prints I have (were made by him) who knew how to print with the very special 'glow' many older enlargements show, which is sadly lacking in most modern computer-made prints.

Weekend markets in Australia (and likely everywhere else) are a magnet for wannabee photographers trying to flog their images (mostly very ordinary or obviously derived from work they see online, books and magazines) for at times ridiculously prices. The come-on term "rare" is used far too much and from what I'm often told in conversations with these sellers, few sell enough prints to cover their costs. While I'm all for encouraging new/young talent, I also want images on my walls that reflect the inner vision and view of the photographer and not something copied from the largely hokum efforts I see in photo magazines or in web sites.

That said, I shoot partly for clients (mostly in media publishing) and largely for my pleasure. As an amateur of long standing, I would be pleased to sell of my images to private collectors for A$100, hand printed on quarter plate (6.5 x 8.5" paper) with a choice of glossy or pearl (I detest matte finishes and haven't used them since 1980). With the work involved in making darkroom prints by hand, I have always been reluctant to print larger than this size, which seems to suit everyone I provide prints to. I would also promise to not charge A$31 for delivery...

PDJ is fortunate to get the prices he has listed for his photography. I've not seen his work first hand, but he seems capable and someone in Australia who would be worth following and buying from. Alas, not for A$740. Far too much for my modest budget. On the other hand a print exchange...

 

[plummerl]

Poisson Du Jour (#9) and hoffy (#21) pretty much summed it up for me. I'm fortunate enough to have a small and greatly cherished collection of ORIGINAL prints by several famed 20th century photographers - notably HCB and one recently acquired beautiful enlargement by Minor White, which came my way at little more than what Magnum intends for us to pay for their 'Jig Lees'.

As PDJ wrote, gicles are good keepsakes, but for serious collectibles, they aren't for me. I derive much pleasure from holding an original fiber base print as a small work of art made by hand, even if that hand wasn't that of the photographer. For several decades Magnum had the almost exclusive services of one of the finest master printers in Europe and I assume the HCB prints I have (were made by him) who knew how to print with the very special 'glow' many older enlargements show, which is sadly lacking in most modern computer-made prints.

Weekend markets in Australia (and likely everywhere else) are a magnet for wannabee photographers trying to flog their images (mostly very ordinary or obviously derived from work they see online, books and magazines) for at times ridiculously prices. The come-on term "rare" is used far too much and from what I'm often told in conversations with these sellers, few sell enough prints to cover their costs. While I'm all for encouraging new/young talent, I also want images on my walls that reflect the inner vision and view of the photographer and not something copied from the largely hokum efforts I see in photo magazines or in web sites.

That said, I shoot partly for clients (mostly in media publishing) and largely for my pleasure. As an amateur of long standing, I would be pleased to sell of my images to private collectors for A$100, hand printed on quarter plate (6.5 x 8.5" paper) with a choice of glossy or pearl (I detest matte finishes and haven't used them since 1980). With the work involved in making darkroom prints by hand, I have always been reluctant to print larger than this size, which seems to suit everyone I provide prints to. I would also promise to not charge A$31 for delivery...

PDJ is fortunate to get the prices he has listed for his photography. I've not seen his work first hand, but he seems capable and someone in Australia who would be worth following and buying from. Alas, not for A$740. Far too much for my modest budget. On the other hand a print exchange...

Since you posted this the day after the sale ended, I guess that helps you make the decision as well. As far as the continued fantasy that the Magnum prints are giclée, this is bordering on humorous. Does anyone actually read an entire thread? Does the fact that the prints are on silver halide color paper have any meaning to you? I'm pretty sure that this would indicate exposure to light, not ink.

 

[Richard Man]

Seeing "vintage" prints from older photographers would of course skew toward seeing silver gelatin prints, but the fact remains that if one were to actually talk to the museum curators, they absolutely do not care the current artists are making *gash* "digital" prints.

Now anyone can still have a preference toward darkroom prints. Heck, while I have not made a darkroom print for a while (I do think that Pt/Pd is in my future), I personally do prefer darkroom B&W prints myself, when it comes to collecting.

 

[Down Under]

Since you posted this the day after the sale ended, I guess that helps you make the decision as well.

Ho ho, yes, so I did, didn't I? And so it did, didn't it? I must admit, I hadn't thought of this, so.

Quotable as it was the most insightful comment in your thread overall. Thank you for sharing it with us. Have a nice day now!

 

[Ko.Fe.]

...

My question is - could these prints be treated as something that could possibly increase in value, or is it just a money grab, with the prints ultimately worth not much at all in the future?

I'm curious on peoples thoughts.

Cheers

Different reasons. For some it is monetary value - look, I have Magnum print. For another it is affordable way to have the print from photographer they like.

Personally, every time I receive Magnum photos as weekly email link, most of the time I'm finding it non worth of the paying for the print. And often not worth of the looking at the screen.

But I have HCB books....