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)
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?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!
Agreed.Like any art, you should buy it because you like it, therein lies the value.
What is an archival scan? How does that differ from a regular scan?
Not archival - archive.What is an archival scan? How does that differ from a regular scan?
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
The spec is the same for all of them, except for dimensions.
- Estate Stamped
could these prints be treated as something that could possibly increase in value, or is it just a money grab
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.
Again, these are Fuji Crystal Archive (silver halide) prints, not inkjet.These may be inkjet prints from scanned silver gelatin print. It's for viewing but not necessarily for collecting.
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.
I stand correctedAgain, these are Fuji Crystal Archive (silver halide) prints, not inkjet.
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.
...
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
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?