If a museum had a choice of a Robert Capa print made from the negative on silver gelatin paper, or a machine-made C-print from a scan, which would it prefer? Magnum is offering the later as "museum quality".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.
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.
Books are much better value and investment.But I have HCB books....
If a museum had a choice of a Robert Capa print made from the negative on silver gelatin paper, or a machine-made C-print from a scan, which would it prefer? Magnum is offering the later as "museum quality".
That's correct. If an artist or photographer is known for producing work by digital reproduction and inkjet, those printing methods will not affect the value of the work either way. If the creator is well known and esteemed the value will be high, if they're unknown the price will be low regardless of the medium. However if someone is known for their work in the fine silver print or any other traditional process, an image produced by other means will inevitably affect value, because the vision and the technique are linked. This is especially true if the photographer made the image.That's not the scenario I am talking about. I am talking about Mitch Dobrowner ONLY offering his latest stuff on inkjet print and museums (if they fancy his stuff) would gladly take them.
If your complaint is that Magnum is misusing the phrase "museum quality", while you have a point in the Capa scenario, most new Magnum photos are now from digital cameras only and no museum is going to say, "Oh sorry, David Alan Harvey, we can't take your prints because it's inkjet, can you do a silver print instead?"
While I am a nobody in photo world, I do know some "name photographers" and what I said is based on what they told me as their their experience, plus what I hear from gallerists and museum curators, and people like Mary Virginia Swanson, in places like portfolio reviews at PhotoLucida, Santa Fe Review etc.
Books are much better value and investment.
Then I would suggest that for the next sale, you actually look at the images. Most are not square images, but the paper is.I prefer prints larger than 6x6. And I don't like it square.
Then I would suggest that for the next sale, you actually look at the images. Most are not square images, but the paper is.
James Dean in Times Square looks like a straight print of the neg. Not faithful to the way Stock printed it.
https://meltinlooks.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/james-dean-par-dennis-stock-sur-times-square.jpg
But $100 isn't all that much...
Out of curiosity, do you know to interpret the notes on the draft print on the right side of the link? And do you know if that's all done optically in a darkroom or digitally? Looking at the notes makes me think my simple enlarging, rarely dodging or burning, isn't impressive or good, lol.
Out of curiosity, do you know to interpret the notes on the draft print on the right side of the link? And do you know if that's all done optically in a darkroom or digitally? Looking at the notes makes me think my simple enlarging, rarely dodging or burning, isn't impressive or good, lol.
Those are the notes of the person who printed them optically (link from an earlier post in the thread):
https://petapixel.com/2013/09/12/marked-photographs-show-iconic-prints-edited-darkroom/
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?