Making Money in Photography

Berkeley Mike · Jul 24, 2018

jtk said:
Mike, thanks for so exhaustively addressing my perhaps-too-complicated-for-Photrio questions.

How about soliciting occasional classroom presentations from visiting photolab professionals? Maybe that would count on too-much optimism from them...but maybe it'd be interesting to ask .. ?

Dude, this is only the surface. I have a Lab on my Technical Advisory Board who would be happy to represent. It is just that there are so many more fundamental administrative things to put in place. Right now I am teaching Intro to Digital and Intro to Pro.Intro to Dig is about learning to use the camera manually, importing, sorting, developing files, and exporting for subsequent usage. Intro to Pro focuses on building camera usage chops and handling studio gear and sets safely.
Absent a clear degree and clear administrative direction, getting faculty further up the line to move is very hard.

chriscrawfordphoto · Jul 24, 2018

jnanian said:
no clue but hard to understand how people are duped into thinking they a gift from the heavens ...
silver and forms of chemical photography mightnot be perfect, they might not last forever but at least we know of some that have
lasted more than a decade ... a lot of what is being sold today as everlasting might not even last as long as the newsprint it is printed on.
when i mentioned to a friend who is a digital enthusiast computer programmer, software designer cultural icon that i was submitting a state HABS job
as digital files ( TIFF ) and archival pigment prints he couldn't believe that was what they wanted as an archival media

its ez, sure, it looks good, sure, it is here, now, sure its archival, not so sure

You have a long history here of posting such bigoted, ignorant nonsense about digital processes.

I have inkjet prints made with Epson's Ultrachrome pigment inks that are 19 years old. They were most certainly not printed on "Newsprint" and not one of them has faded even a tiny bit. Not even the ones that have been on my walls that entire time.

Many inkjet prints are actually printed on papers that are superior to the paper bases used for analogue prints. Cotton rag papers like those used for watercolor painting and graphic printmaking. The papers used for analogue color printing are almost all RC papers that are far less archival. BW prints made in the darkroom are made on either RC papers or on Fiber Base papers that use wood pulp as a base, not cotton. The FB wood-pulp papers are good, they're made of highly purified pulp, but that's not as good as cotton.

Isn't it about time that you stopped spouting off about things you know absolutely nothing about?

jtk · Jul 24, 2018

chriscrawfordphoto said:
You have a long history here of posting such bigoted, ignorant nonsense about digital processes.

I have inkjet prints made with Epson's Ultrachrome pigment inks that are 19 years old. They were most certainly not printed on "Newsprint" and not one of them has faded even a tiny bit. Not even the ones that have been on my walls that entire time.

Many inkjet prints are actually printed on papers that are superior to the paper bases used for analogue prints. Cotton rag papers like those used for watercolor painting and graphic printmaking. The papers used for analogue color printing are almost all RC papers that are far less archival. BW prints made in the darkroom are made on either RC papers or on Fiber Base papers that use wood pulp as a base, not cotton. The FB wood-pulp papers are good, they're made of highly purified pulp, but that's not as good as cotton.

Isn't it about time that you stopped spouting off about things you know absolutely nothing about?

jtk · Jul 24, 2018

Berkeley Mike said:
Dude, this is only the surface. I have a Lab on my Technical Advisory Board who would be happy to represent. It is just that there are so many more fundamental administrative things to put in place. Right now I am teaching Intro to Digital and Intro to Pro.Intro to Dig is about learning to use the camera manually, importing, sorting, developing files, and exporting for subsequent usage. Intro to Pro focuses on building camera usage chops and handling studio gear and sets safely.
Absent a clear degree and clear administrative direction, getting faculty further up the line to move is very hard.

As a person who has almost no experience with layers and realities such as you describe, all I can say is that you are doing something good...and I hope you can feel good as well.

removed account4 · Jul 24, 2018

berkeley mike
good luck with your project
sounds like an uphill struggle with heads of school
who are film lovers and don't realize what the photography has become.
my comment about knowing what a print will look like has to do with
digital files may look totally different for a client on a computer screen
than it does in print form. unless the images are never going to be printed

and sorry to have infected your thread with this pollution

chriscrawfordphoto said:
Isn't it about time that you stopped spouting off about things you know absolutely nothing about?

LOL whatever ...

so you have ink jet prints that are more than 30 years and still good ?
is any information about their lifespan anything more than a guess?
the labs that presented digital c prints that shifted were pro labs and they have since gone out of business.
are you saying they didn't exist, and my colleagues clients weren't upset ?
the computer guy wasn't surprised files and ink jet prints were submitted?
slackcruster recently posted shifted / faded fuji prints. are you saying slackrusters images weren't real?

so it is ethical to make more prints of the same edition when the edition is over ?
again, not a concern of museum currators and gallery owners and investment buyers ?

by suggesting these problems haven't existed or don't currently happen and claiming i am FOS you are just expressing your own ignorance ..
Isn't it about time that you stopped spouting off about things you know absolutely nothing about?

chriscrawfordphoto · Jul 24, 2018

jnanian said:
berkeley mike
good luck with your project
sounds like an uphill struggle with heads of school
who are film lovers and don't realize what the photography has become.
my comment about knowing what a print will look like has to do with
digital files may look totally different for a client on a computer screen
than it does in print form. unless the images are never going to be printed

and sorry to have infected your thread with this pollution

LOL whatever ...

so you have ink jet prints that are more than 30 years and still good ?
is any information about their lifespan anything more than a guess?
the labs that presented digital c prints that shifted were pro labs and they have since gone out of business.
are you saying they didn't exist, and my colleagues clients weren't upset ?
the computer guy wasn't surprised files and ink jet prints were submitted?
slackcruster recently posted shifted / faded fuji prints. are you saying slackrusters images weren't real?

so it is ethical to make more prints of the same edition when the edition is over ?
again, not a concern of museum currators and gallery owners and investment buyers ?

by suggesting these problems haven't existed or don't currently happen and claiming i am FOS you are just expressing your own ignorance ..
Isn't it about time that you stopped spouting off about things you know absolutely nothing about?

I barely understood a word of that incoherent rant. Hold to your bigotry if it comforts you. The rest of us recognize that photography's history is longer and deeper than the narrow world of the silver-gelatin print (Black and White) or the C-Print (Color). There have been a huge number of different print processes used in photography during the nearly 200 years since the first photograph was made in the 1820s. Inkjets are simply the latest of many. Something will eventually replace them, as well, and fools like you will be there stamping your feet and howling at the moon in a desperate attempt to stop progress in any form.

Berkeley Mike · Jul 24, 2018

jnanian said:
berkeley mike
good luck with your project
sounds like an uphill struggle with heads of school
who are film lovers and don't realize what the photography has become.
my comment about knowing what a print will look like has to do with
digital files may look totally different for a client on a computer screen
than it does in print form. unless the images are never going to be printed

and sorry to have infected your thread with this pollution

Not a problem at all. It made me elaborate on something I hadn't shared yet. The funny thing about this whole quandary is that the problems and solutions are so clear to just about anyone who knows photography. Photrio is no different; all the right questions are asked, much to my chagrin, and I wish I could wave my wand and make this all work. The resistance is nearly obtuse. One colleague suggested that their continued struggle to maintain the status quo is akin to arguing against climate change. My read on that is that these folks are talking about beliefs as opposed to factual information. I am looking forward to a departmental meeting with the new Dean on the week before classes start where this will be discussed.

removed account4 · Jul 24, 2018

chriscrawfordphoto said:
I barely understood a word of that incoherent rant. Hold to your bigotry if it comforts you. The rest of us recognize that photography's history is longer and deeper than the narrow world of the silver-gelatin print (Black and White) or the C-Print (Color). There have been a huge number of different print processes used in photography during the nearly 200 years since the first photograph was made in the 1820s. Inkjets are simply the latest of many. Something will eventually replace them, as well, and fools like you will be there stamping your feet and howling at the moon in a desperate attempt to stop progress in any form.

LOL
maybe you should learn how to read?
all i have is expressed doubt that ink jet prints will last 200 years
sounds like you are doing everytihng you can to throw insults at me
yet deny the truth of the matter, ink jet prints have not been around for very long
and no one has any idea how long they will last, just like c prints and digital cprints after them.
maybe you should know a little about me before you do your best to sling mud at me.
im a former gallery owner who knows galley owners struggle with problems with the color and ink media
and i have been selling ink based and digital c prints to clients for about 20 years, i have no problem with them,
but like gallerists, i worry about people coming back to me and needing a reprint,
and when i sell them to a preservation organization / state historic preservattion agency it makes me worry.
i don't do editions cause i think they are a scam so i have no problem making another print ,,,
would you buy a 2 million dollar fuji crystal archive print or ink jet print?
i wouldn't .. unless you made it of course cause the way you talk about the media
you to must have some secret juju that makes them last forever

chriscrawfordphoto · Jul 25, 2018

jnanian said:
LOL
maybe you should learn how to read?
all i have is expressed doubt that ink jet prints will last 200 years
sounds like you are doing everytihng you can to throw insults at me
yet deny the truth of the matter, ink jet prints have not been around for very long
and no one has any idea how long they will last, just like c prints and digital cprints after them.
maybe you should know a little about me before you do your best to sling mud at me.
im a former gallery owner who knows galley owners struggle with problems with the color and ink media
and i have been selling ink based and digital c prints to clients for about 20 years, i have no problem with them,
but like gallerists, i worry about people coming back to me and needing a reprint,
and when i sell them to a preservation organization / state historic preservattion agency it makes me worry.
i don't do editions cause i think they are a scam so i have no problem making another print ,,,
would you buy a 2 million dollar fuji crystal archive print or ink jet print?
i wouldn't .. unless you made it of course cause the way you talk about the media
you to must have some secret juju that makes them last forever

You're the one who claimed that inkjet prints were printed on Newsprint, which is clearly false. Anyone who would say something like that is coming from a position of bigotry and/or ignorance. Full stop. Newsprint is probably the least archival paper made. It is designed to be cheap since it is typically used for newspapers, which are recycled by most readers the day after they're printed (so archival is not needed). No one prints on that with an inkjet printer. In fact, inkjets have opened up a world of gorgeous fine art papers made of cotton that will last for centuries (the paper itself; the image life depends on the inks used).

What color process would you buy? None have been around long enough to see if they'll last forever. Ilfochome/Cibachrome is believed to have a very long lifespan, but only if kept in the dark, and the assumption of long dark-storage life is based on accelerated aging tests that may or may not accurately predict real-world conditions. Is Black & White the only genre of photography acceptable to you since its the most archival? That excludes a lot of incredible work being done today.

I know this: C-prints made when I was young are almost all faded badly. That is especially true of stuff from my childhood, but even color prints from when I first began doing inkjet printing have not held up as well as Epson Ultrachome ink prints on cotton rag paper. Current RA-4 papers are claimed to have 100+ year lifespans. Accelerated aging tests of them exposed to light, as a framed print would be, show they are inferior to pigment ink inkjet prints. Whether that holds true in the real world is unknown, but it is all we have to go by until enough real-world time has passed to see how prints have really held up.

removed account4 · Jul 25, 2018

chriscrawfordphoto said:
You're the one who claimed that inkjet prints were printed on Newsprint, which is clearly false.

uh huh it was clearly false ... i'm guilty !
the newsprint remark was blatant over exaggeration
and that is pretty obvious to most people reading it.

its too bad you polluted this thread with insults because of that

chriscrawfordphoto · Jul 25, 2018

jnanian said:
uh huh it was clearly false ... i'm guilty !
the newsprint remark was blatant over exaggeration
and that is pretty obvious to most people reading it.

its too bad you polluted this thread with insults because of that

Your posting history is filled with such childish hyperbole pushing an agenda of emotion-driven bigotry against digital work.

removed account4 · Jul 25, 2018

chriscrawfordphoto said:
Your posting history is filled with such childish hyperbole pushing an agenda of emotion-driven bigotry against digital work.

LOL whatever
emotional driven bigotry towards digital work
when i have been scanning images for more than20 years
and selling and making digital work professionally or the same amount of time.
what i dont' like is people selling false hopes. ephemera like ad work or pr work great,
archival claims not so great, and over the years that is what my " childish hyperbole" was about just like in this thread ..

==
sorry berkeley mike ...

chriscrawfordphoto · Jul 25, 2018

jnanian said:
LOL whatever
emotional driven bigotry towards digital work
when i have been scanning images for more than20 years
and selling and making digital work professionally or the same amount of time.
what i dont' like is people selling false hopes. ephemera like ad work or pr work great,
archival claims not so great, and over the years that is what my " childish hyperbole" was about just like in this thread ..

==
sorry berkeley mike ...

Do you think people should only sell black & white prints, then? No color process is proven to be truly archival. I think things are far better with inkjet technology now than 20 years ago. I think you're talking about the time when all inkjets used dye-based inks that did, indeed, fade very quickly when exposed to light. Pigment inks are better. Like I said, I have 18 year old prints made with an Epson 2200 printer that are still in the same condition they were in when I made them, and some of them have been on display all that time. The 2200 used the Ultrachrome inks, which were the first really good pigment inks. They've outlasted RA-4 prints I have from that period, but they probably won't outlast a fiber based B&W print.

Like I said in in our PM conversation, I think it would be unfortunate to refuse to accept any color work as art; there has been a lot of great color work done, and a lot is being done now, that is culturally significant.

cramej · Jul 25, 2018

Ahem.....so, about making money in photography...

Can we be done with the debate on archival qualities of C prints vs Inkjet?

eddie · Jul 25, 2018

chriscrawfordphoto said:
Your posting history is filled with such childish hyperbole pushing an agenda of emotion-driven bigotry against digital work.

Really? I don't think you're familiar with John's posts. There is probably no one on this site who thinks photography is whatever the creator wants it to be more than John. He even makes images which fade almost immediately, proving he's not held hostage by the notion of archivability.

removed account4 · Jul 25, 2018

XCNIP

chriscrawfordphoto said:
Do you think people should only sell black & white prints, then?

i think people should do whatever they want i couldn't care less how something is made, if it is bw or color &c

MattKing · Jul 25, 2018

eddie said:
Really? I don't think you're familiar with John's posts. There is probably no one on this site who thinks photography is whatever the creator wants it to be more than John. He even makes images which fade almost immediately, proving he's not held hostage by the notion of archivability.

+1

jtk · Jul 25, 2018

eddie said:
Really? I don't think you're familiar with John's posts. There is probably no one on this site who thinks photography is whatever the creator wants it to be more than John. He even makes images which fade almost immediately, proving he's not held hostage by the notion of archivability.

Eddie, the OT on this thread wasn't "archive" until certain obsessives dragged it abusively here, intending to divert the attention from the challenges expressed by a California educator in his OT.

You and I weren't at odds until you chimed in with one of those obsessives, who incoherently attacked me for implicitly supporting those trade school (not art school) decisions in favor of digital. Based on that and a PM I guessed you were ill. Did I misunderstand? If so, please PM me...perhaps we can sort that out.

eddie · Jul 25, 2018

jtk said:
You and I weren't at odds until you chimed in with one of those obsessives, who incoherently attacked me for implicitly supporting those trade school (not art school) decisions in favor of digital. Based on that and a PM I guessed you were ill. Did I misunderstand? If so, please PM me...perhaps we can sort that out.

I see nothing in any of my posts in this thread indicating any illness. As we've never PMed each other, I don't know why you'd infer I was ill.
As for being at odds, my only problem is with your insistence that digital is unquestionably superior to analog. Other than when discussions go analog/digital, I appreciate your contributions. I may not always agree, but that doesn't mean they don't have merit.

jtk · Jul 25, 2018

eddie said:
I see nothing in any of my posts in this thread indicating any illness. As we've never PMed each other, I don't know why you'd infer I was ill.
As for being at odds, my only problem is with your insistence that digital is unquestionably superior to analog. Other than when discussions go analog/digital, I appreciate your contributions. I may not always agree, but that doesn't mean they don't have merit.

Eddie, thanks.

I do apologize for inferring illness and won't comment on the PM..except that it wasn't from you.

I've never insisted that digital is "unquestionably superior to analog" as I know situations in which analog cameras serve better than digital cameras (e.g. my approach to portraiture)... and as an inkjet printing person I've seen fine platinum prints that whup digital (tho fine platinum prints now seem to involve inkjet contact negatives).

removed account4 · Jul 25, 2018

eddie and matt,
thanks !
haters gotta hate
oh well ...

have a fantastic day !
john

jtk · Jul 25, 2018

Berkeley Mike said:
Are these pigment prints fading/shifting?

Mike, everything shifts in time...art most especially.

The stability of color prints depends heavily on the quality of the lab that printed them.

I have Kodachrome prints (yes Kodak made Kodachrome prints) of myself as an infant that look reasonably good and 10 yr old Kodak photofinished prints that have gone to hell.

My own Ciba prints have shifted a little but the permanence of the plastic substrate is more of a question.

I made Agfacolor (yes Agfa) prints that look great today, after two decades, because friends and I processed them better than anybody did by following Agfa's advice.

Ektacolor prints made by Faulkner Color Lab in San Francisco in the 70s look great, but have lost a little in black areas.

My own Epson 2200 OEM pigment prints will probably remain stable but the non-OEMs advocated by others for cheapness may not hold up.

Some papers (e.g. Epson Enhanced Matte) rapidly shifted from extreme bright white to faintly cream, which is why Epson stopped selling that paper, despite its popularity.

Time marches on, but current inkjet technology (I use Canon pigments) seems likely to outlast most alternatives. My hope is that somehow someone will revive color silkscreen printing for larger prints.

chriscrawfordphoto · Jul 25, 2018

jtk said:
I have Kodachrome prints (yes Kodak made Kodachrome prints) of myself as an infant that look reasonably good and 10 yr old Kodak photofinished prints that have gone to hell

I'm curious about those. Did they use the same process as Kodachrome slides? Or were they just prints from Kodachrome slides using a more conventional color print process?

My own Epson 2200 OEM pigment prints will probably remain stable but the non-OEMs advocated by others for cheapness may not hold up.

Some papers (e.g. Epson Enhanced Matte) rapidly shifted from extreme bright white to faintly cream, which is why Epson stopped selling that paper, despite its popularity.

Epson didn't stop making that paper, they just renamed it, again! It was originally called Archival Matte. When it was discovered that it was not, in fact, very archival, they changed the name to Enhanced Matte. Now its called Ultra Premium Presentation Paper Matte. What a long name! Anyway, it is the exact same paper as the stuff they called Archival Matte and Enhanced Matte. All that changed was the name.

MattKing · Jul 25, 2018

jtk said:
I have Kodachrome prints (yes Kodak made Kodachrome prints) of myself as an infant that look reasonably good and 10 yr old Kodak photofinished prints that have gone to hell.

chriscrawfordphoto said:
I'm curious about those. Did they use the same process as Kodachrome slides? Or were they just prints from Kodachrome slides using a more conventional color print process?

The Kodachrome prints were from |Kodachrome slides, were made on a particular version of Type R paper and were not fundamentally more long lasting than "C" prints of the same era.

I have a bunch of my father's slides - many, many hundreds (thousands!) of them in fact. Included amongst them are a few slides from around the 1960s that have a Kodachrome insignia on them, but appear to actually have been made from colour negatives. They are almost universally faded and discoloured.
The 1940s era Kodachrome slides have deteriorated badly. Most of the more recent ones look good. The Ektachrome slides vary in quality.
I also have a couple of 11x14 enlargements that were made by my Dad in the empioyee darkroom at the Kodak site in Toronto. They were done between 1959 and 1961. They have spent a lot of time on display, then on a basement wall, then in storage. They look a bit faded and have lost a bit of colour. But given they were printed by an amateur nearly 60 years ago...
I still have the negatives and in some cases some of the proofs from the weddings I shot in the 1970s and 80s. The negatives look good, and the proofs range from excellent to slightly yellowed.

None of which is particularly related to training people on how to make money in Photography, save and except one issue, which I am glad to be able to come back to.
A well trained photographer is extremely familiar with the characteristics of the various printing media, including longevity under various circumstances, and is able to tailor their output to the media which best serves the interests of their client.
In this modern world, that means knowing how to use printers and printer profiles and the controls in software like Lightroom to customize their work according to the needs of the client.
Or, for those few clients who appreciate it, it can mean having the knowledge and experience to be able to produce their work on alternative media, using alternative and/or traditional processes.
A photographer who is only able to produce work suitable for digital presentation is a poorly trained photographer.

jtk · Jul 25, 2018

MattKing said:
The Kodachrome prints were from |Kodachrome slides, were made on a particular version of Type R paper and were not fundamentally more long lasting than "C" prints of the same era.

I have a bunch of my father's slides - many, many hundreds (thousands!) of them in fact. Included amongst them are a few slides from around the 1960s that have a Kodachrome insignia on them, but appear to actually have been made from colour negatives. They are almost universally faded and discoloured.
The 1940s era Kodachrome slides have deteriorated badly. Most of the more recent ones look good. The Ektachrome slides vary in quality.
I also have a couple of 11x14 enlargements that were made by my Dad in the empioyee darkroom at the Kodak site in Toronto. They were done between 1959 and 1961. They have spent a lot of time on display, then on a basement wall, then in storage. They look a bit faded and have lost a bit of colour. But given they were printed by an amateur nearly 60 years ago...
I still have the negatives and in some cases some of the proofs from the weddings I shot in the 1970s and 80s. The negatives look good, and the proofs range from excellent to slightly yellowed.

None of which is particularly related to training people on how to make money in Photography, save and except one issue, which I am glad to be able to come back to.
A well trained photographer is extremely familiar with the characteristics of the various printing media, including longevity under various circumstances, and is able to tailor their output to the media which best serves the interests of their client.
In this modern world, that means knowing how to use printers and printer profiles and the controls in software like Lightroom to customize their work according to the needs of the client.
Or, for those few clients who appreciate it, it can mean having the knowledge and experience to be able to produce their work on alternative media, using alternative and/or traditional processes.
A photographer who is only able to produce work suitable for digital presentation is a poorly trained photographer.

Comments about the above:

1) The Kodachrome prints I mentioned are on a plastic base and, like all "type R" prints are in fact fundamentally different from type C.

2) Kodak's type C didn't exist when my Kodachrome prints were made.

3) "Well trained" photographers have all sorts of backgrounds. Lightroom is only one of the relevant applications. Lightroom is only a convenience....some photographers never get past it. Photoshop, Lightroom's foundation, is capable of more and is a better bet in many situations (which is why the most technically strong print makers rely on it when Lightroom isn't adequate). For many of Lightroom's purposes, especially convenience, Nik is better.

4) I don't choose to demean other photographers as "poorly trained." I prioritize imagery, never "training." In particular I don't dismiss digital presentation skills.

Making Money in Photography

Does it make more sense to train to make money in Film or Digital Photography?

Film Photography

Digital Photography

Berkeley Mike

chriscrawfordphoto

jtk

jtk

removed account4

chriscrawfordphoto

Berkeley Mike

removed account4

chriscrawfordphoto

removed account4

chriscrawfordphoto

removed account4

chriscrawfordphoto

cramej

eddie

removed account4

MattKing

Moderator

jtk

eddie

jtk

removed account4

jtk

chriscrawfordphoto

MattKing

Moderator

jtk

Making Money in Photography

Does it make more sense to train to make money in Film or Digital Photography?

Film Photography

Digital Photography

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency