Making Money in Photography

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

  • Film Photography

    Votes: 1 3.0%

  • Digital Photography

    Votes: 32 97.0%
  • Total voters
    33
  • Poll closed .

removed account4

Subscriber
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
Messages
29,832
Format
Hybrid
snip snip snip

jtk said:
"Archival" isn't a serious debate in museums or (most) galleries because all of them prioritize the image.
Click to expand...

just emailed back and forth with a colleague who works at a museum
to make sure i wasn't FOS ... sorry, to disappoint ....
yes, galleries and museums might not care about an image lasting 900 years
but they care about longevity and issues the work might have. its an investment....


sounds like they are running by the same guidelines as places on this side of the equator
 
Last edited:

jtk

Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2007
Messages
4,943
Location
Albuquerque, New Mexico
Format
35mm
It's a rare museum that buys photos as "investments." If they buy any art at all, they buy the artists name. They have a hard enough time occasionally exhibiting, then getting rid of donations. Museum boards are not idiots...being investors themselves they understand basic economics so don't let salaried staff pretend.
 

faberryman

Subscriber
Joined
Jun 4, 2016
Messages
6,048
Location
Wherever
Format
Multi Format
Pretend what?
 

removed account4

Subscriber
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
Messages
29,832
Format
Hybrid
snip snip snip
It's a rare museum that buys photos as "investments." If they buy any art at all,.....so don't let salaried staff pretend.
Click to expand...

museums don't buy or sell art?!
collections staff is pretending?!
LOL you have to be kidding ...
DUDE, thats really kind of funny
 
Last edited:

jtk

Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2007
Messages
4,943
Location
Albuquerque, New Mexico
Format
35mm
jnanian said:
snip snip sp


museums don't buy or sell art?!
collections staff is pretending?!
LOL you have to be kidding ...
thats really kind of funny
Click to expand...

Look up the word "investment." Investment is made to make money over time, not to spend it. Buying and selling isn't "investment." Collections staff is an expense item: accumulates and (continually) labors to get rid of donated objects. They often buy to please financial donors and have to sit on those purchases until the donors die and the junque can be thinned out..

Useful to know the meanings of terms like these.
 
Last edited:

removed account4

Subscriber
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
Messages
29,832
Format
Hybrid
Useful to know the meanings of terms like these.
Click to expand...
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2...new-investment-choice-rich-shunning-paintings
Click to expand...

LOL whatever DUDE...

please contact a collections person at a museum or a high end gallery rep and ask them if they
collect + sell things that don't retain their value
 
Last edited:

jtk

Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2007
Messages
4,943
Location
Albuquerque, New Mexico
Format
35mm

Urgent Notice to Archivers:

Gather up your treasured snaps and hurry on down to your local museums!

Don't delay! Time is money!

Collections staffs be hot to invest in your art, especially the gen-yoo-wine mystery-tone out-date wannabe neo-Holga street stuff! Your blurry water! Your lovely footpaths! Your nekkid ladies!

Friendly collection staffs be a-waiting for you!

Do that or they won't know how to find you or where to send your money!

Times awasting!

 
Last edited:
  • jtk
  • Deleted

removed account4

Subscriber
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
Messages
29,832
Format
Hybrid
you might gain some insights and knowledge by
having a conversation who works in a museum or high end gallery
no one ever said ink jet prints can't be nice
but the problem is no one knows how long the nice will last...
( even folks at the new england docuument conservaton center have
no clue how long an ink jet print will last )
 
Last edited:

faberryman

Subscriber
Joined
Jun 4, 2016
Messages
6,048
Location
Wherever
Format
Multi Format
jtk said:
Urgent Notice to Archivers:
Click to expand...
From whence does your antipathy with photographers who attempt to process their images to last as long as possible arise? Given the pride you express in your ancestral images, I would have thought you would be sympathetic to their objectives, instead of constantly mocking them.
 
Last edited:

jtk

Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2007
Messages
4,943
Location
Albuquerque, New Mexico
Format
35mm

Amusing! All of my family's silver prints were probably archival by the standards of their day, some flawless and some decayed beyond restoration. Hard to avoid for us today to print "archivally" if we play by the common rules.

There seems to be a lot more archival anxiety on many of Photrio's Forums than about images.

Me, I find images are more important than archival status....many others seem not to prioritize images.

Yes, I'm proud of my photo ancestry. They were cutting edge in their day. Thanks to digital techniques their images are preserved (archived?) online, in various backup devices, and by distribution after scanning and printing to 7 close adult family members. That distribution has already elevated potential longterm survival of my family's photos into at least two more generations...odds favor replication.

How many "archival" prints will survive for even two generations unless they're duplicated in some way and distributed the way I've done?
 

removed account4

Subscriber
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
Messages
29,832
Format
Hybrid
He can speak for himself, right? Show him some respect.
Click to expand...
LOL
TOO FUNNY DUDE!
"mr pot meet mr kettle"
as the great stonenyc would say: LOL HAHAHA
 
Last edited:

Sirius Glass

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 18, 2007
Messages
50,490
Location
Southern California
Format
Multi Format
Please do not feed the trolls.
 

jtk

Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2007
Messages
4,943
Location
Albuquerque, New Mexico
Format
35mm
Yes, I'm proud of my photo ancestry. They were cutting edge in their day. Thanks to digital techniques their images are preserved (archived?) online, in various backup devices, and by distribution after scanning and printing to 7 close adult family members. That distribution has already elevated potential longterm survival of my family's photos into at least two more generations...odds favor replication.

How many "archival" prints will survive for even two generations unless they're duplicated in some way and distributed the way I've done? [/QUOTE]
''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

That's a serious question, by the way.

If one is concerned about survival of their photographs, far into the future, doesn't it make sense to make multiple prints and distribute them to places that matter? Such as close family members?

Why is that obvious archival technique never mentioned? No families? How about friends?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…