Making Money in Photography

[removed account4]

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

what i find to be most hilarous about your comment is
for years i was trolled when i promoted harmony film and digital/hybrid users, as a film user ... i was called an anti film bigot... LOL
now as a digital / hybrid user i call BS on manufacturers longevity claims ( as a former gallery owner, and someone who sells digital photographs to archives ) now i am an anti digital bigot.. LOL
whats next ?
i wish the "haters" would make up their minds what i am ... !
or ... maybe instead, use whatever camera you want
use whatever process you want,
make whatever it is you want to make
and enjoy yourself... and leave other people alone

 

[Sirius Glass]

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

How come the least knowledgeable are the first to spout off about bigotry?

 

[jtk]

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 ...

I'm confused. I was denounced for doing some professional work (over 10 years solid, mostly LF until I chose to walk mostly away). Here somebody's bragging (claiming?) that he is guilty of the same sin !

 

[removed account4]

not really ....
please keep your personal attacks to yourself,
they are against the TOS of this website.

 

[Berkeley Mike]

LOOK!...a squirrel!

I wonder what type of thread I can devise that won't turn into a film vs. digital slugfest. As one is either a Nazi or butt-raw altercation is guaranteed.

 

[Sirius Glass]

LOOK!...a squirrel!

I wonder what type of thread I can devise that won't turn into a film vs. digital slugfest. As one is either a Nazi or butt-raw altercation is guaranteed.

A statement from the two letter troll in the dreaded Kodachrome has been deleted thread: "Magenta is not a color."

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

all i have is expressed doubt that ink jet prints will last 200 years

John,
Nobody can give a hard and fast fact about this because inkjet/giclée has not been around long enough or tested thoroughly enough to provide a long-term confidence in archival permanence. I think 200 years might be drawing a long bow. How will the prints be stored? Or framed? With what materials? Matting and glass? I certainly would not strut around telling people my prints are going to last 200-300-400 years; we just do not know, and will not be here to say one way or another.

I do not have any inkjet prints pre-2010, only Ilfochrome Classic prints (raw and framed, dating back to 1978 and forward of that covering all 4 iterations of the Cibachrome/Ilfochrome print process), traditional wet RA-4 prints (early 1990s), then hybrid wet/LED RA-4 and latterly inkjet (the hybridised wet/LEDRA-4 process is slipping away as machinery and parts for these old dinosaurs are not scarce and costly to source).

Manufacturers' claims about permanence and/or image stability of inkjet over the long term have to be carefully weighted with a number of other critical factors, among them how the print will be stored, the environment and/or presented after the (printing) fact. We do know though that baryta-impregnated media is achieving considerably better archival qualities than media before it. In a way, inkjet is continually evolving and improving and we can certainly look forward to more evolution in the future.

 

[removed account4]

couldn't agree more gary !

 

[jtk]

John,
Nobody can give a hard and fast fact about this because inkjet/giclée has not been around long enough or tested thoroughly enough to provide a long-term confidence in archival permanence. I think 200 years might be drawing a long bow. How will the prints be stored? Or framed? With what materials? Matting and glass? I certainly would not strut around telling people my prints are going to last 200-300-400 years; we just do not know, and will not be here to say one way or another.

I do not have any inkjet prints pre-2010, only Ilfochrome Classic prints (raw and framed, dating back to 1978 and forward of that covering all 4 iterations of the Cibachrome/Ilfochrome print process), traditional wet RA-4 prints (early 1990s), then hybrid wet/LED RA-4 and latterly inkjet (the hybridised wet/LEDRA-4 process is slipping away as machinery and parts for these old dinosaurs are not scarce and costly to source).

Manufacturers' claims about permanence and/or image stability of inkjet over the long term have to be carefully weighted with a number of other critical factors, among them how the print will be stored, the environment and/or presented after the (printing) fact. We do know though that baryta-impregnated media is achieving considerably better archival qualities than media before it. In a way, inkjet is continually evolving and improving and we can certainly look forward to more evolution in the future.

FWIW this "archival" diversion seems irrelevant to the OT, which has to do with "making money."

Undoubtedly many of today's silver prints will still be around in 200 years. Will that be important, a good thing?

Does the value of an image boil down to the archival character of a print? Image Vs. Print.

Many of us have fine books with thousands of beautifully reproduced Westons, Penns, Avedons etc (and have even carefully seen the originals). IMO the books are and will be more profoundly important than the prints, and they'll still be in beautiful print publication in 500 years.

 

[jtk]

I'm confused. I was denounced for doing some professional work (over 10 years solid, mostly LF until I chose to walk mostly away). Here somebody's bragging (claiming?) that he is guilty of the same sin !

This is curiouser and curiouser....funny!

it was J.R. Bob Dobbs that denounced me for having shot photos for money. Tragically, several others on Photrio seem be in denial about that. http://subgenius.wikia.com/wiki/J.R._"Bob"_Dobbs

 

[removed account4]

seems he was denouncing you for being slackless and pink, not for making money.

PRAISE BOB!

 

[jtk]

seems he was denouncing you for being slackless and pink, not for making money.

PRAISE BOB!

In contrast with Bob's minions I never pleaded for money from any government agency.

During mid 70s/late 80s (bubble years) I'd just walk down the street, visit ad agencies and graphic designers (no appointments), shake hands, show work (later give sample print), get assignments (usually within a month), shoot, get paid within 30 days . Magic!

Because I respected potential clients, I always showed as much "pure art" as samples of commercial illustration.

Things are hard today for wannabes, but were in ancient times as well. Sheep Vs goats.

Thank goodness today's kids are making videos and posting them online. Millennials rock!

 

[Sirius Glass]

FWIW this "archival" diversion seems irrelevant to the OT, which has to do with "making money."

Undoubtedly many of today's silver prints will still be around in 200 years. Will that be important, a good thing?

Does the value of an image boil down to the archival character of a print? Image Vs. Print.

Many of us have fine books with thousands of beautifully reproduced Westons, Penns, Avedons etc (and have even carefully seen the originals). IMO the books are and will be more profoundly important than the prints, and they'll still be in beautiful print publication in 500 years.

But my prints will not be in books so archival printing and mounting are important to me.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Thank goodness today's kids are making videos and posting them online. Millennials rock!

I'll bet that GWCs are good for your business.

 

[jtk]

But my prints will not be in books so archival printing and mounting are important to me.

Your personal perspective is of course highly important.

Given that this thread is about "making money", how does "archival" serve you financially?

Does your livelihood consist of selling archival prints? Please expand on that. It would contribute to the OT.

I still deliver the occasional print but the small amount of money I make these days is purely for illustrative work (e.g. products).

For that there's no utility or money in archival printing.

 

[removed account4]

In contrast with Bob's minions I never pleaded for money from any government agency.

During mid 70s/late 80s (bubble years) I'd just walk down the street, visit ad agencies and graphic designers (no appointments), shake hands, show work (later give sample print), get assignments (usually within a month), shoot, get paid within 30 days . Magic!

Because I respected potential clients, I always showed as much "pure art" as samples of commercial illustration.

Things are hard today for wannabes, but were in ancient times as well. Sheep Vs goats.

Thank goodness today's kids are making videos and posting them online. Millennials rock!

LOL do you ever stop ?????????
i have never known anybody from bob's church who has begged the governement for money
ivan doesn't reverand fishmonger didn't, mark m doesn't
keep your insults to yourself please

 

[faberryman]

For that there's no utility or money in archival printing.

How does printing differ from archival printing for you.

 

[removed account4]

But my prints will not be in books so archival printing and mounting are important to me.

SG
mine appear in books, hand made books ...
you could easily learn how to make a book of images ... anyone could ...
and they ( prints and books ) are purchased by archives and repositories so
archival printing is extremely important to me as well.
and from an "art" perspective i sell silver and iron archival images to people
who don't want ephemeral ones made from ultrachrome pigments and rag papers becasue
at least i know if i make the silver or iron prints right, and make the books
right, they will last a long time. as gary said ( and i said earlier )
nouveau prints might be chic, but as you know they have no track record and all
the will last times are just guesses ...

 

[jtk]

I gather the recent posters make significant income ("make money") with their favorite techniques. Congratulations!

Are those techniques as important to the OT as digital? Do you recommend them to public schools instead of digital techniques?

Just asking.

 

[removed account4]

You are ignoring content by this member. Show Ignored Content

 

[jtk]

How does printing differ from archival printing for you.

For me a print of any sort is a particular rendition of an image. Sometimes a flat screen monitor serves the same purpose, from what I've seen.

"Archival" isn't a serious debate in museums or (most) galleries because all of them prioritize the image. That's because they deal with actual human visitors who rarely care about the distant future. They're pleasing themselves, the same way they do when they buy bronze sculptures (arguably "archival' but almost always shrink in value over the long haul due to the cost of storage when people stop wanting to display them ...like most photo prints of whatever type).

I'd agree with the larger point that a grave stone ought to be relatively archival if one is going to pay significant money for it .

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

I gather the recent posters make significant income ("make money") with their favorite techniques. Congratulations!

Are those techniques as important to the OT as digital? Do you recommend them to public schools instead of digital techniques?

Just asking.

Well, I can give an example!
My work is produced in analogue and printed digitally, and it has been that way since 2010. The established market is no different now as it was "then" and certainly is not going to reject a digital print outright just because "...it didn't come out of a darkroom place...". The abiding rule however is the quality of the photography -- the knowledge of the subject and how well it has been brought across as a photograph, is a hell of a lot more important than debating the means of how it was printed, digital, analogue or otherwise. At least I can bring in $3,000 for a single photograph. There are a few other individuals here on Photrio in this income generating sphere of photography.

My second rule is "less talk and more work". Today, there are more prints to be made.

 

[removed account4]

hi gary

if you were selling your prints to a respository / archive would
they hesitate in purchasing them ( if you couldn't make more copies with your negative ) ?
HABS accepts ink prints these days, only because they ( like you ) have a film back up
besides the print is just a proof sheet for the most part...
local history ( state ) museum might not accept them because of their rigid archival standards
but little rinky-dink town+city museums would accept non archival stuff .. they are currently attempting
to find a way forward for yellow brittle acidified newspaper clippings, lamented papers and bad rc prints they accepted 30+ years ago ...

 

[Sirius Glass]

You are ignoring content by this member. Show Ignored Content

Why would one want to show ignored content?

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

hi gary

if you were selling your prints to a respository / archive would
they hesitate in purchasing them ( if you couldn't make more copies with your negative ) ?
HABS accepts ink prints these days, only because they ( like you ) have a film back up
besides the print is just a proof sheet for the most part...
local history ( state ) museum might not accept them because of their rigid archival standards
but little rinky-dink town+city museums would accept non archival stuff .. they are currently attempting
to find a way forward for yellow brittle acidified newspaper clippings, lamented papers and bad rc prints they accepted 30+ years ago ...

Interesting first question; I really do not know what that situation would be here in Australia regarding purchase and forward reproduction, with the exception of the National Library of Australia -- it accepts noteworthy bodies of works (photographs for example) from prominent, known artists (living or deceased) of any type, including estate bequeaths of original works (slides, negatives, plates, etc.) which they e.g. scan and reproduce for publicity purposes. State galleries accept mounted/framed works on any medium (but not raw).

The State Library of Victoria, where I am in this State, has newspaper spreads dating back 170 years in excellent condition but they are only shown in specific circumstances due to their age, value and the requirement of being stored in a purified environment.