Photographic Snobbery & Other Annoyances...

[JBrunner]

Please feel free to add to the list. I'll get things started:

- Referring to lenses as “glass”.


I have used the term "glass" as slang for lenses for as long as I have been invoved in photography and cinematography. I picked the term up from my elder mentors.


- Referring to film developing as “souping”.


ditto


- “Photography means nothing – it is life that interests me”, or something like that. With apologies to HCB, far and away my favorite photographer.

To each his own.


- The merits of shooting RAW v. JPEG. Digital, I know, but what is more boring than listening to such drivel?


Never bothered to listen.

- The merits of today’s FB v. RC papers. Seriously folks, does anyone actually think an RC print won’t archive as well, all else being equal?

Yes,

... me.



- Closet-gearheads who profess that the equipment really doesn’t matter.



Beyond what you need, it doesn't... and I have a shlode of equipment. Guess I'm a snob, or at least, I hope, annoying


- On Photography, by Susan Sontag.

- No-name photogs who think anyone would possibly want to dish out hundreds or thousands of dollars their “limited edition” prints. Check any issue of B&W for a reference.


My prints have sold pretty well when listed in B&W. Prices are what the market will bear, and the market always sorts it out, a total wack-a-mole to all posers and non-hackers. I certainly woudn't ridicule anyone with the tackle to try promoting themselves.... a far more proactive thing than most ever do. There is, however, no shortage of do-nothing wannabes on the internet who pot shot those who work hard for a little recognition and success, however modest that success might be. As a matter of fact, the more successful you get, the more you will be derided and or basically hassled by the fringe. The crabs in a bucket syndrome.

Limiting editions has increased sales, so affectation or not, the market spoke loud and clear on that point, as it always does.


- The idea that photographs must "say something". PLEASE. Most of the photographs I love most say nothing to me. I just like looking at them.

Again, to each his own. In regard to photography, I would not presume my experiences on an other, nor would I take anothers experience as a pointer to define what mine should be.

There are things that annoy me, and the monkeys vex me, but none of these things do.

 

[jimgalli]

Just souped some negs made in the 1114 Century with the 22" Petzval. Grand old glass! Going to print them later this PM on MCFB with my favorite Ansco 135 soup. I have about 40 other pieces of glass I could have used but honestly, it's the pictures that matter. Glass is secondary. It really doesnt matter. PyroCat negs printed on Forte FB paper and toned in Selenium. That's what matters.

 

[JBrunner]

Just souped some negs made in the 1114 Century with the 22" Petzval. Grand old glass! Going to print them later this PM on MCFB with my favorite Ansco 135 soup. I have about 40 other pieces of glass I could have used but honestly, it's the pictures that matter. Glass is secondary. It really doesnt matter. PyroCat negs printed on Forte FB paper and toned in Selenium. That's what matters.

Your work has always spoken to me, Jim.

 

[dslater]

So - I was thinking about this thread this afternoon - driving around in the car. One of the things that did occur to me - perhaps one of the most short-sighted, pretentious and ridiculous things... was 'destroying one's negatives' after a run of prints. I personally think that's just plain stupid - and stems from the fear that one's work won't be taken seriously as art. Seems to me photography is all about reproduction. (there's a joke in there in another context maybe!)

do i sound bitter?

it was my understanding that the reason for destroying the negative after a run of prints was so that your customers could be sure the "limited edition" you were selling them is truly limited - if the negative is destroyed, they know you can't make another run of prints and will be willing to pay more for your prints.

 

[roteague]

Just souped some negs made in the 1114 Century with the 22" Petzval. Grand old glass! Going to print them later this PM on MCFB with my favorite Ansco 135 soup. I have about 40 other pieces of glass I could have used but honestly, it's the pictures that matter. Glass is secondary. It really doesnt matter. PyroCat negs printed on Forte FB paper and toned in Selenium. That's what matters.

Yes, but where they RAW?

 

[JBrunner]

it was my understanding that the reason for destroying the negative after a run of prints was so that your customers could be sure the "limited edition" you were selling them is truly limited - if the negative is destroyed, they know you can't make another run of prints and will be willing to pay more for your prints.

Brooks Jensen wrote a great article called "What Size is the Edition" about the pretention and sillyness of limiting editions. It convinced me that LE was bunk. And he's right.

Too bad nobody told the average buyer.

If I limit my editions, I sell more, at a higher price, then when I run open editions. Basically I can sell all of a limited edition, or none to very few of an open edition.

 

[Sparky]

Exactly my point! It's pretentious as hell!! Photography trying to be like printmaking - and doing work with the intention of a 'limited' edition. Bah! Humbug!!! The whole POINT of photography is that it's a reproducible medium! If you put enough into the printing - no two prints would be exactly alike anyhow. Shouldn't that be enough? It's not as though many photographers do more than a few editions anyway - and any posthumous editions are usually characterized as such.

it was my understanding that the reason for destroying the negative after a run of prints was so that your customers could be sure the "limited edition" you were selling them is truly limited - if the negative is destroyed, they know you can't make another run of prints and will be willing to pay more for your prints.

 

[Sparky]

Yeah - but that's just ONE 'marketing angle'. There are many others also. My point was simply that it will be completely irrelevant after the photog is dead - if he's collectable.

btw - I saw your youtube video J - loved it!! more, please.

Brooks Jensen wrote a great article called "What Size is the Edition" about the pretention and sillyness of limiting editions. It convinced me that LE was bunk. And he's right.

Too bad nobody told the average buyer.

If I limit my editions, I sell more, at a higher price, then when I run open editions. Basically I can sell all of a limited edition, or none to very few of an open edition.

 

[dslater]

Exactly my point! It's pretentious as hell!! Photography trying to be like printmaking - and doing work with the intention of a 'limited' edition. Bah! Humbug!!! The whole POINT of photography is that it's a reproducible medium! If you put enough into the printing - no two prints would be exactly alike anyhow. Shouldn't that be enough? It's not as though many photographers do more than a few editions anyway - and any posthumous editions are usually characterized as such.

Hmmm - the thing is, I don't think it's about being pretentious - I think it's just about trying to get more money for your prints.

 

[Sparky]

Well - you could say that about just about anything that's pretentious, right? i.e. Louis Jourdan wasn't pretentious - he was just using the image of 'cultivation' to sell himself... Regardless - it's a form of posturing. i recognize that it's something pretty universal in the marketplace. But I think that any collector with a brain and a heart really won't care. They'd buy it because they love it.

Now - on the OTHER hand. If you have a photographer who's DEAD... and they only PRINTED a limited number - due to lack of demand, etc... well, then that's a different story - and values increase accordingly. I know it's kind of a minor point with respect to the market as a whole... but it's MY minor point.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Jonathan - the wrinkle in your argument is the word collector. Most "collectors" fall in the rubric of "serious collector", which means that they're buying with a twofold goal. One, of course, is that they like the work. Two, is that they gain long-term appreciation from their investment. And face it, if they're spending more than $100 on the print, it's an investment. At less than $100 a print, you're at best breaking even on YOUR investment as an artist, unless you value your time at minimum wage. As Jason has already pointed out, it is much easier to sell more prints at a higher price if you limit your editions. I've also got another reason to limit your editions: as a personal reason, I get really tired of re-printing the same image over and over and over again. I don't want to keep remaking the same image when I'm working on and thinking about new ideas.

 

[dslater]

Well - you could say that about just about anything that's pretentious, right?

I don't really think so - the guy who walks around with his Leica MP or his Nikon D2X, makes sure everyone around him knows he has one, and dismisses the guy with an FM10 and a 50mm f/1.8. To my mind, that's pretentious but has nothing to do with making money.
The guy who destroys his negatives to drive up the price of his prints. Well maybe he's doing it because he thinks he's such a great artist - definitely pretentious - or maybe he's just doing it because he thinks he'll make some more money - maybe not pretentious. I think it really depends on the attitude and motivation of the person doing this - though I agree it certainly can give the appearance of pretentiousness.
Sorry, I don't get your reference to Louis Jourdan - I just don't know anything about him other than what I just read on Wikkipedia - a French actor who joined the French resistance in WWII and had a pretty successful career.

 

[dslater]

I've also got another reason to limit your editions: as a personal reason, I get really tired of re-printing the same image over and over and over again. I don't want to keep remaking the same image when I'm working on and thinking about new ideas.

Would you really destroy a negative because you're tired of printing it? Why wouldn't you just put it away and decide to not print it anymore? After all it's your negative - no one can force you to continue making prints of it.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

I wouldn't destroy the negative. I just stop printing it. I always keep my negatives, in case I would have a need or a desire to revisit the image in some way later. But making 25 or 50 or 250 copies of the same image? SNOOZE!

 

[laverdure]

I've also got another reason to limit your editions: as a personal reason, I get really tired of re-printing the same image over and over and over again. I don't want to keep remaking the same image when I'm working on and thinking about new ideas.

David Vestal has gone on the record against limited editions. Among the things I remember reading he said about them was that he never made as many prints of any single image, out of boredom, as he would have if he were printing LEs. I bet this is generally true. Doesn't mean much to the market though.

I'm sure a lot of you have read the same anecdotes I have about Adams' Moonrise: hundreds or thousands of prints, Adams came to hate it, printed it worse and worse, the value kept going up, it's still, despite its numbers, (one of?) his most valuable print(s). If it'd been an LE, he'd have been a poorer man.

All we're talking about here are marketing stunts. Some are more distasteful than others, some moreso to some people than to others. I don't think any of it really bears on pretension at all. That's more a matter of why, rather than what.

 

[dslater]

I wouldn't destroy the negative. I just stop printing it. I always keep my negatives, in case I would have a need or a desire to revisit the image in some way later. But making 25 or 50 or 250 copies of the same image? SNOOZE!

Agreed

 

[jimgalli]

For me at least, talking about editions open or closed would be snobbish. I rarely get the time to print and it's always a treat. Typically I'll print 3 of a negative once I've found a good combination in the hope that perhaps I can give 2 away and keep one for my "portfolio" which is a 16X20 tray up in the darkroom full of pictures nobody wants. It seems I don't have the gene to spend whatever time it would take to set up a pretty web site and hype my work for sale. It is rare indeed for a negative to get a second visit after I've printed the first 2 or 3. I'm too prolific with the new work and there's a mountain of it I may never have time to print at all. Life is short. How's that for limited edition.........

 

[JBrunner]

For me at least, talking about editions open or closed would be snobbish. I rarely get the time to print and it's always a treat. Typically I'll print 3 of a negative once I've found a good combination in the hope that perhaps I can give 2 away and keep one for my "portfolio" which is a 16X20 tray up in the darkroom full of pictures nobody wants. It seems I don't have the gene to spend whatever time it would take to set up a pretty web site and hype my work for sale. It is rare indeed for a negative to get a second visit after I've printed the first 2 or 3. I'm too prolific with the new work and there's a mountain of it I may never have time to print at all. Life is short. How's that for limited edition.........

Jim , there are many of your photos that I would be willing to purchase or trade for. I'm pretty sure I'm not alone in that sentiment.

 

[patrickjames]

Limited editions are a double edge sword. I have an old friend who is a really successful fine art photographer. One of his images is in an edition of 200 which is not that limited, but it continues to sell and he has only a few left. His typical editions now are 50. I don't think in his case that editions play a major role in the selling of his work. His work sells because it is beautiful.

On the other hand there are a lot of photographers who create digital work. The ease of replication makes them not so valuable, but the use of editions on the order of only 9 makes them rare, supposedly, and the people that buy are seemingly more concerned with the rarity than the quality or the content, or so the case can be made.

My experience suggests that editioning is not as important as it is made out to be. I have never been questioned about editions by any of the collectors that have bought my prints, but I am not in any galleries either. I do keep track of print numbers just in case though.

Photography may be an art form, but in the end it is a business. If editioning enables you to sell more prints, then it should be done. On the other hand it could stifle sales. In the case of my friend, how many more of that image could he sell if it wasn't editioned? I would say hundreds more, as the image is not that old. He also has many other images that are approaching the end of their editions, so is it really that good for him? The one thing about editions is that once you start, you can't stop. Try to tell a collector that there will be more, or more in a different size or print type (a trick many use to keep selling the image).

You need to do what you can to sell prints, edition or no edition.

Patrick

 

[Early Riser]

Collectors want small editions, period. They want the exclusivity of being one of the few owners. If diamonds were as common as coal do you think people would pay thousands of dollars for a carat? Scarcity, or the perception of scarcity increases the perceived value of anything. And perceived value becomes the real value.

My work is in a limited edition and I have to say that it is a real pain keeping track of the editions. The market wants it, so if I want to play in that market I have to play by it's rules.

I do find that at a certain point it does become tiring printing some images again and again, especially tough prints.

 

[Vaughn]

I do find that at a certain point it does become tiring printing some images again and again, especially tough prints.

Agreed...plus I have enough confidence in myself that I can create new images that are as good, and even better, than I have in the past...so I don't worry about a loss in sales.

My carbon prints are in an edition of 5, my pt/pd prints are in editions of 10...then it is time for this snob to move on to newer and hopefully better things.

Vaughn

 

[JBrunner]

Collectors want small editions, period. They want the exclusivity of being one of the few owners. If diamonds were as common as coal do you think people would pay thousands of dollars for a carat? Scarcity, or the perception of scarcity increases the perceived value of anything. And perceived value becomes the real value.

My work is in a limited edition and I have to say that it is a real pain keeping track of the editions. The market wants it, so if I want to play in that market I have to play by it's rules.

I do find that at a certain point it does become tiring printing some images again and again, especially tough prints.

Actually the diamonds/LE photo link is a good one, for diamonds are not a particularly rare commodity. The cartels that control the mining and distribution keeps their release in check.. inflating the price through an artificially created rarity.

 

[gr82bart]

Actually the diamonds/LE photo link is a good one, for diamonds are not a particularly rare commodity. The cartels that control the mining and distribution keeps their release in check.. inflating the price through an artificially created rarity.

I was thinking the same thing, having just been to the Photography Show 2007.

I can't help noticing the parallel to the stock market world too. Stocks were once purchsed because the company produced something that the stock holder thought was a good product. They were purchased by individuals and employees who beleived in the product and the company. Today stocks are purchased by investment companies with the sole purpose of maximizing profits and dividends. I can't help but feel the same for what I observed at the Photography Show 2007. Most of the buyer weren't the 'lovers' of photography work - because if they were, they wouldn't really care how many editions there were.

Regards, Art.

 

[haris]

Oh nonsense. Do you think a recording engineer refers to headphones as "cans,: a floor monitor as a "wedge" or the cable from a mixing console to a microphone distributuon block as a "snake" in order to make visitors to the studio feel like outsiders? All professions have slang and while the unititiated may not be familiar with it, neither the origins nor the purpose generally have anything to do with the unititiated.

No, but art snobs use "high class" words like "sfumatto" instead of "common plebs" word like "blurred" for blurred picture...

 

[Mike Té]

Could it be that if a photographer has sold out a successful edition, collectors would naturally look for another desirable (and available) image from that photographer?

If so, this shouldn't that be advantageous to the continuing creative (and economic) process of said photographer?