Photographic Snobbery & Other Annoyances...

[Roger Hicks]

http://www.joppeluiten.nl/snob.htm

Apparently

If the OED says it is of obscure origin -- and they are noted for some rigour in these matters -- then I have little faith in such a contrived invention as the one quoted.

Also, what's that filthy row when you click onto the alleged definition? Enough to put anyone off, I'd think.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Early Riser]

Are you sure about this?

Cheers,

R.

Roger, I read it a while ago, possibly Wilhelm. It makes sense though, the emulsion will expand and contract and the RC base will not. Over time that should cause peeling.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Roger, I read it a while ago, possibly Wilhelm. It makes sense though, the emulsion will expand and contract and the RC base will not. Over time that should cause peeling.

It makes some sense, but I think the RH would have to vary very greatly and the adhesion would need to be marginal to begin with (as it is on a glass plate). I'm not arguing with you; it's just not an explanation I'd heard before, and I don't know. I've certainly seen it asserted that under some conditions, RC may be more archivally permanent -- though I don't know whether these are unusually optimized conditions.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Early Riser]

It makes some sense, but I think the RH would have to vary very greatly and the adhesion would need to be marginal to begin with (as it is on a glass plate). I'm not arguing with you; it's just not an explanation I'd heard before, and I don't know. I've certainly seen it asserted that under some conditions, RC may be more archivally permanent -- though I don't know whether these are unusually optimized conditions.

Cheers,

R.

I remember the paper that I read was very detailed and thorough. That's why I think it's Wilhelm. It definitely wasn't on an online forum.

Regarding adhesion, the recommended method for dry mounting prints is to cook the print and the mat board first before using the dry mount tissue so that the moisture level of the two is the same. You then heat mount them with an adhesive, dry mount tissue. The reason to do this is because if the print and board are mounted with different moisture levels they may shrink at a different rate and then either peel the print or expose the tissue. Now both are made of paper and both are very similarly absorbant of humidity yet this uneven shrinkage/expansion can be a problem. One would think the problem has to be far worse given a water absorbant material, the emulsion, and a water repellent material, the RC base.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I remember the paper that I read was very detailed and thorough. That's why I think it's Wilhelm. It definitely wasn't on an online forum.

Regarding adhesion, the recommended method for dry mounting prints is to cook the print and the mat board first before using the dry mount tissue so that the moisture level of the two is the same. You then heat mount them with an adhesive, dry mount tissue. The reason to do this is because if the print and board are mounted with different moisture levels they may shrink at a different rate and then either peel the print or expose the tissue. Now both are made of paper and both are very similarly absorbant of humidity yet this uneven shrinkage/expansion can be a problem. One would think the problem has to be far worse given a water absorbant material, the emulsion, and a water repellent material, the RC base.

All fair enough, though I'm not sure how far the dry mount analogy works; it might just be that most people don't dry mount very well, and this is a safety margin. I'd also want to know more about the expansion/contraction of mounting board and prints before I was convonced.

But as I say, I'm not arguing. If you recall it as a reputable paper, presumably it was, so I'll do some more hunting on this one. Thanks.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Early Riser]

Roger, I didn't think you were arguing. We're having a discussion.

Regarding pre drying the print and mat board, it states it in paragraph 2 of the Bienfang Buffermount dry mount tissue instruction sheet. But I first heard that as far back as High School and College. I thought it was pretty universally accepted.

 

[David Brown]

My, we're all bored today. Cranky, too.

No kidding!

Any chance the OP had tongue-in-cheek? It's Friday afternoon. Lighten up! Have a "beverage" ... :rolleyes:

 

[Shawn Rahman]

At one point in time, even St. Ansel qualified for this opprobium. Richard Avedon was once an unknown. I find this item insulting to the efforts of so many different folks here who are trying to build a career as an artist. Frankly, this sounds like just a bit of jealousy from someone who must have tried, but failed, to sell anything, and so resents those folks who are selling work for more than his failed to sell for.

Dear Flying Camera:

My sincerest apologies - I really did not mean to undermine or demean the extraordinary efforts and artistry engaged by all those practicing our craft. I am sincerely humbled by so much of what I see, not only on this website, but also from those looking to sell their art at the prices I alluded to in my OP.

However, if I can clarify my point - I am aware that all artists start from unkown, humble origins. Despite my awe of many of the pics I refer to, it is not jealousy that makes me question the prices being charged. I understand that there are many who are trying to build careers as artists, but there is a significant difference in an uknown artist or photographer offering images for, say, $100-$200, versus thinking that they are going to sustain a living by charging upwards of $1,000 and higher.

In recent edition of B&W, I noted a number of limited edition 16 X 20 prints with asking prices of over $3,000. I would really like to know how many of these unknown artists have sold prints at that price. My point is that if the answer as suspected is "not many", I would then like to undestand why these photogs think that asking a price like this is still reasonable.

 

[Nick Zentena]

Why not? It's a lot easier to lower your asking price if it turns out too high then to raise it if it turns out too low.

 

[DKT]

john--I think what wilhelm wrote was that if someone made an rc paper that was coated on opaque polyester (melinex I think) like cibachrome, that this would be more stable than a fiber print. because the melinex would be a pure white, polyester base, and would be very stable in environmental conditions.

only that paper doesn't exist.

he also acknowledged the widespread use of rc papers in archives & museums themselves, and had some special recommendations for that, but then later on, there was an ammended version where he recommended papers like Crystal Archive over RC papers.

basically it's kind of a moot point when it comes to actually "archiving" prints, since not many records are actually saved as a print. It's almost all film, or shot to film. The habs/haer is the only project left I think that still uses fiber paper. even then, it seems like the master record is the sheet film. the other surveys--they went from fiber/sheets to rc/rollfilm back in the 80s, then in the past year or so, they've gone digital. When they went over to RC, it was a very similar reason to digital--in that the materials and services available across the country forced them to accept another alternative. When it came to the rc prints--the actual standards I think are such that given a tight storage & handling environment, that both materials perform the same. The criteria behind the surveys was that the Federal archives housing the materials had top-notch storage, so it wasn't an issue.

there really aren't that many places left even using darkrooms anymore. there is a no argument for me about the merits of the two materials, because they're not even really being used that much anymore. someone at another museum told us recently that the days of using antiques are over--time to move on.

so--it's not snobbery, or an annoyance really. it's a reality check. I'm happy to actually have the time left to even make an RC print for an archive or a museum. Pretty soon, I'll just be doing it at home. I won't be using a case of paper a week either. Just like the surveys that used 25000 rolls of film a year and a couple of hundred thousand sheets of rc paper. Who's going to pick up that slack? that's the big issue for me. when the labs get out, what's going to be left? not much I think. It might very well be fiber in the end, the kind that PE is coating himself.

my opinions only/not my employers

 

[Sparky]

Yes, indeed. I was compelled to read this in a college course. A book on photography without any photographs is immediately suspect. Living with a notorious photographer did not qualify Sontag as an expert on the subject. On Photography is proof that an otherwise successful author can write almost anything on any subject, and suckers will buy it.

Hey buddy - don't go knocking Sontag! It's an EXTREMELY down-to-earth and thoughtful book speculating on the characteristics that make photographs seem melancholic (by their very nature). I think it's more the fact that people are intimidated by READING that make people insecure.

 

[copake_ham]

Dear Flying Camera:

My sincerest apologies - I really did not mean to undermine or demean the extraordinary efforts and artistry engaged by all those practicing our craft. I am sincerely humbled by so much of what I see, not only on this website, but also from those looking to sell their art at the prices I alluded to in my OP.

However, if I can clarify my point - I am aware that all artists start from unkown, humble origins. Despite my awe of many of the pics I refer to, it is not jealousy that makes me question the prices being charged. I understand that there are many who are trying to build careers as artists, but there is a significant difference in an uknown artist or photographer offering images for, say, $100-$200, versus thinking that they are going to sustain a living by charging upwards of $1,000 and higher.

In recent edition of B&W, I noted a number of limited edition 16 X 20 prints with asking prices of over $3,000. I would really like to know how many of these unknown artists have sold prints at that price. My point is that if the answer as suspected is "not many", I would then like to undestand why these photogs think that asking a price like this is still reasonable.

FWIW, about a year ago there was an essay in Lenswork that also dealt with this subject. It was basically in agreement with the OP.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Dear Flying Camera:

My sincerest apologies - I really did not mean to undermine or demean the extraordinary efforts and artistry engaged by all those practicing our craft. I am sincerely humbled by so much of what I see, not only on this website, but also from those looking to sell their art at the prices I alluded to in my OP.

However, if I can clarify my point - I am aware that all artists start from unkown, humble origins. Despite my awe of many of the pics I refer to, it is not jealousy that makes me question the prices being charged. I understand that there are many who are trying to build careers as artists, but there is a significant difference in an uknown artist or photographer offering images for, say, $100-$200, versus thinking that they are going to sustain a living by charging upwards of $1,000 and higher.

In recent edition of B&W, I noted a number of limited edition 16 X 20 prints with asking prices of over $3,000. I would really like to know how many of these unknown artists have sold prints at that price. My point is that if the answer as suspected is "not many", I would then like to undestand why these photogs think that asking a price like this is still reasonable.

Apology understood. What begs the question though in your comment about folks selling work in the ads in B/W magazine, is that they may be unknown to you, and to me for that matter, but they may have an established selling record in their existing market that justifies those prices. I don't know, and in all likelihood, I'm not interested enough in their work to care one way or another. Also, and I have experienced this myself - my work sells better at a higher price than it did at a lower price. People are more willing to take it seriously, and spend money on it, if they feel it has value. One way to establish that value if you are a relative unknown, is to price your work higher. Then it at least creates the illusion of greater value, which may be borne out over time.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Roger, I didn't think you were arguing. We're having a discussion.

Regarding pre drying the print and mat board, it states it in paragraph 2 of the Bienfang Buffermount dry mount tissue instruction sheet. But I first heard that as far back as High School and College. I thought it was pretty universally accepted.

Oh dear -- now I'm apologizing for apologizing. It's just that some people are so thin skinned. Mercifully you are not one!

My sole point about the dry-mount is that this may, indeed, be a safety margin. A well-stuck-down dry-mounted print seems, in my experience, to be able to stand anything. A badly stuck down one (easy enough -- I've done that too, when learning a new press) REALLY NEEDS all the help it can get.

Cheers,

R.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

FWIW, about a year ago there was an essay in Lenswork that also dealt with this subject. It was basically in agreement with the OP.

George- I am aware of Brooks' opinion piece on the price for photography. He is welcome to his opinion about giving away his work for $50 a photo. I choose to disagree with him. I will also show you quite a few galleries that will not touch work priced below a certain threshold, not only because there is little profit in it, but also because there are few sales of it. It depends on your market for your work. People selling, or at least trying to sell, in Black and White magazine are NOT going after a mass-market. They are trying to sell to the limited-edition, gallery-viewing art consumer. It has been proven time and again that that customer base doesn't buy $50 or even $250 photos. They buy $2500 photos.

 

[Sparky]

In recent edition of B&W, I noted a number of limited edition 16 X 20 prints with asking prices of over $3,000. I would really like to know how many of these unknown artists have sold prints at that price. My point is that if the answer as suspected is "not many", I would then like to undestand why these photogs think that asking a price like this is still reasonable.

to err is human I guess.. right? So is self-delusion. People see photographs selling for that much money (whether they're westons or di corcia's...) and without really understanding much about the way the market works - they think that by following a commercial manufacturing paradigm -that -if they offer a similar physical product - that they, too should be able to make the same dough. I bet they've changed their tune by now... live and learn.

 

[Poco]

Back to the original question....

About the only bit of photographic snobbery that drives me nuts is the prohibition against cropping, and particularly the inclusion of the rebate in a print to drive home the point. If you choose not to crop as a matter of personal discipline or print the rebate as an aesthetic choice, fine. But to print the notch codes just to say to other photographers (the only ones who could possibly get the message), Gee, aren't I great -- I didn't crop! ...well, what better example of snobbery is there than that?

Here's an interesting interview with Shore that shows an attitude towards cropping I can respect:

http://www.bigredandshiny.com/cgi-b...1&section=article&article=STEPHEN_SHORE_88934

(The weird thing is I rarely crop myself ...but so what?)

 

[Early Riser]

"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".

I don't know if i'm considered no-name or name at this point, I'm probably somewhere in between, but when I started showing my work again in 2001 I was definitely a no-name but I had no problems selling a substantial amount of prints at the $500 and up range. Some of the same images from back then now routinely sell for a couple thousand a print and I'm still not really a name photographer.



"Why not? It's a lot easier to lower your asking price if it turns out too high then to raise it if it turns out too low".

Nick, lowering your prices is considered to be a huge mistake, it basically says that no one's buying your prints and given that perception is important in the art world it's a reputation killer.



"there is a significant difference in an uknown artist or photographer offering images for, say, $100-$200, versus thinking that they are going to sustain a living by charging upwards of $1,000 and higher".

At $100-200 a print unless you sell a huge amount of prints you'll starve and it takes a lot of time to produce a huge amount of prints unless they're digital prints. At $1000 a print and up, if people consistently buy your work you can make a good living.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Back to the original question....

About the only bit of photographic snobbery that drives me nuts is the prohibition against cropping, and particularly the inclusion of the rebate in a print to drive home the point. If you choose not to crop as a matter of personal discipline or print the rebate as an aesthetic choice, fine. But to print the notch codes just to say to other photographers (the only ones who could possibly get the message), Gee, aren't I great -- I didn't crop! ...well, what better example of snobbery is there than that?

Best (?only) example so far!

Cheers,

R.

 

[Sparky]

I think that's probably just giving people waaayyy too much credit. People tend to post-rationalize things with all SORTS of justifications (hey - that's sort of a pun... weak!) but let's face it - that sort of thing is only done because people think it 'looks cool', and gives a 'handmade' look to the resulting image. I dunno. I've done it before - I don't mind it. I think it 'helps' certain images. I don't think that people include the borders of P55 negs because they're trying to demonstrate that they don't crop. I mean - who CARES if you crop or not?? I mean - really...?

 

[Chuck_P]

Just .02 cents on the RC question. Steve Anchell in "The Variable Contrast Printing Manual", writes that selenium toner is the key to any longterm storage of RC paper (what's "longterm" enough to be able to answer this?). I have many selenium toned RC prints but I won't live long enough to be able to put another .02 cents in on the question.

Chuck

 

[michaelsalomon]

Snobbery in photography for me is when the photographer believes his or her photographs are better or more important or more pure due to the choice of materials and tools they use. Honestly, I have not encountered this very often personally, but the few times that I have, it was a major disappointment to me. But there is snobbery everywhere and in everything, the best thing is to just keep shooting and ignore the snobs.

 

[DKT]

you can't let that stuff get to you. when I started working in a museum as a photographer, I was actually printing about 99% fiber, but for the job I had to do RC. I had worked as a newspaper photographer, so I didn't have a "problem" with using it, but as a printer, I liked using fiber. Eventually, after having to make a lot of prints every day for days on end, I started to really like using RC. It made no difference to me really, and as time went on, the more printing I did, of stuff that sometimes I wasn't really, uh, enthused about--but gave it my all, I became a better printer. It has never stopped really, every day I can feel like I have accomplished something--even though there are many who would deride this.

when I first got online, I made many posts about RC papers--and well, sometimes the people who argued with me, well, they would contact me offline for help. one or two actually asked for internships, all the while having an online persona as a die-hard, anti-rc photographer. it was funny--like you want to work here, knowing that we use rc papers? they didn't have a problem with that, but online, it was like the use of them was a putdown.

recently a lab donated something to us, and while grateful, I found the exchange amusing, because even though this lab had made rc prints for customers, the owners thought that fiber was better, although they didn't offer it. The reason was similar to ours--the rc prints lasted and were accepted by the clients, and there had never been any problems. But speaking as peers, they felt like we felt the same way--fiber was better, but we had to do "this" instead. I was working on that thingamajig later, and found a bunch of prints jammed inside. I looked at them, and they were just, well, who am I to judge. well--not fine art. grainy, overexposed, overprocessed...well, maybe they were fine art. who am I to judge? a guy who uses rc paper.

people are funny. photographers are funny--working ones, the whole lot. do as I say, not as I do.

 

[copake_ham]

George- I am aware of Brooks' opinion piece on the price for photography. He is welcome to his opinion about giving away his work for $50 a photo. I choose to disagree with him. I will also show you quite a few galleries that will not touch work priced below a certain threshold, not only because there is little profit in it, but also because there are few sales of it. It depends on your market for your work. People selling, or at least trying to sell, in Black and White magazine are NOT going after a mass-market. They are trying to sell to the limited-edition, gallery-viewing art consumer. It has been proven time and again that that customer base doesn't buy $50 or even $250 photos. They buy $2500 photos.

Scott,

I didn't say I agree with the OP or Brooks' point; only that the OP was not the only one voicing it.

My note stemmed more from a sense that the OP had gotten "piled on" such that if this were a football game an unnecessary roughing penalty would have been called.

 

[dwross]

Snobbery in photography for me is when the photographer believes his or her photographs are better or more important or more pure due to the choice of materials and tools they use.

By this do you mean the APUG'ish disdain for photographers who add a digitally-printed enlarged negative step on the way from film to a handcrafted analog print?