Photography trends at the local summer arts festival/fair.

[Jim Chinn]

I hate to say it, but out of 10 photographers (out of 160 booths) there was only one person selling traditional prints. Only two were selling straight black and white, one obiviously from digital files (although very nice) the other swithced from silver gelatin to inkjet this year. The one person selling silver gelatin had a niche gimmick of selectively coloring only portions of the image. I was not all that impressed but others really liked the look and he has been here for a few years so he must do ok to keep coming back.

The big trend is really big color digital prints. I mean in the mural range, 40"x60" and larger. And most prints that size were matted and presented in very ornate frames like you would associate with large oils. Prints this size were selling for about $2000-$2500. The subject matter was pretty common but very rich in color. Field of flowers, waves crashing against rocks with lots of golden hues at sunset, Venice canals, and colorful western landscapes and Northeastern fall images etc, etc. They were drawing big crowds to the booths. One of the largest prints in a ornate frame had a sold sign next to it. It had a price tag of $2300.

The two selling the large color prints also offered the same images in sizes all the way down to around 16x20. They also had bins with similar images in sizes of 5x7 and 8x10 matted. 5x7s sold for $35 and 8x10s were $60. Actually everyone had all prints mattted. Before this year you could always find someone with just loose prints in a bin but not this year.

Another individual also sold very large color giclees, but his were done on a rougher rag paper and then hand coloring added. I hate to admit it but these were absolutely stunning. the hand coloring gave a depth to the print that was amazing.

One person printed color on canvas. and one person was photoshopping images to make real vivid colored posterization type images.

The good news is except for the one person selling B&W inkjets from digital files, everyone else was shooting film and planned to continue with the exception of one of the large print guys who said he was looking to go totally digital in the next year.

I guess I am a little disappointed at the lack traditional prints especially in B&W. We have two other art fairs in town this year, not quite as large but both are produced by art galleries and cooperatives and not the city as this one is. Perhaps thier selections will include more traditionalists.

Anyway, there has been a few recent threads about art fairs and participating in one so I thought this might be of interest.

 

[c6h6o3]

Another individual also sold very large color giclees, but his were done on a rougher rag paper and then hand coloring added. I hate to admit it but these were absolutely stunning.

I recently participated in a fundraiser shoot for our local community arts center at the Rockville Bloomingdale's the week before Mother's Day. I made 8x10 Polaroids alongside other photographers who were shooting with high end digital equipment (such as the Canon D5) and Epson printers with the archival inks.

When I saw some of the inkjet prints alongside my wet chemistry prints, my jaw dropped to the floor. It's utterly unbelievable how good they're getting. Didn't even need a computer. Just stick the card into the slot on the printer, select the camera model and push the button. They blew the Polaroids away, and gave my best Azo contact prints a run for their money.

I don't know about "fine art" photography (whatever that means), but for anything commissioned by a customer such as portraits, weddings or product photography of any kind, I wouldn't even think about using film any more. For art fairs, too, it's an absolute godsend in terms of production. I just don't see how film can compete.

My next major purchase will be a high end digital capture system of some kind, probably an Imacon back for my Hasselblad. I'll always use film as long as they make it, because I love it, but the way to get paid now is definitely digital.

 

[roteague]

The good news is except for the one person selling B&W inkjets from digital files, everyone else was shooting film and planned to continue with the exception of one of the large print guys who said he was looking to go totally digital in the next year.

And as soon as he finds out that digital won't give him enough pixels to create a good image that size, he will go back to film.

 

[c6h6o3]

And as soon as he finds out that digital won't give him enough pixels to create a good image that size, he will go back to film.

Even if people are buying the big, crappy prints? I dunno. Remember what the Bard of Baltimore said:

"Nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public."
-H.L. Mencken

 

[reellis67]

There are a couple of really big art/craft shows each year here and at each of them I have seen a couple of traditional gelatin-silver printers along with quite a few 'digital art' booths (maybe 1 traditionalist printers for every 5 digital printers). It would appear that in these shows they refer to gelatin-silver prints as 'Photography' and inkjets by any name 'digital art'.

There were some pretty obvious manipulations, a number of your typical macro and fuzzy/cuddly critter print sellers, and a few fantasy-type image sellers, all of which seemed to think that everyone has 16 square feet of wall space for a digital mural. Hmmm, I was always taught that if your work was no good, print it big... Don't get me wrong, I did see many prints that were impressive, but I'm not paying $400 for something that shot out of a computer, I don't care how good it looks. For that kind of cash, I want some hand craftsmanship. Based on what I saw and heard from sellers, it would seem that not too many others were going to pay that much either. All the people I spoke with said even though this was the biggest show in Florida, they weren't moving much if anything.

Having taken a jab at the name-of-the-week digital print, I fell compelled to say that the gelatin-silver people had big prints too, but they seemed to be the only ones selling 8x10 and 11x14 prints that regular people would have room to store/display. Of all of them, there was one guy last show I went to with a nice metal field camera (4x5, can't remember whose though) on a tripod in front of his shop and he was actualty sell stuff! What a concept. I think the camera was a real draw.

At any rate, I too am dissapointed to see fewer and fewer hand-crafted works for sale at these shows as more and more people move toward automated processes. I am far from rich, but I still bought a hand-pulled print from an Baton Rouge based engraver who survived the hurricanes. The photography, on the other hand, was too rich for my blood (a single matted 8x10 @ $350+). Not that I begrudge them the price, but I don't have that much cash to spend right now. I would have spent maybe $100 to get a print if it really moved me, but everyone was asking a lot more for their work than most people seemed willing to pay. After three hours browsing and chatting, I had my print and my wife bought some hand quilting work that was really something for around $75, and we were the only people I saw walking around with anything but food the whole time...

Thanks for posting your info. I found it interesting to compare what I'm seeing here with what you posted.

- Randy

 

[roteague]

One thing I am curious about. When you say "digital" prints, do you only mean ink jet prints, or do you include digital negative/photographic paper prints in your description?

I would also be curious about Rich's (naturephoto1) take on this subject, since I know he sells art art shows frequently, and like me, he prints on Fuji Crystal Archive from a digital negative.

 

[reellis67]

Robert,

If you were asking me, the impression that I got was that if the print itself was inkjet then they considered it to be 'digital art', or if it were an obvious manipulation it would also be considered 'digital art'. I got the impression that a wet process color print could be considered to be in the category of 'photography' if the seller said that it met the criteria. I don't know what the criteria was for these shows though so I can't be certain.

From what I saw, and heard from the sellers, if the fair officials heard the word 'digital' anywhere in the description then it got categorized under 'digial art'. I was curious how someone who shot with E-6 and had Crystal Archive prints made would be classified since (I believe) the process involves scanning the transparency for printing.

- Randy

EDIT

I should say the I myself consider a "digital print" as an inkjet of any name.

- Randy

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Regarding the big prints at art shows--often those are there more to draw people into the booth to browse through the smaller prints or to get major buyers who could afford a larger print interested in seeing more work, perhaps in another venue. If a big print actually sells at an arts and crafts show or similar venue like a nature festival, that's a bonus.

 

[reellis67]

I always wondered about that. I just couldn't see someone buying a four foot tall print to hang in the living room. The odd thing I found was that there did not seem to be all that many smaller prints for many of these sellers. I suppose that they could be new to the process and not yet familiar with the size prints that sell frequently. These two shows have doubled in size over the last couple of years.

- Randy

 

[DirkDynamo]

randy, do you have the name of that engraver in baton rouge?

 

[Jim Chinn]

Robert,

I am not sure about one of the two selling the larger prints. I know one was selling inkjets that he said were printed for him in Atlanta. If I go back today I will ask the other fellow. His prints did have different look, so now that you mention it, they may have been done on photo paper.

One of the other color guys was specializing in panoramas, with sizes like 18"x40". They were mostly western landscapes, a lot of Ansel Adams done in color. I will have to ask him as well. They may also have been done on photo paper with a light jet or some similar process.

One of the interesting things about the color work was the volume of people at those tents. I think most people were simply blown away by the big prints.

As far as who would buy the big prints, lots of money and McMansions in Omaha were a 4 foot print would not be out of scale. Also in my regular job I am in a lot of businesses and offices and see larger photographs showing up in reception areas and offices where 10 years ago it would have been prints of paintings or actual oils and acrylics. So maybe the younger business owners managers see photography as a more contempoary choice for the walls.

 

[reellis67]

randy, do you have the name of that engraver in baton rouge?

Sorry, I just saw your response. When I get home this evening I will PM you his name (I have his card in my files).

- Randy

 

[naturephoto1]

One thing I am curious about. When you say "digital" prints, do you only mean ink jet prints, or do you include digital negative/photographic paper prints in your description?

I would also be curious about Rich's (naturephoto1) take on this subject, since I know he sells art art shows frequently, and like me, he prints on Fuji Crystal Archive from a digital negative.

Hi Robert,

Sorry to respond a bit late, but I just got back from a big Art Show in Philadelphia. Over the years I have seen people display some of these very large Lightjet/Lambda/Chromira prints as well as very large InkJet/Giclee prints. Almost invariably, you can recognize which method of preparation that of the big digital printers or the Inkjet was used. Some of these images have been 617 Print booth displays that I have seen in Florida as an example. Some tend to show almost entirely these very large prints. Some of these do look very impressive. However, to really be good they should be technically good, tell a story, and to bring on some sort of emotion.

Part of the problem with participating in many Art Shows is the actual available space. Most exhibitors have 10' x 10' spaces, while some will have 10' x 15' (booth and a half), or even 10' x 20' (double booth) spaces. When you start to display so many of these very large prints they start to look a bit busy, get crowded, and be a bit of overkill on the eye.

For myself, and at the suggestion of some friends that have participated in this business for much longer than I, I have gone from a large number of smaller prints to a smaller number of larger prints using the idea of less is more. I do have some friends that mix a large number of different sized images. Most of my booth spaces are either 10' x 10' or 10' x 15'. I generally display between 18 and 24 or 25 images. My image sizes generally are between 16" x 20" to 24" x 30". The majority of my display consists of images in the 20" x 30" or the 24" x 30" size with a smaller number in the 16" x 24" or the 19" x 24" size. I have had orders for 30" x 38" prints which I have also displayed and "wedged" them into the available space. I have to print an additional image in this size and may use a pair in the display. My display relies on mixing the sizes to create an inviting gallery of work.

From my experience a mix of sizes in the display is an advantage over just one size or only the super sized images. For my work I make it clear that the images can be printed in just about any size that someone needs them, and would be happy to prepare them in the size needed.

I have been very fortunate over the years from the reaction of the public as well as the other exhibiting photographers and artists to my images, my eye, skill, etc. However, I have always put much more stock in the reaction and the discussions that I have with other photographers (many in other fields as well as nature photographers regarding my work). Unfortunately, like everything else in life, no matter how good the product, the way it looks, the quality of the product, if you don't find the right audience, or the audience that can afford the work......

Rich

 

[Allen Friday]

Hi Jim,

On Saturday, I went to the Des Moines Art Fair. I was in Omaha 4 times the week before for the CWS (my nephew plays short stop for Rice), so I decided to go east instead of west.

The Des Moines Art Fair is one of the top rated fairs in the country. I think it was rated 4th last year. It is juried, and the photographers I talked to mentioned how difficult it is to get into.

I did not keep an official count. But here are my impressions:

There were around 12 photographers at the show, out of 150 artists. 7 or 8 were B & W photographers exclusively. The organizers did a good job of mixing it up. 3 or 4 of these photographers were using all non-digital, printing on traditional materials. One had several platinum prints, the rest were silver. I bought one of his platinum prints. He said he has a hard time selling platinum simply because the public doesn’t know what they are. He has sold a few at other shows, but he had to explain the process to people to justify his higher price for the platinums.

One woman from Washington State had some beautiful butterfly prints taken on Polaroid 55 film and contact printed . I bought 3 of these.

Several of the B&W photographers were shooting on film and printing with quad toned inks. Their prints tended to be bigger. Several were printed on linen. I was very impressed with the quality of the quad-toned prints. One photographer had a mix of quad prints and silver prints from medium format negs. I actually preferred the quad prints to the silver in the bigger sizes. But the smaller enlargements on silver were the best of the them all.

One photographer had x-rayograms of flowers and shells that were very nice.

As for color, I think only one shot all digital. The others shot film and scanned. 2 were printing in a traditional wet dark room. As for vibrant colors, one booth was quite over the top. One photographer went the other way, and had a toned down look--very subtle colors, almost monochrome.

Sizes of prints varied quite a bit. Most photographers had a few very large prints with smaller prints mixed on their display. And they had bins of mounted prints in smaller sizes.

Over all, I was impressed with the work at the Des Moines Art Fair. I wish the Des Moines show, the CWS and the Omaha show were not the same week end.

 

[roteague]

One thing I have noticed at the various Art Shows I have been to. Many of the photographers who print using Ink Jet printers also tend to use various "rag" paper surfaces rather than the traditional glossy/matte surfaces. They also don't use glass in their frames as much.

 

[naturephoto1]

One thing I have noticed at the various Art Shows I have been to. Many of the photographers who print using Ink Jet printers also tend to use various "rag" paper surfaces rather than the traditional glossy/matte surfaces. They also don't use glass in their frames as much.

Robert,

If the photographers are doing that, it is very unfortunate for the buyer. You can print on watercolor papers such as Arches as an example, but my understanding is that Henry Wilhelm has indicated that for the greatest life out of the dye or pigment inks, the image must be behind glass. I am not however, quite sure how this affect those images printed on canvas and displayed as an oil painting.

Rich

 

[Jim Chinn]

Allen,

I wished I would have known the date of the Des Moines art fair I would have drove over for it, but no mention of it in the Omaha media since it was the same week as Omaha's. On an aside, to bad about Rice. With Nebraska not making it out of their regional I was rooting for Rice to win the whole thing again.

 

[david b]

The Taos Art Show has banned digital images of all kinds and I believe the Santa Fe Art Show will be doing the same soon.

 

[roteague]

Robert,

If the photographers are doing that, it is very unfortunate for the buyer. You can print on watercolor papers such as Arches as an example, but my understanding is that Henry Wilhelm has indicated that for the greatest life out of the dye or pigment inks, the image must be behind glass. I am not however, quite sure how this affect those images printed on canvas and displayed as an oil painting.

Rich

I think you are correct about that, then again from what I have read Wilhelm also states that the paper/ink must be from the same manufacturer as well, which most often isn't the case. Fortunately, this lack of glass sets my work apart from theirs.

 

[reellis67]

The Taos Art Show has banned digital images of all kinds and I believe the Santa Fe Art Show will be doing the same soon.

I think that would be a bit of a knee-jerk reaction. While I don't like inkjet and related prints myself, I will fight to my last breath for the rights of anyone to be free to create and sell their work in the manner they see fit, so long as they do not try to misrepresent the method used as another method be it 'wet' or 'dry' process. Denying digital photographers the ability to sell electronicaly generated prints would not be all that different than putting limits on the subject matter, unless of course the show is specific to one medium or one genre (for lack of a better term) of media.

- Randy

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Is the Taos digital ban aimed more at photographers or painters? I could see a good case for not wanting digital reproductions in a show that features handmade crafts.

 

[naturephoto1]

Most photographers participating in Art Shows that are transparency shooters are just ignoring the supposed restriction of no digital imaging/printing/must be hand pulled/printed by the photographer. I have been digitally printing now for 11 1/2 years and about 8? on a LightJet or Chromira machine. The shows have no idea and understanding that there is only one positive/positive conventional printing method available. The only other conventional printing method that is basically available is through internegative. However, I see that there may be some dye transfer chemistry still available- but this is very labor intensive.

Rich

 

[DBP]

I have been digitally printing now for 11 1/2 years and about 8? on a LightJet or Chromira machine. The shows have no idea and understanding that there is only one positive/positive conventional printing method available. The only other conventional printing method that is basically available is through internegative. However, I see that there may be some dye transfer chemistry still available- but this is very labor intensive.

Rich

Did I miss an announcement of Ilfochrome's demise? Am I confused?

 

[naturephoto1]

Did I miss an announcement of Ilfochrome's demise? Am I confused?

The one positive/positive printing method that I mentioned, but forgot to identify in the last posting is Ilfochrome.

Rich

 

[roteague]

Did I miss an announcement of Ilfochrome's demise? Am I confused?

I think Ilfochrome is what he is referring to.

The point is, unlike the B&W photographer, the choice of materials available for the color worker is much more limited. In some locations, like where I live, it is almost impossible to even get the materials - not even talking about the increased difficulty of using it.