• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Price for a photograph limited to "1/1" ?

Cheryl Jacobs said:
Alright, Kevin. Ignore feature employed. It's unfortunate, but I don't deal with people who can only reply via insult.

All the best to you and yours this holiday season.

- CJ
Click to expand...

My apologies to the OP for hijacking this thread.

Cheryl, don't worry about ignoring this "guy". He obviously has some issues to deal with. "He" obviously finds attacking people with vitriol instead of responding to their questions, perfectly acceptable.

The internet is a funny place, it allows certain people the courage that they would never have if the conversation was face to face.
 

Hello John,

First, thank you for your comment. Some negatives that I create, I will never print straight and just make other art out of them and offer a print of the new art I created from the negative. Others I will print normally first making a single print of the vision I saw, then once I am happy with the final print I will make new art out of my negative that I created the original print from and send it along with the print as a bonus to the collector..

Those negatives you see in the gallery here in APUG are of some of the one that have been given to the buyers of the original photographs.

Thank you again for your comments,

Kevin
 

Dinesh, I am not attacking anyone. I will give back every ounce that is dealt out. GO back and re-read this thread, as usual I addressed the initial question politely and you GUYS are the one that started, I am not taking it anymore. That is the difference. So really it is you that have the issues not me. Go read my initial post then make your decision on who is doing what.
 
kjsphoto said:
Something we agree on

Birthdays, kids, tips are negs I do keep as they are the family kind of stuff..


Finally!
Click to expand...

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

This needs to be removed as the rest of my post have been, as it is out of context with what I am replying to. If you are going to remove my post make sure you remove all of them and not just leave one you want to leave to make it sound like I am agreeing with what a thread is talking about because the way the moderator have left this post makes my comment completely out of context.
 

Actually this isn't even the original thread, it is here;
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

That is the original thread, that is where my comments were...
 
So kevin, what you're saying is that you're a nice guy until someone disagrees with you at which point you become rude or insulting, but it still isn't your fault: it is theirs.
 
my apologies also to the OP .....
i don't mean to help hijack this thread
but there isn't another thread opened to ask this same question ..

kjsphoto said:
I don't do editions.
Click to expand...

kevin

i don't mean to push your buttons here, but
according to your website reproductions are sold,
i realize they are not the original single - image
but they are still made from the original image or negative
so how are these "outputs" not editions?

i am still pretty confused by your stance
that you do not make editions, but
your reproductions are editons, aren't they ??
if i was to make reproductions of images
that i sold as single-images, whether they were
cheep digital reproductions or contact prints from
a silver print /paper negative it would still be making
more than one copy of something
that was supposed to be made only once ...

i understand you are not saying they are the same thing and you do not see them as being the same thing --
one image is hand crafted in the darkroom while the other is spit out of a pro-lab,
but they seem to be just that --- the same thing --- what makes your reproductions
different than someone else's "editions" ?

john
 
John,

You are not pushing my buttons at all as you are always polite

If you PM me and give me your number I am more than happy to give you a call on the phone on my dime to explain it if you like. Talking is much more easier than typing.

Thanks,

Kev
 
jd callow said:
So kevin, what you're saying is that you're a nice guy until someone disagrees with you at which point you become rude or insulting, but it still isn't your fault: it is theirs.
Click to expand...

Thats calling the kettle black isn't it JD....
 

Kevin eventhough you've taken some heat for your stance you've given far worse than you've recieved. This latest post of your seems to cover up a double standard that I think you're obliged to explain. Or is it ok for you to belittle others over thier processes and yet not expose your own for examination?
 
JD,

I have explained this more time that not. If anyone would like to discuss this, PM me your number and I am more than happy to give a phone call if you are in the US. Go back and read ALL MY post and this is explained extremely clear and concise. The problem is that you DO NOT WANT TO hear it so therefore you find every reason to discard it.

I have sent links to these threads to OTHER people and they ALL TOLD ME THEY GET IT and UNDERSTAND IT!

So again it is explained rather clearly.

PLUS JORGE and I have written a few articles on it in our blog that CLEARLY defines EXACTLY WHAT WE ARE DOING AND WHY.

So now I am not going to type anymore on it as you are more than welcome to;

A. Re-read the threads.
B. Read the blog articles on it.
C. Give me your number and I am more than happy to call you on the phone in person and discuss it where each other can hear ones tone in their voice.

Those are the options to further discuss this.
 
No, I want to hear it from you, now, here. Why would you find it easier to redundantly post attacks and counter attacks, but not repeat a position that you find fundemental to you being an artist?
 
Kevin, in a post in another thread, I made a list of rather eminent photographers, including E. Weston, and asked if you were asserting that they were not artists, because they made more than one print. You replied to the effect that they were not. Later you said that you had been "playing around with everyone" or something to that effect ( forgive me for not digging up the exactitudes), which left me confused as to if your reply was sincere or not.

So I'm asking, and I'll just pick on Weston. Was Edward Weston an artist?

Your sincere thoughts on this would be appreciated.

Best

J
 
kevin i have read and re-read your posts, and blog entries
but only find statements that contradict what you say here ...
digital reproductions from a digital file are still made ..

maybe i don't understand what you wrote, but
in my tired eyes, if you run prints out of a pro-lab and sell them cheep as affordable art
or make fine art prints of them in a darkroom, they are still editions ...

i wish i had the time for a long phone conversation about this,
but unfortunately my time is limited taking care of a gaggle of sick kids,
that is why i wanted to read it here, not only for me to read but
for others who may be equally confused by what you write here in this and other threads
and what you actually are doing ...

why not come right out and say they are affordable-digital-editons ?
isn't that what they are ??

sorry, for being obtuse if i can't read straight ...

just trying to figure it out ...
 
Again I am not doing editions.. I will repeat myself one more time, if you want to discuss this John or JB, PM me your phone number and I am more than happy to call you and discuss it with you in person over the phone.


Thanks,

Kevin
 
And Weston?
 
jd callow said:
No, I want to hear it from you, now, here. Why would you find it easier to redundantly post attacks and counter attacks, but not repeat a position that you find fundemental to you being an artist?
Click to expand...

Answer is below. I went ahead and re quoted myself in case you missed the post...


 
Given your vitriol on APUG, I don't think that most people feel comfortable giving you their telephone number.

Why do you refuse to answer John Nanian or Jason Brunner's questions?

Are you afraid of exposing your hypocrisy?
 
kevin

i re- read your posts and blog ( again )...

sorry, it doesn't clear anything up.

i just want to read where you are coming from ...
( as does everyone else )

why is it so hard to actually say in plain english what you are doing
instead of referring to passages in threads and on your website and asking people to get a call back from you ?

more than one d-output from a file while it isn't the "original" is more than one print
whether it is through a file or a negative. reproduction, editon same thing ... at least in most people's eyes

if people i gave single edition books or prints to found out that i made a scan and printed off others that
were "more affordable and made through a different means" they would be kind of ticked off.
i can't see how you can suggest you are selling single editions of anything, and even
have your signature as you have it, when you are doing exactly what you suggest you don't like ..

????
:confused:
john
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Reading Kevin's posts and blog article, it is pretty clear to me what he is all about on this topic.

He makes an "edition of one", but does not call it an edition...in his mind he relates it more to a painter making a painting (a painter would never call his/her painting an "edition of one".)

He then takes that one "original" print and has copies (reproductions) made of it that he can sell at a lower price...just as a painter does can do with his/her painting The reproduction is one step removed from the original, since it is scanned or rephotographed from the one "original" (and not made from the negative).

Kevin has offered no logical reason why printing only one print from a negative makes it more "original" than two prints made from the same negative...other than trying to equate photography with painting. He seems to believe that since painting is an art form, if photography wants to be an art form then it must be more like, and follow the "rules" of, painting. So like a religious belief, I will assume that Kevin holds this belief tightly and no logical proof is really needed for him.

And people tend to get testy when their beliefs are challanged.

That's how I see it. Vaughn
 
Of course sculptors in bronze have been casting multiple copies of their work for centuries.
 
David A. Goldfarb said:
Of course sculptors in bronze have been casting multiple copies of their work for centuries.
Click to expand...

But then the question would be, are the bronze pieces the original works of art, or are they "just" reproductions of the original the sculptor made -- that were then cast to make the molds to pour in the bronze? It becomes one's personal definition of what art is. A sculptor might see his original as his creation and see the factory that made the cast and poured the bronze as just making the reproductions of his original piece. Or he might see the bronze as the end product -- his art.

Both are valid points of view. But in most cases after the original is probably long gone (depending on what is was made of, I suppose), it is the bronzes that we see and declare as works of art.

Society tends to be fairly flighty on what is and what is not art. In reality, it is up to the individual artist to decide if his/her work is art. Everything else is pretty much marketing.

Vaughn
 
JBrunner said:
Disco.
Click to expand...

Just staying alive, staying alive...

Vaughn

PS...Sometimes I have a hard time realizing that most of our university students were born after disco...lucky them...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register