Smith/Chamlee Azo Portfolio

Donald Miller · Jan 7, 2006

For those who are interested, Michael Smith and Paula Chamlee have posted the details of their Azo portfolio and other details of their marketing impetus designed to fund the production of a replacement for Kodak Azo paper.

The information can be found on their site

www.michaelandpaula.com

matt miller · Jan 7, 2006

I hope they succeed with this.

They say "Each portfolio will cost approximately $750 to produce". That sounds like a lot, to me, to print ten photographs. But then I have no idea in my mind how something like this would be presented. I suppose it's not just ten mounted/matted photographs in a fancy box?

Peter Schrager · Jan 7, 2006

portfolio

Matt-have you actually taken the time to look at the portfolio in question. We're talking two master artists and the images that I clicked on were absolutely stunning. Off the monitor I know they "pop" the eye. I wish M+P all the success in the world and I don't see the point of a "debate" whether it's worth it or not. They are on a mission few people would even attempt to dream about. If I had the spare cash I'd pony up the check tommorrow.
Best, Peter

roteague · Jan 7, 2006

I looked at the site. Thanks. While I have no interest in their work, it seems to me that this offer is intended to help them with the financial resources necessary to keep the Azo product alive, at least in some form. So, I wish them the best of luck. I would buy a set, if I could.

mark · Jan 7, 2006

Lot of money to spend.

bill schwab · Jan 7, 2006

Does this mean they hope/need to raise nearly a million dollars to produce Azo?

...Gulp...

More power to them. Gotta love that kind of spirit. I'm afraid if I could sell portfolios for that kind of money that I would simply retire to my patch in the woods and make platinum prints for no one but myself the rest of my days!

lee · Jan 7, 2006

isnt 25 x $10,000 = $250,000 which is a quarter of a million?

lee\c

bill schwab · Jan 7, 2006

lee said:
isnt 25 x $10,000 = $250,000 which is a quarter of a million?

They said that was for the first 25... "to encourage sales at this time we are making an offer we hope you will find hard to refuse."

Add that to the other 25 for the $28,000.00 they say they are worth and you get the additional $700,000.00.

lee · Jan 7, 2006

ok did not see that

lee\c

Jim Chinn · Jan 7, 2006

I like the idea, even though I could never afford it. I don't know how many people would be willing to shell out the $5000 to get one print and that amount of a paper that has not been made or tested by anyone yet. At least with the 10 print portfolio you have something if the paper never makes it to production.

I am pretty confident there are collectors and institutions that would shell out the money for the 50 portfolios. It might take a couple of years but I could see it selling out.

Jim Chinn · Jan 8, 2006

billschwab said:
More power to them. Gotta love that kind of spirit. I'm afraid if I could sell portfolios for that kind of money that I would simply retire to my patch in the woods and make platinum prints for no one but myself the rest of my days!

Speaking of platinum, I see from M&Ps newsletter that they are going to be having someone make enlarged four seperation digital negatives that are then printed in register as platinum prints 1 meter wide from some of their recent Iceland work. They are also going to have mural sized pixelgraphs made from some of Michael's older work. They also have been working more and more with 6x6 cameras. Looks like M&P may be thinking a little about a world without AZO or similar product.

One interesting thought. If they really get involved in the whole digital negative thing and work with smaller formats (6x6,6x7), and quit using the ULF cameras, I wonder if they might start to sell off some of that walk in freezer full of ULF Super XX film?

I would love to see the platinum prints. To read about what they plan to do for the platinum work here is the newsletter:http://www.michaelandpaula.com/mp/html/newsletter2006.html#azo

Mike A · Jan 8, 2006

M&P also make mention of a collaboration with Sandy King who is also digital negative proponent. Every artist must make adjustments to his or her materials and workflow and some point or another in ones career.

I think this transition shows healthy insight and artistic growth on Michael and Paulas part. I wish them the best of luck, although people with there passion and work ethic often rarely ever need luck.

Mike A

matt miller · Jan 8, 2006

Peter Schrager said:
Matt-have you actually taken the time to look at the portfolio in question. We're talking two master artists and the images that I clicked on were absolutely stunning. Off the monitor I know they "pop" the eye. I wish M+P all the success in the world and I don't see the point of a "debate" whether it's worth it or not. They are on a mission few people would even attempt to dream about. If I had the spare cash I'd pony up the check tommorrow.
Best, Peter

You misunderstand me Peter. I'm not asking whether it's worth it or not. I did look at the images and I'm sure the real prints are amazing. I'm just surprised that it costs them $750 to make one portfolio with ten photographs, that's all. I suppose if they're including the cost of their time, it would reach that figure quickly.

Bob Carnie · Jan 8, 2006

Jorge said:
Lets see, assume there are 10 8x10s and 10 8x20s per portfolio. If the 8x10s are matted to 16x20 then each photograph would cost to make including mounting and matting at most $10. SO that is $100 add another $150 for the 8x20s that makes a total of $250. Add nother $150 for a box (and I realize I am using very high numbers on everything!) A portfolio should not cost more than $400 to make. So the $750 figure must include their time to make each portfolio, which is not so unreasonable given the fact that mounting and matting 20 prints is a PITA.

I wish them luck on their efforts, the Iceland pictures seem to be much better than their usual work for my taste.

This is a bargain ,
If one likes either MAS work or Paula 's work this promotion is a steal. Basically they are 2X hard cost.
If Jorge is correct with his math and I believe him to be correct, then this offering if all done with archival materials an absolute bargain.

Donald Miller · Jan 8, 2006

matt miller said:
You misunderstand me Peter. I'm not asking whether it's worth it or not. I did look at the images and I'm sure the real prints are amazing. I'm just surprised that it costs them $750 to make one portfolio with ten photographs, that's all. I suppose if they're including the cost of their time, it would reach that figure quickly.

Matt, There are other costs involved with producing a portfolio. Among those typically are not only the photographs themselves but also the mounting and overmatting materials, the interleaving materials, but additionally the expense of the portfolio boxes. These are usually linen covered and imprinted with the name and other identification details pertinant to the portfolio.

The portfolio boxes are often quite expensive since they are limited run items.
Beyond that consideration quite often the photographer will indicate the retirement of the image from further printing and sale.

Now I will grant you that $750 is a lot of money. But $10,750 dollars is a heck of a lot more money. Far beyond my budget. However, there are probably museums and collectors that may well pony up with the green for this.

I noticed that this price is only good for the first one half of the portfolio...there is no mention made of how high the remainder will be priced.

seadrive · Jan 8, 2006

Donald Miller said:
I noticed that this price is only good for the first one half of the portfolio...there is no mention made of how high the remainder will be priced.

They start out by estimating the "full retail" value of the portfolio at $28,000, so for now, I guess that's the price of the second group of 25 portfolios.

The price will probably be adjusted, based on how well the first 25 sell.

bill schwab · Jan 8, 2006

Donald Miller said:
The portfolio boxes are often quite expensive since they are limited run items.

The linen covered boxes, slipcases and porfolio folders for the "deluxe" version of my recent book were hand made beautifully. 60 of them cost less than $50.00 each.

roteague · Jan 8, 2006

Jim Chinn said:
I see from M&Ps newsletter

What is an M&P newsletter?

Jim Chinn · Jan 8, 2006

roteague said:
What is an M&P newsletter?

Michael and Paula or Michael Smith and Paula Chamlee. The link is to a "newsletter" on thier site discussing the past year and what they have in the works for 2006.

roteague · Jan 8, 2006

Jim Chinn said:
Michael and Paula or Michael Smith and Paula Chamlee. The link is to a "newsletter" on thier site discussing the past year and what they have in the works for 2006.

Thanks Jim. I am aware of their work, but don't find it inspiring - I am a color person - so I am not always familiar with the shorthand that is sometimes used.

Jorge · Jan 8, 2006

Lets see, assume there are 10 8x10s and 10 8x20s per portfolio. If the 8x10s are matted to 16x20 then each photograph would cost to make including mounting and matting at most $10. SO that is $100 add another $150 for the 8x20s that makes a total of $250. Add nother $150 for a box (and I realize I am using very high numbers on everything!) A portfolio should not cost more than $400 to make. So the $750 figure must include their time to make each portfolio, which is not so unreasonable given the fact that mounting and matting 20 prints is a PITA.

I wish them luck on their efforts, the Iceland pictures seem to be much better than their usual work for my taste.

doughowk · Jan 8, 2006

I suspect what one likes is related to the format one prefers. Until recently, I preferred Paula's work ( I have her High Plains Farm book) possibly because of its 8X10 format. Now that I'm getting into panoramic formats, I have learned a new appreciation for Michael's work.

Jorge · Jan 8, 2006

jdef said:
Hi Jorge.

I've noticed that it is the norm to discuss MAS and Paula as a single entity, but I find Paula's work an order of magnitude more interesting and creative than MAS'. Am I alone in my assessment?

Jay

Not really, I have heard the same opinion many times. Last trip I made to Houston I went to a very well known gallery and asked the owner if he had any MAS or PC prints. He said he did not since MAS marketed his own prints but he added a comment a long the same lines you mention. That he preferred PC's prints.

In my opinion (please folks remember this is just my opnion and taste) both are capabale of making exquisite prints, but could use some ruthless editing. Not everything they make is a master piece, or even close.

avandesande · Jan 8, 2006

Jorge, I have to agree. All the prints are exquisite, but not necessarly masterpieces. I have noticed that Paula's subject matter is often similar to yours.

rhphoto · Jan 8, 2006

One question: What would be the current "gallery" value of their prints? I mean, do recognized galleries trade in their prints, and do they have a serious following among collectors? To set a portfolio price that high is fine if one is a sought-after photographer. And this is not to judge their work -- plenty of stuff out there is questionable (in my opinion!) but still demands a high price. By that token, plenty of good work is undervalued. I just wonder if these two can demand, and get, these prices.

Smith/Chamlee Azo Portfolio

Donald Miller

matt miller

Peter Schrager

roteague

mark

bill schwab

Advertiser

lee

bill schwab

Advertiser

lee

Jim Chinn

Jim Chinn

Mike A

matt miller

Bob Carnie

Donald Miller

seadrive

bill schwab

Advertiser

roteague

Jim Chinn

roteague

Jorge

doughowk

Jorge

avandesande

rhphoto

Smith/Chamlee Azo Portfolio

Advertiser

Advertiser

Advertiser

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency