Sorry if I sound like a jerk , but does anyone really care ?

Right, that's me. My work is automatically archival in the ways you've cited. The prints etc that I made for family was special project that was not only automatically archived (digitally by default) but I also distributed archival print versions to multiple family members..
Did that project because I happened to be the family eldest and wanted family knowledge to in itself potentially survive a few generations. I wanted that because that family lineage thereby has a life of its own. Personal responsibility (part of Art)

donkee said:

The photo of the flag raising at Iwo Jima is just some "his-story", the soldiers storming the beach at Normandy more "his-story", the photo of the local kid that raised money for research on the disease that killed him/her/it/they is "his-story". Sadly people are too busy picking apart every word someone says while being offended by everything to actually figure it out.

Click to expand...

I might be mistaken but the "famous photograph of" The Flag at Iwo Jima was staged. Do you know about the Kingdom of Ani, the City of 1000 Churches? Go on an Eco-tour there and please tell me who built the churches and lived there for IDK 2000 years. Did you hear about the protests in Hong Kong last week? The Chinese State Media is broadcasting the protests saying they are people protesting FOR EXTRADITION. History is written by the victors... even captions for or details about motion pictures, photographs and whole cities. And I'm not going to go into photographs made for news organizations+magazines that are composites or changed and submitted as actual things that were in front of the camera, or the Abraham Lincoln portrait that is the equivilant of being "photoshopped" in the 1860s. Just because its a photograph doens't mean its true.
Sorry, I'm not picking apart every word someone says or being offended, maybe instead of being agressive towards me you should read what I have written so far in this thread, including the OP ?

Not staged, but there were 2 flag raisings. The famous photo is of the second. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raising_the_Flag_on_Iwo_Jima

Pieter12 said:

Not staged, but there were 2 flag raisings. The famous photo is of the second. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raising_the_Flag_on_Iwo_Jima

Click to expand...

Thanks. As I said the one the famous photograph is of is staged. I never said it actually never happened, but the photograph is a "re-creation".

jtk said:

Right, that's me. My work is automatically archival in the ways you've cited. The prints etc that I made for family was special project that was not only automatically archived (digitally by default) but I also distributed archival print versions to multiple family members..
Did that project because I happened to be the family eldest and wanted family knowledge to in itself potentially survive a few generations. I wanted that because that family lineage thereby has a life of its own. Personal responsibility (part of Art)

Click to expand...

jtk said:

Everybody isn't hung up. Few are.

Click to expand...

So are you one of the people who is "hung up" or someone who is not? Your first post makes it seem as though you are not but then your clarification says the opposite ...

jnantz said:

Thanks. As I said the one the famous photograph is of is staged. I never said it actually never happened, but the photograph is a "re-creation".

Click to expand...

Although it was a second raising of the flag, it was not "staged." It was a larger flag replacing the first, and the famous photo was almost not taken. To quote the article, "Rosenthal put his Speed Graphic camera on the ground (set to 1/400 sec shutter speed, with the f-stop between 8 and 11 and Agfa film) so he could pile rocks to stand on for a better vantage point. In doing so, he nearly missed the shot. The Marines began raising the flag. Realizing he was about to miss the action, Rosenthal quickly swung his camera up and snapped the photograph without using the viewfinder."

Thanks Pieter12 ! I had read ( not sure where or if it was just a spat of Rosenthal hate ) that he asked them to do it a 2nd time so he could photograph it. There you go a false history of a photograph as I was talking about.
Thanks for pointing out I was wrong and the person whose article I read was wrong as well.

Circling back original topic (these threads go off on a tangent pretty fast!), I don't think the archival life of most documentary photos is very important, at least to me. Significant photos can be seen in books, or other forms of reproduction and copying, enough to keep their documentary value. Preserving family photos is somewhat dicey, some generations don't care, and they are subject to easy loss and damage. Their significance is usually limited to a relatively (no pun intended) small audience.

Photos as art, on the other hand, should be prepared to the best archival standards and methods available to the artist. A buyer/collector assumes the print(s) will last as long as can be reasonably expected in the environment in which they are kept. Unlike expertly restored paintings or drawings, it is quite difficult to realistically restore a print gone south. Negatives are really up to the photographer, and how long he or she intends to make or have prints made from them. I would think a photographer whose prints don't last would have negatives that deteriorate over time, too.

Pieter12 said:

Circling back original topic (these threads go off on a tangent pretty fast!), I don't think the archival life of most documentary photos is very important, at least to me. Significant photos can be seen in books, or other forms of reproduction and copying, enough to keep their documentary value. Preserving family photos is somewhat dicey, some generations don't care, and they are subject to easy loss and damage. Their significance is usually limited to a relatively (no pun intended) small audience.

Photos as art, on the other hand, should be prepared to the best archival standards and methods available to the artist. A buyer/collector assumes the print(s) will last as long as can be reasonably expected in the environment in which they are kept. Unlike expertly restored paintings or drawings, it is quite difficult to realistically restore a print gone south. Negatives are really up to the photographer, and how long he or she intends to make or have prints made from them. I would think a photographer whose prints don't last would have negatives that deteriorate over time, too.

Click to expand...

I don't think the longterm survival of "Art" is nearly as important as the continuation of family, or other histories. Paintings and drawings are routinely expertly restored. Few photographic prints are as important as their reproductions (few know Weston's originals but many know reproductions in his Daybooks). Ansel's best work is known mostly by reproductions that were digitally scanned, nominally with his supervision. Point being that reproductions are more valuable than original prints.

IDK the idea that a photograph can be reproduced 10million times reduces the value of it ( to me at least ) to basically worthless. Its greatest asset ( reproduction ) is its Achilles Heal. When photographers like one of the Westons cut up their negatives their friends thought they were crazy. "Give the people what they want" again, its all about commerce... Sure make a 10 million documentary and family photos they might be artistic but they aren't "art"...
Getting back to the original post 1.5 months later, I don't think any of my work ( unless I am selling it to an archive ) has to be archival .. seems like a lot of work for no real reason other than vanity/ego...

jnantz said:

IDK the idea that a photograph can be reproduced 10million times reduces the value of it ( to me at least ) to basically worthless. Its greatest asset ( reproduction ) is its Achilles Heal. When photographers like one of the Westons cut up their negatives their friends thought they were crazy. "Give the people what they want" again, its all about commerce... Sure make a 10 million documentary and family photos they might be artistic but they aren't "art"...
Getting back to the original post 1.5 months later, I don't think any of my work ( unless I am selling it to an archive ) has to be archival .. seems like a lot of work for no real reason other than vanity/ego...

Click to expand...

Can't address your "vanity/ego" issues or those (purportedly) of "one of the Westons." Different strokes. I'm not at all interested in any of the Westons other than Edward (and of course the women in his life and his other subjects).

Personal friends trained at RIT have occasionally destroyed their negatives. Some have used that to turn corners. Painters do that as well.

Your Media images are only transient displays on my smartphone and monitors: whatever they began as (e.g. prints on paper) is irrelevant. They are not photographic prints. I "like" (or at least appreciate) some of them..some inspire thought.

That you personally see no value ("worthless") in reproduction while you purportedly "value" reproduction of work of various of your heroes (e.g. Soviet graphic artists) is an internal conflict that only you can address. Your personal valuation system is of no consequence to others...they do their own valuation.

Some of my current photos are currently "worth" a certain amount (defined by me and the buyer) because every once in a while I sell one. I know how much my day rate was, in ancient times (1980s) : $450 minimum, $650 if a little creativity was sought. I'm currently struggling with myself to price 13X19 inkjet prints for a minor local exhibition. Maybe $125 un-mounted. I'd rather give them away, and might.

Your distinction between "artistic" and "Art" is surely accompanied by your elevated pinkie finger.

Achilles didn't have a vulnerable "Heal. His foot had a heel. I learned that as a young teen in a US Air Force dependent's school in Newfoundland.

Nobody's work "has to be archival" unless they want it to be.

jtk said:

Nobody's work "has to be archival" unless they want it to be.

Click to expand...

I never said anyone's work had to be archival. I wondered why a lot of people insist their work has to be archival.

jtk said:

Your distinction between "artistic" and "Art" is surely accompanied by your elevated pinkie finger.

Click to expand...

I don't have any pinkie fingers.

jtk said:

That you personally see no value ("worthless") in reproduction while you purportedly "value" reproduction of work of various of your heroes (e.g. Soviet graphic artists) is an internal conflict that only you can address. Your personal valuation system is of no consequence to others...they do their own valuation.

Click to expand...

No internal conflict, sorry. Yes I do enjoy Russian Constructavists Not everything is a 9$ poster at Bed Bath and Beyondsky.

jtk said:

Your Media images are only transient displays on my smartphone and monitors: whatever they began as (e.g. prints on paper) is irrelevant. They are not photographic prints.

Click to expand...

I have tangible prints of most things I upload, and because I uploaded them and they can be printed out on anyone's ink jet printer for free, so most everything is pretty much worthless.

jtk said:

Personal friends trained at RIT have occasionally destroyed their negatives. Some have used that to turn corners. Painters do that as well.

Click to expand...

painters destroy their negatives that makes no sense, they paint.
no clue what you are talking about ...