Still Wet Behind The Ears

Three pillars.

D
Three pillars.

  • 1
  • 1
  • 17
Water from the Mountain

A
Water from the Mountain

  • 3
  • 0
  • 55
Rijksmuseum Amsterdam

A
Rijksmuseum Amsterdam

  • 0
  • 0
  • 46
Lotus

A
Lotus

  • 4
  • 0
  • 65
Magpies

A
Magpies

  • 4
  • 0
  • 98

Recent Classifieds

Forum statistics

Threads
197,521
Messages
2,760,508
Members
99,394
Latest member
Photogenic Mind
Recent bookmarks
0
Joined
Nov 2, 2005
Messages
2,034
Location
Cheshire UK
Format
Medium Format
Notice I did'nt light the blue touch paper by posing the question ?

'Is photography art'

And the reason I did'nt was because it most certainly is, always has been, and always will be and my favourite kind to boot!

Simon ILFORD photo / HARMAN technology Limited
 
OP
OP
Snapshot

Snapshot

Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2007
Messages
913
Location
Toronto, Ont
Format
Multi Format
Artist / Context / taste / fashion / nostalgia / investment and half a hundred other things....

But in the end its what makes sense for the buyer...

Art and what is art, and why you like it or don't has been agonised over since the dawn of time...

The important thing to me is to be able to say I 'like' or don't 'like' a piece of art, but never to tell someone else to 'like' it or 'not' to like it... as that's up to them.

Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited :
What you say is absolutely true. I can appreciate that art can have context and has value over and above obvious costs and visual impact. However, I guess my question needs to be better framed as I cannot but help believe there is some elementary grounding from which to ascertain value.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

omaha

Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2013
Messages
368
Format
Medium Format
Perhaps I'm a complete ignoramus, but what makes that photograph special (i.e., price). Seems quite mundane actually. But then again, I never sold a photograph for over a thousand dollars.

Personally, I couldn't begin to explain what the buyer was thinking when he paid over $4 million for that particular photograph.

Ok, I guess I'll take a stab at it anyway...

The answer, IMHO, goes to the what Andy Warhol and Andreas Gursky have in common. Warhol understood, perhaps better than anyone before him, the power of pop culture and its ability to elevate the mundane. His entire life was a continuous act of performance art. He understood that by creating a persona, he was creating art.

Gursky, while far less flamboyant, has been elevated by something similar to the pop culture that elevated Warhol. Rhine II, produced by anyone else, would not stand out. But by the time Gursky produced it, he had already established a reputation in the modern art community, and it all just sort of metastasized from there.

One thing that helps Rhine II stand out is that the print is simply enormous: Roughly 6' x 13'. The pure scale of the print helps establish exclusivity, since to reproduce it would be quite an undertaking.

I'm curious how it was produced. It is described as a "chromogenic colour print" mounted on acrylic glass. How does one go about creating a chromogenic print of that size?
 
OP
OP
Snapshot

Snapshot

Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2007
Messages
913
Location
Toronto, Ont
Format
Multi Format
Personally, I couldn't begin to explain what the buyer was thinking when he paid over $4 million for that particular photograph.
If it's a matter of 'cult of personality' or 'exclusivity' then I can see why, but to a point. I guess I'm just a little too practical and pedestrian for fine art.
 

ToddB

Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2012
Messages
1,134
Format
Medium Format
I love wet printing aswell. Something about making a print by hand has a special value.

Todd
 

MattKing

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
51,971
Location
Delta, BC Canada
Format
Medium Format
Rhine II sold for the price it did because the rest of Gursky's work sells and resells for high amounts.
The purchaser bought into an expensive set of one of a kind articles, with the knowledge that their purchase could most likely be re-sold for a high value.
 

Andrew O'Neill

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Jan 16, 2004
Messages
11,775
Location
Coquitlam,BC Canada
Format
Multi Format
I wet print mainly carbon transfer, kallitype and silver. I have never printed anything digital other than occassionally a digital negative.
By the way, how the heck did you make the headlight on your avatar flash? I thought I was seeing things!
 

JW PHOTO

Member
Joined
May 15, 2006
Messages
1,148
Location
Lake, Michig
Format
Medium Format
I wet print mainly carbon transfer, kallitype and silver. I have never printed anything digital other than occassionally a digital negative.
By the way, how the heck did you make the headlight on your avatar flash? I thought I was seeing things!

OMG I didn't even notice that until you mentioned it. I sat staring at it and saw it flash. Wow! JW
 
OP
OP
Snapshot

Snapshot

Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2007
Messages
913
Location
Toronto, Ont
Format
Multi Format
I wet print mainly carbon transfer, kallitype and silver. I have never printed anything digital other than occassionally a digital negative.
By the way, how the heck did you make the headlight on your avatar flash? I thought I was seeing things!
It's an animated .gif file. I cycle between two pictures, the one with the "flash" appears for only a split second.
 

yellowcatt

Member
Joined
Apr 25, 2010
Messages
47
Format
35mm
I'm curious how it was produced. It is described as a "chromogenic colour print" mounted on acrylic glass. How does one go about creating a chromogenic print of that size?

Presumably it was produced on either a Durst Lambda or a ZBE Chromira machine.
 

Jaf-Photo

Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2014
Messages
495
Format
Medium Format
Hi All,

For the past 8 years, most of my film protography has been B&W and I still perform darkroom wet printing for my "better" shots. However, I get the impression (and it's only an impression) that wet printing is perhaps now the minority printing process for film shooters, maybe even here at APUG. Is it just me or has wet printing fallen out of favour for many, if not most, film shooters?

Finding or setting up a functioning darkroom is a big hurdle to clear.

Most photographers who are returning to film or taking it up for the first time, are confined to scanning.

I did receive darkroom training in the 80s and spent a lot of time wet printing photos.

Now, it's not an option as I can't have a darkroom in my home and there is no functioning darkroom locally . Believe me, I have searched, but even the venerable local photographic society is now fully digital. (They have good printers, though.)

So for me, scanning is necessary to continue working with film. In any case, with the right scanner, software, printer and workflow you can make good images which look a lot more like traditional photography, than a fully digital product.

It also seems that the number of straight edgers is quite small. Most analogue photographers seem to use scanning to some extent.
 
Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links.
To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here.

PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Ilford ADOX Freestyle Photographic Stearman Press Weldon Color Lab Blue Moon Camera & Machine
Top Bottom