• 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

What do Galleries prefer hand made or

Terry Breedlove

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Jan 19, 2009
Messages
406
Location
Forks, Wa
Format
Medium Format
I am having a heated discussion with my friends on a facebook group. I am the only film shooter. Right now the talk is about Ansel Adams. They think he would be just as well known and shooting digital if he started out now. I say no that he would be just another digital shooter good yes, but not the same Ansel Adams we all know and love. That got me to wondering on a different subject. Since I shoot film and do my own darkroom work. I feel that my prints are better than if I was shooting digital and pushing the print button on an ink jet. I am investing time and learning to master my craft. Do Galleries prefer prints made this way by hand or is digital just as excepted now ?
 
Galleries care about what sellS and pays the rent. . If you got the mojo it can go on the walls
Either digital or analog...besides lots of people do hybrid
 
For current work, statistically I am sure that there is more digital work on Gallery walls because there are more photographic artists creating it.
The Gallery world is market driven, not process driven - with the exception of the niche galleries that feature traditional process work.
If an artist creates great work in a particular medium, that is a medium that the artist should work in.
 
it depends on the gallery and it depends on the collectors.
its like saying do collectors prefer color or black and white?
i don't know of any black and white photographs that have sold for gigantic sums some color work sells for, but what do i know...

the bottom line is do what you like and don't worry about what other people are doing, and try to be open minded because
usually great things happen when our minds, eyes and ears are open to new things.
 
Interesting so if I take a photo with my iphone it will be seen as good as Ansel Adams Moonrise print. Sweet this takes all the work out of it.
 
jnanian said:
The bottom line is do what you like and don't worry about what other people are doing, and try to be open minded because usually great things happen when our minds, eyes and ears are open to new things.
Click to expand...
I was once admonished to have an open mind, but not so open that my brains fall out.
 
I have an exhibition coming up towards the end of March. It will include silver gelatin, platinum/palladium and digitally printed images. Each will be labeled as to the material used. I don't think it makes much difference today as long as you don't misrepresent your work. As mentioned the buyer is usually more interested in the image than the technique.

http://www.jeffreyglasser.com/
 
The way I see it, old school wet process prints will always be in demand because of the hand-made appeal to collectors. Demand will surge and wane like everything else but overall I think serious collectors will always prefer hand-made art. Most sales may go to overprocessed highly repeatable digital prints but silver gelatin and other traditionally made photographic prints will always be in demand.
 
Skip to 7 mins in for some of his thoughts on digital ...


Of all the film shooters I'm aware of, most will get a drum scan and c prints for exhibition.
 
Last edited:

I agree.

*Photographers* request it. Curators just know the prints look beautiful and if it's hand printed: that's a nice back-story.

Same goes with art directors. They don't request it, but they can be persuaded real prints are worthwhile.
 
Terry Breedlove said:
Interesting so if I take a photo with my iphone it will be seen as good as Ansel Adams Moonrise print. Sweet this takes all the work out of it.
Click to expand...

if your work is good it doesn't matter what medium you used to make it.
have you ever seen stephen schuab's iphone photographs they are pretty amazing.
 
Thanks for the Adams-clip, this was very enlighting.
 
Perfect! !
 
Galleries differ but many except both.Their main interest is how well a photographers work is known and sells, so, they can make money off of it.
 
I work with a non-profit photographic gallery and artist collective. For work going on our walls, what counts is the image, whether the print is digital or analog is not a consideration, nor is it a consideration for most of our viewers, members or buyers, so far as I can tell.
Even for photographers that work with film, a lot of the large prints for shows are done digitally.

FWIW, for the folks working at a high level, making a fine print is most assuredly not just pushing a button on the printer. From what I've seen, overall, just as much effort goes into making a great print whether it's analog or digital. The effort may be in different places but the total work is about the same either way.
 
My general feeling is that way to many digital photographs overwork their pictures using Photoshop, especially those who have never done analog photography, resulting in plasticy looking results. Probably many of them lack the manual dexterity to produce what used to be a gallery print and can only push buttons (which does indeed require advanced knowledge and skill of a different kind and should not be ignored). That being said, I know nature photographers who now use digital and save a bundle of money on film but are very conservative with Photoshop. I use digital myself for restoring or rescuing pictures meant as illustrations. Getting back to the main point of this thread, the main reason for galleries is to make money for the owners. I greatly admire those writers and critics who can spin words tauting much vacuous modern art.
 
The whole "what would Ansel Adams do?" thing is very tired - it's at best speculative historical fiction. For whatever it is worth, you can't take him out of time and re-cast him because regardless of what you feel about his work, he was vastly influential to the vocabulary, technique and philosophy of photography. No future Ansel Adams would exist without past Ansel Adams and his methods. And while production of the final print in digital printing today is faster and more repeatable, there is significant work involved in preparation for that final print. I have significant respect for folks who work in that medium - IF Ansel Adams were alive today and working in that medium, I think one thing we can be certain of is that he would still be a consummate craftsman and produce work of the highest quality.
 
Terry Breedlove said:
Since I shoot film and do my own darkroom work. I feel* that my prints are better than if I was shooting digital and pushing the print button on an ink jet.
Click to expand...

Respectfully disagree. This is a false premise. There is so much more to producing a quality print from digital than just "pushing the print button". Anyone who thinks making quality prints from digital is easier than in a darkroom, has not made quality prints from digital.

* It's also based on your "feeling", rather than any objective criteria.
 
Yes it is based on my feelings and the objective criteria part is what am asking questions for. Imagine that asking questions looking for answers when will the crazy ever stop. LOL
 
I read somewhere that digital artist have an almost impossible time getting their work represented and in galleries and such. Not exactly the same thing but is the fact that hand made art such as paintings and in this discussion darkroom photos being one of a kind are more valuable than hit the print button accuracy of digital ?
 
Peter has it right, it's all about money as far as galleries are concerned. Just because you do your own prints in a darkroom does not make your photo any better than a digital image printed on a pro inkjet printer. An outstanding photograph transcends equipment used. A skilled darkroom worker and a skilled PS worker are equal in my view, just going a different route to get an image on paper. IMHO too much emphasis is put on equipment which in my view denigrates the accomplishments of truly gifted photographers.

Anyone who feels that digital images are not selling they better wake up. Some guy has been printing out other peoples Instagram images 4'x5' and selling them for $90,000usd. If people think it's art, they will pay for it, which encourages galleries to carry it.
 
It's not a matter of 'initial' vision, abilities or difficulty. It's the difference between 'hand made every individual print' vs. push button to make as many prints as you want after corrections are made. Hands on printed... vs. machine printed. There's nothing wrong with either but the latter is not nearly as 'time-consuming' as the former... and the artist may never have even touched the latter. The former had the artist's hands all over it.
 
getting back to the original post

who knows what would become of ansel adams if digital existed when he began producing work. i am sure if he had the same eyes, point of view and "vision" he would be every bit as good with a digital camera
as he was with film and paper. film and paper really don't have much to do with it. too much emphasis is always put on what camera or lens he was using. he used a MF camera, did his "vision" change when he switched format ?


regarding your own work. i am glad you like using film and paper an doing darkroom work but its kind of a bummer you trivialize others.
people who use a digital camera or print digitally, or make digital negatives &c just "push a button" because there is as much behind what someone does in that realm
as there is in the darkroom. i can see why the discussion was heated, you probably said things that belittled everyone in the group because they didn't use film.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register