What do Galleries prefer hand made or

[Terry Breedlove]

Thank for the comment on my work. Who did I trivialize ? I am only interested in hand made works of photographic art versus push button digital work because the very nature of the work involved and the individuality of each piece. I do shoot with my digital camera though i do shy away from the high definition cartoon images and what not. Really I must be honest for me digital is for quick everyday shooting or travel. When I want to go make a beautiful print I shoot film. So I am not a purist in any sense of the word but when trying to create artistic work I do want the hand made aspect of shooting film. I am simply wondering how the buyers and collectors and galleries view that subject. Like I said this is a side conversation that didn't come up in the original talk. It is just something that I started to think about and mostly regarding my own work. I appreciate the input from everyone. I am a question asker and a thinker.

 

[WHof]

I have a couple of friends who do art shows, all digitally. A few years ago they put some of my wet darkroom prints in and made it clear there were "hand done" in the darkroom rather than digital prints. 100% of the customers couldn't care less. I was then in a gallery with 3 other photographers, all of whom made digital prints. My signage made it clear mine were "hand done" in the darkroom which I thought would distinguish me from the others. Having spent a fair amount of time in the gallery, I could tell 100% of the customers couldn't care less.
I think the reality is that unless you can get your work to the 1% or 2% of the people who are interested in photographs and are pretty much serious collectors, process is irrelevant. Your work simply stands on its own. I feel like there are some people for whom process is meaningful, but if you can find em let me know.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

First off, making a digital print is easier if you know what you are doing.

Second, Ansel would be as obscure as anyone else today. The reason why he is famous is because he was the first popular photographer. Today he would be just one of the masses. I personally think he is overrated myself. Weston blows him out of the water, but Weston didn't pursue it like Adams did, nor did he have the resources like Adams. And Adams had three decades longer to make himself famous. On top of all of that, Adams was in the right place at the right time. No Yosemite, no Virginia's family, no Ansel Adams. He would probably have gone on to become a rather mediocre concert pianist, or perhaps just gave piano lessons for all the snot nosed society kids surrounding him.

As far as the digital vs. darkroom goes, who cares. There might be some collectors out there who want traditional prints but there aren't a lot. People buy art because they like it, they think it will increase in value, or because it matches their sofa. Galleries sell it to them. They will sell it to anyone. You got the scratch and you want a picture of a pile of poop? A gallerist will find it for you. Real collectors, the ones that buy a lot of prints, tend to collect by photographer or theme.

 

[Bob Carnie]

I think that Galleries do appreciate well made silver or pt pd prints, the do not care if the photographer made the print as much as the kind of relationship the photographer and printer have, and will the prints be of consistent quality.

We must know that there are many different types of galleries with different mandates, and some of the best have really top notch photographic minds controlling them.

 

[Saganich]

To get AA quality prints in a digital or hybrid process is just as complicated. To suggest otherwise is provocative. Until you actually do something skilled in a world outside your own it is difficult to appreciate the skill of that world....grasshopper

 

[Nodda Duma]

Having sat at a computer making quality digital astrophotography photos..mastering Photoshop is hard work. Just as hard as mastering the darkroom. Personally, I like to take a break from the technology that makes up my day job, so I prefer darkroom work.

Otherwise, my attempts to make a better photo are detached from the medium: I can produce a terrible analog photo just as easily as I can produce a terrible digital photo. My preference is to suck at it analoguely.

 

[Peter Schrager]

I think that Galleries do appreciate well made silver or pt pd prints, the do not care if the photographer made the print as much as the kind of relationship the photographer and printer have, and will the prints be of consistent quality.

We must know that there are many different types of galleries with different mandates, and some of the best have really top notch photographic minds controlling them.

Bob that is so true do one needs to be selective as to where they will place their work
You have a first class gallery in tor onto that carries many first class photographers! !

 

[Luckless]

Work in digital isn't strictly easier, but rather it is safer with regards to time and error.

Accidentally do something very simple and very stupid in the darkroom? Well, best get a new piece of paper and start the process all over again.
Do something similar in digital? Meh. - Ctrl-z and get back to what you were doing.

Want to explore something new and different with your work in the darkroom? Well, get your paper and start things from scratch again.
Digital? - Load up a file, and poke around. Not liking how things are going? Back up a few steps and move forward again.

Doing something and doing it well are two very different things. Digital gives you that extra little safety net of flexibility and rapid workflows, and takes out some of the technical tedium and sources of imprecision of a totally analog flow, but it is not in and of itself any easier to do well.

Anyone can fire up photoshop and fiddle with filters and stuff. But then again anyone can watch a few youtube videos and go blunder around in a darkroom. - What they produce isn't likely to be all that refined or stunning regardless of what toolset they're using.

The one part that truly is easier with digital however would be when it comes to making that second print. And the third. And it really gets noticeable when you're up around the millionth...

But the real kicker in the entire ease of reproduction? That great and glorious strength is exactly why so many aren't even remotely interested.
You can streamline and refine your process for doing a handmade darkroom print off an original negative, but there is only so much you can do to reduce the time and effort required. High volume automated printing can have one tech overseeing dozens of printers at any given time, each one spitting out an exact copy of the last one.


Personally I'll keep loving both and enjoying the use of all the tools I have at hand.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

Having sat at a computer making quality digital astrophotography photos..mastering Photoshop is hard work. Just as hard as mastering the darkroom. Personally, I like to take a break from the technology that makes up my day job, so I prefer darkroom work.

Otherwise, my attempts to make a better photo are detached from the medium: I can produce a terrible analog photo just as easily as I can produce a terrible digital photo. My preference is to suck at it analoguely.

Yes. you're right. The difference is... in... every... single... print... hands-on... or not. It's 'almost' like comparing 'reproduced' paintings vs. a painting made by the hands of the painter. It truly is different.

Did the artist directly influence this particular print? Yes... no?? Did the artist 'make' this print with his/her own hands?? Yes... no??

 

[Eric Rose]

To compare painting to photographs made from negatives is absurd. AA prints have been reprinted for years and so have Westons from the original negative. Just like printing another digital print from the same file. An original painting is just that, an original. Even if the painter tried to copy it is would be substantially different.

The only time a photographic print has the same cache as a painting is if there was only one print ever made and the negative destroyed.

It's high time analog photographers, of which I am one, get off their high horse. I got off mine a LONG time ago. Only analog photographers care how a print is made, the buying public 99.9% of the time don't give a damn.

If the art world "gods" determine you are a "thing" then your stuff will sell for big bucks. It has nothing to do with how the image was transferred to paper.

We do analog because we like to do it, not because it's better. Some may want to believe it's better, I say bravo, whatever floats your boat.

 

[faberryman]

From another primarily film photographer, well said.

 

[spijker]

Bravo Eric, I totally agree.

 

[Lachlan Young]

It's a way of seeing and a way of doing, nothing more than that. Yet that process may be fundamental to how you work and the work you create. Something that starts life as a digital file can become just as 'hand-made' depending on what is done to it via printmaking or bookbinding or a whole variety of other processes. If you want a 'push button' system, shoot film - it has designed in curves which can make it look pretty good straight out the box, whether you go full optical darkroom or hybrid process. That said, as a printer I'm completely agnostic as to how the images I print are originated, but I often find images originated by analogue means much more inspiring to work on, no matter the subsequent process routes I take.

Anyway, photography is really just another printmaking process capable of producing multiples, like etching, lithography, wood engraving etc, etc. The tired old nonsense over comparisons of photography with painting demeans both mediums and ignores the ways they can intersect and interact.

 

[MattKing]

Anyone who thinks making a good digital print on good paper is easy hasn't had to buy ink or paper for them .

 

[mynewcolour]

Even if the painter tried to copy it is would be substantially different.

I'd argue there are exceptions: like when no living person can distinguish a copy from an original (as has been the case with Monets).

 

[mynewcolour]

But overall, I get your point and agree.

Some darkroom-made art is unique also. Bit that's another aside.

 

[tezzasmall]

Just browsing the net I came across this INKJET print, priced at £3766.12, with the edition of 20 nearly sold out:

https://www.1stdibs.com/art/photogr...herzog-untitled-granville-street/id-a_854953/

Now I don't know / or heard of the photographer (Fred Herzog), but if he / the gallery can sell at this price for an INKJET, imagine how much a SILVER DARKROOM print must be sold for...?

Just a thought.

Terry S

 

[removed account4]

Who did I trivialize ?

sorry, trivialize might not have been the right word ...
but it seems the way you spoke of people who might digitally print, or use a digital camera, or hybrid process to be less-good
as you have suggested all they do is "press a button" it sort of belittled them and their process/what they do, very much how
someone with a leica may trivialize someone who uses a simplistic point and shoot camera like a holga.
but that's ok, that's what conversations are made for to gain appreciation and understanding of someone elses' point of view.
its usually the people who are able to do something effortlessly, that do the most complicated stuff.

 

[spijker]

but if he / the gallery can sell at this price for an INKJET, imagine how much a SILVER DARKROOM print must be sold for...Terry S

Exactly the same of course. As many people already pointed out; 99% of the potential buyers don't care how it's made.

 

[AgX]

Now I don't know / or heard of the photographer (Fred Herzog), but if he / the gallery can sell at this price for an INKJET, imagine how much a SILVER DARKROOM print must be sold for...?

What makes you believe a analogue print would fetch more?

 

[MattKing]

Fred Herzog is really quite interesting, and local.
He took photographs for years and years - mostly Kodachrome 35mm slides - and other than people who might attend his regular slide shows few people knew about him or recognized the worth of his work.
He made some prints (Cibachromes?) but there wasn't a lot of printed work around. He has a massive collection of very fine (mostly slide) photography.
Finally, a few years ago, one of the local, well established gallery owners became more aware of his work. After much review and curating, many were chosen, fine quality scans were prepared, books have been published and limited edition custom digital prints have been prepared.
The prints are very high quality. Due to their limited release, they have significant collector's value.
I have his "Vancouver Photographs" book - it is very good.

 

[Bob Carnie]

Fred also made his first million at the age of 84 when Equinox started selling his work.

 

[macfred]

I really like Fred's work - I also own his Vancouver Photographs.
One of my favorite images by Fred : http://www.dazeddigital.com/photography/article/16950/1/fred-herzogs-bandaged-man

 

[jvo]

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.

there are so many digital photo's being made each day, that there needs to be something that makes your iphone photo stand out, just as you film/print must standout as worthwhile. i think it is easier to make a good picture using digital equipment, but there are lots of good pictures. what makes your's/mine worthwhile? for you? for me? for others?

i appreciate and enjoy the process as well as the result!

 

[Terry Breedlove]

sorry, trivialize might not have been the right word ...
but it seems the way you spoke of people who might digitally print, or use a digital camera, or hybrid process to be less-good
as you have suggested all they do is "press a button" it sort of belittled them and their process/what they do, very much how
someone with a leica may trivialize someone who uses a simplistic point and shoot camera like a holga.
but that's ok, that's what conversations are made for to gain appreciation and understanding of someone elses' point of view.
its usually the people who are able to do something effortlessly, that do the most complicated stuff.

Well I expressly said I and me if I remember correctly. I can go back to the original post and check. However I will say that I am really thinking about the process and what is good for me personally. I really don't care what others do it is all about me. Anyway all joking aside I sure do appreciate your thoughts on the subject that is why I ask the questions.