Why don't photographers include photo details in books?

[Maris]

OK, I've been ignoring this thread for -- good grief -- 21 pages, but being in the final frenzy of putting together a solo exhibition, here's what I think. Most viewers don't care -- results, results, RESULTS! We are geeks, we want to know, but we are not a huge percentage of the audience. I am hoping to get "gelatin silver print from infrared film" on a few of those so people have a hint why the "trees have white leaves."
Carry on ...

I too am in the last stages of organising a solo exhibition. It opens at Foto Frenzy on 3 February. But I insisted and got wall cards with catalogue standard descriptions for each photograph. Here's an example:

Views of Snow Gums, Number 40
Gelatin-silver photograph on Fomabrom Variant III VC FB photographic paper.
Image size 20.3cm X 25.4cm by contact from a 8” X 10” Fomapan 200 negative
exposed in a Tachihara 810HD triple extension field view camera fitted with a
Schneider - Kreuznach Super-Angulon 121mm f8 lens.
Signed and titled recto; stamped and annotated verso.
From a series celebrating the giant and ancient Snow Gums of Charlotte Pass NSW.

The idea is to suggest that there is a lot more to the picture than what it looks like. Maybe that will translate into sales if monied folks accept the sales pitch and recognise value enhancement. I'll find out in about a month.

 

[cliveh]

I too am in the last stages of organising a solo exhibition. It opens at Foto Frenzy on 3 February. But I insisted and got wall cards with catalogue standard descriptions for each photograph. Here's an example:

Views of Snow Gums, Number 40
Gelatin-silver photograph on Fomabrom Variant III VC FB photographic paper.
Image size 20.3cm X 25.4cm by contact from a 8” X 10” Fomapan 200 negative
exposed in a Tachihara 810HD triple extension field view camera fitted with a
Schneider - Kreuznach Super-Angulon 121mm f8 lens.
Signed and titled recto; stamped and annotated verso.
From a series celebrating the giant and ancient Snow Gums of Charlotte Pass NSW.

The idea is to suggest that there is a lot more to the picture than what it looks like. Maybe that will translate into sales if monied folks accept the sales pitch and recognise value enhancement. I'll find out in about a month.

Apart from "From a series celebrating the giant and ancient Snow Gums of Charlotte Pass NSW" is the other information of any interest?

 

[DWThomas]

[ ...]

The idea is to suggest that there is a lot more to the picture than what it looks like. Maybe that will translate into sales if monied folks accept the sales pitch and recognise value enhancement. I'll find out in about a month.

Sounds like an interesting idea, hope it works out. (Let us know how it goes.)

 

[Chris Lange]

I too am in the last stages of organising a solo exhibition. It opens at Foto Frenzy on 3 February. But I insisted and got wall cards with catalogue standard descriptions for each photograph. Here's an example:

Views of Snow Gums, Number 40
Gelatin-silver photograph on Fomabrom Variant III VC FB photographic paper.
Image size 20.3cm X 25.4cm by contact from a 8” X 10” Fomapan 200 negative
exposed in a Tachihara 810HD triple extension field view camera fitted with a
Schneider - Kreuznach Super-Angulon 121mm f8 lens.
Signed and titled recto; stamped and annotated verso.
From a series celebrating the giant and ancient Snow Gums of Charlotte Pass NSW.

The idea is to suggest that there is a lot more to the picture than what it looks like. Maybe that will translate into sales if monied folks accept the sales pitch and recognise value enhancement. I'll find out in about a month.

The information seems far too excessive, and it makes it look as if you are obsessed with your gear, rather than your work, and it makes the reader/viewer feel as if you are trying to force a "holier-than-thou" attitude down their throat. Also, you're missing the date. When in doubt, copy what the Met uses for their photographic exhibitions.

Maris (Insert real name here)
"Views of Snow Gums, No. 40", 20xx
Gelatin-Silver Print
8x10"
(price)

saying "20.3cm x 25.4cm" is pedantic as hell, especially when you say "from 8x10" in the same line, considering that 20.3 cm is equal to 7.99213"

 

[Maris]

Apart from "From a series celebrating the giant and ancient Snow Gums of Charlotte Pass NSW" is the other information of any interest?

The information is interesting to those who know what it means and appreciate the implications it carries. It may also prompt an inquiring but uninformed mind to learn what the words mean.

But I concede it is possible there may be someone to champion the opposite idea, shun the words entirely, and declare (Cockney accent please), "Leave it out guv, it's all jest pitchers, innit?"

 

[Maris]

Chris Lange;1603245 The information seems far too excessive, and it makes it look as if you are obsessed with your gear, rather than your work, and it makes the reader/viewer feel as if you are trying to force a "holier-than-thou" attitude down their throat.

The information is for a buyer to be able to confidently describe what they purchased. I've seen someone come back from an exhibition with a small but fine work only to have their hipster friends say "You bought what? You paid how much! Blah, blah, ..."

Also, you're missing the date. When in doubt, copy what the Met uses for their photographic exhibitions.

The date is on the back of the photograph among the annotations. It is common for a commercial gallery to not put the date up front especially is it is well in the past. Old work may be mistaken as "failed to sell" previously and be regarded as stale. The Met, the National Gallery of Australia, and most state art museums all use similar wall card formats. But they are not selling work off the wall. And, in Australia where I work, the curatorial standards (even at senior levels in government funded galleries) are less to be admired than transcended.

saying "20.3cm x 25.4cm" is pedantic as hell, especially when you say "from 8x10" in the same line, considering that 20.3 cm is equal to 7.99213"

The international standard for describing the size of an art-work is vertical dimension first, then horizontal dimension. The units of measurement are centimetres and tenths of centimetres. I hope people ask about this. Most gallery goers don't even know there is a standard.

 

[Chris Lange]

I don't disagree about the transcendence of standards, but the whole tachihara triple extension blah blah blah bit is really not crucial. If you're going to go to that length, you may as well say what enlarger you used, for what exposure at what grade, with what developer, what enlarging lens, and maybe even if you use a double glass anti-newton carrier, or what have you.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Nothing I dislike more than a coffee table book with a lot of tech chatter in it. Sometimes its nice to have a well-illustrated manual per se, like
AA's "Examples", which complemented his basic series with real-life scenarios. But let's face it, all the notes in the world aren't going to make
someone into someone else. About the only more disgusting habit I can think of are "mission statements" posted on business wall or similar
ridiculous diatribes posted beside gallery image that aren't work looking at anyway. Photo labs and camera stores are infamous for those kinds
of amateurish exhibition. Everyone can seemingly talk the talk, but not many can walk the walk. Forums like this one are much more appropriate
for sharing technique tricks.

 

[DREW WILEY]

... Sorry for all the typos... a weather change going on, and my fingers have the "rheumatiz" pretty bad today..