Long Road Down – The Making of a Fine Art Photogra

[Blind Photographer]

How so? Alain has written many articles about photography as an art form, a business, and his techniques, but I don't recall him ever stating that it was "beneath him" to respond point-by-point to silly criticisms. He may not have done so in writing before, but that doesn't mean he's violating consistency with anything he's written previously.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=72137\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Maybe you're right.  Maybe he never said it was beneath him to respond harshly to questions he feels shouldn't be asked of him.  It could just be that I made the mistake of assuming and associating his method of work to the way he interacts with people (Although I may not be the only one, since there was mention of "patience" earlier).  I guess this doesn't go anywhere from here until we get a response from him.  BTW Jonathan thank for reasoning things out with me in the way that you have.

I still think many parts of the open response are a poor example to follow though.

[Mark D Segal]

Blind Photographer, let me suggest the following - it may help clarify why some of us have reacted to the exchange between Alain and Mr. Smith (though we are way off topic in terms of Pete Myers) the way we have - or at least speaking for myself. It boils down to two simple propositions the are at the same time elementary common sense and elementary human decency. (1) A work of art needs to be appreciated firstly for what it is, and secondarily for how it was made - one's own prejudices about tools and techniques should never interfere with an appreciation of the result. I am often intrigued by how a work was achieved because I appreciate the work and therefore I am curious about how it was done. Not the other way around. (2) It is really extremely insulting to question an artist about his/her pricing. It is like saying "your work isn't worth it". One leaves that judgment to oneself and to the marketplace.

[Tim Gray]

Back to the Pete Meyers topic - obviously whether or not he wants to publish his "secret sauce" is his business, but I believe (without having seen a full size hard print) that most advanced potographers with commensurate post processing skills could have taken the same capture and turned it into something equally "compelling" using tools and techniques generally available.  

When I saw his final version I certainly was not thinking hmmmm - how did he do that?

[KSH]

I found the article very interesting, and I enjoyed reading it very much - although only at second reading. When I first read it, I felt slightly disappointed because I had hoped for more hints and tips that I would have been able to use in my own photography. But when I read the article a second time, I came to appreciate that it offered me a look over Pete Myer's shoulder while he was working on a picture, from conceiving the image until the time it was ready for printing. Knowing about his special methods would have been nice, but, by that time, inconsequential for my being able to appreciate the article. He was telling me how HE conceived an image and how HE developed it according to HIS vision. I note that he is pleased with the result; I also note that his understanding about a successful fine art photograph may differ from mine. But, again, I consider all of this to be inconsequential for the purpose of the article as I understand it, namely, being able follow HIS work process. So, yes, I liked the article.

All the more so because I am not sure whether Pete is ever going to contribute another article to this website after reading this thread. Of course, everybody is entitled to his opinion, and everybody is welcome not to appreciate the article. But outright complaining, or even feeling insulted, that Pete Myers possessed the audacity not to divulge his proprietary methods does not strike me as an appropriate reaction to him devoting his time to provide such an article for free. And I sincerely hope that Alain Briot will reconsider whether it was ok to criticise a fellow photographer in way that bordered on an insult ("emperor's new clothes") only to  hijack this thread by explaining at length how much more open he is in his teaching and art. And it may have felt good to write that open letter, but it did strike me as a trifle condescending and pompous. I am sorry to say this because I appreciate Alain's photography and writing a lot.

Everybody is entitled to her and his opinion. This happens to be mine.

Karsten

[thompsonkirk]

About Pete Myers' pricing, & how we might think about our own:  As was mentioned above, at one level it's insulting to say to an artist that your work just isn't worth it.  But at another, it's reasonable for artists - Pete & us - to stay in some sort of touch with the 'real' art market, however diverse & quirky it is.  

At one level, Pete seems to be offering something quite reasonable - Open Edition 15" 'archival'  prints for $545.  That has to be OK with me, because it's about what I charge.  I hope some of us can do even better.  

Beyond that, it's certainly true that many prints sell for $35K - & lots more.  

But first of all we have to leave aside the grand old dead folks, whose works are by definition Limited Editions.  

Among contemporary artists, it's not uncommon for some to command $35K & up for large prints - though we mustn't forget that an art dealer is involved, showing the work to prospective collectors & taking a hefty percentage on sales.  Gursky & Misrach are a couple of examples of photographers who command enviable prices for limited editions of their board-room-sized prints.  

Here, however, are some differences.  Your average $35K-per-print photographer, instead of working off the Internet, is represented by major art dealers & galleries.  His or her work has been shown in the most prominent venues in NY, LA, SF, Chicago, Houston - not to mention Europe & Asia.  Their images have been acquired  for the collections of major museums.  They have been favorably reviewed by recognized critics here & abroad.  And the editions are almost always limited, not open, so the purchaser is guaranteed that the print is a rather rare commodity.  

Commanding such prices may be a matter of faddishness, or of getting hooked up with trendy galleries in what's almost a pyramid scheme.  Admittedly the art market is an odd place, a sur-reality.  But occupying a high-priced place in it isn't just something we can wish upon ourselves.  

Where do people like Pete & us fit into this world?  Dear reader, take a look at the Myers website to see the work itself, where it's exhibited, & who has reviewed it.  We can all reach our own gentle conclusions about art-market facts & fantasies.  And we can also all hope that someone will fall in $35K worth of love with our biggest print.  There's no harm, if not much realism, in wishing or even trying.

[Jack Flesher]

SNIP
All the more so because I am not sure whether Pete is ever going to contribute another article to this website after reading this thread.
SNIP
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=72174\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

that may have been the goal...  The good news is I think Pete has much thicker skin than that

[pobrien3]

Sorry to divert back to Alain's response - am I alone in not seeing anything terribly inflammatory or insulting about "John Smith's" questions?  The buyer can choose from a selection of artists, he seemed to me to be looking for a rationale to choose between them.  Whilst there may be a market out there prepared to pay $35k for a print, the bulk of the market is way below that category.  Whether we like it or not price is one of the determinants of market competition, especially when that market segment may not be as discriminating or as well informed as the $35k-buyers.

As digital photographers we may have embraced DSLRs and inkjet printing and most of us see advantages over traditional prints, but whether we like it or not much of our market still see it as not 'proper' photography.  Likewise they may perceive a photographer with a 35mm camera as perhaps not a 'proper' landscape photographer.  When dealing with the general populace, we will certainly get daft questions, often they might be interpreted as insulting, though they may be asked in ignorance.  Most of Alain's response answered the questions intelligently and sensitively: I would probably have fared worse.

Print size IS important to many buyers - I would want to know the image size, not just the fully matted size.  It's a reasonable question.

Sorry Alain, I'm sincerely an admirer of your writing and especially your beautiful photography, but I thought elements of your response were disproportionate.  To make this response public is an error of judgement, in my personal opinion.  I might tell an irritating customer to put his money where the sun doesn't shine (and I have, more than once), but I wouldn't broadcast to other prospective buyers that I'd done so prominently on my website.

Peter

[DarkPenguin]

The guy should try istock and costco.  I mean if other people have done something similar it must all be the same.

Back to the original article.  I quite enjoyed it.  The secret sauce bit was far less irritating than not explaining what the secret sauce was supposed to achieve.  But that's a minor point.  One that I wouldn't even have noted if 1/2 this thread wasn't crying about it.

[Nick Rains]

I wouldn't even have noted if 1/2 this thread wasn't crying about it.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=72203\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Me too. I didn't even read it until I saw this thread.

At this level of printing the subtleties are so small that there is no way to really show them on web images. Just like there is no real way to evaluate the dollar worth of a print over the net.

Therefore any articles about this sort of subtlety are mostly pointless because the results cannot be properly judged, and they are very subjective anyway - one man's 'dark' is another man's 'moody'.

Only in a decent print workshop is this sort of information useful.

[dlashier]

I would have simply told "John Smith" to go piss up a rope, but no one has ever accused me of being excessively diplomatic.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=72133\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I think I would have simple ignored it and not responded. Alain's work if anything is under priced and the query looks like a troll to me.

- DL

[Scott_H]

Print size IS important to many buyers - I would want to know the image size, not just the fully matted size.

I was at an art show this weekend, and most of the photographers were calling out the mat size, not the photograph size, as the size of the work.  There were numbered prints, references to giclee, and a lot of people printing on canvas.  It all seems like ways to artificailly increase value in the eyes of the customer to me.

[Mark D Segal]

I was at an art show this weekend, and most of the photographers were calling out the mat size, not the photograph size, as the size of the work.  There were numbered prints, references to giclee, and a lot of people printing on canvas.  It all seems like ways to artificailly increase value in the eyes of the customer to me.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=72232\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Anyone can "artificially" increase prices, but not value. Value is determined by the price at which a transaction closes.

People who buy and sell photographs by the square inch may be concerned about how size is described, but the determinative issue is whether the prospective customer likes the size and looks of the product enough to buy it. That also pertains to the use of canvas versus any other medium.

Numbering prints gives customers who appreciate scarcity the confidence that only "X" number of these prints will be made, and this can increase value in the eyes of those customers.

Reference to "giclee" of course is just a snobbby way of identifying an inkjet print. If that increases value in some peoples' minds, all the more power to the seller. Some customers who ask the vendor what "giclee" means may be terribly disappointed to learn that the print was made on an Epson 4800, unless they know what real technical quality that process imparts to the work.

I know what you are saying - I also go to those shows and peruse the works at the photography booths. The range of quality is usually quite wide, and more often than not the stuff exhibiting clearly higher technical quality is inkjet, while the vendors of wet darkroom prints go to great lengths extolling the virtues of "traditional" technology. We are living in transitional times ad different folks are adapting in different ways! It's fun.

[jashley]

I've just started selling my photos, so unfortunately I don't have Alain's "problem" yet.  But I used to make custom furniture, and did sometimes have people question my pricing vs. furniture stores or other makers.  I would simply use it as an opportunity to educate the potential customer as to the quality of my work and would always invite comparison.   I never felt it was an insult, and never thought any of the people doing the questioning were morons.  In fact, one of the "questioners" who finally ordered a piece liked it so much they gave me a tip!  

Perhaps selling custom furniture isn't exactly analogous to selling photography, but the principles of salesmanship are the same--why assume someone is a jerk or a moron and potentially alienate them and others when they might eventually buy from you (when they develop more appreciation for quality work, have more money, etc.)?

[alainbriot]

I did perceive John Smith's email as insulting.  In such situations, it is difficult to find the "best" answer, if there is one.

So what I did today is publish two answers to John Smith's original question "What makes your work so special?" by other photographers.  These answers are at the same link as previously posted in this forum.

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

Since a number of the questions JS asked in his email to Alain are indeed answered quite clearly on his website, I can understand why Alain felt insulted.

When I read the original letter, I was reminded of something that happened to me many years ago while teaching a freshman-level, required college math course. I was busy answering a thoughtful, content-related question by one student when a second student stuck his hand up and asked "Why do we have to learn this?" Some of the replies I considered making (but didn't) included:
1.   Read the course description in the catalog;
2.   Because your parents are paying to have you learn this;
3.   Because you presumably want to pass the course.
4.   Why did you sign up for this course?
5.   Why are you in college?

I found the question insulting because the student asking had clearly not put even a minimal effort into finding an answer on his own. And if someone decides not to buy a print from me at my asking price, that is fine with me. But if someone complains that my prices are too high, I lose interest in trying to sell to that potential customer.

Eric

[alainbriot]

the query looks like a troll to me.
- DL
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=72219\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

That is the way I perceived it, right or wrong.  I do have a lot of experience with print queries, having made thousand of print sales, and I never received one like this one.  Serious art buyers do not act insulting towards the artist.  

We do have to keep in mind that if serious, which as I mentioned I seriously doubt, this query is for a purchase of 5k or so. While not uncommon, I don't think someone will make this purchase if they dislike the artist or have a problem with their pricing, which is why I didn't take it seriously.

Furthermore, this type of sale is usually conducted over the phone after the initial contact.  And, people provide you with more information than just their name.  Usually a phone number is in the email, or a shipping address.  The address is usually there because questions about shipping are almost always a concern, either the cost of shipping, or the risk that the work gets damaged, or duty fees when shipping abroad.  None of this is provided in John Smith's email.  

As I always say, "I never had someone who did not like me buy from me."  John Smith certainly does not sound as if he likes me.  Although I don't think this to be the case here, I have had people who proved to be racist act in a quite similar manner.  

If I am wrong, or if I insulted anyone in my answer, I apologize.  I would appreciate the same from John Smith, whoever he is.

As I said, hard to find the "best" answer if there is one in such situation.

PS-I just re-read John Smith's emails, and saw something that shocked me.  I won't mention what it is here, because I need to double check it, but if I am correct what I saw points to the fact that the two emails from JS may be "traps" rather than "trolls".

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

Alain,

The two new responses on your website are quite thoughtful.

In response to the "it must be your fancy equipment" argument, I'm tempted to claim that the reason my Fine Art (capiltalization mandatory here     ) Photographs are so special is that I always mix my Dektol using the most expensive model of Cuisinart Food Processor before making my Digital Prints ('Giclee' of course)."    

Eric

[DarkPenguin]

That's why I call my prints Frappe.

[alainbriot]

I found the article very interesting, and I enjoyed reading it very much - although only at second reading. When I first read it, I felt slightly disappointed because I had hoped for more hints and tips that I would have been able to use in my own photography. But when I read the article a second time, I came to appreciate that it offered me a look over Pete Myer's shoulder while he was working on a picture, from conceiving the image until the time it was ready for printing. Knowing about his special methods would have been nice, but, by that time, inconsequential for my being able to appreciate the article. He was telling me how HE conceived an image and how HE developed it according to HIS vision. I note that he is pleased with the result; I also note that his understanding about a successful fine art photograph may differ from mine. But, again, I consider all of this to be inconsequential for the purpose of the article as I understand it, namely, being able follow HIS work process. So, yes, I liked the article.
All the more so because I am not sure whether Pete is ever going to contribute another article to this website after reading this thread. Of course, everybody is entitled to his opinion, and everybody is welcome not to appreciate the article. But outright complaining, or even feeling insulted, that Pete Myers possessed the audacity not to divulge his proprietary methods does not strike me as an appropriate reaction to him devoting his time to provide such an article for free. And I sincerely hope that Alain Briot will reconsider whether it was ok to criticise a fellow photographer in way that bordered on an insult ("emperor's new clothes") only to  hijack this thread by explaining at length how much more open he is in his teaching and art. And it may have felt good to write that open letter, but it did strike me as a trifle condescending and pompous. I am sorry to say this because I appreciate Alain's photography and writing a lot.
Everybody is entitled to her and his opinion. This happens to be mine.
Karsten
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=72174\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

This was my initial response after reading the essay and before visiting Pete's site (after a reader pointed to the subtle texture on close up views of the print).  It then became obvious to me that I was wrong and that there is a quality that simply does not appear well when the print is seen as a whole.  So, just to be 100% clear,  I now see that there is a unique quality to Pete's work and that I missed that when I first read the essay.  I should have seen this in the close up of the steering wheel at the end of the essay, but I don't think it shows up well there.  It is a lot more visible in the close up that is on Pete's site.  In fact I find this texture quite intriguing.

Regarding my post about my approach, my goal was solely to be 100% clear about my personal approach to teaching, something that I felt was important in the context of this discussion.

[mattsuess]

Long time lurker, first time poster... thought there were some interesting topics in this thread and felt the need to jump in.

In regards to Mr. Myers article, I honestly didn't feel cheated that he didn't go into detail on exactly how he did his curves or not revealing any "proprietary" steps. If he feels the need to limit some information, so be it.

What I did find of tremendous value, and which has only been touched upon in this thread, is the entire thought process and execution that really created his image. For me “getting inside his head” so to speak was far more valuable than looking at screen shots of photoshop adjustments. So much more goes into the creation of a fine art photograph than the tripod (or monopod) used, the camera, the software, etc. The making of his photograph, in my opinion, was created well before it got to photoshop - that is there where the true value and lesson is in regards to his article.

Lastly, regarding Mr. Myers selling a print for $35K - why are people complaining? If he is able to sell at that price, then what that does is help each and every other one of us selling at a lower price by reaffirming to the public that photography is an art form and as such is worthy of respectable prices in the art community. I hope his $35K print is his best seller.