REPOST Re: Image Disembodiment...Bernard's way off

[mrleonard]

I wasn't sure where to post...so I posted this in Camera Gear...
HERE>>>http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=27422
not sure how I can move it, so I just felt like reposting my take on Bernard's 'essay':

I'm sorry..but some of these 'essays' are just too much for me. I think this one...from it relating a successful 'marketing' photographer, Alan Briot, with a..well..a true artist, Ansel Adams to statements like "Reality itself might then become a thing of the past",well, I couldn't just let this one just sleep cozy I guess.
I think anyone with a cursury interest, knowledge or experience with modern technology can see how daft some of the things posited here are.
Central photo repositories?!?
Anyway..this stuff is all elementary....read Ray Kurzweill...he'll lay it all down for you.
The 'next step'...as far as it pertains to a 'threat' to fine art photography/print photos is cheap disposable 'paper-like' reflective screens.Electronic screens that look like paper (see Sony "e-ink" etc. for the current state of this tech) and are as 'disposable' as paper(mass/cheap produced). THese screens will display all manner of info,media,text,video..whatever.
It may be that you will 'buy' the art when they buy the technology itself,as the license for this material will(mostly) be marketed with the tech. Sure...there could be a different model..but like now, when you buy a laptop, you could get it $150 less if it wasn't bundled with a "windows OS", but that's just the way they sell computers. You buy the hardware and the software license.
Of course you can just download whatever you like from a plethora of places on the web..both legal ( "iArt.com" let's say) and 'illegal' (highreztorrents.com let's say).
Of course..this will not be any threat to the traditional Fine Art print....Quite the opposite actually. As the cheap digital technology affords a "free" and very high-quality visual experience for the art lover, the art 'buyer' will more and more seek out more esoteric,archaic and 'physical' (not digital) created photo prints. These kind of qualities: unique,one of a kind, hand-made...etc. These desirable traits will actually inform and influence the very 'aesthetic' of photography. I bet we'll see more and more 'digital' photographers using lomo's and holga's etc...lol.
I own/run a photo art gallery that displays many different types of media, but mostly, when it comes to something photographic, it is "digital". Either a digital print (most of the time) or a chemical print from a digital negative. A gallery close by to me (Stephen Bulgar http://www.bulgergallery.com/) mostly deals with just chemical prints.Why? He deals in photographs as "art objects"...TRULY fine-art photographs. The market for true fine art photographs mostly prefers and desires 'wet darkroom' prints. The very 'noise' and distortions in that process are usually seen as a desirable element to the artwork.It gives them a market value.

Yes,in the future of a plethora of digital crapnology,these paper prints may be a "niche" market at best... but it is pretty much a niche market right now.
It's called Fine-Art Photography.

The digital camera doesn't matter... ;-)

[Schewe]

Too bad you reposted your exact same post without thinking about at least some of the weaknesses in your original post in the other forum...

The market for true fine art photographs mostly prefers and desires 'wet darkroom' prints.

Horseshyte...the "dealers" like to sell "vintage prints" because that's where they think the money is because of scarcity...art dealing is all about touting the stuff that the dealers can make money on to the people collecting for future returns on their investments...that's the 'wet darkroom' cache–because there ain't no more prints that can be accurately called "printed by the artist" is the artist is dead. Ansel is dead...if you want to buy a print made by him, it'll HAVE to be a vintage print (or a forgery–which happens with frequency. Just look at the Man Ray debacle a few years ago).

Real collectors buy what the dealers sell them and what the dealers sell is stuff that they think will rise in value (even after they reduce their inventory cause the dealers are looking to buy low and sell high)–as vintage prints tend to do but more on the basis of more collectors vs limited quantities of original, vintage prints.

The "dealers" control what is touted to the collectors. It's a pretty slimy biz with dealers getting rich exploiting artists. Hard to be a fine art photographer these days but it ain't because of digital, it's because there are just way too many fine art photographers producing way too much stuff right now. There are a few that do really well...but it's akin to the percent of successful actors vs actors waiting tables to get by. If you want to understand fine art photography, I suggest a strong dose of pure economics...that's what dictates the fine art market.

Oh, that and the fact that Bernard's essay got it wrong...photography has been around for far more that 100 years...Niépce's View from the Window at Le Gras was done in 1826. Yeah, ok, it ain't all that great "technically" but it sure is worth a lot of money–it's a VINTAGE PRINT, don't ya know :~)

[David Sutton]

Over here we spell it "horseshit". Orthography aside, the appellation seems wholly merited. David

[Schewe]

Over here we spell it "horseshit".
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=217045\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well, actually we do here as well. I just sometimes have a hard time actually writing the word "shit", ya know?

:~)

[BernardLanguillier]

I wasn't sure where to post...so I posted this in Camera Gear...not sure how I can move it, so I just felt like reposting my take on Bernard's 'essay':
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I would have expected you to have the courtesy to also copy/paste the answers already provided to you or at least a link to them?

But I was probably expecting too much... so here it is.

[a href=\"http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=27422&pid=216600&mode=threaded&show=&st=&#entry216600]http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....t=&#entry216600[/url]

Cheers,
Bernard

[David Sutton]

Well, actually we do here as well. I just sometimes have a hard time actually writing the word "shit", ya know?

:~)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=217053\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Ah, thank you so much. Having never visited  your country, I was unclear whether it was a polite spelling of "horseshite", or a regional variation and spelled "horseshyte" but pronounced "horseshit". Any combination is no doubt useful in expressing an opinion in this case. As to the word "shit" by itself, well it can lead to those other words. You know what I mean.
David

[barryfitzgerald]

I really do not see an end to the "print" as such. Never.

Not that new technology isnt interesting. Some just have this idea in their head, that a new concept will just "auto kill" anything else. Screens and devices to display photos, all nice stuff. But in addition to prints.

Mass market consumer stuff, isnt always going to cut if for all.

Heard all this stuff before, like 15 years ago..that now you would not be able to buy film anymore. Yeah right, that was spot on wasn't it!

There will always be a demand for traditional elements to photography, and that includes prints. I do DVD slideshows for folks, but they still want the print. Like I said, in addition. New stuff does not always replace the old. Anyone suggesting it will, is not living in the real world.

[Craig Arnold]

Without having read all of the previous thread a couple of things happened recently which put me in mind of Bernard's article.

Firstly the Wildlife Photographer of the Year that they exhibit at the Natural History Museum has for the last 2 years at least had the winning pictures displayed on high resolution screens instead of prints. They look great, even though they are probably only showing a couple of Mp.

Secondly I went round to a friend's house who was using the Apple TV box. He had set up a link to my flickr account and ended up showing a slideshow of my Favourites set on his high-def wall mounted TV. My stuff looked great, I really struggle (Mr Schewe & Mr Reichmann's efforts on their excellent tutorial notwithstanding) to get top-class prints. But on that high def screen at a viewing distance of 3-4 meters everything looked brilliant.

The default way of viewing photographs will become (probably already is) on a digital display of some sort, prints will be increasingly relegated to "fine art".

But I don't buy that we'll all end up with ONE repository, or ONE mode of viewing. Instead the multiplicity of display modes and types will continue to expand and technology life spans will shorten. The closest thing we'll ever get to a common denominator will be the iPhone, because soon enough we'll all have one of those.

[Pete Ferling]

I quit worrying about the market and trends, and continue to shoot and make fine art prints because 1) I like doing it, 2) It gives me great satisfaction, and 3) I make my living as a corporate multimedia developer, (there's more money in video and animation these days...)

It's all about access.  Ten years ago, you had to either find an investor (or rich uncle) to front large sums of cash, or place a second mortgage on a good house to afford the gear in the first place.  Back then, if you had the gear (and that included video), and could at least shoot straight and keep focus, you could find work and extort very large fees.

Thanks to technology, practically anyone can afford the tools to take great pictures (and meet the 10mb minimum for decent pics), and now the market is saturated.  The only ones surviving are those whom are really, really good and know something about the market and economics, or already have many years into the business and are well established.  

If I sell enough prints to pay for my tools, ink, and media, then I don't have to dip into my bank account to pay for my 'hobby'.  You have to understand that fine art prints falls into the realm of discretionary income, and there's not much of that available to the majority of folks these days.

Getting back on topic, I think having a physical print will mean much more in the future when everything goes to paperless.  Digital displays, just like technology, is a fast pace and it will always change.  But one thing hasn't changed, so far, and that is you'll still have to shoot the picture.

[Rob C]

It's all about access.  Ten years ago, you had to either find an investor (or rich uncle) to front large sums of cash, or place a second mortgage on a good house to afford the gear in the first place.  Back then, if you had the gear (and that included video), and could at least shoot straight and keep focus, you could find work and extort very large fees.



Hi

That might well have been the case in the 60s - I know because that´s all I could afford at the time: basic.

Today, with the advent of MF formats (digital) and the marketing that goes along with both sides of the commissioning of work (the commissioner wanting top-grade/over-kill equipment on the one hand, the photographer having to boast mega-price stuff on the other), I think the emphasis is more than ever on a rich background or, as you say, access to somebody else´s wealth.

I know for a fact that faced with the outlays that I would have to find today, I could never, with the finance I had back then, be able to dream of setting up on my own; if anything, I guess it´s just become tougher than ever. Unless you own nothing and simply rent. But is that good enough? Are you then able to inspire confidence with the right clients or will you simply drift along, working the bottom of the barrel and getting absolutely nowhere?

As with so  much about the industry now, I have more questions than answers.

Rob C

[mrleonard]

Too bad you reposted your exact same post without thinking about at least some of the weaknesses in your original post in the other forum...
Horseshyte...the "dealers" like to sell "vintage prints" because that's where they think the money is because of scarcity...art dealing is all about touting the stuff that the dealers can make money on to the people collecting for future returns on their investments...that's the 'wet darkroom' cache–because there ain't no more prints that can be accurately called "printed by the artist" is the artist is dead. Ansel is dead...if you want to buy a print made by him, it'll HAVE to be a vintage print (or a forgery–which happens with frequency. Just look at the Man Ray debacle a few years ago).

Real collectors buy what the dealers sell them and what the dealers sell is stuff that they think will rise in value (even after they reduce their inventory cause the dealers are looking to buy low and sell high)–as vintage prints tend to do but more on the basis of more collectors vs limited quantities of original, vintage prints.

The "dealers" control what is touted to the collectors. It's a pretty slimy biz with dealers getting rich exploiting artists. Hard to be a fine art photographer these days but it ain't because of digital, it's because there are just way too many fine art photographers producing way too much stuff right now. There are a few that do really well...but it's akin to the percent of successful actors vs actors waiting tables to get by. If you want to understand fine art photography, I suggest a strong dose of pure economics...that's what dictates the fine art market.

Oh, that and the fact that Bernard's essay got it wrong...photography has been around for far more that 100 years...Niépce's View from the Window at Le Gras was done in 1826. Yeah, ok, it ain't all that great "technically" but it sure is worth a lot of money–it's a VINTAGE PRINT, don't ya know :~)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=217042\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Too bad YOU didn't think at all!

What's horseshit? You seem to be in agreement with me about the photo print market...all you did was espouse your theory as to why this is so.
I said the art market prefers and desires 'wet-darkroom 'prints. OF COURSE it is because of their limited scarcity etc...
I didn't argue against this at all. If you read what I wrote and thought about it you'd see I argued that this was the very reason that the 'fine-art' photo market will largely remain in this 'vintage','scarce' ie...paper domain.

I don't make any value judgements on it...as you seem to want to. Dealers "exploiting" artists and "telling" art buyers what tyo buy....I don't agree that is the case by far. Perhaps in some instances this is true...but slime and exploitation exists in every business practise and it is where you find it, NOT exclusive to the business of buying and selling art.

The business and practice of buying/selling 'fine-art' photos does not directly correlate too 'fine-art' photo practices. An artist is free and unfettered as to what medium he/she chooses to express themselves. My point to Bernard's essay was to discuss the actual 'fine-art- photography market.

As to not reposting all the replies to my other posting...shit, I'm not a computer geek...you tell ME how to do it and ya, no problem. I just wanted to repost as it seemed the proper forum section for this discussion.

[Schewe]

I said the art market prefers and desires 'wet-darkroom 'prints. OF COURSE it is because of their limited scarcity etc...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=217149\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The fact that dealers are trying to sell "vintage prints" has zero to do with them being "wet-darkroom" prints and has everything to do with older prints (or anything of limited quantity, particularly from dead people) being scarce...the vintage prints could be "wet-darkroom" prints, old maps or stamps or ANYTHING that is scarce.

It has ZERO to do with the medium (or technology) and EVERYTHING to do with SCARCITY...get it? You are the one hung up on the technology of the "print" not me. The technology has nothing to do with dealers trying to tout a particular medium. Art collecting is based on scarcity. Pretty easy to ensure with paintings, less so on sculpture that is re-casted and even further removed when a medium is easily reproduced en-mass (which is the true downside of any fine art photography unless the photographer is dead).

Of course, that aspect of digital technology, the ability to faithfully reproduce as many reproductions as the artist/photographer wants is what keeps digital prints lower in value when compared to "wet-darkroom" prints (which seems to be a moniker that YOU'VE coined)

Bernard's essay is about technology and the medium (and it's potential). But given the fact that collectors want to collect for reasons other than the "image", it doesn't address the collect-ability aspect of fine art photography, just the technology. If people are buying photography to view it, whether they view it in a print or on a high resolution LCD screen is somewhat immaterial. They are buying it to view it, not own and collect a scarce commodity. So what he's talking about is decorative arts, not fine arts in the common use of the term.

[DarkPenguin]

As to not reposting all the replies to my other posting...shit, I'm not a computer geek...you tell ME how to do it and ya, no problem. I just wanted to repost as it seemed the proper forum section for this discussion.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

You might check Wikipedia for the definition of a link.  But the one that references the original thread would be ...

[a href=\"http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=27422]luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=27422[/url]

[mrleonard]

You might check Wikipedia for the definition of a link.  But the one that references the original thread would be ...

luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=27422
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=217161\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Ya..I forgot to do that,but edited and added the link.
I meant I didn't know how to repost all the threads/replies to my original post.  I could've just added all the 'links' I guess....kind of messy....

[Pete Ferling]

I can see Jeffs point.  Not everyone has a wide format printer, or goes through the motions to both shoot and obtain their own print.  They pay a fair price to simply have something to look at (as Jeff pointed out), the service of making the art available.

Comcast has a channel (discovery I believe) with hour long programs that simply play landscape images.  (Let's not forget the sunrise earth series for video as well).  I play those programs on the HD set during parties or when company is over, and much to folks delight in viewing them.   In fact, I plan to play my own collections on blue-ray.  Much easier and  more convenient than finding wall space.  That's what it's all about, ease and convenience.  It's our culture.

Does that statement raise my confidence level when I would like to sell a 30" inkjet for a modest price?  Not really.  Considering that most of these folks have neither the time or desire to learn and shoot their own images, then learn how to process them and edit into an HD video (which still requires more than your adverage knowledge and gear).  I'm willing to accept that my services might actually change from print to render.  That money comes in the form of providing a collection on blue-ray disk.