Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5   Go Down

Author Topic: The future of printing: will we lose our rights?  (Read 14951 times)

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12512
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
Re: The future of printing: will we lose our rights?
« Reply #40 on: November 05, 2017, 07:10:18 pm »

The examples of French regulation mentioned on this forum are why the Brits are trying to escape the European Union. Too much regulation at  too great a cost. (Much mixing of opinion and fact in the accompanying discussions, and a bit too much revealing of success in my humble opinion).

Let's not side track this thread into international politics and personal innuendos please.
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....."

Ernst Dinkla

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3977
Re: The future of printing: will we lose our rights?
« Reply #41 on: November 06, 2017, 05:44:55 am »

The examples of French regulation mentioned on this forum are why the Brits are trying to escape the European Union. Too much regulation at  too great a cost. (Much mixing of opinion and fact in the accompanying discussions, and a bit too much revealing of success in my humble opinion).

Sorry Mark, sometimes one has to counter fake information.

A joke. UK artist's craft guilds regulated far more on this subject and that much longer ago, even before the UK joined the EU. There are also differences between the tax regulations per EU country on this subject. UK; https://www.artbusinessinfo.com/vat-for-artists.html   In The Netherlands a painter selling his paintings directly to a customer has to add 6%, I see in the UK it is 20% ! 

The VAT issue should be seen in the context of artist's income too, many have a low income and fall outside the normal VAT ruling. Either can not deduct VAT on purchased goods and not add VAT to the selling price or do not have to transfer VAT earning up to say 1600 Euro a year to the tax collector. It is a bit more complex than described here. At the 6% rate that 1600 roughly translates to a 26000 difference between costs and selling prices in a year. The costs usually are in the 21% category so VAT tax deduction can be quite nice for an artist as the VAT income is at 6%. The gallery<>artist construction used today is based on that, the artist sells to the customer the total price including the 6% VAT, the gallery sends an 21% VAT invoice to the artist for the negotiation. Gallery usually takes something like 40% of the selling price. Given the different ruling in the UK that would not be as nice for the artist/customer. It is not an EU measure but a UK one in this case.

I think what is now happening in the USA and mentioned by the OP is more influenced by UK, AU, etc craft guilds and possibly by art dealers than by EU VAT regulations.

On Brexit there is a lot to say, pro and con, but for a long time I wished that the UK never had joined. With every attempt by Thatcher, Major etc to get an even better deal I said kick them out, having a half-hearted attitude towards the EU they are only in it for the money it seems. I have some pity with the younger ones there, though they should have voted instead of protest afterwards. In three years they can forget about a university study in Groningen that is affordable even for UK lower family incomes while it is not in the UK. http://www.bbc.com/news/business-34721679

Interesting is that when I buy as a company goods from other countries in the EU they should deliver that without VAT applied so at 0%. I quote my international VAT number and that works perfectly, including US companies like Amazon working from Germany, Adobe from Ireland. Ordering from the UK often ends with a dispute on VAT, for example XARA, the software company, simply refuses to make an invoice at 0% VAT. For decades now.

Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst

http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
March 2017 update, 750+ inkjet media white spectral plots
« Last Edit: November 06, 2017, 08:07:08 am by Ernst Dinkla »
Logged

Alan Goldhammer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4344
    • A Goldhammer Photography
Re: The future of printing: will we lose our rights?
« Reply #42 on: November 06, 2017, 08:58:05 am »

I moved down to Washington DC in 1978 when I took a research position at the National Institutes of Health.  I had been taking and developing pictures for about 15 years and was interested in the works of many of both landscape and documentary photographers.  Harry Lunn had a gallery in Georgetown and was one of the pioneers in building a market for photographs as collectibles.  A good obit on his career is HERE and HERE.  I cannot remember if he was an exclusive agent for Ansel Adams but he certainly had lots of Adams prints in the gallery for sale.  At that time prints were signed but there were no edition numbers.  We know that Adams printed a variety of different copies with some slight changes in them.  My only regret was not buying a print in those days but I was just out of a post-doctoral fellowship and my salary was not all that high.  I think you could get an original Adams print for about $750-1000 (Moonrise at Hernandez excepted; that one always had a higher mark up).

Strange how things have changed and not for the better.
Logged

Mark Lindquist

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1594
  • it’s not about the photos we take - it’s the ones we leave
    • LINDQUIST STUDIOS
Re: The future of printing: will we lose our rights?
« Reply #43 on: November 06, 2017, 04:01:24 pm »

1978 was a great year to be in Washington.  I worked on a project in the White House to measure, draw, photograph and do rubbings of the Oval Office Desk.


That's me on the right.

It was a lot of work - spending two days and two nights assisting a master craftsman who was commissioned to make an exact replica for the JFK Memorial Library.


Harry Lunn was a legend in his own time.
If you were anyone in the field of photography, Henry Lunn was the man to see.
Larger than life that guy was.

You're not kidding, it is too bad you didn't buy an Adams print.  For me too.
I showed in gallery in Ketcham, Idaho that specialized in Ansel Adams prints among many others.
I could have had any for deep discounts at that time.
Never thought about what an opportunity it was.  And now, too late.

If we had bought them back then, we would probably not sell them now, however, right?

Thanks Alan-

Mark
Logged
Mark Lindquist
http://z3200.com, http://MarkLindquistPhotography.com
Lindquist Studios.com

Alan Goldhammer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4344
    • A Goldhammer Photography
Re: The future of printing: will we lose our rights?
« Reply #44 on: November 06, 2017, 05:52:14 pm »

I showed in gallery in Ketcham, Idaho that specialized in Ansel Adams prints among many others.
I could have had any for deep discounts at that time.
Never thought about what an opportunity it was.  And now, too late.

If we had bought them back then, we would probably not sell them now, however, right?

Thanks Alan-

Mark
Mark, absolutely we would not sell them!!!  One of my neighbors did by a print of Aspen trees from Harry Lunn back in 1980 and it was wonderful to look at.  You can still get some of the Yosemite special edition prints for about $300 but they are newly printed from the original negatives following Adams directions for the prints.  They are only available in 8x10 size but are nice none the less.  I have one of the Merced River prints in my dining room!
Logged

Dan Wells

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1043
Re: The future of printing: will we lose our rights?
« Reply #45 on: November 17, 2017, 12:06:36 am »

As mentioned here, Ansel Adams not only did not believe in numbered editions, but continued to tweak his interpretation of many images throughout his life. In some cases, his reinterpretation of an image was inspired by the availability of a new technology (most often a paper type). By the end of his life, he was printing primarily on Oriental Seagull in a variety of grades, and he was more satisfied with the prints of his earlier work on the Seagull than he was on papers available when he made the negative. If he had editioned the print when first made, his preferred interpretation would never have become available.
A modern-day example might be a photographer who first printed a particular image on an Epson 7600, on Premium Luster. It may have been the best available printer and paper at the time (the image needed a semi-gloss surface, and it was before the availability of the present barytas, platines and the like). Should an artificial edition number prevent us from seeing the same image processed somewhat differently and printed on Canson Platine using a Canon Pro-2000 with a much wider gamut than the decade-old Epson? Isn't this the digital-age version of saying "I printed this on Brovira, the best paper I could find at the time, but I much prefer what I can do with it on Seagull that became available 20 years later"?

Dan
Logged

Panagiotis

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 432
    • Fine Art Print
Re: The future of printing: will we lose our rights?
« Reply #46 on: November 17, 2017, 12:39:32 am »

As mentioned here, Ansel Adams not only did not believe in numbered editions, but continued to tweak his interpretation of many images throughout his life. In some cases, his reinterpretation of an image was inspired by the availability of a new technology (most often a paper type). By the end of his life, he was printing primarily on Oriental Seagull in a variety of grades, and he was more satisfied with the prints of his earlier work on the Seagull than he was on papers available when he made the negative. If he had editioned the print when first made, his preferred interpretation would never have become available.
A modern-day example might be a photographer who first printed a particular image on an Epson 7600, on Premium Luster. It may have been the best available printer and paper at the time (the image needed a semi-gloss surface, and it was before the availability of the present barytas, platines and the like). Should an artificial edition number prevent us from seeing the same image processed somewhat differently and printed on Canson Platine using a Canon Pro-2000 with a much wider gamut than the decade-old Epson? Isn't this the digital-age version of saying "I printed this on Brovira, the best paper I could find at the time, but I much prefer what I can do with it on Seagull that became available 20 years later"?

Dan

If the photographer change the size of the print isn't it possible to call it a new different series? Or he can present it differently. Something like the following table. He can add an extra size and introduce a new series:
http://www.thomasstanworth.com/print-prices/
« Last Edit: November 17, 2017, 12:55:24 am by Panagiotis »
Logged

Wayne Fox

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4237
    • waynefox.com
Re: The future of printing: will we lose our rights?
« Reply #47 on: November 17, 2017, 01:43:59 am »

If the photographer change the size of the print isn't it possible to call it a new different series? Or he can present it differently. Something like the following table. He can add an extra size and introduce a new series:
http://www.thomasstanworth.com/print-prices/
There are many ways this is done.  Some set sizes and limits on sizes as the example.  Most just limit the total number of pieces that can be produced from a given image. According to Wikipedia some states have laws which set minimum standards that must be met in certification and disclosure of limited edition work. The article is probably referencing "print making" in the original concept where it was only possible to produce larger runs of prints, as there was no technology at the time to produce them any other way.  As I mentioned earlier, nearly all artists today producing prints now(be it reproduction of various art mediums or photography) are using inkjet technology and produce them in smaller batches or even individually as they are sold.

 
Logged

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12512
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
Re: The future of printing: will we lose our rights?
« Reply #48 on: November 17, 2017, 03:27:34 am »

It looks as if limited, numbered editions is "de riguere" in the high-end gallery/print market, if the Paris Photo Show is valid evidence to judge from. I was there the week before last and for every gallery exhibiting there, the prints or portfolios were numbered editions, with a wide but generally high price range; prices for some particularly rare stuff being VERY high. (On top of the intrinsic value of the work - i.e. what collectors are willing to pay - I can imagine that booth costs in the Grand Palais are astronomical, not to speak of shipping, set-up and value of time costs; so overheads galore). Apart from books and the obviously rare but unnumbered pieces of yesteryear, there was simply nothing not-numbered/limited to buy there. Another oddity I noticed is that using the technically correct expression "inkjet" to define a print's technical origin seems to be commercially inadequate. They are often called "archival pigment prints". After quizzing a few dealers about the technology underlying this puffery, it turns out the prints were made on an Epson 9900 or some such, using Ultrachrome inks. Yes, I had to tease it out of them, but truth be told dear reader, you and I are likely making "archival pigment prints" routinely. :-)
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....."

Panagiotis

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 432
    • Fine Art Print
Re: The future of printing: will we lose our rights?
« Reply #49 on: November 17, 2017, 06:05:31 am »

It looks as if limited, numbered editions is "de riguere" in the high-end gallery/print market, if the Paris Photo Show is valid evidence to judge from. I was there the week before last and for every gallery exhibiting there, the prints or portfolios were numbered editions, with a wide but generally high price range; prices for some particularly rare stuff being VERY high. (On top of the intrinsic value of the work - i.e. what collectors are willing to pay - I can imagine that booth costs in the Grand Palais are astronomical, not to speak of shipping, set-up and value of time costs; so overheads galore). Apart from books and the obviously rare but unnumbered pieces of yesteryear, there was simply nothing not-numbered/limited to buy there. Another oddity I noticed is that using the technically correct expression "inkjet" to define a print's technical origin seems to be commercially inadequate. They are often called "archival pigment prints". After quizzing a few dealers about the technology underlying this puffery, it turns out the prints were made on an Epson 9900 or some such, using Ultrachrome inks. Yes, I had to tease it out of them, but truth be told dear reader, you and I are likely making "archival pigment prints" routinely. :-)

"Inkjet" doesn't sell :). I also have a difficulty convincing people that the Canon PRO-1000 is a top of the line printer for exhibition work. I believe it's the small size of the machine and that it's not expensive. Doesn't look too serious. I'll have to buy a dummy not working big roll printer just for that.
Logged

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12512
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
Re: The future of printing: will we lose our rights?
« Reply #50 on: November 17, 2017, 06:10:51 am »

"Inkjet" doesn't sell :). I also have a difficulty convincing people that the Canon PRO-1000 is a top of the line printer for exhibition work. I believe it's the small size of the machine and that it's not expensive. Doesn't look too serious. I'll have to buy a dummy not working big roll printer just for that.
Yup - that's the issue.
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....."

Peter McLennan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4690
Re: The future of printing: will we lose our rights?
« Reply #51 on: November 17, 2017, 10:29:29 am »

I had an interesting discussion with a floor person in a Peter Lik gallery in Vegas. 
After listening to a long pitch on the benefits of "Giclee", I said, "So, an inkjet print?"  She wouldn't answer.
Logged

Jeffrey Saldinger

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 257
    • Jeffrey Saldinger
Re: The future of printing: will we lose our rights?
« Reply #52 on: November 17, 2017, 01:29:23 pm »

Tom P. Ashe, in his Color Management & Quality Output (Focal Press, 2014), addresses the issue of image labelling.  He includes photographs (and related discussions) of images’ labelling from works exhibited by the Association of International Photographic Art Dealers (AIPAD).
Logged
Jeffrey
Astoria, New York
www.jeffreysaldinger.com

EvanRobinson

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2
Re: The future of printing: will we lose our rights?
« Reply #53 on: November 17, 2017, 03:38:52 pm »

I think it is worth noting that limiting one's edition today does not prevent new editions in the future, when new, better techniques become available, as the recent Eggleston court case proved:

https://petapixel.com/2013/03/31/judge-dismisses-lawsuit-against-photog-oks-reprinting-of-limited-edition-pics/

This would be my solution.  I would create an odd (for me) sized print or use an odd (for me) medium.  Perhaps I'd make a limited edition 11x17 print on Canvas instead of my much more common 12x18 on paper.  Leaves me the option of creating additional prints at different sizes on the odd medium, or same sized prints on my more conventional media.

But then, I started as a software engineer and RPG player, and both of those practices encourage rules lawyering.
Logged

Farmer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2848
Re: The future of printing: will we lose our rights?
« Reply #54 on: November 17, 2017, 03:56:25 pm »

The main issue with "inkjet" seems to be that it covers a wide range of inks, printers, etc.  Dye, dye-sublimation, pigment, solvent, and so on.  There is value in defining more precisely.  Giclée is also very open and doesn't really provide provenance of the process and materials involved.
Logged
Phil Brown

JeanMichel

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 518
Re: The future of printing: will we lose our rights?
« Reply #55 on: November 17, 2017, 06:17:15 pm »

Gicler (verbe transitif): jaillir avec force et éventuellement éclabousser, en parlant d'un liquide : Le sang giclait de la blessure. (Larousse)
Gicler: to spurt, squirt; to squirt water from a tap; … to be given the bum's rush,… (Le Robert et Collins)
Giclée: spurt, squirt.
Gicler defines uncontrolled forceful actions, such as: blood spurting inside a wound. Not exactly the best way to print a fine art image!
I first came across the term in a Toronto photo lab providing early "Giclée" prints in 1996, I do believe that the prints were made on Arches watercolour paper. I thought it was a funny way to misappropriate a French word to describe an ink-jet print.

But, hey, if you can get extra cash or recognition by Gicléing your ink-jet print, why not?

Restaurant menu:
Potato soup: $2.50
Potage Parmentier: $5.00
Same ingredient, same taste.

Jean-Michel

Logged

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 20122
  • Andrew Rodney
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Re: The future of printing: will we lose our rights?
« Reply #56 on: November 17, 2017, 06:21:12 pm »

The main issue with "inkjet" seems to be that it covers a wide range of inks, printers, etc.  Dye, dye-sublimation, pigment, solvent, and so on.
What? Dye sub isn't ink jet but my first cotone printer was (Kodak XL-7700), long, long before my Epson 1200 which is an ink jet.

Giclée is a BS marketing term when associated with ink jet prints! Like still having an AOL/Earthlink email address?  :P
Logged
Author “Color Management for Photographers" & "Photoshop CC Color Management" on pluralsight.com

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 20122
  • Andrew Rodney
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Re: The future of printing: will we lose our rights?
« Reply #57 on: November 17, 2017, 06:24:01 pm »

Archival Pigmented Print is what I see more often then the old, tired, silly Giclée. Thankfully.
Logged
Author “Color Management for Photographers" & "Photoshop CC Color Management" on pluralsight.com

BobShaw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2155
    • Bob Shaw Photography
Re: The future of printing: will we lose our rights?
« Reply #58 on: November 17, 2017, 06:39:17 pm »

"Inkjet" doesn't sell :). I also have a difficulty convincing people that the Canon PRO-1000 is a top of the line printer for exhibition work. I believe it's the small size of the machine and that it's not expensive. Doesn't look too serious. I'll have to buy a dummy not working big roll printer just for that.
Seriously? Top photographers who spent their lives using photographic processes like Bill Henson and Ken Duncan all use ink jet printers now. It is not the fact that it is an ink jet printer that stops a work from selling. Why do potential customers even know what type of printer it was done on unless you tell them?

There are lots of ink jet methods. If you print on standard glossy paper then how is your print different from Kmart? It may well be all wrong in the colours if you put them side by side but the customer probably wouldn't pick it. There is whole lot in making a "fine art" print that goes to making it different from Kmart.

If art is not selling, it is probably not the printer used to make it.

At the end of the day, customers buy what they perceive as value. These days it is difficult to sell art, even for famous artists. Most people just want to decorate a wall and can do that with a few canvas prints and throw them away then they move out. Same thing with furniture and other tangible goods. They are largely consumer disposable items.

Giclee just means ink jet. It may be a BS marketing term but so is a badge on a BMW. If it works for you then use it.
Logged
Website - http://BobShawPhotography.com
Studio and Commercial Photography

Farmer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2848
Re: The future of printing: will we lose our rights?
« Reply #59 on: November 17, 2017, 07:40:15 pm »

What? Dye sub isn't ink jet but my first cotone printer was (Kodak XL-7700), long, long before my Epson 1200 which is an ink jet.

Giclée is a BS marketing term when associated with ink jet prints! Like still having an AOL/Earthlink email address?  :P

Dye sub is delivered by inkjet more commonly than as a contone printer, printing onto transfer substrate and the sublimated onto the final substrate (whether it's a coffee mug, or a sheet of metal, clothing, or whatever).
Logged
Phil Brown
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5   Go Up