The "Collectors Edition" of Focus magazine "Fine Art Photography Magazine" (now on newstands) has a Q&A with Stephen Perloff who runs The Photo Review, a quarterly that keeps up with photography auctions and collecting. One of the questions was whether digital prints are widely accepted as collectible. His answer was that they are not widely accepted in the traditional photography market, but they are more widely accepted in the contemporary art market. He says that there is some extraordinary work being done with digital, and says that pigment prints are much more stable than a C print.
I didn't actually know that there was much resistence -- in this same article, Perloff mentions he owns a color print by Neil Slavin from the late 70s that has totally faded. You would think collectors would value permanency as much as one particular chemical process.
Or maybe it all has to do with scarcity, rather than quality...
By the way, I'm not sure this is the right forum for this note, but nothing seemed to really fit...
JC
