art & modern technology

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Tim, May 6, 2005.

  1. Tim

    Tim Guest

    Hi there,
    I'm curious to know whcih direction fine art
    photographers are taking in terms of selling limited editions of their
    work in an era where digital photography has reached a point where
    digital quality is now of comparable quality, in most cases, to film.
    Specifically, I'm intersted to know whether many are still confining
    themselves to fine art prints using the traditional mediums of
    negatives and photographic papers, or are now availing themselves of
    the opportunity and ease of using digital equipment and high quality
    ink-jet printers? Obviously the modern technology makes it much easier
    to control the end result, and to print off 100 copies at the press of
    a button, but I'm left wondering what this does in terms of selling
    limited quantities at top dollar, the value of the work as a long term
    investment, and so on. Buying an Ansel Adams print one knows straight
    away that one is investing in a work of art that has been individually
    crafted in the darkroom by the master himself, with all of the
    flashing, dodging, masking etc, that went into each and every print.
    Does a digital and computer generated print hold the same value to a
    collector, even if the image is limited to the traditional small
    quantities?
    The reason I ask is purely out of curiosity. I'm a wood working
    craftsman and attend fine art & craft shows across the country, and
    one of my favourite activities, during the few quiet moments I get
    during a show, is to walk the aisles and take in the work of various
    photographers. Some, like Steve Vaughn with his large panoramic
    images, are obviously using printing processes to mass produce their
    images for mass consumption, which is great. What I'm more curious
    about is whether fine art photographers - people like Les Sleznick,
    for example - with their numbered and limited works, are doing the
    same or sticking to the traditional print, produced in the darkroom,
    for maintaining he integrity of their work as collectible pieces of
    art. From an investment point of view I'm also curious how wary buyers
    might be of printed output with a view to longevity - many of the
    manufacturers of high end printers claim their inks give prints a
    minimum lifetime of at least 100 years, and of course one has to say
    that normal prints themselves can deteriote over time if not properly
    fixed and/or are subjected to too much sunlight over time.
    Any comments or thoughts would be much appreciated. It would simply be
    interesting to know how art photographers are viewing and ultilizing
    new technoligies and what dollar effect it has on their output as both
    a work of art and as a collectible item.
    Thanks......Tim
    Tim, May 6, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Tim

    Sheldon Guest

    "Tim" <> wrote in message
    news:eb751$427bf694$4654b234$...
    > Hi there,
    > I'm curious to know whcih direction fine art
    > photographers are taking in terms of selling limited editions of their
    > work in an era where digital photography has reached a point where
    > digital quality is now of comparable quality, in most cases, to film.
    > Specifically, I'm intersted to know whether many are still confining
    > themselves to fine art prints using the traditional mediums of
    > negatives and photographic papers, or are now availing themselves of
    > the opportunity and ease of using digital equipment and high quality
    > ink-jet printers? Obviously the modern technology makes it much easier
    > to control the end result, and to print off 100 copies at the press of
    > a button, but I'm left wondering what this does in terms of selling
    > limited quantities at top dollar, the value of the work as a long term
    > investment, and so on. Buying an Ansel Adams print one knows straight
    > away that one is investing in a work of art that has been individually
    > crafted in the darkroom by the master himself, with all of the
    > flashing, dodging, masking etc, that went into each and every print.
    > Does a digital and computer generated print hold the same value to a
    > collector, even if the image is limited to the traditional small
    > quantities?
    > The reason I ask is purely out of curiosity. I'm a wood working
    > craftsman and attend fine art & craft shows across the country, and
    > one of my favourite activities, during the few quiet moments I get
    > during a show, is to walk the aisles and take in the work of various
    > photographers. Some, like Steve Vaughn with his large panoramic
    > images, are obviously using printing processes to mass produce their
    > images for mass consumption, which is great. What I'm more curious
    > about is whether fine art photographers - people like Les Sleznick,
    > for example - with their numbered and limited works, are doing the
    > same or sticking to the traditional print, produced in the darkroom,
    > for maintaining he integrity of their work as collectible pieces of
    > art. From an investment point of view I'm also curious how wary buyers
    > might be of printed output with a view to longevity - many of the
    > manufacturers of high end printers claim their inks give prints a
    > minimum lifetime of at least 100 years, and of course one has to say
    > that normal prints themselves can deteriote over time if not properly
    > fixed and/or are subjected to too much sunlight over time.
    > Any comments or thoughts would be much appreciated. It would simply be
    > interesting to know how art photographers are viewing and ultilizing
    > new technoligies and what dollar effect it has on their output as both
    > a work of art and as a collectible item.
    > Thanks......Tim


    IMHO, art is art, regardless of the medium used. As long as the artist(?)
    keeps the prints to a limited edition, and his/her work is good, I would
    think there will be a market for it. While digital photography and
    Photoshop has made the mechanics of photography easier, there will still
    only be a handful of photographers who will be considered "artists."
    Sheldon, May 7, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. ivanna25
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    636
    ivanna25
    May 8, 2006
  2. arcade
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    425
    arcade
    Nov 30, 2006
  3. tim

    art & modern technology

    tim, May 6, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    407
    Bill Hilton
    May 7, 2005
  4. M-M
    Replies:
    46
    Views:
    878
    Paul Furman
    Jun 20, 2007
  5. RichA
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    355
    Robert Coe
    Feb 4, 2012
Loading...

Share This Page