I totally agree that images need to evolve. I also, however, understand the concept of limiting output to increase value.
I'm trying a compromise where I limit the total Arches-carbon prints but make the dye B&W's in open edition. In theory, if one can have sufficiently differentiated products, the total value increases. (Are there any economists out there who would like to take a stab at the cross-elasticity of demand between the different "products" here?) On the limited edition side, I doubt I'll ever get close to the limit, and if I do, the price will just go up to the point that I won't. The images can still evolve, and I have something to sell to impulse buyers as well as an appropriate medium to make sets for my kids and others for special purposes. I have no idea if it'll ever work in the sense of maximizing economic value -- almost certainly not for me. But, for probably the majority of us who do this more out of passion for the art and medium, it's made life more interesting.
As to being sad about Rollei's demise, I agree with the evolution there also. I'm totally digital. And everything has a life cycle. Still, when an individual or multi-individual association (including a company) has contributed, I think it is worth acknowledging that. I'll be "sad" to see Intel go also, and Apple, Google, and all things will die, but they have made our lives better.
So, Rollei, thank you and RIP. Many of us will keep our TLR's as the headstone and sample of the best of breed for some purposes in that era of photographic evolution.
Paul
On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 9:38 AM, 'Elliot Puritz' drpuritz@... [DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint] <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
David:
What an excellent point you have just made.
A friend of mine just made the exact same comments about keeping the negatives.
Thanks.
Elliot
From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com]
Sent: Saturday, March 14, 2015 12:17 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Rolleiflex to be liquidated
Anyway for the past couple of years I've been doing something a bit off the
wallŠ
Jim,
I am a firm believer in ³to each his own², (until it comes to trying to make
photographs look like paintings), but thought I would interject this food
for thought.
Have you ever seen this image?
That¹s uncle Ansel with his first interpretation of Moonrise along with a
later one. Believe me, the first one stinks.
What if Ansel had made that first interpretation a limited edition and
³retired² the negative afterwards? The Moonrise we all know and love would
never have existed at all!
This illustrates quite strongly why I am personally against limited
editions, canceling negatives, giving away negatives, etc., etc., etc.
In other words, all the things the art world would have us do by way of
making free gifts (for all practical purposes) of our best works, to the
speculators.
Burn our negatives just before we die? Sure. I¹m all for that. But doing
with our negatives what the (expletive deleted) art world would have us do
so that they can make a profit on our work, instead of us (the REAL reason),
is a very bad idea.
In printmaking, there is plenty of rationale for limited editions because
they are limited by the physical durability of the plate. The limited
edition is just the art world turning a defect into a ³feature². But the
photograph does not wear out and there is no rationale, save the false ones,
for limitations.
Like the rest of us, including Ansel, you are only going to make at best, a
few dozen really good images in your lifetime. Why make a gift of them to
speculators while we spend our lives scratching for a living?
And BTW, you can bet your socks that after you cash in your chips, those
negatives will immediately be put into action by the people you gifted them
to! To borrow from Ansel, Œkeep the score, and keep performing it until you
have perfected that performance¹.
David Kachel
___________________
Artist-Photographer
Fine B&W Photographs
WEBSITE: www.davidkachel.com
BLOG: thetransparentphotographer.com
EMAIL: david@...
PO Box 173
Globe, AZ 85502
(928) 275-0925
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]