Digital BW, The Print

The prices of most of this work is sort of scary in truth. The other side of it is most were sold at a reputable auction houses so it’s credible.. Most of the current works are fairly large as you can see.  I “am” from the school that size matters…LOL.. It about viewing distance and the placement or use of images.. I very much enjoy the drama of a large piece…… it , to me , is different..  I can do some large pieces here and as most of you know I’m sort of a canvas head.. We have the technology today to make some very large pieces of art.. I very much like that.. Many / most of the imagery on the site referenced I wasn’t really crazy about….. some I was.. As far as the prices that the art work sold for .. I really don’t care.. It’s often not representative of what my mind is capable of understanding as real value.. but that not what it’s all about.. as I’m not in a position to do something like that..

 

Personally I don’t really spend much time in the what it sold for box.. but in another way I do.. Years ago I would make smaller prints and found that in some areas that was not the right way to go.. I do very little small stuff these days.. It’s just not me.. Small pieces sort of define and limit the box of ones market.. Plus I like the market and the impact of  larger pieces.. So I’m stuck..

 

jimbo

 

From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] 
Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2016 9:57 AM
To: DigitalB&WPrint
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Acrylic face-mounting

 

  

​Jim,

 

Interesting link.

 

Throw out the old photos on the list.  (We can't go back in time.)  Then what is the average size?

 

Large sizes are more accessible to more people.  They show well.

 

My canvas direction is to, hopefully, make that size available to those of us who are small studio, low volume photographers.

 

Paul

www.PaulRoark.com​

 

On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 8:01 AM, 'Jim Bechtel' mrjimbo2@... [DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint] <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

  

Hi John … I’m doing this out of memory.. I honestly tried to do a search to find the images.. This is not a Peter Lik photo. It was actually two pieces … as I recall… they were either 4x8’s or 5x10’s.. The two images were of a store or produce display in a market.. and they were hung one over the other I think ….maybe side by side... So a duo tic if you will. They were about 3M but might have been like 2.8 or something like that .. It’s honestly been too long …. I can’t remember …sorry.. I will try to track it down and follow up.. So I’ll be digging.. The work I’m referring too I know was done with silicon not a film as that piece had me look at what you and I started playing with.. It was done by the folks that do Diasec face mounting …I originally saw the image on a web site of a firm that did the Diasec process.. Ok here we go I found it I got lucky… https://www.slrlounge.com/2-most-expensive-photographs-in-the-world/ It’s the forth one down by Andreas Gursky ..It was “auctioned” at Sotheby’s.. take the time if you will to check out the pieces listed.. Lik is way down the list.. there are a few pieces on the list face mounted.. so interesting maybe.. Note Robert Mapplethorpe’s pic of Andy … #26.. I totally love the originality of the framing.. Wowser…

As far as your point regarding high value.. I understand where you’re coming from. I was however coming from a totally different place on this one. We’ve discussed Liks outrageous pricing and a few others way back when ..My point here was simply to show that a face mounted print had value.. At the time It was touted as the highest priced photograph back then.. 

As far as your fraud comment.. I think that’s more of a personal opinion.. I honestly can’t mess with that and for me it would wrong to do so….. we are all entitled to feel the way we do and that is totally ok.. You and I have been buds for a long time and I totally respect your perspective on things.. I mean that.. It’s ok.. 

The longevity of doing this process to photographs and or artwork I think is not intended to last 1000 years.. That is no secret.. The resins in the acrylics will deteriorate over time.. at a rate depending upon it’s exposure to the elements. I think we both know that a hot shot original oil painting will fail over time also if it is not properly taken care of. That being said I think this process has a purpose and is typically done with a print not an original.. But it still is a display method for what we consider to be artwork. I have done quite a few pieces using both film and silicon.. and I do feel that for many types of displays in certain places it’s the cats meow and absolutely the right way to do it.. 

So I also get where you’re coming from when you say it might devalue a piece.. but there is another side to that which I think is application sensitive.. I’ll try to explain.. Let’s take two identical high end B&W prints.. one of them gets archival mounted, double matted, museum glass and a fancy custom frame.. The other is face mounted to acrylic.. Clearly the intent of both is very different as was the cost to produce the end output.. So the fancy one hangs in a lawyer’s office while the other is on the wall at McDonalds.. Both were done to suit the application and to me while I know their very different their both winners and done correctly for their intended use. Ok now let’s raise the bar further….just cause we can… suppose we took 2 of Cindy Sherman’s prints (she’s on the list) I have a hard cover book of her work in my book case ..Her work is some of the most thought provoking I have ever seen.. Anyway.. I think if you took two identical prints of hers.. and did one up with fancy mounting and framing and the other using the Diasec process … I would agree that the fancy version would likely auction for more but how much more is anybody’s guess the real value is in the print and I’d bet both would be very collectable and expensive as all get out.. Part of this maybe due to that we’re used to more traditional practices regarding how art is done and presented.. I mean here we are saying that ink jet technology is collectable …is it more collectable or valuable than a wet process print? Or an alt process print? 

jimbo

From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] 
Sent: Saturday, September 17, 2016 10:58 AM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Acrylic face-mounting



Good post Jim, but I wanted to toss in my 2 cents.

The print you mention was reported sold by the photographer himself, Peter 
Lik, for over 5 million dollars in a private sale to an unknown buyer, so 
there's no proof of any of it. None of his work has sold in the secondary 
market, so the value and the whole thing has been highly questionable, 
bordering on fraud. I'm also pretty sure his work is done using the first 
method of adhesive coated Mylar rather than silicone, but that part doesn't 
matter.

I have a problem with the whole concept of putting a high value on these 
prints because they're an accident waiting to happen. Drop one on the corner 
or scratch the plastic and you have nothing. A print in a traditional frame 
with protective museum grade acrylic glazing is far more worthy of an 
investment in my opinion because it can be curated. Even ancient pottery can 
be restored if it's been shattered to bits, but not these. Prints can also 
delaminate from the plastic over time due to environmental conditions.

Acrylic face mounting a print certainly has a great and slick look, and it 
will last longer than a print that's not sealed - so long as it's not 
physically damaged. I used to do a lot of this kind of work, but I never 
marketed it as collectible fine art. It's commercial decor to be enjoyed 
today rather than a wise fine art investment expected to hold value for 
future generations. There are many, including myself, who believe that the 
process can even reduce the value of a print.

IMHO
jc

-----Original Message----- 
From: 'Jim Bechtel' mrjimbo2@... [DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint]
Sent: Saturday, September 17, 2016 10:50 AM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Acrylic face-mounting

You can use an acrylic that has a UV protection and if you use the right 
adhesive films the process can be said to be archival.. The other way to do 
this is to use a silicone adhesive but this process is much more involved 
(commonly known and Diasec face mounting) .. Both John C and myself played 
with these processes a while back.. I still have cases of silicon here.. 
Unless it’s changed the most expensive photograph ever sold was a large 
Diasec image encapsulated using silicon.. About 3 million or something like 
that .. can’t remember now..

Anyway, using either way the images display very well. 

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2016.0.7797 / Virus Database: 4656/13033 - Release Date: 09/17/16

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

 



No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2016.0.7797 / Virus Database: 4656/13041 - Release Date: 09/18/16



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]