Digital BW, The Print

Hi Mark,  

I've been going through similar questioning lately because Photo Eye 
accepted 20 of my photos for the Photographer's Showcase.  (Thank you 
Jennifer Drucker for inspiring me to go through the fuss and finance of 
sending stuff off to them.)

1.  I never heard about size changes within editions.  My art 
photographer buddies survive by selling an edition (say 1-20 16X16 inch 
prints) and then doing another edition at say 1-10 at 30X30 inches.

2.  I sell my 20X24 silver prints for $500 each, but I told Photo Eye 
I'd sell 13X19 inch carbon pigment piezo (no TM because I'm using MIS 
variable tone inks) prints for $375.  I was going by Jennifer Drucker's 
pricing.  I originally thought it was too cheap and now I see you are 
giving your fabulous images away for $300. (Is that before or after 
commision?) I can't figure out this digital pricing problem.  Maybe 
editions of 15 or so is the way to go.  At least the limited 
availability justifies higher prices.

3.  I noticed that Ray Meeks has his digital prints called "carbon 
pigment" on the Photographer's Showcase.  No "piezo" mentioned.  Mark 
seems disinterested in describing his prints any more specifically.  
Maybe I'll drop the "piezo" also.

4.  I love the fingerprint idea, but I'd probably ruin the print at the 
last minute by applying a smudged finger print.

5.  I think two dates is the honest way to go, but is it too much 
information?  I just donated a print to auction that was 1992/2001.  Is 
that not a suspicious stretch of time?

6.  I hate attaching too much information to a print.  I once sold a 
portfolio to a guy for around $1500.  He wanted me to write a 
description (story) for every print.  I'm a shooter not a writer.  I 
hated doing the extra work.  A signature should be sufficient proof of 
authenticity (unless you are buying a Lewis Hine print).

7.  I like to give art buyers archival quality. I'm using Legion Photo 
Matte.  Does anyone think that paper has longevity problems?

This is several posts worth of carping.  Sorry for running on.

Frank

http://www.culturalvisions.com

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Mark Tucker" <mark@m...> 
wrote:
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Todd Flashner 
> <tflash@e...> wrote: 
> > Interesting. As a collector I'd want the first print of every edition, 
> AND
> > it's the cheapest.
> 
> Also, that's an interesting link that Jerry posted:
> 
> http://www.tfaoi.com/articles/andres/aa4.htm
> 
> I printed it out and I'm going to fax it to my gallery to see what she 
> says about this "Certificate of Authenticity".
> 
> For me, I have been playing around with dabbing my thumb into 
> a pile of lead pencil trimmings, to get a thumbprint thing going. I 
> press my thumb into the area just below my signature. Ink 
> seemed to be too strong and dark, but lead seems about right; 
> kinda light grey. Just to show that I made the print. I think I started 
> to notice this factor when I started looking at EWeston prints; 
> those "vintage" prints were made by him, and then those other 
> ones followed later, made by his son. The vintage ones always 
> seemed so much "better"; but that's probably only my projection. 
> I'm sure they were technically fine, maybe even better tonally. But 
> to know that EW made them, with that wacky setup in that cabin 
> in Carmel, just made them SO much sweeter.
> 
> I also seem to want to put TWO dates on a print -- the year the 
> photograph was shot, and then the year the print was made. I've 
> been doing something like "2001/2001".
> 
> I guess the idea of this official form -- the Certificate of 
> Authenticity -- addresses all these questions. On some level, if I 
> was a collector, and I was writing a check for thousands of 
> dollars, why not ask for some kind of officially regarded 
> document; almost like a Title to a car.
> 
> It'll be interesting to see what this gallery says. She might just 
> laugh at the idea.
> 
> -MT