Digital BW, The Print

In a message dated 5/5/2002 10:44:30 PM Eastern Daylight Time, greg@... 
writes:


> Anyway, these are some thoughts. I hope I didn't offend anyone

Gregory,
It would be silly to think anyone could be offended by your thoughts. Very 
interesting post. It made me really think through a couple points.
I live in Manhattan. About six years ago I embarked on a mission to get my 
stuff in an NYC gallery. To make a long story short, I couldn't even get my 
stuff seen, let alone considered , by 90 % of the places I visited. 
There are a whole bunch of "off_Broadway" galleries where one could get 
shown, but the commercial galleries, the ones that make a living selling art, 
not merely showing it, wouldn't look at a slide.
I have come to the conclusion that it is your "name" that gets you into these 
galleries. Anyone who lives in the true art world will concur. 
Have you ever heard of the "Starns" brothers? They sell very high priced 
photography.. Much of their work is cut out of magazines, newspapers, books, 
etc., and montaged onto a  larger photograph. They don't think twice about 
the archivability of their work, or the fact that some might call it 
plagiarism.  I may be wrong, but the craftsmanship, photographically 
speaking, eludes me.
To get to the point, if a gallery owner tells you he doesn't accept inkjet, 
he is politely turning you down. Which is nice. I've been arrogantly turned 
away also. Polite is nice.
I'd be willing to make a bet. I'll bet that most of the atrists on this forum 
who have had their silver work accepted by galleries have had their digital 
work accepted by similar galleries.
If their silver work has been turned down...?
Any one have any experiences?
George J Kunze


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

In a message dated 05/05/2002 8:10:17 PM Pacific Daylight Time, 
toomagenta@... writes:


> To get to the point, if a gallery owner tells you he doesn't accept inkjet, 
> he is politely turning you down. Which is nice. I've been arrogantly turned 
> away also. Polite is nice.
> I'd be willing to make a bet. I'll bet that most of the atrists on this 
> forum 
> who have had their silver work accepted by galleries have had their digital 
> work accepted by similar galleries.
> If their silver work has been turned down...?
> Any one have any experiences?
> George J Kunze
> 
I'd be willing to make that same bet George. I did 9 Silver exhibits the last 
couple years, and have completed two All ink shows with two more ink exhibits 
this year. If they like your work and think it will sell then they won't care 
if its silver or ink. I can say however that if you offere a choice they take 
Silver. You'd be surprised how many well established gallery photography 
dealers don't know that much about the photographic processes, they just have 
a pretty good idea of what they can sell. The collector market may be a 
little more finicky, but thats less than 5% of photograhic print sales.Look 
at what sells and you'll know if your work will fit or not. 
My prints don't have that air dried luster of a silver print(I miss that)but 
they are better in so many other ways. My silver prints where average quality 
 made from digital negs. Most dealers didn't understand at all what I was 
doing. Getting my xray work shown has been easy, next year I hope to have 
some good enough camera images to add to the mix which will be much, much 
tougher..
Steve(no more silver)Meyers
http://www.xray-art.com



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

I would agree also. I think part of the problem (for us
photographers, 
silver or digital) is that the DEALERS dont KNOW the differences.  
They just hone in on keywords like 'archival', 'duotone' and 
'platinum' (not that any of those are not important, indeed they
are). 
 Yes, they in the business of selling the prints. That does not 
necessarily mean they know all the terminology, or understand the 
process by which one arrives at their images.  If it sounds
different, 
all the better. Inkjet unfortunately, does not sound 'different' at 
all, and the original post made some valid points regarding it. Okay, 
I am starting to ramble here, so I'll just say I agree, it's really 
the actual images itself that is more important, and utlitmately 
decides it 'saleability'. Thanks for the interesting post by the way!
Take care,
Jerry

In a message dated 5/6/2002 2:38:58 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
billagee@... writes:


> believe me, your brother in law ( I assume you used him as an 
> example because he is not a photographer) cannot produce these prints 
> on his 1280. It takes a lot more skill than just hitting the print 
> button...you are forgetting the Photoshop steps as well as the skill 
> the photographer has in making the original image..
> 
> 

Bill,
I believe the general public does not have the above quoted perception of 
digital photography.
 And if you look at all the ads by Epson, Canon etc. you can understand why. 
"Buy this printer and you too can do this in your living room folks!"
But its the same with general photography. Anybody remember that Canon 
commercial where there were two photographers at a sports event, and you had 
to guess which one was the professional? Of course the good looking guy with 
the beautiful images taken by his Rebel was the amateur. The  stumbling dork 
with the twenty two photo devices all around him whose pictures were no 
better than the other guy's was the pro! 
These companies sell equipment to the public by showing what they can do with 
the equipment. Of course the learning curve is too steep, and that's why 
professionals still exist.
But that doesn't mean the public will stop buying the equipment and expecting 
to do as well as an artist or professional.
That Canon ad didn't run too long. I would like to think that's because Canon 
realised the disrespect they showed towards their professional clientele.
George J Kunze


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

This gallery thing is a big conversation. On some level, there are 
always going to be the level of the market that supports the 
masters, and silver. HCB, AA, Weston, etc. That will continue I 
assume.

If/when inkjet enters the market, I think it will happen in any of 
these ways:

1. Some "name" person starts to use them. Fill in the blank here 
with your own celebrity name. Doesn't matter, as long as they're 
high enough up the ladder, and they've been in PDN or ArtNews. 
The rules for this level are completely separate from "the 
masses"; logic does not usually apply to this level. 

2. Someone comes up with a way to coat them, or write on them, 
or paint on them, or laquer them, or something/anything, to make 
each individual print UNIQUE. (Think Peter Beard: I remember 
last year, he showed up at A Gallery for Fine Photography in 
NOrleans, with his group of hangers-on, and they set up a 
painting studio outside the gallery. He'd paint or write on each 
one til it was time to go shower and dance the night away). This 
issue will address somehow the "just press the button and you 
can make a hundred of them" problem. The Starns twins come 
to mind here too; I could see them adopting this into their 
"handdone" process.

3. And third, the one that excites me most, COMPLETELY 
ignores the pressure of fitting into the "gallery scene", and 
empowers individual photographers to explore more direct 
sales, and/or internet sales. The photographer dealing more 
directly with the customer. A new way of thinking; a new 
business model, that is aware of a changing economy. I don't 
see these high prices, as you do for silver, but lower prices -- 
maybe two or three hundred dollars for a print, even a large print. 
BUT, in exchange, you would not have "editions" where the artist 
was limited in volume. The mindset would be more "buy this to 
enjoy it", rather than "buy this as an investment". I think this 
would fit in between "the poster" and "the silver print".

----

To be clear, I think Number 2 and 3 are temporary, say for the 
next ten years. It could well be that the inkjet printers and inks
get 
so good that this negative perception starts to fade. (Oops, bad 
analogy...)

On 5/6/02 7:24 AM, "toomagenta@..." <toomagenta@...> wrote:

> In a message dated 5/6/2002 2:38:58 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> billagee@... writes:
> 
> 
>> believe me, your brother in law ( I assume you used him as an
>> example because he is not a photographer) cannot produce these prints
>> on his 1280. It takes a lot more skill than just hitting the print
>> button...you are forgetting the Photoshop steps as well as the skill
>> the photographer has in making the original image..
>> 
>> 
> 
> Bill,
> I believe the general public does not have the above quoted perception of
> digital photography.
> And if you look at all the ads by Epson, Canon etc. you can understand why.
> "Buy this printer and you too can do this in your living room folks!"
> But its the same with general photography. Anybody remember that Canon
> commercial where there were two photographers at a sports event, and you had
> to guess which one was the professional? Of course the good looking guy with
> the beautiful images taken by his Rebel was the amateur. The  stumbling dork
> with the twenty two photo devices all around him whose pictures were no
> better than the other guy's was the pro!
> These companies sell equipment to the public by showing what they can do with
> the equipment. Of course the learning curve is too steep, and that's why
> professionals still exist.
> But that doesn't mean the public will stop buying the equipment and expecting
> to do as well as an artist or professional.
> That Canon ad didn't run too long. I would like to think that's because Canon
> realised the disrespect they showed towards their professional clientele.
> George J Kunze
> 

Response mainly to Gregory,
 
This is yet another example of the person who walks into an art gallery and
says that my 3 year old could have done that.  Don't worry, real gallery
owners know their 3 year old can't do that...so do the people that buy the
work.  They realize that art is vision, idea and technique.  If you are
having trouble getting your inkjet prints into photodealers...then I suggest
you start looking to art galleries...they are typically much less
conservative when it comes to new materials.  I've seen several piezo shows
by people on this and other lists at very high end art galleries.  The work
was well received and sold well.  If the art gallery doesn't like your
inkjet prints either...then most likely you need to reconsider your vision
and idea.

Robert

Hi Mark,

I agree with your previsions, but I'm not sure I really made 
up my point about the lack of acceptance for inkjet prints in 
galleries.

A buyer of silver prints operates in a known environment. For 
example I was in a gallery last saturday and I looked at many 
prints. I could see myself buying a Michael Kenna print, because
they are beautiful prints of beautiful photographs, hand made by 
a photographer at the top of his art. Only a given number will be 
made.

Now what if Kenna started making inkjet prints. Would I buy one, 
even if it looked very nice? Probably not unless it was much cheaper 
than his silver prints. How would I be able to tell if his inkjet 
prints are really above what 99% of other photographers produce, 
since there is no history or even awareness of this medium, and a 
great deal of the print quality can be attributed to the printer 
performance.

I'm afraid that inkjet printing is where silver printing was in 
Edward Weston and Ansel Adams early years. It took time to establish 
that making a fine silver print was an art, and that fine prints 
are rare collectible objects. 

It still remains to be proven that inkjet prints are also rare 
collectible objects. In fact how is an inkjet print different from 
a well printed page from an Art book which may also use stochastic 
screening? The way (and the machine) which applied the ink to the 
paper?

People will spend lots of money to buy rare collectible objects. 
I believe your way # 2, Mark, is the answer, but it would have to go 
further than a simple coating (or laqueting) step.

"2. Someone comes up with a way to coat them, or write on them, 
 or paint on them, or laquer them, or something/anything, to make 
 each individual print UNIQUE. <snip>"

I don't find the idea of selling cheaper prints over the web very 
exciting myself, and I don't think it would be very successful.

Gregory

A great print (silver/inkjet or whatever)
- depends on the capabiliy to produce a great negative (file)
- depends on the capabilty to pre-visualize a great picture
- depends on the capability to discover great images in one´s 
  soul
- depends on the sensitivity of the artist 

And other sensitive human beings will be able to recognize a 
great print, whatever gallerists are thinking, saying or dealing 
with.
At least I hope so.
Bernd



                          
-- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Robert Morrison 
<rmorrison@p...> wrote:
> On 5/6/02 7:24 AM, "toomagenta@a..." <toomagenta@a...> 
wrote:
> 
> > In a message dated 5/6/2002 2:38:58 AM Eastern Daylight 
Time,
> > billagee@r... writes:
> > 
> > 
> >> believe me, your brother in law ( I assume you used him as 
an
> >> example because he is not a photographer) cannot 
produce these prints
> >> on his 1280. It takes a lot more skill than just hitting the print
> >> button...you are forgetting the Photoshop steps as well as 
the skill
> >> the photographer has in making the original image..
> >> 
> >> 
> > 
> > Bill,
> > I believe the general public does not have the above quoted 
perception of
> > digital photography.
> > And if you look at all the ads by Epson, Canon etc. you can 
understand why.
> > "Buy this printer and you too can do this in your living room 
folks!"
> > But its the same with general photography. Anybody 
remember that Canon
> > commercial where there were two photographers at a sports 
event, and you had
> > to guess which one was the professional? Of course the 
good looking guy with
> > the beautiful images taken by his Rebel was the amateur. 
The  stumbling dork
> > with the twenty two photo devices all around him whose 
pictures were no
> > better than the other guy's was the pro!
> > These companies sell equipment to the public by showing 
what they can do with
> > the equipment. Of course the learning curve is too steep, and 
that's why
> > professionals still exist.
> > But that doesn't mean the public will stop buying the 
equipment and expecting
> > to do as well as an artist or professional.
> > That Canon ad didn't run too long. I would like to think that's 
because Canon
> > realised the disrespect they showed towards their 
professional clientele.
> > George J Kunze
> > 
> 
> Response mainly to Gregory,
>  
> This is yet another example of the person who walks into an art 
gallery and
> says that my 3 year old could have done that.  Don't worry, real 
gallery
> owners know their 3 year old can't do that...so do the people 
that buy the
> work.  They realize that art is vision, idea and technique.  If you 
are
> having trouble getting your inkjet prints into photodealers...then 
I suggest
> you start looking to art galleries...they are typically much less
> conservative when it comes to new materials.  I've seen 
several piezo shows
> by people on this and other lists at very high end art galleries.  
The work
> was well received and sold well.  If the art gallery doesn't like 
your
> inkjet prints either...then most likely you need to reconsider 
your vision

> and idea.
> 
> Robert

What you say is true. But then I can find a great
print in books. Michael Kenna's books are well printed,
and a page from them would look great under glass.

So why are people paying thousands of dollars for an
original print instead of tearing out book pages? Because
they buy the silver print as a rare object, and not only as
something to hang on their wall behind glass.

But you are right about some requirements for the artist
to be able to produce a great print. But you also have to
produce something interesting to collectors.

gregory

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ruhrfoto [mailto:ruhrfoto@...]
> Sent: Monday, May 06, 2002 3:28 PM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Inkjet prints and galleries
>
>
> A great print (silver/inkjet or whatever)
> - depends on the capabiliy to produce a great negative (file)
> - depends on the capabilty to pre-visualize a great picture
> - depends on the capability to discover great images in one\ufffds
>   soul
> - depends on the sensitivity of the artist
>
> And other sensitive human beings will be able to recognize a
> great print, whatever gallerists are thinking, saying or dealing
> with.
> At least I hope so.
> Bernd
>

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "ruhrfoto" 
> And other sensitive human beings will be able to recognize a 
> great print, whatever gallerists are thinking, saying or dealing 
> with.

You guys are completely missing the point here -- it's about 
MONEY. 

Like it or not, to many people who are buying these 
multi-thousand dollar prints, it's as much about the investment 
as it is about the beauty of the print.

Or, it's about the ego. So they can say "Oh, that's a Weston".

The rules are different at that level. Better to understand it, even if 
you don't agree with it.

It seems to me that an important piece to this discussion that has 
been ignored is that the rarity, or whatever you want to call it, 
that exists in the "traditional" silver print is, to a large degree, 
an artificial scarcity. It is created through the editioning of 
prints - essentially a promise by the artist (or dealer) to the 
collector to limit production of a piece, regardless of demand, hence 
creating value. 

There is no reason why the same market dynamics cannot apply to 
inkjet prints.

Rik

On 5/6/02 1:01 PM, "marktuckerdotcom" <mtucker508@...> wrote:

> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "ruhrfoto"
>> And other sensitive human beings will be able to recognize a
>> great print, whatever gallerists are thinking, saying or dealing
>> with.
> 
> You guys are completely missing the point here -- it's about
> MONEY. 
> 
> Like it or not, to many people who are buying these
> multi-thousand dollar prints, it's as much about the investment
> as it is about the beauty of the print.
> 
> Or, it's about the ego. So they can say "Oh, that's a Weston".
> 
> The rules are different at that level. Better to understand it, even if
> you don't agree with it.
> 
Right...and this comment is perhaps circular...but if Weston...or Weston's
estate decided to edition one of his prints using Iris or Inkjet
technology...people would want it and galleries would sell it....

I think this brings us full circle.  If its good...or its by a big
name...they will sell it.

Rarity is not an issue that is specific to a medium.  If I make one inkjet
print and destroy the file/neg its just as rare as if I make one silver
print and destroy the file/neg its just as rare.  The people that are
printing Adams and Weston photos via silver prints can certainly make two
that look alike.  With a little luck I can make two quad prints that look a
like as well.  In the print making world, it is expected that if you edition
an image they better all look alike.  If they don't you call them "AP...or
Artist's Proofs".  
----------------------
Robert Morrison
rmorrison@...

310-397-2704

4131 Bledsoe Ave.
Los Angeles, CA 90066


Robert

In a message dated 5/6/2002 1:35:24 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
jmparis@... writes:


> When a gallery sells a 
> silver print, it knows it will last longer than the remaining life of 
> the gallery owner and longer than the remaining life of the buyer

How do they know?
They don't know if the printer properly washed and fixed the image. They only 
have faith.
And if the printer was not the photographer, if it was a lab where someone 
new or lazy was actually finishing the image?????
I had some very expensive C prints made for an exhibition about six years 
ago. Some have been in dark storage in my home since. Of these, at least two 
are color shifting already.
I haven't had any complaints from the purchasers of the others yet, but I'm 
keeping my fingers crossed.
George J Kunze


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

When somebody INVENTS a reason why inkjets should be 'collectible' as 
silver base, then they will be accepted. Money, Rarity, Archivalness,
luminance, tonal qualites, all have been successfully argued down in 
this thread. Inkjets are a different medium that photography is used 
to, so different rules will be invented to apply. We just have to 
invent them. interesting.

I never enter into these discussions and have been sitting back and
following this thread for about 24 hours.  It is very interesting.  Doesn't
it come down to the fact that people will purchase a print when it moves
them, it has energy and they fall in love with it?  My guess is that if
there was an image that I couldn't take my eyes off of or kept coming back
to, I would purchase it regardless of whether it was silver based, platinum,
or printed on an ink-jet.  Yes, I would want to make sure of a great degree
of permanence because I wouldn't want it disappear before my eyes, but any
art will degrade some over time.

David Myers

-----Original Message-----
From: jhazard68 [mailto:jhazard68@...]
Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2002 1:43 AM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Inkjet prints and galleries


When somebody INVENTS a reason why inkjets should be 'collectible' as 
silver base, then they will be accepted. Money, Rarity, Archivalness,
luminance, tonal qualites, all have been successfully argued down in 
this thread. Inkjets are a different medium that photography is used 
to, so different rules will be invented to apply. We just have to 
invent them. interesting.









Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

Please follow these basic guidelines:
- Include your full name with your message.
- Include the address of your website, if you have one.
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
- As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
- Complete your Yahoo profile.
- Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
resources on the homepage. 


 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

It has only been recently that photography has been accepted as an art 
form. As late as the 70's there was the raging debate as to the status 
of photography as a form or art. While the images produced by the 
photographers of the old Farm Security Admin, e.g. Lange's "Migrant 
Worker's Family" and "White Angle, Breadline" and the images produces by 
may of the photographers for Life magazine, e.g. W. Eugene Smith's work 
comes to mine they were not originally accepted as anymore than 
documentation of facts.

Now we throw in scanners and digital cameras which capture a computer 
file. On top of that there is the "digital darkroom" which consist of 
say Photoshop - a piece of software that one can use to easily remove 
the imperfections and  age lines from the face of a subject and make a 
person look 20 years younger. With photoshop you can easily mix in 
portions of different images that will be almost undetectable in the 
final print.

I think the real question is not the final presentation method, 
convention silver prints vs. inkjet printers, I think the question at 
what point does digital photography cross the line (fuzzy as it may be) 
between photography (as most view it) and graphics arts?  

When a serious buyer looks at a silver based print produced with 
conventional photographic methods, he knows what he is getting (assuming 
the craft that goes into the photograph is sufficient). I am not so sure 
that they are as comfortable with the new digitally produced images.

So I feel the question is a little bigger than just the way the final 
print is produced, inkjet vs. chemistry.

That being said I am sure if he were a young man today, Ansel Adams 
would be at the forefront pushing the techniques of digital photography. 
 It just may take awhile for the photography community to catch up.

Truman

jhazard68 wrote:

> When somebody INVENTS a reason why inkjets should be 'collectible' as
> silver base, then they will be accepted. Money, Rarity, Archivalness,
> luminance, tonal qualites, all have been successfully argued down in
> this thread. Inkjets are a different medium that photography is used
> to, so different rules will be invented to apply. We just have to
> invent them. interesting.
>
>
>

In a message dated 5/7/2002 9:37:06 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
dmyers@... writes:


>  Doesn't
> it come down to the fact that people will purchase a print when it moves
> them, it has energy and they fall in love with it?  My guess is that if
> there was an image that I couldn't take my eyes off of or kept coming back
> to, I would purchase it regardless of whether it was silver based, 
> platinum,
> or printed on an ink-jet.  Yes, I would want to make sure of a great degree
> of permanence because I wouldn't want it disappear before my eyes, but any
> art will degrade some over time.
> 

Amen.
George J Kunze


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

In a message dated 5/7/2002 9:47:22 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
tprevatt@... writes:


> When a serious buyer looks at a silver based print produced with 
> conventional photographic methods, he knows what he is getting (assuming 
> the craft that goes into the photograph is sufficient). 

How does he know what he is getting? He believes the salesman?
Nancyscans just made some gorgeous prints for me on their lightjet digital 
printer. The images are on Fuji Crystal Archive Paper, the best traditionally 
processed paper on the market. I did all my retouching, dodging and burning 
in the DIM room. (Digital Image Management). I did all the work! As far as I 
am concerned, these are the best custom color prints I have ever produced. 
All they did was print the file! This is a great service, by the way, and 
extremely reasonable, which it should be , considering I did all the work. 
But you have to have a calibrated monitor, or the system doesn't work.
 I have friends who send their files out to have a negative made so they can 
produce silver gelatin. 
So having a chemically processed photo in your hands doesn't guarantee the 
buyer anything! Only that the print may not last as long as a pig or carbon 
print!
George J Kunze


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

----- Original Message -----

From: "Truman Prevatt" <tprevatt@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2002 2:29 PM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Inkjet prints and galleries

> comes to mine they were not originally accepted as anymore than
> documentation of facts.

Accepted by who? If by that you mean the then current art establishment then
maybe so but then the establishment do not represent much of a buying
market, neither do they have any direct influence on others buying decisions
except as suggested below.

The general buying public always decide these issues in the end and
providing they enjoy the oportunity to actually view the objects under
consideration, sales will be made.....and lost no doubt.

> Now we throw in scanners and digital cameras which capture a computer
> file. On top of that there is the "digital darkroom" which consist of
> say Photoshop - a piece of software that one can use to easily remove
> the imperfections and  age lines from the face of a subject and make a
> person look 20 years younger. With photoshop you can easily mix in
> portions of different images that will be almost undetectable in the
> final print.
>
> I think the real question is not the final presentation method,
> convention silver prints vs. inkjet printers, I think the question at
> what point does digital photography cross the line (fuzzy as it may be)
> between photography (as most view it) and graphics arts?

When someone decides to pay out the old hard stuff for the specific image.

> When a serious buyer.....

What si a serious buyer?

 > So I feel the question is a little bigger than just the way the final
> print is produced, inkjet vs. chemistry.

Ah so!

> That being said I am sure if he were a young man today, Ansel Adams  would
be at the forefront pushing the techniques of digital photography.

he would hardly have much of a choice would he now, always assuming that
longevity on the sales front was  the main purpose.

>  It just may take awhile for the photography community to catch up.


...are photographers a community? it always seemed to me that they were/are
a just a collection of individuals who have little or any influence on what
the buying public decide to aquire.

David Myers <dmyers@...> writes:

> I never enter into these discussions and have been sitting back and
> following this thread for about 24 hours.  It is very interesting.  Doesn't
> it come down to the fact that people will purchase a print when it moves
> them, it has energy and they fall in love with it?  My guess is that if
> there was an image that I couldn't take my eyes off of or kept coming back
> to, I would purchase it regardless of whether it was silver based, platinum,
> or printed on an ink-jet.  Yes, I would want to make sure of a great degree
> of permanence because I wouldn't want it disappear before my eyes, but any
> art will degrade some over time.

I'm sure that loving a specific image is a primary motivating factor
for most buyers of art, yes.  

I'm sure some buyers won't pay as much money for an image of unclear
"collectability", though.  

As to permanence -- watercolor paintings have a market, so it would
seem to me that anything that gets up into that range of permanence
can make itself a market.  And we think inkjet prints made with
suitable materials are already well past that. 
-- 
David Dyer-Bennet, dd-b@...  /  Ghugle: the Fannish Ghod of Queries
 John Dyer-Bennet 1915-2002 Memorial Site http://john.dyer-bennet.net
        Book log: http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/Ouroboros/booknotes/
                 Photos: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/

toomagenta@... writes:

> In a message dated 5/7/2002 9:47:22 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
> tprevatt@... writes:
> 
> 
> > When a serious buyer looks at a silver based print produced with 
> > conventional photographic methods, he knows what he is getting (assuming 
> > the craft that goes into the photograph is sufficient). 
> 
> How does he know what he is getting? He believes the salesman?
> Nancyscans just made some gorgeous prints for me on their lightjet digital 
> printer. The images are on Fuji Crystal Archive Paper, the best traditionally 
> processed paper on the market. I did all my retouching, dodging and burning 
> in the DIM room. (Digital Image Management). I did all the work! As far as I 
> am concerned, these are the best custom color prints I have ever produced. 
> All they did was print the file! This is a great service, by the way, and 
> extremely reasonable, which it should be , considering I did all the work. 
> But you have to have a calibrated monitor, or the system doesn't work.

Galen Rowell converted to digital printing using pretty much that
path, presumably some years ago (since there's an old article on his
website telling about how he was convinced to do so; basically,
somebody showed him he'd get better results that way).  

It's a tidal wave, anybody trying to stand against it will be swept
away.  (Which is not to say that people enamored of the old processes
for their own sake won't continue to do them, and they and others
won't continue to love the old looks; after all, people still do
albumen, platinum, and even (a very few people) daguerrotype.)
-- 
David Dyer-Bennet, dd-b@...  /  Ghugle: the Fannish Ghod of Queries
 John Dyer-Bennet 1915-2002 Memorial Site http://john.dyer-bennet.net
        Book log: http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/Ouroboros/booknotes/
                 Photos: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., David Dyer-Bennet 
<dd-b@d...> wrote:
> It's a tidal wave, anybody trying to stand against it will be swept
> away.


Here we go. Not much for her work, but if it helps inkjet 
perception along, I guess I'll take it any way I can get it:

--------------------------------------------------

JOYCE TENNESON PHOTOGRAPHS CREATED ON NEW 
EPSON STYLUS(r) PRO 9600 NOW ON
DISPLAY IN FRONT WINDOWS OF SAKS FIFTH AVENUE - NEW 
YORK

What: EPSON Stylus Pro 9600 prints of photographs taken by 
Joyce Tenneson
are currently on display in six of the front windows of Saks Fifth 
Avenue in
New York. The display features 16 wide-format photographs of 
"Wise Women"
for a new book being formally introduced at the store by Joyce 
Tenneson on
May 9, 2002.

Where: Saks Fifth Avenue - New York, 611 5th Avenue

When: Epson prints on display now through May 16, 2002

WISE WOMEN book signing and reception on May 9, 2002 5:30 - 
8 p.m., 8th
Floor of Saks Fifth Avenue

The Prints: 16 prints ranging from 18" x 24" up to 42" x 56" 
printed on a
new EPSON Stylus Pro 9600 using seven-color EPSON 
UltraChrome(tm) ink, in
"Black Matte" mode on EPSON Enhanced Matte Paper.

The Book: WISE WOMEN by Joyce Tenneson (photographer and 
author) is a new
book celebrating the courage, power and beauty of our elder 
women.