Digital BW, The Print

I'm readying a portfolio of whateveryouwanttocallemcarboninkjet prints
(MISprints in my case) to show to galleries and "art consultants", and I'm
starting to think about the issue of pricing and editioning.

I'm curious about how those of you who've walked this path before me have
researched the issues and made the decisions you've made.

Do you price them similarly to how you'd price the same print in Silver
Gelatin? Did you research online galleries to see what similar works go for
(in my case I'd say unestablished artists selling inkjet photography)? Any
good sites to recommend?

On editioning, one thing that has me be hesitant to edition is that I hate
to lock myself into one interpretation of my image. If I decide to
manipulate the file differently in the future, or change my materials, that
would either be a violation of my edition, or the launch of a new edition I
suppose. I just feel like what I establish for these images now will
determine my flexibility down the road, and I hate to lock myself in
creatively. Any thoughts on that?

Those of you who do show your work, I suppose interest in inkjet/piezo
technology runs the gamut depending on the interests of any given
curator/dealer. Do any of you have stories to share on that good or bad?
Sometimes (mostly?) interest in a work will be much more driven by the
content of the image itself opposed to the process, true or false?

Anyway, not looking for hard answers per se, just fishing for thoughts,
opinions, stories form the trenches....

Todd

>I'm readying a portfolio of whateveryouwanttocallemcarboninkjet prints
>(MISprints in my case) to show to galleries and "art consultants", and I'm
>
>
>Anyway, not looking for hard answers per se, just fishing for thoughts,
>opinions, stories form the trenches....
>
>Todd
>


http://www.worldprintmakers.com/english/number.htm 
http://www.tfaoi.com/articles/andres/aa4.htm
http://www.tfaoi.com/articles/andres/aa4.htm

seems to be, at the moment, the most recommended sites that addresses 
your questions.

BTW, years ago, on the leben epson list, there was a long discussion 
on what to call "whateveryouwanttocallemcarboninkjet prints". The 
members coined two words, piezograph and piezography. If my memory is 
correct someone then trade marked one of those words. So piezograph 
must still be in public domain. A lot easier to spell than 
whateveryouwanttocallemcarbonorhybriddyeinkjet prints.

Good Luck,

Jerry.

ooops, sorry, I duplicated  one of those URL�s, meant to write:

http://www.uslaw.com/library/article/TNPCommercialCol1030art.html?area_id=7

never said I was perfect, right?

Jerry.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Todd Flashner 
<tflash@e...> wrote: 
> Anyway, not looking for hard answers per se, just fishing for 
thoughts,
> opinions, stories form the trenches....


Todd:

Here are some unrelated things that I'm doing, or have noticed. 
All this stuff is on my mind as well; I'm just now entering this 
whole gallery thang too.

1. Advised by my gallery person that you can mix sizes within an 
edition. This surprised me. I print in two sizes: 24x30 and 12x15 
(paper size). She says I could mix between those two sizes 
within an edition of, say, 50.

2. I put in five pieces in this current christmas show. Image size 
was 7.75" square; framed size was 15x15". I priced them at 
$300. She said the price would definitely drop if it was an "open 
edition". (Again, to be clear, I'm a newcomer and have no 
"name"; at this point I'm just trying to make a few sales and learn 
the business a bit. I was clueless as how to price them).

3. Bought a paperback called "How to Survive and Prosper as an 
Artist". Author: Caroll Michels. Good stuff. Available at Amazon.

4. I called my description: "Photograph: Carbon Pigment on 
Coated Watercolor Paper". (This described Gen4 pigments on 
ESFA). Might not be the best description, but I liked it.

5. Was clearly advised to keep the frame VERY simple. This to 
keep cost down, and also not to get in the way of the image. 
Frame that rubs buyer wrong way could jeopardize sale. I went 
with simple simple matte black wood. And 4ply bevel white mat. 
And UV glass.

6. Post the other day mentioned http://www.art-support.com. That 
has good format for the Artist Statement, (which caused me 
much more grief/stress than making the photograph and the 
print).

Maybe this helps.

-MarkTucker, http://marktucker.com

Mark,

This type of discussion appears once or twice a year on art lists and 
there are no hard and fast rules but Harvey´s comment:

At 17:54 -0500 2/12/01, SKID Photography wrote:
>If you are looking for a marketing ploy, the the world is your 
>oyster in the naming department.  But
>academically they are 'inkjet prints'.

sums it all up.........marketing ploy

>
>1. Advised by my gallery person that you can mix sizes within an
>edition. This surprised me. I print in two sizes: 24x30 and 12x15
>(paper size). She says I could mix between those two sizes
>within an edition of, say, 50.

This is a common practice which many artists are no happy about 
because they see it as a way to make an "unlimited"  limited 
editions. Just keep changing the size. This could damage their name. 
The standard "correct" procedure is to increase the price as the 
number of unsold prints reduces. Digital printing is creating a bit 
of a moral dilemma in so far as we can all produce a  unlimited 
Limited Edition by making minor changes to the original.

>
>2. I put in five pieces in this current christmas show. Image size
>was 7.75" square; framed size was 15x15". I priced them at
>$300. She said the price would definitely drop if it was an "open
>edition". (Again, to be clear, I'm a newcomer and have no
>"name"; at this point I'm just trying to make a few sales and learn
>the business a bit. I was clueless as how to price them).


You also have to take into consideration perceived value, if you sell 
it cheap people will think its cheap. $300 was the going price for an 
inkjet print as of some 6 months again. People with no "name" are 
usually advised not to undersell their work.

>
>4. I called my description: "Photograph: Carbon Pigment on
>Coated Watercolor Paper". (This described Gen4 pigments on
>ESFA). Might not be the best description, but I liked it.

Again, Harvey is right.....honest and simple. I call mine carbon 
pigment or dye inkjet prints on acid free paper.

I would recommend the painting 2000 list, 
http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/painting-2000
where you will find a consensus of opinion  on all your questions in 
the archives at:
http://www.pairlist.net/pipermail/painting-2000/

Jerry.

Jerry.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., meander@m... wrote:
> The standard "correct" procedure is to increase the price as 
the 
> number of unsold prints reduces.


Here is an example page, showing this "increased" method of 
pricing, as the edition gets near the end.

http://www.hiroshiwatanabe.com/Pages/Price.html

(Also, Hiroshi's work is excellent. Take a peek at the Portfolio 
section).

I have also heard that when an artist is represented by multiple 
galleries around the country, that they somehow have a method 
to contact each other frequently to let the other galleries know 
that they've sold a print, so as to keep the price current and 
appropriate.

Sounds complicated, but I guess it works.

-MT

on 12/2/01 8:09 PM, Mark Tucker wrote:

> Here is an example page, showing this "increased" method of
> pricing, as the edition gets near the end.

Interesting. As a collector I'd want the first print of every edition, AND
it's the cheapest.

Todd

--- 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

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

From my small and peripheral experience.

The idea of editioning prints for photographers like Stieglitz, 
Weston, Sommer or Callahan was an intrusion.  Adams editioned some 
things and then broke the edition - I could be wrong.

Vintage is more what some of you are responding to.  Loosely defined 
as an image printed within a couple of (5) years of the image being 
made.  An archeological outgrowth of our fascination with "what was 
it like..."

Each of the artists above believed in making the most beautiful print 
they possibly could.  I know some, if not all, bemoaned not being 
able to have the material do what they desired and were waiting for a 
product to become available (look in archives of correspondence).  
Our modern equivalent would be archival inks, paper surface, 
resolution, drivers, profiles, etc.

The image must be well crafted.  Period.
Even if 'well crafted' looks like hell because you want it to.

Most 'artists' will be lucky if they sell more than 20 of any one 
image.  If you sell thousands, then bless you and the marketing plan 
that assisted you in the endeavor.  Volume is usually made up by 
price.  Choose your path and stick with it.

Editioning does do something.  It rewards the earlier collector which 
gets both the price off the floor and the artist something to eat.  
It also rewards artist and collector as it goes if the prices 
escalates through the edition.  Simple logic for the social contract.

Here in my home, we don't worry about editions.  Things evolve and 
there are plenty of limiting factors already in place in the world.

I'm afraid I've responded narrowly & without justified experience but 
sincerely,

Cleavis in AZ

Hey Frank,

Replies underneath each paragraph....-MT

> 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.

I agree here. An edition seems like ONE size.

 
> 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.


It kinda does feel like giving them away, but just like on the 
playground -- "The first one's free...", then you gotta pony up the 
money. I've been shooting for twenty years, but for some reason, 
I was so nervous when she asked what price to put on them, I 
buckled. The show is also called "Small Packages", and it's the 
annual Christmas show, somewhat implying "affordable art to 
everyone during this season". That probably influenced my 
pricing suggestion too. Also, since the 7.75" square is so much 
smaller than I'd normally print. (One rule of the show is that the 
framed dimension can be no larger than 15").

> 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.

I noticed that too about Raymond Meeks' stuff. He intermingled 
Piezo with silver. I thought that was interesting. No way to tell on 
the web though, other than the caption. Personally, I just don't 
like the word "Piezo"; it just doesn't say anything to me. Might as 
well be XT8, or Supra, or one of those generic names with no 
meaning. I know it has a meaning, but it's too complicated to 
explain to the common art buyer every single time. I almost like 
Inkjet better than Piezo; at least it says something.

> 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?


Not suspicious at all to me. Actually, quite honest. I can hold that 
in my head -- you shot the picture years ago, and are making 
either a new attempt at the print. I like knowing the time frame.


> 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).


I like the concept of this Certificate. It wouldn't have to be too 
complicated. Would NOT require writing a story about the image. 
Its just technical information that a collector would want to have.

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

Supposedly has Optical Brighteners. That would be the first thing 
I'd think of. Robert Rex has posted much about their effects.

Hi Frank,

You wrote:

>...

>2.  ...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 wonder if the PiezographyBW folks think they have any rights in the
"piezo" term?
...

>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.

I think "piezo" does not have the greatest sound to it.  So, I avoid it.
Actually, I stress "photograph" now.  The latest one I sold said just
that -- no more.  I guess that raises the question of whether I have an
affirmative duty to say any more if not asked.  If asked I say, "carbon
pigments" and the paper type (the substance and the substrate).

>5.  I think two dates is the honest way to go, but is it too much
>information?  ...

On my shots I'm not sure dates are relevant at all.  So I omit them now.

>6.  I hate attaching too much information to a print.
>... A signature should be sufficient ...

That and a name that lets people know where the shot was taken, if relevant,
is what I now use.

>7.  I like to give art buyers archival quality.

Whatever that means.  Some say long dark storage, so maybe these are
archival by that standard.

>I'm using Legion Photo Matte.
>Does anyone think that paper has longevity problems?

In my fader it yellows about 50% more than EAM.  So, it goes to about
neutral.  Of course that is with fluorescent lights on it.  With less UV it
might not yellow for a long time.

Paul
http://www.PaulRoark.com

Many reputable art galleries supply the certificate..collectors need them
for insurance and ....stuff.
t

> From: "Mark Tucker" <mark@...>
> Reply-To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2001 05:18:57 -0000
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Beyond the name: selling prints
> 
> Hey Frank,
> 
> Replies underneath each paragraph....-MT
> 
>> 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.
> 
> I agree here. An edition seems like ONE size.
> 
> 
>> 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.
> 
> 
> It kinda does feel like giving them away, but just like on the
> playground -- "The first one's free...", then you gotta pony up the
> money. I've been shooting for twenty years, but for some reason,
> I was so nervous when she asked what price to put on them, I
> buckled. The show is also called "Small Packages", and it's the
> annual Christmas show, somewhat implying "affordable art to
> everyone during this season". That probably influenced my
> pricing suggestion too. Also, since the 7.75" square is so much
> smaller than I'd normally print. (One rule of the show is that the
> framed dimension can be no larger than 15").
> 
>> 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.
> 
> I noticed that too about Raymond Meeks' stuff. He intermingled
> Piezo with silver. I thought that was interesting. No way to tell on
> the web though, other than the caption. Personally, I just don't
> like the word "Piezo"; it just doesn't say anything to me. Might as
> well be XT8, or Supra, or one of those generic names with no
> meaning. I know it has a meaning, but it's too complicated to
> explain to the common art buyer every single time. I almost like
> Inkjet better than Piezo; at least it says something.
> 
>> 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?
> 
> 
> Not suspicious at all to me. Actually, quite honest. I can hold that
> in my head -- you shot the picture years ago, and are making
> either a new attempt at the print. I like knowing the time frame.
> 
> 
>> 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).
> 
> 
> I like the concept of this Certificate. It wouldn't have to be too
> complicated. Would NOT require writing a story about the image.
> Its just technical information that a collector would want to have.
> 
>> 7.  I like to give art buyers archival quality. I'm using Legion
> Photo 
>> Matte.  Does anyone think that paper has longevity problems?
> 
> Supposedly has Optical Brighteners. That would be the first thing
> I'd think of. Robert Rex has posted much about their effects.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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/
> 
>

Congrats Frank. I submitted10 and they'd take 4 but want me to resubmit more
later. What is their commission?

Julian
----- Original Message -----
From: <frank@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, December 03, 2001 5:58 AM
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Beyond the name: selling prints


> 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
>
>
>
> 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/
>
>
>