All of this discussion seems focused on the lifespan of the print and
the volume/effort with respect to reproduction.
* Brett Weston destroyed his negatives before he croaked...them
prints is worth some happy cabbage
* Cole Weston prints grand-daddy Ed's pictures...those are worth
money too, but not as much as the ones Ed printed
* Recently caught Exit Through the Gift Shop where a madman becomes
a very contrived "artist" overnight and turns a cool million
I guess what I'm saying is, while scarcity is certainly a factor in
price, who you are and who people think you are is the biggest factor in
the long run. I'm more concerned with what prints are worth now. When I
print, I make my own emulsion and coat watercolor paper with it. Many of
the alt processes are archival to the limit that the paper remains in
tact...it's nice to know that most of my prints will outlive my
grandchildren yet to be. But as an amateur with an interest in selling,
I still have to get past the knobs who say, "Oh, so what? My iPhone has
an app that can do that."
On 11/5/10 6:32 PM, PhotoRoy6@xxxxxxx wrote:
I know of a case where an photographer started an edition in dye and
had a printing company do the printing. Photographer had the prints
printed up only when he sold them. Over time the printing company got
tired of keeping the old dye machine around when they had moved on to
pigment prints. Thus the later numbered prints in the edition had a
more archival life span than the earlier numbered one printed on dye.
So the reverse of the lithograph editions where the earlier numbered
prints in an edition are more valuable becomes true in the
technological advancements in printing.
Roy
In a message dated 11/4/2010 4:07:53 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
dd-b@xxxxxxxx writes:
older art print
techniques like wood-blocks wear significantly with use; more than
a photo
negative does).
