Many apologies, I got my facts all wrong. Cole's son Kim helped him
print Edward Weston's prints.
On 11/5/10 6:59 PM, Trevor Cunningham wrote:
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).
