Re: Value of digital prints in the future

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



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).






[Index of Archives] [Share Photos] [Epson Inkjet] [Scanner List] [Gimp Users] [Gimp for Windows]

  Powered by Linux