Sebastio Salgado switched format on Genesis

[Spearhead]

<p>I didn't see him say anything about how the photos will be printed.</p>

[david_manning1]

<p>Jeff, I think collecting photographic art has as much to do with perceived value of the investment as the image itself. I'd feel much better knowing I invested in a hand-made silver-gelatin print, than I would if I paid a premium price for a numbered inkjet, or even a Durst-printed "machine" print. This is probably why original Ansel Adams prints command huge prices, but you can buy a duplicate image from a poster shop for very little.</p>

<p>That being said, I'm definitely on the sidelines of this sport. Just an opinion, though.</p>

<p> </p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>I think collecting photographic art has as much to do with perceived value of the investment as the image itself.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I really don't think much of people who buy art for the "investment" rather than for the art itself. Strikes me as incredibly shallow and anti-art.</p>

[john_r._fulton_jr.]

<p>Cupla notes (not necessarily of interest). I wonder how Joel Meyerowitz's "C" prints from the 1970's are fairing these days? I was told years ago that part of the "collectability" of the C prints was their eventually fading.</p>

<p>I believe it was Capa, not Chim whose negatives recently were found in the "Mexican suitcase".</p>

<p>I agree that Salgado would be a prime customer for the S2. 'Hope it works for him.</p>

[rob_wall]

Like it or not, the people who buy photography are not immune to wondering if what they are buying can be resold. That's natural.

 

 

With photography, which in theory allows infinite reproduction, there is a natural tendency on the part of collectors (or whatever you want to call them) to look to some quality that makes their purchase special, not one of identical thousands. This could be as straightforward as being signed, part of a numbered edition, or something more intangible like (ironically) the fact that silver prints are not precisely identical.

 

 

I'm not saying it's rational, but since when is art about rationality?

[Robin Smith]

<blockquote>

<p>I really don't think much of people who buy art for the "investment" rather than for the art itself. Strikes me as incredibly shallow and anti-art.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't think there would be much of an art market if everyone seriously subscribed to this somewhat puritanical view.</p>

[david_manning1]

<p>Jeff, tomato, tomahto...art is finicky, so are it's buyers. Glad you know what you like. </p>

<p>Not wanting to start a flame war (and I know we have different viewpoints on many aspects of the photographic arts), I find your comment odd, though, considering that some people who spend enormous sums to collect cars rarely, if ever, drive them...but I don't consider them "anti-car." Some people on this forum, in fact, spend enormous amounts of money buying Leica gear, with no intention of shooting with it, for the investment and satisfaction of owning. I wouldn't consider them anti-photography. Looking at art is appreciating art, certainly...but buying art includes a business decision. They don't have to be mutually exclusive, by the way.</p>

<p>John, check this interesting read out:</p>

<p>http://www.zonezero.com/exposiciones/fotografos/ziff/</p>

<p>Page 15 recognizes that everyone fixates on Capa's work, but negatives from David Seymour (Chim) and Taro were found in the same suitcase. But, in checking my facts, it does seem to be regarded everywhere as Capa's Mexican Suitcase. No biggie, an interesting find nonetheless.</p>

[frederick_muller]

<p>I am low-tech and a fairly late adopter of digital. Are there standards for archival storage of digital files? Are digital files susceptible to corruption over time and proximity to electromagnetic "polution"? Is RAW format "pure" and the best storage medium? I have read somewhere (and did not fully understand why) that JPEG files actually lose quality each time they are opened and saved back down.</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>I don't think there would be much of an art market if everyone seriously subscribed to this somewhat puritanical view.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Far more money is spent in the secondary market (sold after the artist sells the work) than in the primary market. As a result, this does little for artists. Also, what makes it a good thing to have an "art market" that is based around collectors rather than artists?</p>

[david_manning1]

<p>Back on topic, I just think that it's too bad that a photographer who based his work upon social consciousness will not be leaving tangible evidence of what he's witnessed. Bits and bytes have been misused by miscreants to the point that many people wouldn't trust a digital file as much as a negative. This has nothing to do with art or workflow.</p>

<p>I do recognize, though, that his work will have the same impact regardless of what format or medium he uses to record them. After all, I haven't personally seen a Salgado exhibition, but I've seen lots of his work online, which is bits and bytes in the end run.</p>

[rick_keir]

<p><i>I really don't think much of people who buy art for the "investment" rather than for the art itself. Strikes me as incredibly shallow and anti-art.</i><br>

How do you feel about people who buy investments that aren't art, instead of putting their investments into an enjoyable form? Hanging a stock certificate on the wall is so 20th century ironic, you know.</p>

[john_shriver]

<p>It is 100% possible to get a B&W fiber base silver print, archivally processed, gold toned, from a digital file.<br>

For instance, http://www.digitalsilverimaging.com . Prices are even very reasonable for the services provided.</p>

 

[rick_keir]

<p><em>It starts to look more and more like Gene Smiths Pittsburgh that got so overblown that it was never finished and never published. </em><br>

Salgado has a history of massive projects that he actually finished. I hope he is able to go on doing these for the rest of his career, leaving behind a final, unfinished project that he was able to work on right up to the end. <br>

Gene Smith, on the other hand, was an alcoholic and an amphetamine addict who had a history of being unable to complete even a short project. <br>

On the subject of Smith: I'm always a bit unhappy at the way his biographers tend to mutter about his "artistic temperament", as though a habit of using amphetamine and alcohol to work for 72 hours is a normal thing for an artist, instead of a warning sign that someone is in need of psychiatric help. It doesn't matter too much in his case, because in the 1950s the help he'd have gotten wouldn't have been very good, but these days it's very likely a future W. Eugene Smith could get help that would let him/her remain creative without destroying his life and his health in the process.</p>

[akochanowski]

<p><strong><em>"what makes it a good thing to have an "art market" that is based around collectors rather than artists?"</em> </strong></p>

<p>One thing I can think of is that "collectors" have money which is used to support "artists." If "artists" were the only buyers of "art" then most "buying" in the "art market" would be confined to exchange of empty beer cans.<strong><em><br /> </em> </strong></p>

[Spearhead]

<p>As I pointed out above, artists seldom make a lot of money from collectors. Most of the money is in the second and later sales.</p>

[john_r._fulton_jr.]

<p>Rick K makes an interesting point about Salgado. David Alan Harvey went on record (at the time) of telling Salgado that the "Workers" subject and story were too big and it couldn't be done. SS has an interesting task of doing 32 stories each with a 100 pictures. He is prolific.</p>

[C R Utra]

<p>Just a note: his name is SEBASTIAO, not Sebastio, OK!</p>

[akochanowski]

<p><strong><em>"As I pointed out above, artists seldom make a lot of money from collectors. Most of the money is in the second and later sales."</em></strong></p>

<p>That's just wrong. What are most gallery sales? If you're well-known enough to command secondary sales, you're well-known enough to get gallery representation and make original sales you split with the gallery. If you're not, there won't be secondary sales unless you're dead and discovered later. For artists that are producing contemporary work I'd be interested in data that shows the appreciation in the secondary market you're alluding to.</p>

[35mmdelux]

<p>Which inkjet printer he will use? That is the question!</p>

[ilkka]

<p>And what size cards? If 1 1/2 lbs is equivalent to 600 rolls of 220 one could of course calculate that. But one would think that field backup on hard drives is better option than to carry a bagful of compact flash cards back home.</p>

[Uhooru]

<p>"I'd feel much better knowing I invested in a hand-made silver-gelatin print, than I would if I paid a premium price for a numbered inkjet, or even a Durst-printed "machine" print. This is probably why original Ansel Adams prints command huge prices, but you can buy a duplicate image from a poster shop for very little."<br>

Have you gone to a gallery sale lately? I find your view somewhat parochial since the great majority of every successful emerging photographer is selling digital prints. Also many more traditional artists are also moving to digital printing and are doing quite well. Your reference here to Adams is a little disingenuous as you have no reason to believe that if alive today, he wouldn't be using digital. Adams' prints command prices today, not because of the media, but, from a collectors point of view, he's dead. So sorry. <br>

My personal view is that generally, great photographers will produce great work no matter what type of camera or print process they use. I'm sure, we can all think of specific examples where the photogs work cannot be separated from the media but it's rare.</p>

 

[Brad_]

>>> And what size cards?

 

I answered that question up at the top. Roughly 41,000 images with 16 GB cards. Double that with 32 GB cards.

 

 

>>> ... the great majority of every successful emerging photographer is selling digital prints.

 

That's right!

 

>>> My personal view is that generally, great photographers will produce great work no matter what type of camera or print

process they use.

 

Bingo!

 

 

Interesting that many feel that Salgado still has things to learn about photography, the photography business, art

markets, etc.

[ray .]

<p>600 rolls of 220 is about 14,000 shots. What does 41,000 have to do with it? </p>

[Brad_]

>>> What does 41,000 have to do with it?

 

That's how many exposures can be made with 1 1/2 pounds of memory cards (assuming 16 GB cards), the amount that Salgado apparently carries

now - rather than 60 pounds of film that he used to carry; according to the story.

[ray .]

<p>You weigh your cards? ;) ??</p>