d._kevin_gibson

"I prowl the fine art shows in my area, listen to the viewers and talk with some vendors about their preferences and experiences. Generally speaking prospective customers expect to pay less for prints that are more "easily" reproduced, such as inkjet, Iris and giclee prints, or even the more traditional reproductions using lithography."

 

Bear in mind that there is a bout the same relationship between "Fine Art Shows/Fin Art Photography" and Art as there is between McDonalds and real food.

"Allow me to throw some more gasoline on this particular fire. Another reason

that a

vintage 'hand-made' silver gelatin print may end up being more valuble than an

inkjet

print is that it is printed by the artist a certain way at a certain point in

time. Have you

seen the recent Ansel Adams show where they show the evolution of his printing

style

over time on a few of his iconic images? For example, his "Wonder Lake, Mt.

McKinley"

shot began life as a light, somewhat soft 'sea of grays' and later ended up

being

printed as a much darker, much contrastier image. A collector may prefer one

over

the other, but will know that the particular version he has represents a unique

 

interpretation at a specific point in time. Now, this could be done with an

inkjet print,

to be sure, but will it? Collectors will pay more for perceived rarity, and

face it, there

is no perceived rarity inherent in an inkjet print. Gursky and others get this

perceived rarity through limiting the number of prints they will produce. But

they still

do not have that 'temporal fingerprint' that a hand produced print will

exhibit."

 

Not really correct - I know that when I go back to reprint a digital file I often decide to change it, along exactly the same lines as above. I know plenty of other photogrpahers who do the same. Sometimes the changes are subtle, sometimes substantial. And they most often ahve to do with a differing perception over time etc. I also print on different materials at different times. The point above is really more of a red herring.

 

So unless you are talking of a batch of prints all made at the same time, it's moot.

"I agree that a rare print let�s say hand printed by Weston might worth

millions, but that is not the photograph but the hype only. In the same vain,

some people would pay hard cash for discarded underwear if it was worn by

somebody famous."

 

errr - I believe there are people who do... :-0

"With respect to paper-I have a number of art photogravures that were produced 1860 to 1900 and the paper is often remarkably good. I guess we need a chart of intrinsic longevity vs. shortage conditions. THANKS ..."

 

The problem is, there are so many variables - and take fibre based gelatin silver paper- it's been made with hundreds of different substrates - some of which are much longer lasting and resistant to deterioration than others. Even many so called pure rag papers - aren't. Many papers will have brightners in them etc etc. Combine that with the variables of the coating process (if you aren't hand coating) and so on. Some substrates that were claimed "archival" etc have just simply turned out not to be, even though they are, say, "pure" cotton rag.

"It's sad to see the condition of albumen and other early prints in the

collection of the Amon Carter Museum in Fort Worth. I imagine that once,

decades ago, they must have been quite impressive. Now they must be protected

through short display periods, then rotated into storage."

 

Funny you should mention that. From the same message:

 

"by the way I saw one of the few known perfect examples of a preserved

albumen print by Edward Muybridge of all people and it is nothing like what

I had associated with the medium - it looks more like a heavily selenium

toned silver print on bright white paper - curiously it was an enormous

western landscape rather than one of his motion studies - every albumen

print I have ever seen has had a creamy white to yellowish white albumen

paper surface with purple toning which appears more like staining - that is,

the purple appeared to be the stain rather than the more neutral parts of

these prints - the reality is the purple tone had a tendency to fade towards

neutral while the albumen coated paper turned creamy and yellow with

exposure to light"

The following is from a colleague and relates to the longevity of

silver based prints (and other traditional types of prints). Sadly,

many silver based prints aren't/haven't been kept in ideal

conditions. And even with those htta have, while the silver (or

platinum or whatever) may last for a long long time, in many cases,

the substrate - the paper that silver/gelatin is on may not. In my

own research I have found that in many cases it is the substrate that

has not lasted when dealing with phtogrpahs that have deteriorated

badly. This is also something that doesn't show up in accelerated

testing (although it can be tested for). But it is showing up now in

photogrpahs is young as 50 years old, and in large numbers in

phtogoraphs from 50 to 100+ years old. So, for what it's worth, FYI:

 

"I have been doing some research into historical mediums lately and

part of

that led me to spend time in the archives at the George Eastman House

in

Rochester (which I think are very extensive with many examples of

extremely

high quality). So I have been looking at a great deal of vintage

photography

that is "supposed" to last for many, many generations. The reality is

that

the substrates are sensitive to the environment. It is becoming more

and

more apparent as I dig, that the proverbial silver print that is

supposed to

last centuries may be a theory. I mean that in regards to being

exposed to

light and the elements. I am not a conservation scientist, though I

have been conversing

with many about this, but it appears that much of the conventional

silver

prints are on substrates which act like sponges. Those examples of

silver

prints in which the silver has not faded or reacted have essentially

been

kept out of the light and out of the air and in dark, dry contact with

stable cotton paper (and usually inadvertently so.)

 

I have been able to see, by looking at vintage silver and vintage

carbo-process prints, that the carbo-process appears to be a more fade

resistant medium. Yes - you read that correct. I have seen a many

faded

silver prints.

 

Also, it is widely

accepted at the George Eastman House that silver will outlast the

paper that

vintage photos are printed on. So much work is being done there to

save

works in their archives. Very little from 100 years ago and even 50

years

ago can be stabilized to the point where they can be handled or

displayed"

I don't tell people if my prints are Lightjets printed for me by a technician from a digital file or enlarger prints printed for me be a technician in the lab. They are just dye coupler/chromogenic prints - they don't need to know anything else. The printing is just a technical process I pay someone else to do to relieve the tedium of it.

 

People pay for the image, not the paper.

No jest Simon - it's the real deal.

"Many of the world's great landscape photographers use Linhof Technika cameras."

 

Are you getting kickbacks from Bob now... :-)

 

Misrach, Robert Adams, Michael Smith, Meyerowitz, Sugimoto, Godwin, Gowin?

Mr Davenport - you certainly aren't shy about telling us all what you think we ought to be doing?

 

If a thread doesn't meet your standards, why bother reading it?

4x5? For a budget alternative which will work for you, try a unicolor drum or two and roller base.

 

Sell the tubes on ebay and you can probably pick up a base and a couple of drums there for $40-$60 or so with a bit of patience.

 

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/unicolor/

yes - Quarter Plate should probably be the dividing line. Either that or anything under Full/Whole Plate (6½" x 8½") is to be considered a "miniature" camera/format and therefore please don't bring those funny little cameras onto this list, or we'll set the Large Format Police (Davenport) on to you. There will be fines for talking "minature" cameras and formats, with a re-education process for those who continue to offend and who will not correct themselves.

"Am I incorrect in thinking that Polaroid has no intention of supporting this scanner software upgrades beyond windows 98? If so it will become obsolete very quickly."

 

I think you should just be able to use vuescan for example - it's probably better than the polaroid software anyway. Or Lasersoft if you so prefer

"A company that

doesn't build long term relationships with there customers can't succeed."

 

ummm - well, they've done pretty well over the last 50, 60 years or whatever, and they still seem to be doing pretty well. Film, especially LF film is a small part of their business. Compared to Kodak (or Polaroid), they've actually survived and grown by being necessarily ruthless in cutting parts of their business that weren't paying or growing, rather than waiting until it dragged them down. They've shown themselves to be pretty adaptable over the years, especially recently. And if something isn't paying - get rid of it. That's the way the free market works. Like it or not, this group and our quaint old fashioned cameras don't really matter or count that much. Agfa-Gevaert are a strong bouyant company probably because they are willing to cut something like APX100 if it's needed. Compare that to Old Yeller "let's cut another 10,000 jobs and see if that helps" Kodak.

2) Kodak Master View 8x10. c1946-56. "The metal Deardorff". A folding flatbed

camera with mauve crinkle-finish paint, brass and bakelite hardware.

Both of the above cameras have been featured in recent issues of "View Camera"

magazine.

 

"Kodak Master Camera 8x10" - often mistakenly called the Kodak Master View 8x10.

BUT if you put film in your checked luggage there is a good chance it will be damaged as it will got through what is basically a big CATscan - a CTX...something or other. Virtually guaranteed to destroy your film on the first pass.

 

Before 9/11 these were few and far between and weren't used as a matter of course. Now the manufacturer can't keep with demand and they are at most major airports in N America and Europe.

"It would be neat to shoot Velvia 8 x 10, but as an amateur I never could never

justify the $7.00 or so sheet cost. Wow."

 

I hear people who come from 35mm saying the same about 4x5. Yet in square inches the price is about the same per sq" (without doing the maths, I think it possibly gets a a bit cheaper by 8x10) - so it's really more a mental adjustment

well, for one thing it explains how to use the IRE scale..., shows you the spotmeter V SPD spectroscopic sensitivity... has a luminance conversion table... etc :-)

from another list:

 

"http://www.msnbc.com/news/948269.asp?0cv=CA01

 

the link says it all. Apparently according to the MSNBC site, "recent

raids of an al-Qaida safe house uncovered a camera flash unit modified

for use as a stun gun and cameras modified to hold explosives."

"So, Kevin, you think that moderators should delite any question (or answers

on

such question:) like "new to LF, what lens to choose?", "or is my XYZ

 

multycoated better than ZYX coated?"..?"

 

Did I say that? - read the thread - the answer is no.

 

But, when someone asks I'm "new to LF, what lens to choose?", and a paid employee of the distributor of Rodenstock pops up and say - well, buy Rodenstock, then that's not really accpetable as a non-commercial posting.

 

I'm on various lists which have a non-commerical postings rule where manufacturers representatives are part of the forum. They take part in the general discussions and are quite happy to offer advice and expertise, especially about the products they obviously know well. They generally gain a lot of respect from that and probably gain customers as well. But they also know the difference between that approach and what are blatantly commercial postings.

 

When someone asks a question about tripod heads - "Linhof Kardan M on a Gitzo 1326?" and gets a reply "There are several heads that handle this camera. The Linhof Profi II and Profi III, The Linhof 3-Way leveling Head, the Novoflex Magic Ball, the Kaiser Large Pro Head, the Giottos MH3000, etc." from the person who just happens to import those very tripod heads, it's just plain trying to flog the product - a commercial advertising/posting. Which seems to be prohibited by the photo.net TOS.

"Photo.net Terms of Service

 

No Soliciting

You agree not to use the Site, other than the Classifieds section of the Site, to advertise products or services or to solicit anyone to buy or sell products or services, or to make donations of any kind, without our express written approval. An exception is granted to this section to non-dealers who are users of the Leica Photography forum for the purpose of offering personal Leica-related camera equipment to other forum members, as is customary in that forum."

 

sounds pretty much like those kinds of posts fit the above - just not allowed here - period.

"We import Ansmann, Berlebach, Braun, CombiPlan, DF, Ergorest, Gepe, Gepe-Pro,

Giottos,

Heliopan, Kaiser"

 

I missed the second post - this kind of commercialism definately doesn't have a place on the photo.net forums, especially considering their TOS as outlined above - take it to the classified ads please

Sometimes these get a bit much I think? - not really much more than blatant commercial advertising as far as I can tell (in some ways even more so, because to the unsuspecting or newbie, they may not even realise that - advertising masquerading as advice) - not really unbiased advice - in the example below, I don't see any suggestion of say Acratech or Arca Swiss. I think there could be a limit put on these kinds of posts:

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=005hUt

Linhof Kardan M on a Gitzo 1326?

 

"There are several heads that handle this camera. The Linhof Profi II and Profi

III, The Linhof

3-Way leveling Head, the Novoflex Magic Ball, the Kaiser Large Pro Head, the

Giottos

MH3000, etc.

 

Bob Salomon"

have you tried samys or vistek in canada?

"all of these will

last only as long as the paper will last and how well they were processed. As I

said before accelerated tests are hocus pocus..."

 

It's nice to know they are hocus pocus, just because you say so Jorge. Good scientific method that.

 

They've been around for 150 years, never mind the excellerated testing (which most certainly isn't hocus pocus - especially as far a testing of paper substrates go - paper has been around a long long time you know).

 

http://www.atxstudio.com/pigmentPrints.html

 

http://www.atxstudio.com/carbonPrints.html

 

for example

 

 

"The called them cibachromes or ilfochromes because there was not a coined named

for reversal prints. But there is one for ink jet prints...namely ink jet

prints."

 

Of course there was - colour prints or colour reversal prints - you certainly like to dance on the head of a pin with this argument I think.

 

Personally, I like a nice giclee platinum print on watercolor paper - saves fiddling with all those nasty chemicals and those cutesy little brushstroke edges (and those are much easier in Photoshop anyway...) :-)