Brad_

>>> Yes, the Epson 4000 was renown for clogging issues. ... You bought the last lemon of the Epson line. Not necessarily. I have a 4800 that is hopelessly clogged. When I need to print I use Costco. Superb 7800/7900 results, and with 16x20 prints for $5.99 and 20x30 prints for $8.99 I have no reason to go back.

Some people may better understand photos with all the blanks filled in. Some enjoy contemplating the possibilities when only provided with partial or ambiguous information. Nothing new...

>>> Can we leave it at that or are we moved to guess at who the shadow belongs to so we can piece together a literal story out of what we see? … I'm questioning to what extent you do this and I'm wondering if it can be or you've ever found that it is a distraction to a less literal way of viewing photos. I appreciate photos that have the power to release narrative in my mind. Ambiguity and mystery (among other attributes) can help pose questions. Photos that are complete and appear to "answer" all questions are not very interesting to me. And… Not only do I appreciate viewing photos where ambiguity is a major element, I usually strive to make photos with that in mind, to help suggest a narrative for a viewer. That can be any narrative, not necessarily one I may have had in mind (sometimes I'll have nothing in mind).

For me there's much much more to photography and how it affects my life and what I do, than getting the (or another) "shot." I think few here would understand, so I'll just leave it at that. Today it takes a lot for me to just raise the camera to my eye, let alone releasing the shutter.

>>> The silence of Photonet members is sometimes worth a thousand words. I also follow Turnley on Facebook and my views about him are similar to those of Lex's. Admonishing pnet members because they did not respond to your post to your expectations and schedule timeline is a very poor way of encouraging participation. Indeed, I suspect many after seeing that admonishment will simply not respond at all.

>>> Brad, not for really large prints, no way. Way. How large? I've printed 20x20" a couple years ago for a project. With phones that are three generations later today, I wouldn't even think twice.

>>> I'm guessing but the competition is really only between Fuji, Panasonic, Olympus and Sony isn't it? Don't forget phone cameras...

<center> .<P> <img src= "http://citysnaps.net/2014%20Photos/Chairs.jpg"><BR> <i> </i> <P> .<P> </center>

>>> Any thoughts? Do you happen to live near a Costco? 16x20 prints from an Epson 7800/7900 series professional printer are $5.99, 20x30 is $8.99. Superb output with dead neutral B&W, fresh ink, never have to worry about clogs. They'll reprint to your satisfaction if you're not happy, though I've never needed to invoke that.

For me it comes down to wanting to have enough environmental context vs controlling clutter. A 35 is perfect for my shooting. A 50 begins to feel like a telephoto making me need to stand further back (often into the street, which I hate doing).

>>> I don't want to get weird and shock the photographic community by taking and posting pictures of my toilet-bowl or anything like that, but sometimes I wonder if we/I are we stuck in a pigeon-hole of things that we are supposed to photograph. After spending hundreds and thousands of dollars is there more to this ? Rather than search for random subject mater looking for something that might stick, make photographs of subjects/things you care about and which might satisfy an inward curiosity. Projects help me satisfy that curiosity I might have about some thing or cause, and help keep me focused. For me... Since all too often and for many people photography is only about "taking," I try to structure my project activities so that I'm also giving back. My past projects were structured so that money raised from sales would go directly to an organization helping disadvantaged kids living on the street, and will do that as well with future projects. Also, in the past I engaged random strangers on the street for conversation which ultimately led to making portraits. While I enjoyed the making portraits aspect, what really drove and satisfied my curiosity, was talking to subjects and learning something interesting about their life and the area during the engagement. Many times I would subsequently encounter a subject I made a portrait of previously and then give them a print - my way of giving back. In both of the above activities my camera was simply a tool that helped me explore something I was interested in and curious about.

>>> That being said, I've looked into buying an Epson and K7 inks, but I'm not able to financially at the moment. Do you live near a Costco? Their two largest print sizes are made locally using Epson 7800/7900 series professional printers. A 16x20 print is $5.99 and a 20x30 goes for $8.99. Every large size B&W print I've ordered from Costco has been dead neutral. If you're not printing a lot, just go with them and save a ton of money...

Don't know. But is it Art? That's what people really want to know.

>>> Is it really necessary to have yet another discussion about art vs. not art?<p> Meet the new year. Same as the old year...

>>> He seemed like a pretty serious guy. ;) Ken Rockwell?

>>> I wonder if Salgado may have also have edited his work for the more particular tastes that drive show, print, and book markets. As an aside, and after considering your remark, I now don't see Salgado responding to market drivers much differently than say did Lik, Lik whom earlier I probably came off as having criticized solely for his having a successful business acumen. Funny, I was going to bring Lik into the discussion as a comparison but decided to hold off a bit. Glad you mentioned him. How about Thomas Kinkade, famously known as the "Painter of Light?" I suspect many would consider his work kitsch and Kinkade as not a real artist. However, if you look at some of his very early work in books (which are difficult to find), before he crossed to the dark side and discovered the possibilities of assembly line production and aggressive marketing, he was a very accomplished plein air landscape painter (IMO). Could have been up there with well-known early California impressionist landscape painters from the turn of the 20th century, such as Granville Redmond, Guy Rose, and Edgar Payne, if Kinkade were alive and painting during that period. I don't know what caused Kinked to choose the path he did. But I would hazard a guess he determined he could make a LOT of money creating a lifestyle brand promoting feel-good bucolic paintings/prints (and licensed knick-knacks) portraying optimism and hope resonating with the general public, and creating a marketing organization along with franchise galleries to sell. Much more money than struggling selling one-off classical plein-air style paintings at Carmel tourist galleries for not much money because there is little market for contemporary plein-air. Seems to have worked for him, though things began to fall apart 6-7 years before he died.

>>> Well the man has to feed his family. It would be a sin if he cared more about strangers than his own blood. He has personal responsibilities just like everyone else. Absolutely. That's lost on many people, with respect to both well-known photographers and representing galleries. >>> But I really don't think that's the reason. He's a craftsman, a pro. Would we want him to blur his pictures, get the horizon tilted? Do painters use drab colors and cinematographers film with poor lighting when the content shifts to man's struggles in life? I don't think "we," as photographers, are his market. It's not a matter of needing to dumb-down technical aspects to please "us." More of creating a dramatic visual style that resonates and easily engages with the population at large, ultimately driving sales. I'm not saying that what it's *all* about, but that's certainly a significant aspect.

>>> Which makes me ponder whether Salgado's "heavy-handed pathos" style fit those suffering subjects? Sure. But there may be more to it than that. Indeed. Commerce. His dramatic style is tuned to his audience, and drives print/book sales. I suspect a less dramatic and more neutral style would diminish sales - dramatically.

Merry Christmas, Allen.

Karsh: Very formulaic, weighty, little context, leaves me wanting more. Seems he is many photographers' first introduction to a well-known portrait photographer (probably due to the Churchill and cigar story), similar to how Ansel Adams is with respect to landscape photographers. With regards to portrait photographers, I much prefer the context and life Arnold Newman adds to his portraits, and without all the added gravitas that elevates Karsh. Speaking of Arnold Newman, photographers in the San Francisco Bay Area should check out an exhibition of his work now running at the Contemporary Jewish Museum in SF. As an aside, the CJM has been killing it lately on photography exhibitions: The NYC Photo League ‘30s—50s exhibition two years ago, The Photographs of Allen Ginsberg last year, and currently, the Newman exhibition. Salgado: Respect what he does. But… For me, his photographs are so laden with gravitas they take on a ponderous quality that in the end pushes me away from what they try to communicate.

>>> Well, speaking of dinosaurs, the terms "shoot" and "shot" in photography derive from the use of guns many years ago. Now, there's a thought. Any volunteers to start looking for a replacement? For years I have been using "make/made." As in "Hi, can I make your portrait?" Or, "I made a lot of photographs while on the train."

>>> But that is what art is - it usually has no utilitarian value. But it can. Gehry's Disney Concert Hall in downtown LA quickly comes to mind.

Charles, we doubled... >>> artist proof system sounds like a deceptive sales practice; It's a system long used in the sale of lithographs and serigraphs. Photographs, too - though the physical underlying reasoning is certainly more questionable. Photography galleries caught on quick... As it is widespread, and known, I wouldn't call it deceptive necessarily - though I disagree with the practice. OTOH, I'm not in the market...

>>> Reither "… the discussion with prospective buyers had to become about value, [and] I was done because I did not believe in the value of the product.” So Brad would you point me to where you got your version of Reither's discontent? The price of an artwork is set by the gallery/artist - any price can be set, any edition size can be decided, any number of APs can be set aside - all for the purpose of promoting "exclusivity" and thus higher prices. Value, however is subjective, and that is what troubled Reither. Set the price too high and potential buyers are eliminated from the market. Set the price too low and you may be reducing your total potential return. Galleries that don't get that right will not be in business long. If I am in the market for a Toyota, and the company suddenly imposes a $20K price increase next month without any changes to a model I'm considering, I would likely not purchase one. Some people, though, still may, for whatever reason. I do not see that as a "misrepresentation." FYI, I'm reading from Reither's blog.

>>> There are downtown galleries and then there are downtown galleries: Brad what you didn't address in your comment was whether or not all downtown galleries misrepresent the value of their products like Reither says Lik did. Except that Reither did not say that, nor do I consider it a misrepresentation. Reither became disenfranchised with the editioning and artist proof system, something that most photography galleries engage in. Again, that's nothing new, though I personally disagree with the editioning aspect being used to promote exclusiveness (and higher prices), even though it is widespread. Lik galleries set the price. As there is no secondary market or other galleries selling Lik's work, the price they set is the price. As an aside, lithographs and serigraphs have been editioned and with set-aside APs for ages. Something that's relatively new is tiered editioning, where the price of a print increases as the edition is close to selling out. Don't like it, don't purchase. That's the way galleries work where there is no secondary or alternate markets. As an aside, and IIRC, Avedon ITAW prints were printed in editions of 6, and some of Sally Mann's editioned at 5 or 10. Now, that's a completely different situation as there's a real secondary market for Avedon and Mann prints.