Will digital photographs ever be valuable?

[blue9]

Will digital photographs ever be valuable? Since i am using both film and digital, i can't help having the feeling that my. Digital pictures would never be valuable (if i should get a name in photography). I cold print the pictures, but still. However the few silverprints i have made my self from my Mamiya 645, would be something else. And btw. i am not only speaking about money, but the feeling about having something unique.

[FlyingPhotog]

Will digital photographs ever be valuable? Since i am using both film and digital, i can't help having the feeling that my. Digital pictures would never be valuable (if i should get a name in photography). I cold print the pictures, but still. However the few silverprints i have made my self from my Mamiya 645, would be something else. And btw. i am not only speaking about money, but the feeling about having something unique.

I think this is the "dirty little secret" about digital photography that no one really wants to address.

I wonder if we'll ever see a "John Smith" Trust which is charged with overseeing a collection of Hard Drives in the same manner the Ansel Adams Trust shepherds his collection of prints and negs.

Interesting Discussion Point. I'll be curious to see where this goes...

[blue9]

I also think that it has an affect of how i look on my own work. I just can't get rid of the feeling "I wish i had this on silver film". Like thinking about some
one you loved a long time ago.

[sapearl]

Sure.... why not?

Of course, the word "valuable" is relative and one person's pocket chump change earned through the sale of a print could be another photographer's fortune.

I see no reason why unique digitally images cannot be created just as silver gelatin prints were made for over 100 years. It's all in the quality of the work, the moment of capture, and how the viewing public values the finished product.

Two years ago I shot this image:

http://www.pbase.com/sapearl/image/87237117

I made a nice b/w inkjet print and it gave me a lot of pleasure. I then entered it in an annual juried competition held by a major museum. To my humbled delight it won best in show, which also carried a $1000 cash award, and the museum purchased it for their permanent collection.

Now, is that valuable? For me $1k is a lot of money. But more importantly the museum "valued" it enough, for whatever subjective reason, to award it and make it part of their permanent collection. - Stu


Will digital photographs ever be valuable? Since i am using both film and digital, i can't help having the feeling that my. Digital pictures would never be valuable (if i should get a name in photography). I cold print the pictures, but still. However the few silverprints i have made my self from my Mamiya 645, would be something else. And btw. i am not only speaking about money, but the feeling about having something unique.

[sapearl]

I have a friend who feels the same way - uses an 8x10 field camera and makes platinum prints on paper and emulsion he mixes up himself.

Yes, silver does last a long while.... but some of the better archival inks on quality art paper are supposed to be rated at 200 years.... so they claim...

.....I just can't get rid of the feeling "I wish i had this on silver film". Like thinking about some
one you loved a long time ago.

[Curtis N]

If Joe Rosenthal used a digital camera to capture the Marines raising the flag on Iwo Jima, the picture would be just as valuable. If Matthew Brady used a digital camera to capture his images of the US civil war, the pictures would be just as valuable.

The things that give an image value haven't changed. Capture a meaningful moment with skill in such a way as to evoke emotion, and you have a valuable image.

[airfrogusmc]

But I have read some interesting things about the archival properties of hard drives and CDs/DVDs. Not good.

[sapearl]

I know what you mean Allen.

I remember the original marketting hype when CD and DVD burners first came out, and how your disks would last indefinately. And then it was only 50 years, and pretty soon far less than that period of time.

As for hard drives, some folks say replace them every 5 years even many have had pretty good luck with longer lasting devices. I just keep copying my work onto bigger new drives as the prices keep falling. But for the work that I really value I print two copies: one gets matted and perhaps framed, the other goes into a portfolio book or box.

But I have read some interesting things about the archival properties of hard drives and CDs/DVDs. Not good.

[TheHoff]

I agree with Curtis.

But I have read some interesting things about the archival properties of hard drives and CDs/DVDs. Not good.

And nearly every colour slide shot in the last 50 years of the 20th century, apart from Kodachrome, has likely suffered major shifts or fading. If you don't keep up on your archiving and duplication (which, with digital, is laughably easy and 100% faithful) you'll lose your images no matter what the format or emulsion.

[Naturalist]

I read somewhere many years ago that Ansel Adams asked an investor what he could do to provide for his estate and the advice he was given was to stop shooting and spend his final years making his B&W prints, then burn the negatives so no more original Ansel Adams prints could be made ever again.

If true, I suspect that would have been great advice for as the years go by his limited prints would become more valuable, as the numbers slowly diminished ver time due to fires, floods, etc.

To the OP's point, which is a good one, I suspect the only way a digital file may be valuable over time is if you have full control of the image, never posting it, (except perhaps as small thumbnails) and used it to create and sell only a limited number of original artwork.

I don't know but you definitely raised a good point.

[RDKirk]

Yes, silver does last a long while.... but some of the better archival inks on quality art paper are supposed to be rated at 200 years.... so they claim...

We don't have any better idea how long a "silver halide" image made today will last we do the better archival inks and archival inkjet papers will last. The materials of today are completely different from the materials of yesterday. The silver content is different, the chemical content of the water is different, the chemical content of the paper is different--even the chemical content of the air is different. What could last for 100 years when 50 of them were before WWII may not last so long when it starts out 50 years after WWII.

The same guy--Wilhelm--is the singular authority on archival photographic print materilas today as he was when he was testing silver materials 30 years ago, so his claims for 200-year-inkjet longevity is as valid as his claims for modern silver halide material longevity.

I think images kept on disks will have limited collector value mainly because they aren't out where they can be seen. Tangibility gives most art its collector value, that and a certain amount of scarcity, which is something else an image on a disk doesn't have.

But that is "collector" value. The artistic value exists because of the intangible qualities of the art. We don't have the original manuscript of "Romeo and Juliet," but we value the work. If the Louvre were to burn to the ground and all its paintings within it were reduced to ashes, the copies of the paintings in all forms would still have intrinsic artistic value, if not collector value.

As far as archival qualities of the image for their intrinsic, intangible value, there is a reason we still have cockroaches but T-rex is extinct: "Multiplication and dispersal always trump armor."

A true story: When hurricane Katrina was bearing down on New Orleans, a computer technician at the New Orleans Veterans Administration hospital was downloading all the patients' medical records onto a set of hard drives. He flew out of New Orleans with them in a briefcase to the Houston VA hospital. He uploaded them, and within a few hours, any New Orleans patient wherever he had been evacuated had full access to his records.

The paper records kept by the other New Orleans hospitals were lost.

My mother died a couple of months ago. I've taken her old photo albums and I've been scanning them and sending them to all our computer literate relatives, and they have been doing the same thing with their parents' photographs. Multiplication and dispersal trumps armor every time.

[airfrogusmc]

I agree with Curtis.



And nearly every colour slide shot in the last 50 years of the 20th century, apart from Kodachrome, has likely suffered major shifts or fading. If you don't keep up on your archiving and duplication (which, with digital, is laughably easy and 100% faithful) you'll lose your images no matter what the format or emulsion.

Jay, you can archival do processing with B&W negs and prints with no change for 100 years. And Kodachrome meets archival standards as do die transfer prints.

[airfrogusmc]

We don't have any better idea how long a "silver halide" image made today will last we do the better archival inks and archival inkjet papers will last. The materials of today are completely different from the materials of yesterday. The silver content is different, the chemical content of the water is different, the chemical content of the paper is different--even the chemical content of the air is different. What could last for 100 years when 50 of them were before WWII may not last so long when it starts out 50 years after WWII.

The same guy--Wilhelm--is the singular authority on archival photographic print materilas today as he was when he was testing silver materials 30 years ago, so his claims for 200-year-inkjet longevity is as valid as his claims for modern silver halide material longevity.

Its not the print that the huge problem now its what you've stored the original images on.

[firedogg]

" I wonder if we'll ever see a "John Smith" Trust which is charged with overseeing a collection of Hard Drives in the same manner the Ansel Adams Trust shepherds his collection of prints and negs. "

Well maybe not quite the same, but now it's called Getty Images archiving millions of images. I'm betting they have a good handle on the worth of digital images and are planning for the future with them.

[RDKirk]

Its not the print that the huge problem now its what you've stored the original images on.

Modern paper for silver halide prints has no magical qualities over modern paper for inkjet prints, as far a prints go.

As far as saving the image itself, I'll repeat again: Multiplication and dispersal trump armor. A thousand digital copies floating around the Internet are more likely to survive than ten or twelve hard copies on walls or in basements. Heck, once a document reaches the Internet, it may exist as long as human civilization survives.

[airfrogusmc]

Modern paper for silver halide prints has no magical qualities over modern paper for inkjet prints, as far a prints go.

As far as saving the image itself, I'll repeat again: Multiplication and dispersal trump armor. A thousand digital copies floating around the Internet are more likely to survive than ten or twelve hard copies on walls or in basements. Heck, once a document reaches the Internet, it may exist as long as human civilization survives.

I'm talking about the original files stored on hard drives and CDs/DVDs that could be problematic over time. And if they're floating all over the internet they certainly aren't in any size I would want my best worked to be stored at.

[TheHoff]

One tangential point is that professional labs charge the same or more to make a digital print as they do a traditional darkroom b/w print. For a 20 x 24 size:

Epson 11880 Giclee: $55.00
Lightjet: $47.50
Traditional b/w silver halide: $42.00

So to make a gallery hanging display, matted and framed, costs about the same no matter digital or film. If the physical cost to the artist is the same, the value when purchased as art should be the same as well. The mistaken assumption in the first post is that because it is digital it can be reproduced infinitely and without cost -- and while that is true for displaying on a screen -- hanging on the wall, the prints should be similarly valued.

The origin of the art print is immaterial with some film shooters, rather than using traditional prints and chemicals, are having the negatives scanned and using a Lightjet for high quality prints. It also saves the time of manual dodging and burning of each one as it can be done once -- does that lower the value of the print?

[TheHoff]

I'm talking about the original files stored on hard drives and CDs/DVDs that could be problematic over time. And if they're floating all over the internet they certainly aren't in any size I would want my best worked to be stored at.

The one benefit of digital storage is that it grows exponentially. I think very few of us have catalogs that couldn't fit totally on the current maximum drive size of 2 terabytes. You're pretty safe if you have three copies of your catalog; two as your home backup and one off-site.

As your catalog grows, you replace the drives with the next larger size. At that step you can verify the data and if it needs to be put into another format or container, it can be done then. You never have to have shelves and shelves of old archives that are never touched since the entire catalog should fit on one piece of media. If it doesn't then you need more serious attention to your archive anyway.

[RDKirk]

I'm talking about the original files stored on hard drives and CDs/DVDs that could be problematic over time. And if they're floating all over the internet they certainly aren't in any size I would want my best worked to be stored at.

Well, then, print them and you're no worse off than with silver halide. And a thousand copies floating over the internet are more likely to survive than the negative. At this point, there is just not an argument about archivability. You can easily increase the possibility of a digital document out-surviving any document that exists only in hardcopy simply because you can so easily and quickly make and disperse more copies. That's lousy for collector value, but great for longevity.

[sjones]

Digital media should not undercut the value of a photograph, in terms of the image, as noted by many.

However, I think, and I could be wrong, that the OP is referring to the more tangible aspect of the medium rather than its archival staying power.

Possibly going off on a further tangent, when I was collecting records in high school and college, it was often a challenge to get a first edition copy of an older album or maybe a foreign import with a different cover, note Sex Pistols, Elvis Costello, and such. What do kids who like to collect do these days? A downloaded jpeg album cover, which serves its purpose, is unlikely to draw any collectable value in the future. That said, in terms of the photographer's pay, the photo on the cover (if there is one) should be as valuable as any other photo in its category from the past.

Additionally, if a photo was originally produced as a silver halide print, such as one by Ansel Adams, should a high quality inkjet version, even if issued in limited edition by the estate, attain similar investment value as an equally limited, concurrently produced wet print counterpart?

[airfrogusmc]

Well, then, print them and you're no worse off than with silver halide. And a thousand copies floating over the internet are more likely to survive than the negative. At this point, there is just not an argument about archivability. You can easily increase the possibility of a digital document out-surviving any document that exists only in hardcopy simply because you can so easily and quickly make and disperse more copies. That's lousy for collector value, but great for longevity.

I think the archival ink jet prints, die transfer and archival silver gelatin prints will all last a very long time and meet archival standards but I worry about the original source. I hand processed all of my B&W negatives and I know they are all archival. There stored properly in archival sleeves and I know they will hold up but what I worry about is my origianl high res files stored on hard drives. What I read is some cheap DVDs and CDs can have loss at 5 years and some hard drive 10 years. Knowing this I will keep backing up. But I do find this is a bit disturbing. If I forget to move something and I go back in 15 year to make print and its gone that could be very disturbing.

And archival digital prints are, depending on work and artist, sell for as much as the C print or silver gelatin prints. In fact the digital color print will outlast a C print.

[RDKirk]

I hand processed all of my B&W negatives and I know they are all archival. There stored properly in archival sleeves and I know they will hold up but what I worry about is my origianl high res files stored on hard drives. What I read is some cheap DVDs and CDs can have loss at 5 years and some hard drive 10 years.

I guess you haven't been reading what I've been writing, especially the Katrina story.

About 15 years ago, I lost the first 15 years of my work in a crate over the Pacific. I could get hit by a hurricane, but my present digital work will survive. How are your negatives going to survive a tornado strike? A fire? Any of a dozen kinds of disasters?

Multiplication and dispersal trump armor every time.

[airfrogusmc]

I lost a lot of original work in a bad divorce (don't ask). But thats much different than loosing an image because its not archival and not stored properly. The negatives, if they weren't destroyed and were stored properly would still be in very good shape as are the ones that I still have.

[RDKirk]

I lost a lot of original work in a bad divorce (don't ask). But thats much different than loosing an image because its not archival and not stored properly. The negatives, if they weren't destroyed and were stored properly would still be in very good shape as are the ones that I still have.

Loss is loss, and would have been avoided if they had been digital.

Multiplication and dispersal trump armor every time.

[airfrogusmc]

Loss is loss, and would have been avoided if they had been digital.

Multiplication and dispersal trump armor every time.

Yes but they weren't loss because of a storage issue. Whats important to me is my original work. It is to many photographers that have thought this new technology (hard drives, CDs/DVDs) was archival. Theres always that act of nature or something outside our control with anything in life but to start knowing that your work may or may not be there in 10 or 15 years is not cool to me. I do everything I can to protect my work. Back up everything on two externals. One is in a safety deposit box and comes home once a month to get updated. I also keep all of my IMPORTANT old transparencies and negatives there.

The internet is only 75 or 96 DPI. ;) It may last forever in cyberspace but its quality is suspect.

[Quad]

Electronic storage (via the internet or other methods) can be whatever resolution you choose. It looks to be the most secure form of storage and can be encrypted to make it reasonably secure. Physical media seems to be less secure from all kinds of disaster. Digital appears to be less real but is a very real thing.

I suppose a new medium is always viewed with skepticism as the old medium defines our thinking. Someday digital will likely be viewed as the gold standard and something newer will be decried as just not like digital, which of course it will not be.


As far as digital images being valuable, I will make the leap and assume that means valuable in the very narrow definition of montetary value, it seems the collector market values rarity highly and creates lots of interesting ways to define that rarity. For example an early print from a photographer is usually more highly sought than a later print (closer to the time of inspiration I suppose). So the market will make some sort of critera as to what makes something created today valuable. It may be a print the photographer made on the printer owned at the time the file was created. It really does not have to be rational just restrictive. I expect that the collector value will be for prints made by the creator or under direct supervision of the creator.

From a personal POV it does not really matter. I am more interested in making a photograph that I am happy with than worrying about the value the person I sell it to may net in a future sale it. I want it to be made as well as I am able to make it and for it to be as archival as I can reasonably make it so they receive value but beyond that I am not going to worry about it.


Valuable though is a much bigger concept than what the price tag is and images can be very valuable no matter what media they are created or stored on. If I didn't believe that I don't suppose I would be photographing.

[blue9]

I would just like to point out that :
While there are many good points about longevity and and archiving. This isn't really relevant to the term "Value".

In fact you might even say it's in conflict. Lets say a famous photographer made 5 silver prints, two of the parishes in a fire, the third is missing and another one damage because of UV. Then the last one will even get more valuable, especially if the negative is gone. Finding a the missing one, would be like finding a treasure. :razz:

[RDKirk]

While there are many good points about longevity and and archiving. This isn't really relevant to the term "Value".

Sure it is. But there are different kinds of "value."

'Way up above, I made the specific distinction between "collectors value," intrinsic artistic value, and personal value.

The only kind of value diminished from a multiplicity of identical copies (or the ability to make them) is collectors value. If someone really cares seriously about that, he should get out of the photography business entirely and into painting. Or sculpture.

Artistic and personal value are not diminished by easy duplication--they are enhanced by easy duplication.

[airfrogusmc]

Additionally, if a photo was originally produced as a silver halide print, such as one by Ansel Adams, should a high quality inkjet version, even if issued in limited edition by the estate, attain similar investment value as an equally limited, concurrently produced wet print counterpart?

I think that the AA prints that command REAL value are the ones the he himself printed.

[breal101]

I guess you haven't been reading what I've been writing, especially the Katrina story.

About 15 years ago, I lost the first 15 years of my work in a crate over the Pacific. I could get hit by a hurricane, but my present digital work will survive. How are your negatives going to survive a tornado strike? A fire? Any of a dozen kinds of disasters?

Multiplication and dispersal trump armor every time.

There are countless Katrina stories, one was jazz photographer Herman Leonard's. He lost thousands of prints to flooding but his negatives were stored in a vault in a museum. It would have been a terrible shame for those to have been lost. Living in New Orleans I know many photographers who lost their film archives due to the sheer bulk, making it impossible to put them out of harms way. Digital archives were much easier to save. To the original question, I don't see any difference between the value of digital versus film. It's the content, not the medium that makes them valuable.

[airfrogusmc]

Sure it is. But there are different kinds of "value."

'Way up above, I made the specific distinction between "collectors value," intrinsic artistic value, and personal value.

The only kind of value diminished from a multiplicity of identical copies (or the ability to make them) is collectors value. If someone really cares seriously about that, he should get out of the photography business entirely and into painting. Or sculpture.

Artistic and personal value are not diminished by easy duplication--they are enhanced by easy duplication.

Well I did kinda take the discussion off topic a bit with the discussion about archival qualities of original files vs negatives.

What usually holds value to collectors are finished pieces. RDK was talking about this. And some limited #ed prints by a known artist can be worth more to a collector because the # of images made from the original neg or file are known.

I also think the if the original source were known to have been destroyed that to could drive up the price of the prints that remain of a known photographer.

I don't think that ink jet prints will change the value of already established prices of known photographers. If an ink jet print meets the same archival standards as say a die transfer print and if the print is by a known photographer, it should hold its value.

[TheHoff]

I don't think that ink jet prints will change the value of already established prices of known photographers. If an ink jet print meets the same archival standards as say a die transfer print and if the print is by a known photographer, it should hold its value.

But as you said, by far, the most valuable Adams prints are those done by Adams himself. With ink jet or even Lightjet (traditional paper exposed by LED and wet processed), it doesn't matter who does the print; the dodge/burn/contrast was set with the original TIFF. So if Adams lived today it wouldn't matter who produced the actual print as the master had already left his 'signature' on the file.

That does change the perceptual value of a certain print (nevermind the image). With Adams' originals you are holding something that he himself processed and dipped and dried. Not so with a modern master's giclee. Maybe that was the point of the original discussion -- exact copies can be continually produced from the digital file while the possibility of making a traditional print as an original dies out when the artist is gone.

[sapearl]

Very interesting comments here Hoff. But consider this.

I certainly understand the added value that would be attributed to a print that Ansel souped himself. Finesse, expertise and his vision went into each of those prints. This was his post proecessing. Now, let's relate this to digital.

It's true that once the digital file is processed, it can easily be output to an archival digital printer 100 times.

But - if that same photographer also spent several hours experimenting with levels, masks, WB, etc. before considering his image completed, then something similar can be said for the modern photographer. See where I'm going with this? :D

Now, I certainly don't consider myself a master. But I do lovingly and painstakingly process all of my own files, sometimes run inkjet test strips, and then output the final product to the printer. Many others here do the same. How should the art world as well as collectors view these efforts?
- Stu

But as you said, by far, the most valuable Adams prints are those done by Adams himself. With ink jet or even Lightjet (traditional paper exposed by LED and wet processed), it doesn't matter who does the print; the dodge/burn/contrast was set with the original TIFF. So if Adams lived today it wouldn't matter who produced the actual print as the master had already left his 'signature' on the file.

That does change the perceptual value of a certain print (nevermind the image). With Adams' originals you are holding something that he himself processed and dipped and dried. Not so with a modern master's giclee. Maybe that was the point of the original discussion -- exact copies can be continually produced from the digital file while the possibility of making a traditional print as an original dies out when the artist is gone.

[HappySnapper90]

And archival digital prints are, depending on work and artist, sell for as much as the C print or silver gelatin prints.

I'm not seeing that at all. The rarity and popularity of a type of print can add or detract from its sale value. Most people can make a 11x14 archival inkjet color print for about $4. If I were to get a Traditional b+w film prints, an 11x14 print on pearl paper would be $20 or 5 times more expensive.

Most photographers sell silver gelatin prints for 5 to 10 times what they sell their color prints for purely on the print process. To take the method use to create the art away from its value is shortsighted. If that were the case, no one would shoot film and just use the cheapest method possible. :rolleyes:

I can get fiber based b+w film prints for $40 per 11x14, which is double the pearl paper cost and 10x the cost of inkjet prints.

[RDKirk]

I'm not seeing that at all. The rarity and popularity of a type of print can add or detract from its sale value. Most people can make a 11x14 archival inkjet color print for about $4. If I were to get a Traditional b+w film prints, an 11x14 print on pearl paper would be $20 or 5 times more expensive.

Most photographers sell silver gelatin prints for 5 to 10 times what they sell their color prints for purely on the print process. To take the method use to create the art away from its value is shortsighted. If that were the case, no one would shoot film and just use the cheapest method possible. :rolleyes:

I can get fiber based b+w film prints for $40 per 11x14, which is double the pearl paper cost and 10x the cost of inkjet prints.

People who are concerned about collectors value on that basis should get out of photography and just produce (or collect) paintings. For those same reasons, paintings will always have a higher collectors value (in general) than photographs.

[SwitchBlade]

I'm possibly coming here from a slightly different viewpoint. I know nothing about photographers. I got into photography because I liked taking photographs rather than any artistic standpoint.

Now I've recently watched a few things on BBC iPlayer about some photographers and their lives, most of whom were living around the turn of the century and the thing that struck me was that in some cases it wasn't so much who or what they captured it was they captured it at all. They captured photographs that should have been beyond the reach of technology at the time, or they were in the right place to capture changes in the world or whatever, which made them sought after.

In recent decades cameras have become cheaper, easier to use and we are at a point with the advent of digital where you no longer need to give over a room in your house to developing your photography. So now we are at a stage where it's not how you capture but who or what you capture which would make the difference. In the modern world a far lower percentage of photographers are likely to become collectible but if you are at the right place capturing the good photographs then there's no reason why it wouldn't happen.

Then if someone's work becomes collectible then their catalogue has monetary value. Just because the files are digital doesn't mean you have to make millions of copies, you can always print in limited editions. Then if you sell (or your grieving widow sells) your catalogue to a collector it falls to them as to what they do with it. If they print copies and distribute the files their purchase will lose monetary value, if not it's intrinsic value. But then collectors are in a similar position as it stands who hold the negative collections of famous photographers, they've every chance to make and sell prints, I don't know if you can duplicate negatives but if you can and the collector duplicates them and sells them on, he'd be in the same position as someone distributing the digital files of a modern photographer.

As for archival qualities of hard drives. I've got some drives coming up for 20 years old that I still store files on, they are fired up maybe once or twice a year but still chug along fine. For my photographic archive though, that sits on my file server and is mirrored between two drives in event of failure. As drive sizes increase the smallest drive (normally for mirrored backup) is dropped in favour of migrating everything to the new drive and using the previous drives as the mirrored backup. The chance of data loss is very slim and would pretty much come down to fire or flood, which would destroy old fashioned archival methods anyway. Though in theory swap the electronics on the drive and you should get data off of it post a flood.

[DC Fan]

Every time a morning newspaper publishes a picture from the fourth quarter of a night basketball game, something valuable has happened.

Every time a morning newspaper publishes a jubilation picture from the 11th inning of a late baseball game, something valuable has happened.

Digital cameras of the kind used by members of these forums, the ones based on 1990's 35mm SLR's, weren't originally intended for art photographers. They were developed by Kodak and the Associated Press for deadline shooters, to let morning papers get images in print without the delays of film processing. In that respect alone, in the cameras' ability to eliminate the delay from shutter button to newsstand, digital photographs are beyond value.

Most people see that value in print every day and don't give it a second thought.

[neilwood32]

But as you said, by far, the most valuable Adams prints are those done by Adams himself. With ink jet or even Lightjet (traditional paper exposed by LED and wet processed), it doesn't matter who does the print; the dodge/burn/contrast was set with the original TIFF. So if Adams lived today it wouldn't matter who produced the actual print as the master had already left his 'signature' on the file.

That does change the perceptual value of a certain print (nevermind the image). With Adams' originals you are holding something that he himself processed and dipped and dried. Not so with a modern master's giclee. Maybe that was the point of the original discussion -- exact copies can be continually produced from the digital file while the possibility of making a traditional print as an original dies out when the artist is gone.

I dont think the printing method makes that huge a difference. Someone can make a print from an Ansel Adams negative just as well as he did (so long as they have the right method and take the same care as he did). Same story for digital printing - its all in the recipe. Admittedly, copying Adam's process would take lots of skill and practise but it is possible.

[breal101]

One thing that has to be considered in this discussion is the fickle nature of the art and collectible market. Something that has little value today may have tremendous value sometime in the future. When I worked in the auction industry shooting catalogs I learned that much, I'm certainly no expert but I observed trends in the market over a 15 year span which is really short in the collectible market. One example is Picasso pottery, just 25 years ago when I first started shooting catalogs it was worth very little, now the perception in the market has changed and it has gained value. Nothing changed, it was never touched by the artist, he only designed them for the factory and the same number of pieces exist today as then. There is nothing saying that an artist who is hot today will remain hot, the market determines the price. And despite what some may argue that would apply to Ansel Adams, Andy Warhol, or any artist you might name. It just the way it is, the market isn't static.

[digirebelva]

I guess value depends on what you captured...a once in a lifeime event is going to be valued digital or film...Once the public gets over the perception that since they have a digital camera they can get the same shot etc..than value (at least collectors) will go up..as some have already said, value is what somebody thinks its worth..whether that be the original shooter, or someone else..and that can change with time...
Long term storage is another issue..who says that the formats we use now will still be in use 20+ years from now. We would like to think so, but just because there are millions of files of a certain type out there, does not necessarily guarantee its future existence...especially if a much better file format comes out and everyone switches to it...then it would come down to the individual to move over their collection to the new format..failure to do so could mean loss of data if there are no softwares availabel to read it. A small example, I used Autocad for 18 years..Auodesk eventually dropped support for its older file types (i.e. those created by versions 1 & 2) from its newer programs. Thus if you had not taken the time to "save-up" to a newer version, (and a lot of companies didnt have a need to, or so they thought) you could no longer open the file. Thankfully a competing vendor solved that issue by including the ability to open the files.. yes somebody came to the rescue...but for how long will they support it..to me thats the interesting problem here..

[airfrogusmc]

I dont think the printing method makes that huge a difference. Someone can make a print from an Ansel Adams negative just as well as he did (so long as they have the right method and take the same care as he did). Same story for digital printing - its all in the recipe. Admittedly, copying Adam's process would take lots of skill and practise but it is possible.

But the prints that hold the value are the ones Adams printed. I was in Sante Fe in the spring and there was a Moonrise in a gallery that had just sold for $160,000. A print printed from one of his negatives printed by someone else would be lucky to fetch a couple grand.

[SwitchBlade]

Long term storage is another issue..who says that the formats we use now will still be in use 20+ years from now. We would like to think so, but just because there are millions of files of a certain type out there, does not necessarily guarantee its future existence...especially if a much better file format comes out and everyone switches to it...then it would come down to the individual to move over their collection to the new format..

With modern storage sizes and internet access speeds it seems amazing that JPEG is still so popular when something line PNG would produce a far better image and be pretty much supported. When I started photography I was disappointed with the camera's only option of JPEG so shot in RAW to convert to PNG later only to find that you can't walk in anywhere from the street with a memory card to print your photographs. Ludicrous. JPEG had it's time, just like the classic uncompressed Bitmaps.

It's the same way that it seems that MP3 players are slowing any move to lossless music, so few support the lossless formats that people don't convert their files, if people don't have lossless music the others don't bother making the players, so the cycle continues.

[iAMB]

The toughest part of digital is getting these darn images off the memory card and into prints. We get to enjoy a "preview" on the screen. Film users must print and therefore create a piece of art in order to view their images. I still love film, and I am tempted to to reach into that whole world of photography

[sapearl]

Did you ever do any wet darkroom printing yourself?

The toughest part of digital is getting these darn images off the memory card and into prints. We get to enjoy a "preview" on the screen. Film users must print and therefore create a piece of art in order to view their images. I still love film, and I am tempted to to reach into that whole world of photography

[HappySnapper90]

People who are concerned about collectors value on that basis should get out of photography and just produce (or collect) paintings. For those same reasons, paintings will always have a higher collectors value (in general) than photographs.

What? I was talking about fine art photography sales. What are you talking about?

Film users must print and therefore create a piece of art in order to view their images. I still love film, and I am tempted to to reach into that whole world of photography

Ever hear of slide film? No print needed to view it. Just a mounted exposure and a light source. A projector will do much better! And I scan the negative film I have developed, again no need to make a print to view a film exposure.

[FlyingPhotog]

The toughest part of digital is getting these darn images off the memory card and into prints. We get to enjoy a "preview" on the screen. Film users must print and therefore create a piece of art in order to view their images. I still love film, and I am tempted to to reach into that whole world of photography

I've yet to see any image on a monitor that can match the shear "Holy Sh*t" factor of a well exposed and projected slide...

There is a depth to a transparency that neither a print nor a screen image can match.

[iAMB]

I've yet to see any image on a monitor that can match the shear "Holy Sh*t" factor of a well exposed and projected slide...

There is a depth to a transparency that neither a print nor a screen image can match.

All valid points I will say. I guess i meant to say that many digital users are satisfied with images sitting on a hard drive or memory card. When I think that they should be printed or something more than just a projection.

[blue9]

Very interesting comments here Hoff. But consider this.

I certainly understand the added value that would be attributed to a print that Ansel souped himself. Finesse, expertise and his vision went into each of those prints. This was his post proecessing. Now, let's relate this to digital.

It's true that once the digital file is processed, it can easily be output to an archival digital printer 100 times.

But - if that same photographer also spent several hours experimenting with levels, masks, WB, etc. before considering his image completed, then something similar can be said for the modern photographer. See where I'm going with this? :D

- Stu

But once you are done with the creative post processing, you can store the digital result and calibration and the reprint as many times you want. While a photographer that do the traditional photographer that do the darkroom work him self, like using he's hands as masks and so on. Would never be able to create two exact pictures. Also creating really good prints are time consuming so he would never be able to mass produce he's work in the modern sense of the word.

[ameerat42]

Why should digital technology pose such a problem? Good work will always prevail. IMHO. Am...

[RDKirk]

I said: People who are concerned about collectors value on that basis should get out of photography and just produce (or collect) paintings. For those same reasons, paintings will always have a higher collectors value (in general) than photographs.

You said:
What? I was talking about fine art photography sales. What are you talking about?

Same thing. The price (not value, price) of fine art photography sales is driven by characteristics that make the item a "collectable," not by its intrinsic artistic nature. The number of existing copies, for instance, is a characteristic of collectability, not art.

A painter can only paint a painting once--even if he tries to paint the same painting again, it won't be an exact duplicate. That and the supposed higher level of craftsmanship required for painting (another element of "collectability," not art) makes painting in general more "collectable" than photography in general.

[RDKirk]

I've yet to see any image on a monitor that can match the shear "Holy Sh*t" factor of a well exposed and projected slide...

There is a depth to a transparency that neither a print nor a screen image can match.

Yeah, but when you drag out the slide projector and everybody suddenly remembers they have somewhere else to be.

[digirebelva]

A painter can only paint a painting once--even if he tries to paint the same painting again, it won't be an exact duplicate. That and the supposed higher level of craftsmanship required for painting (another element of "collectability," not art) makes painting in general more "collectable" than photography in general.

I agree 100% with that statement..unless your name is already known..people will put a higher value on something they themselves cant do..(look at what people pay for services they cant do) as I said earlier as long as the public has the mentality of "I have a digital camera I can do that", the value of "most" photographs will never approach that of paintings...Saw that first hand when I did my first Art Show this month, my booth would be filled and received accolades out the butt about my images...only sold 5 small ones..but I heard the comment "Its only a picture" a few times...(also heard in reply to that "But Its A Good Picture, the lighting, the scene" etc...) if they were paintings, I'm betting I would have done much better..I know the lady (painter) across from me doing her first show as well had a very good day even though nobody knew who she was..

[12Step]

I sell my digital prints online. I'd make a lot more sales if I promoted more. From what I have seen, the customer interested in a print for their walls doesnt really care how the image was taken.


12

[digirebelva]

[quote=12Step;8909787]I sell my digital prints online. I'd make a lot more sales if I promoted more. From what I have seen, the customer interested in a print for their walls doesnt really care how the image was taken./quote]

Youre right they dont, but the price they are willing to pay for that print is much lower than what they would pay for a painting of the same size. A print is a purchase in most cases for them, while a painting is considered an "investment" in most cases...

I also sell my digital prints onlne, but comparing my price point to a painting is an effort in futility..how much can you get for a framed 20x30, v's how much will a framed 20x30 painting cost you...:(

[12Step]

Online I sell my 8X10 digital prints for $20.00 plus $2.00 for shipping. At work, I can usually get the prints printed for free, so on Etsy where I sell my prints it costs me .65 cents to list it (it's good for four months), $1.65 for the photo envelope, I bought slips in bulk, and $2.00 to ship it to the customer (which is covered because the customer pays for it.)

After it is all said and done I make about $17.00 profit (give or take a buck.) As I said, I would make a lot more sales (online) if I promoted more but I don't have the time with a job and two kids. (Be advised that I didn't include Paypal fees)

I've done some research and I have been told that my prices are about right.

I do pretty good offline as well promoting the old fashioned way, but again there are time issues.


12

[digirebelva]

How are your sales on Etsy?

[12Step]

They would be better if I promoted more. The overhead is low, so to me it's worth it. My sales tend to come in waves. I know other photographers on there that do better than me because they promote, shoot constantly, and renew.


12

[RDKirk]

After it is all said and done I make about $17.00 profit (give or take a buck.)

Only if you count your own time as worthless.

[sapearl]

I agree with the mechanics of the what you are saying blue - but how should this impact the value of a digital print if it should at all, for a respected or famous photographer?

Sure, once you've created the master "template" you can bang out as many "originals" as you wish.

But then this is where the concept of open and limited edition prints come into play. Limited Edition = fewer prints = greater perceived value; Open edition = more prints flooding the market = less perceived value. Again, a straightforward supply and demand situation.

But perhaps more importantly, there still had to have been a creative talent behind the work.... somebody who had the timing and eye to visualize and then create the image, ultimately on paper in many cases (for those seeking framed wall art) in the FIRST place. THAT only happens once for a truly unique shot, nobody else had ever done it, and the image should be valued for those reasons...... in an ideal world, of course.

Should the value of his/her genius be diminished just because he breaks his back only once for what may end up as many prints of the image?

I do understand the concept though of Paintings vs. photographs. Before he passed away in 2003, my father was a rather prolific artist who amassed a fairly large body of work across nearly seven decades. I watched him work many evenings and can appreciate the effort he put into his works. In no way do I compare my efforts to his great talent and vision.

The last painting he sold in the '90's went for $5,000. This is somewhat of a benchmark that we use for pricing the remaining works in the collection, against the day that there may be purchasing interest. One would think that perceived value on the part of an investor should be rather high for his work; these are one of a kind, and he's obviously not producing any more.

But once you are done with the creative post processing, you can store the digital result and calibration and the reprint as many times you want. While a photographer that do the traditional photographer that do the darkroom work him self, like using he's hands as masks and so on. Would never be able to create two exact pictures. Also creating really good prints are time consuming so he would never be able to mass produce he's work in the modern sense of the word.

[hpulley]

Why do people say the internet stores low res? I can store full res on flickr. I back them up myself too of course as I don't trust cloud storage, other services have lost data before. But I put up full res so I can print them from there if need be.

[sapearl]

Probably because most folks are only viewing at 72 DPI, on inexpensive uncalibrated monitors. Sure you can store a larger file size but viewing is a different story.

Why do people say the internet stores low res? I can store full res on flickr. I back them up myself too of course as I don't trust cloud storage, other services have lost data before. But I put up full res so I can print them from there if need be.

[12Step]

Only if you count your own time as worthless.

Uh, no it's not worthless if you enjoy doing it.


12

[RDKirk]

Probably because most folks are only viewing at 72 DPI, on inexpensive uncalibrated monitors. Sure you can store a larger file size but viewing is a different story.

You can view at the larger size, too. Storage "on the internet" is just storage on a remote server using the Internet as a conduit.

[HappySnapper90]

Why do people say the internet stores low res? I can store full res on flickr.

Why ever put full resolution on flicker for anyone to download? That is how someone had their family photo "stolen" and used for large print advertising (somewhere in Europe). Putting a full-resolution photo online allows anyone, unless password protected, to take a free copy of your photo.

And most likely if you upload any photo to flicker, you are giving flicker the right to do anything they want with your photo (based upon the user agreement for your flicker account) and possibly even selling or licensing your photo to a 3rd party. Check into it before you go hog wild putting full-res photos on a popular image site.

Flicker is likely a "free" site, you get what you pay for and they need a way to pay for their site costs.

[TheHoff]

Why ever put full resolution on flicker for anyone to download? That is how someone had their family photo "stolen" and used for large print advertising (somewhere in Europe). Putting a full-resolution photo online allows anyone, unless password protected, to take a free copy of your photo.

And most likely if you upload any photo to flicker, you are giving flicker the right to do anything they want with your photo (based upon the user agreement for your flicker account) and possibly even selling or licensing your photo to a 3rd party. Check into it before you go hog wild putting full-res photos on a popular image site.

Flicker is likely a "free" site, you get what you pay for and they need a way to pay for their site costs.

Flickr never claims any rights to use your images except where you put them (in your photostream or in a group you submitted them to or on the Flickr front page if it is popular). I've read the user agreements.

You have the ability to make any photo entirely private. You also have the ability to turn off full-size downloads so that if you use it for archival storage no one else has access to the full images. This is on a "Pro" account which I pay something like $20 a year for.

I like you how you put "likely a free site" since it makes clear what you know about it is nothing but assumption.