Do you think that is important to the patron? Will that help make sells?
Yes, I think it does. I have been selling the odd prints here and there to two different collectors. Both prefer Ilfachrome process, although I’ve been able to get them to accept RA4 from digital files. I searched long and hard for a custom ilfachrome lab in Los Angeles – the custom labs don’t do them any more. (I can still get a pushbutton Ilfachrome, but I want a custom print. If you don’t know the difference, please don’t comment.) So I shoot in film, as they insist on it, or use images from the archives, send out for high res drum scans, and print RA4 from a digital file.
Neither of them will even look at work done from a digital source. They aren’t uneducated – they don’t like the look of digital. They prefer some grain, and the softer look of film. They also prefer the color pop, so since they got the money, they get to call the tune.
I’ve noticed the same thing in galleries, and think it is a means to add cachet to the image – from that perspective it is a selling point.
Well, in my humble opinion,
I think it is more difficult to take good photos with film than with digital cameras- it requires more talent (if that is what you mean by film??).
With digital, it’s too easy to change lighting, the focus, the color, etc.
But with film, those things can not be done with a push of a button. (or at least as far as my knowledge in camera goes…that’s what I know).
—-
Picture taker:
"each medium presents a challenge of its own"
I guess that is very true.
I guess I’m biased because I personally like film cameras more than digital ones.
References :
I don’t know. Maybe it was not a high falootin’ gallery, but I was just in a show with 8 other photographers. We each had 8-10-12 images, so there were just over 100 framed prints for sale. 12 sold. I showed 9 and sold 5 out of those 12. All 5 were digital and this was very prominently disclosed with a tag on the frame. The one I bought was also digital. The one that sold for over $300 was also digital.
~~~
And I respectfully disagree with runwithme’s statement that it is harder to take good pictures with film. I’ve been at this for 50-some years, including at least 35-40 where I used film and "knew what I was doing." I would say that each medium presents challenges of its own and it can be even more difficult to get a good image with digital than it can with some films. Shooting digital is more like shooting transparency film than print film.
~~~
runwithme, thanks for not taking offense! I love film, but find that "these days" it is so much easier for ME to control the whole process if I stay within the digital world. I generally try to keep my images from looking "too digital" and remain true to my roots in film. If I had a color darkroom and infinite time, maybe I’d still be using film. This is not what I do for a living, though…
References :
I can only speak to black and white photo-art.
What collectors look for is an accomplished artist who is in control from the beginning concept to the final framing and mounting of the print.
This includes the choice of film, how they developed it, their skills printing the image on fiber-based paper and processing it using archival techniques. Any interruption of the process by a second set of hands, lowers the value in the eyes of the potential buyer.
I have not included the obvious choices made by the artist like lens choice, subject, location or lighting all of which impact the image as well but are basic enough factors that even if the film leaves their hands and is processed and printed by another, the style of the photographer has been set at the time of the exposure.
References :
digiPro
Yes, I think it does. I have been selling the odd prints here and there to two different collectors. Both prefer Ilfachrome process, although I’ve been able to get them to accept RA4 from digital files. I searched long and hard for a custom ilfachrome lab in Los Angeles – the custom labs don’t do them any more. (I can still get a pushbutton Ilfachrome, but I want a custom print. If you don’t know the difference, please don’t comment.) So I shoot in film, as they insist on it, or use images from the archives, send out for high res drum scans, and print RA4 from a digital file.
Neither of them will even look at work done from a digital source. They aren’t uneducated – they don’t like the look of digital. They prefer some grain, and the softer look of film. They also prefer the color pop, so since they got the money, they get to call the tune.
I’ve noticed the same thing in galleries, and think it is a means to add cachet to the image – from that perspective it is a selling point.
References :
I’d say it depends on who’s buying the prints. For "fine art" photography, I think the process is what sets it apart from just "prints". And I think a lot of aficionados would snub their noses at digital photography, but that’s not to say that attention to detail in the digital process couldn’t produce a valuable print in the same way it would with one made from film. But fhotoace made the best point, the judge for what constitutes value in photographic prints tends to give the most credit to the singular process an artist takes from the time the film is selected all the way down to framing and gallery placement. By far, his answer is spot on.
References :
to some, others may be different, we all got our own opinions.
References :
depends on the person
myself if i like the print i like it, how it was recorded means nothing to me if i like the print
References :