Opinion on selling reprint

benwang

Well-Known Member
I had a long talk with a friend about the tendency of how people try to turn photography into Art paint.

There is a tendency that more people are selling their photo with a "limited edition" re-print. They will destroy the negative and produce 1-5 reprint only. Some of these reprint end up in auction and sell with a crazy price tag.

IMO, I find it unbearable to destroy the good negative. If my photo is good enough, I wish it can be pass to anyone who wish to see it and can have a chance to get the reprint with a reasonable price and appreaciate / inspire by my photo. Destorying the negative and make it for a limited people only re-print is not what I like.

However, I would like to know what other think. Please if you have an opinion, I love to hear.

Ben
 

daleh

Well-Known Member
>I agree. I recently found some negatives I had shot in the seventies. I went right out and got 8 x 12 prints made of two of my long lost beauties. If a picture is worth fifty or a hundred dollars, I don't see how it would matter if 3 or 4 had been sold or 30 or 40 spread around the country. If one were truly producing outstanding works of art, one should only make one print, preferably a dye transfer (which will last for a couple of hundred years) and then destroy the neg. Couldn't do it myself, though.
 

coyot

Well-Known Member
> Benwang,

I completely agree with you that destroying an original negative is unbearable. I think in the next few years this will be less of an issue as more photographers start shooting in digital. (No negative!). But for now, you won't catch me destroying my negatives or anybody elses negatives!

Michael.
 

jsmisc

Well-Known Member
Michael,
I wonder if it might not become more important rather than less to retain negatives as digital takes hold, since as time goes by there will be fewer negatives around. Somewhere in my loft if I can find them, I have negatives going back nearly 5O years. At least I hope I have. I must go and look when it's not quite so cold up there and see if they are there and if they are OK. These are of interest to me and possibly to my family in the future. But maybe the digital pictures saved to CD which I have begun to do now will also be around in 50 years; although I don't think that CD's have the same sense of preciousness as negatives and I don't know if we (or somebody who is still around then) will be able to read them in 50 years time. I suspect that it will always be possible to print from negatives even if environmentally frowned upon - unless it is banned.

John
 

coyot

Well-Known Member
>John,

You are absolutely right. I think negatives will increase in value as time marches. So many people now when they get older start to throw away the actual prints ... having long ago discarded the negatives. Digital will mean even fewer negatives.

One day, especially for acknowledged photoraphers, there may be a great, great value associated with an original negative!

Michael.
 

smartrav

Well-Known Member
If you thow away the negative and your customer has a problem with his print I think you are in big trouble. I have seen hundreds of Agfa prints come back because of paper defects. I have some myself. Or What if you didn't wash the print good enough? If you sell a print, at high enough price, you should guarantee it will never go bad in youre lifetime or you will re-make it. Toss the negative and and expect to return the buyers money with interest or risk being sued.

Interesting side note.....any lawyers out there? Can the seller be sued if the print goes bad? and he doesn't replace it?

Dave
 
W

wojo

For what its worth:
Last month I backed up about 20 gig of scans to DVD. Tried to read back a couple last week, and found about half un readable.......
Very happy to still have thumbnails, jpeg mirrors and the negs. Never any trouble with CD backup but doubt I'll trust DVD-r again.
jw
 

jsmisc

Well-Known Member
Oh dear.
I wonder what the matter was. I have just bought a DVD rewriter but have not used it to back up yet. That doesn't sound promising
John
 

benwang

Well-Known Member
I think if we sell the photo like an art paint, the way the owner preserve the reprint/how they protect their invertment will be up to them. As long as the time to delivery is perfect! Afterall they know well enough that the negative is destory and hence the value! it is an unique art work and we are not talking about a couple of hundreds, but if someone is willing to pay, over millions.
It just IMHO, it is not right to do so, photograph and art paint are fundumentally different, by destorying the film and try to make them the same is wrong.

Ben
 

redwood

Active Member
>i am in the fortunate position that I take images for myself and that please me. It is a happy by product that some images are sold via stock sales and framed images, but the thought of creating something for myself in the first instance and then destroying it I find disturbing. Money isn't everything but at the end of the day everyone has a price to disregard there principles, I wonder what it would take financially for the proposition to work for me and for me to prostitute myself ( in the photographic sense of course).Whats my price, come to that whats your price for your principles.

Thats my thought for the end of the year 2003, sorry REM are playing Bad Day on the PC and I am having a reflective moment.

Happy new year Contax users

Regards

David
 
F

farnborough

Hello David John, I dont agree. You cant do more than eat and live well, with a little comfort, and family, etc. But come to think of it, I am sure, I have no price.........and I wouldn't sell my negatives or dias for anything in the world. HAPPY NEW YEAR all of you, and look after yourselves.
 

daleh

Well-Known Member
> Sadly I resurrected two old negs that I shot in the seventies. Beautiful prints were made at that time and lost. I just had them digtially reprinted and the results were very disappointing. Some sharpness seems to have been lost as well as color balance and saturation and 8x12's were grainier than I remember. Of course these were Kodacolor film from 1977 and 1979. I am sure today's fine films would preserve their already superior results much better and
 

franco65

Member
> Hello all, a few words about picture preservation. I took a color picture (portrait) almost 40 years ago, in 1965, and I remember I had it printed by Kodak in Stockholm where I used to live then. I have kept it in a normal photo album, without any special precautions, and to this day there has been no fading and no color alteration and now I admire it as the first day, with all the appropriate skin tones. At that time Kodak processing was very expensive, but as time proved , well worth it. I do not know if a modern fast processing, especially digital paper, will yield the same durability in time. Best wishes for the new year Franco

type your text here!
 

franco65

Member
> Hello again, another case happened to me about picture preservation. It was a portrait of my grandfather in June 1970 where the picture itself has been great to these days. One year ago I was asked another print and because I had the original negative, I did another print, but with my disappointment the print from the negative, in order to preserve the skin tones, has shifted the gray of the clothes, to blue, and it looks a little bit funny. So, I did a reproduction from the print and this one looks much better. This in my experience tells that negatives are more susceptible to color shift. Please note that the negatives were kept protected from light in a proper container. This is my grain of salt Regards Franco

type your text here!
 

daleh

Well-Known Member
> I have a Kodachrome slide of my father holding me in his arms at the beach in Connecticut at age 20 months. That would have been Summer of 1941. The slide is still indistinguishable from new with full color fidelity and saturation. Truly amazing! I am going to take some shots of my wife, self, sons and grandchildren on Kodachrome as soon as the weather improves. The resulting slides will be given to my sons for their grandchildren (oldest grandchild is six so that will be a long way in the future).
 
Top