Hi all,
I'm new here and had a few questions after reviewing a number of different threads. First off, I see many people printing their own photos instead of using a lab. Why? What are the pros/cons?
Second, and I think this ties to the first question. Why not use "standard" print sizes. It would seem to be better for buyers so when they frame or reframe something, they have many more options instead of custom only.
Thanks in advance!
You need to be a member of Art Fair Insiders to add comments!
As a master printer and finisher all I can say is that if you're interested in cheap prints you're going to get what you pay for. The quality of your print will depend on how good the person making the print. I just went to an art fair and I hate to say a bunch of the canvas prints were underwhelming. I think there were several people using online canvas printer and they were pretty flat. I may have a overcritical eye, I have printed museums and galleries around the world including the Warhol Museum.
I guess the question is, does the quality I get from printing my own prints or from your lab justify the cost?
If you'd like to really see how the rest of the art show world feels about it, read the threads on the NAIA FB forum. I can't give you a direct link, but it's near the top. The disagreement here is so intense that you can fry eggs on it.
Standard sizes - the majority of my work is non-standard sizes. I offer the option for a print but I sell most of it framed. Unless it is a shipping situation where the person doesn't want to pay the extra shipping costs I always try to up sell to a frame because the size is non-standard it costs a lot more to have it framed by a framer. I generally get at least 50% of my print sales wanting to exchange the print for the framed version after they have gotten a quote from a framing shop.
Printing - I do all my own prints except for prints on metal. I have held off on bringing metal prints, other than a couple samples, to art shows because, for me, the line is drawn not that I don't print them, but I can't. I would prefer to print my own because I have had issues ordering. One large one I've had to send back twice now because of flaws. Another one I forgot to change the color space to sRGB and it came back a completely different color.
I went to digital because I wanted complete control of the process. When I got my first digital camera my husband asked me if I would miss the anticipation of getting the prints back from the lab. I think he was kidding me because he had heard me cuss so many times when I got prints back. They would color correct when I told them not to. They would change the lighting. It was a huge hassle. Even in a professional lab you can get a new person who can screw them up.
What? "you cannot be a "art" photographer without also being a "printer"." That's ridiculous and sort of insulting. I totally disagree.
I consider myself a fine art photographer and do zero printing. I send everything away and have the professionals print whether it is an 8x12 print or more recently a 3x7 foot canvas.
You don't have to "control every bit of the printing process" to make art. If you think that, I feel it's micro managing. A good photograph sells without micro managing.
Sure you want to get colors correct but it will sell without wringing y9oru hands trying to get everything to perfection. Plus you can GET perfection from a printer, it's not that hard.
I'm not saying I'm anti-printing your own but saying you are not an art photographer because you don't print your own rubs me the wrong way. You do what you are good at, the last thing I want to spend my money on is a printer and cartridges.
Sams, Costco and those places I would not go to but there are many good places that you can have one on one conversations to get prints perfect (I guess in your own eyes). .
Barry Vangrov > Rod MelotteAugust 28, 2012 at 3:34pm
I didn't intend to insult you Rod and it's just my personal opinion. But how can an artist not "micro manage" every step of their work if the purpose is to create art and not just sell pictures?
If you put your name on the finished piece as the creator of any type of art - whether it's a photographic, a painting or a wood carving, you have a responsibility to have kept total control of the entire process. (As I stated above "its fine to use a custom lab to print work ... but the photographer has to supervise and control every bit of the printing process".)
To quote Ansel: "You don't take a photograph, you make it". One cannot simply detach the print making process from the finished work of art. Not keeping control of the printing may not make one a less talented artist but it certainly makes one a less complete one. As I said, just my opinion.
Rod Melotte > Barry VangrovAugust 28, 2012 at 4:13pm
sigh! LOL
So do you make your own paper then? Do you carve your own frames? If you buy a frame are you not losing total control and letting some mass producer ruin your artwork then? Unless you feel a frame is not part of the artwork. At what point do you let others take control.
I KNOW I'm not a "complete" artist. Hell, I don't think I'm an artist at all. Photography is much to easy to call myself an artist. I spend hours on a computer having fun and people call my work art and sure I'm delivering a piece tomorrow and charging $1K (it's 3x7 feet) and to me it's a pretty picture that I had fun with, to them it's art.
So the real question then is - what is art, who decides what art is and when does a person become an artist. I believe "artists" take themselves MUCH to seriously.
I dislike being called an artist.
(I was not actually insulted)
Barry Vangrov > Rod MelotteAugust 28, 2012 at 5:25pm
Yes I even chop down the trees myself to get the wood to make the frames!
Geoff Coe > Barry VangrovAugust 28, 2012 at 7:21pm
Replies
As a master printer and finisher all I can say is that if you're interested in cheap prints you're going to get what you pay for. The quality of your print will depend on how good the person making the print. I just went to an art fair and I hate to say a bunch of the canvas prints were underwhelming. I think there were several people using online canvas printer and they were pretty flat. I may have a overcritical eye, I have printed museums and galleries around the world including the Warhol Museum.
I guess the question is, does the quality I get from printing my own prints or from your lab justify the cost?
If you'd like to really see how the rest of the art show world feels about it, read the threads on the NAIA FB forum. I can't give you a direct link, but it's near the top. The disagreement here is so intense that you can fry eggs on it.
NAIA Facebook Forum
Standard sizes - the majority of my work is non-standard sizes. I offer the option for a print but I sell most of it framed. Unless it is a shipping situation where the person doesn't want to pay the extra shipping costs I always try to up sell to a frame because the size is non-standard it costs a lot more to have it framed by a framer. I generally get at least 50% of my print sales wanting to exchange the print for the framed version after they have gotten a quote from a framing shop.
Printing - I do all my own prints except for prints on metal. I have held off on bringing metal prints, other than a couple samples, to art shows because, for me, the line is drawn not that I don't print them, but I can't. I would prefer to print my own because I have had issues ordering. One large one I've had to send back twice now because of flaws. Another one I forgot to change the color space to sRGB and it came back a completely different color.
I went to digital because I wanted complete control of the process. When I got my first digital camera my husband asked me if I would miss the anticipation of getting the prints back from the lab. I think he was kidding me because he had heard me cuss so many times when I got prints back. They would color correct when I told them not to. They would change the lighting. It was a huge hassle. Even in a professional lab you can get a new person who can screw them up.
What? "you cannot be a "art" photographer without also being a "printer"." That's ridiculous and sort of insulting. I totally disagree.
I consider myself a fine art photographer and do zero printing. I send everything away and have the professionals print whether it is an 8x12 print or more recently a 3x7 foot canvas.
You don't have to "control every bit of the printing process" to make art. If you think that, I feel it's micro managing. A good photograph sells without micro managing.
Sure you want to get colors correct but it will sell without wringing y9oru hands trying to get everything to perfection. Plus you can GET perfection from a printer, it's not that hard.
I'm not saying I'm anti-printing your own but saying you are not an art photographer because you don't print your own rubs me the wrong way. You do what you are good at, the last thing I want to spend my money on is a printer and cartridges.
Sams, Costco and those places I would not go to but there are many good places that you can have one on one conversations to get prints perfect (I guess in your own eyes). .
I didn't intend to insult you Rod and it's just my personal opinion. But how can an artist not "micro manage" every step of their work if the purpose is to create art and not just sell pictures?
If you put your name on the finished piece as the creator of any type of art - whether it's a photographic, a painting or a wood carving, you have a responsibility to have kept total control of the entire process. (As I stated above "its fine to use a custom lab to print work ... but the photographer has to supervise and control every bit of the printing process".)
To quote Ansel: "You don't take a photograph, you make it". One cannot simply detach the print making process from the finished work of art. Not keeping control of the printing may not make one a less talented artist but it certainly makes one a less complete one. As I said, just my opinion.
sigh! LOL
So do you make your own paper then? Do you carve your own frames? If you buy a frame are you not losing total control and letting some mass producer ruin your artwork then? Unless you feel a frame is not part of the artwork. At what point do you let others take control.
I KNOW I'm not a "complete" artist. Hell, I don't think I'm an artist at all. Photography is much to easy to call myself an artist. I spend hours on a computer having fun and people call my work art and sure I'm delivering a piece tomorrow and charging $1K (it's 3x7 feet) and to me it's a pretty picture that I had fun with, to them it's art.
So the real question then is - what is art, who decides what art is and when does a person become an artist. I believe "artists" take themselves MUCH to seriously.
I dislike being called an artist.
(I was not actually insulted)
Yes I even chop down the trees myself to get the wood to make the frames!
That's nothing: I grind my own lenses!! ;-)
Sadly I had to send out some work to a printer and all I got back was a pretty picture.
-
1
-
2
-
3
of 3 Next