What makes a Fine Art Print

I'm slowly building my new website. And of course want to sell my work, I have looked around the web at other sites and well to me anyway the term Fine Art Print is totally misleading and confusing.

I have seen some selling "so called" Fine art Prints printed straight off their home printer. I don't call these Fine Art. I'm not talking about the professional Epson that give a superb job although I still don't think of this as Fine Art although a much better print than the normal home printer, I'm talking about the not so professional printers at home pumping out images that is easy to see the gradations and such in the image.

The prints I am going to sell are hand crafted, hand made Cibachromes, embossed with a hand made logo and come with a certificate of authenticity to say that no digital process has gone into the print. What you receive as a print is a moment in time untouched by modern digital processors. That may seen extreme to a lot of people but a print from the guys I use would blow you away. Problem is they charge for it and then I have to also.

What I'm getting at that a hand crafted Ansel Adams B&W print is considered Fine Art, but Epson Prints????

What do you think constitutes Fine Art Prints.

Keith,

Here are a couple of questions for you. Why do you consider that a hand crafted, hand made Cibacrhome print is a fine-art print? What is it about such a print that makes is so much better than a print make on an Epson inkjet printer?

Keith: I prefer to stay away from labels like "fine art prints" and "fine art photographer". They don't truly state anything, are quite subjective, and can be looked at as conceit and arrogance. Stating that the print is an Ilfochrome, Epson, or whatever else is fine, but I'd suggest letting your buyers decide on other extraneous terms.

Since you've used the term "fine art", how do you define it?

As an aside, there are probably a number of photographers out there printing air dried fiber, platinum, and other traditional processes who might quietly chuckle at the idea of a color Ilfochrome being considered "fine art". See my point?

Your response is pretty much what I expect. As long as it's printed on something ink jet or otherwise it can be called Fine Art. I print the way I print probably because of peers in Australia. I could not imagine walking into a top Australian Gallery and seeing ink jet prints, I don't know about America.

I'm not saying mine are Fine Art Prints either, my point was what constitutes a Fine Art Print. If you think any print off any medium that's fine

is the fine art in the photograph, or is the fine art in the process of the person printing the art of the photographer.

whose work are you trying to display,, the printers or yours,,,

i havent seen but a few really large things, (galleries in Jackson Hole),, but i was always more impressed with the vision of the photogrpahers,, mangelson,,till(moab), and the others knowns in the area,, i dont think i walked up and said, "ugly photogrpah, but my what a fine printer he had!!

Fine Art is probably one of the most used and most unclear term in photography. Just determining what is or isn't art is difficult and subjective an exercise enough without trying to figure out what smaller subset of that is fine. Do we rely on Gomer and Goober sitting in the back of the filling station when Gomer says to Goober about the kid's school finger painting project 'yep, Goober, that'd be a fine piece o' art your little'un Daisy done there'?

OK, a little more seriously, the fact that galleries and museums are accepting inkjet prints (provided they're on archival media and using archival quality inks) is, I think, an indication that the "art world" has begun to accept digital prints as valid examples of "fine art".

At the end of the day it's really what you are comfortable with as the artist and the manner in which you wish to express and present your art. If that's a hand made, embossed Ciba, so be it. That works for you. Might not work for someone else, especially if their art is black and white. And the method in and of itself does not define the art. A snapshot of a family picnic printed to a hand embossed Ciba is not going to be more artworthy simply because of the way the print was made than an Adams print made on an Epson 3800 and printed on, say, Museo Max Fine Art Archival Matte stock.

As far as your reference to Adams, there are many who feel that he would have embraced digital techniques. Jerry Uelsmann has moved from the wet darkroom to being primarily digital, I believe. Does that make his prints any less "fine".

Another part of it may well be geography too. Here in Canada (and I believe in the U.S. as well) there aren't many places doing Cibas these days. With the health concerns around the chemicals (esp. the formaldehyde) and the environmental concerns about disposing of the chems, labs aren't doing these much. There are some people still doing them at home but not a lot I don't think. I was at a DIY darkroom place in Atlanta a few years ago and they had a machine for processing Ciba prints. Don't know if they still have it. Can't remember the name of the place either. It was a completely closed process though so there was no exposure to the chemicals. You put the exposed print in one end and picked the dried print up at the other end. Dry to dry was just a few minutes. Spent chemicals were flushed into a closed collection system for proper disposal.

Hi Keith,

>> I could not imagine walking into a top Australian Gallery and seeing ink jet prints, I don't know
>> about America.

Check out the work of Steve Danzig, a leading Australian digital-artist. His work has been displayed internationally (including several top galleries/museums in Australia) and he makes his prints on an Epson inkjet printer.

BTW, most top museums around the world have been collecting digital prints (including inkjets) for a long time now.

A few people I interacted with mentioned that fine art prints are ones that will outlast the people who bought them. Obviously there has to be something substantial in the print for it to sell, let's say for example, a really good photograph!

I sell "fine art" prints printed on an Océ LightJet 500XL laser printer (http://tinyurl.com/ykch4z) using ink and paper that are guaranteed to last 100 years. If I print them on anything else, I just sell them as "normal prints". Whatever that means

I could not imagine walking into a top Australian Gallery and seeing ink jet prints, I don't know about America.

As Robert Fisher alludes to, inkjets in U.S. galleries and museums is now the norm, not the exception.

I sell "fine art" prints printed on an Océ LightJet 500XL laser printer...using ink and paper...

Ashutosh: the Lightjet images (via laser) to traditional silver halide papers, so there is no ink involved.

Also, give www.tinyurl.com a try. You can shorten URL's of tremendous length (like the Océ link) to one that looks like this: http://tinyurl.com/ykch4z

I think it comes down to that as long as the vision of the photographer is accuratly printed and of a good quality...does it really make much difference?

Thanks Michael for correcting me on that laser process thing. I've also updated my post with the tinyurl link. I apologize about causing the long scrolling problems with the earlier long link.

I think the terms "fine" and "art" are truly in the eye of the viewer. For, example, the crayon picture made by a child and taped to the refrigerator door is 'fine art' to mom.

In our world, the production of prints, and then labeling them as "Fine Art" is simply a marketing tool. The connotation of the word "Fine" will mean different things to diffferent people, but generally means a work that is a "cut above' the norm (whatever that is).

The bottom line is, I suppose: Does the work exhibit the value that the customer expects, regardless of whether we label it "Fine Art", or not?

-PB

If the artist says its fine art take his/her word for it. Then take a look yourself.

If the artist has used high quality materials that will last it goes a long way to the 'fine art' category. and as many have said -- nobody knows exactly what that is, anyway.

About 6 years ago I walked into one of the most expensive and prestigious galleries in Provincetown out on Cape Cod in Massachusetts and got a lecture about how foolish it was to buy ïGicleeÍ prints that to her were simply ink jets. She was selling paintings for many thousands -- done in some cases by dead artists - out of her beachfront shack. She thought that it was impossible to create art with a printer. This in her mind mainly because it is possible to reproduce the image over and over again.

At that time there was a great deal of tension between digital work and traditional work in Provincetown. Probably still is.

Funny thing tho ? 5 years earlier I bought a very large print of a Joel Meyerowitz street scene from Joel through another Provincetown gallery. He told me that he had mastered PS (this was around 1995) scanned the original 1970Ís print made from a 35mm neg, processed it tiled it and printed each tile on separate pieces of paper then taped them together. The print is about 3 feet by 4 feet and is still stunning. Ink jet = fine art in this case, as near as I can see. The copy I got was made for me and signed in pencil by the artist.

Some personal experience: I use an Epson 2200 with Epson Velvet Fine Art paper, a matte paper a lot like water color paper. Its expensive and very heavy ? produces beautiful prints. My daughter is an Art Director at an Art Center in New Jersey and paints in oils and acrylics. I make prints for her from digital copies of her paintings. She sells them for a decent amount with no complaints. In some cases, from a few feet away, the print is difficult to tell from the original painting. (In fact the Epson will print the texture of multiple layers of paint if you get the image file just right -- a really wonderful effect.)

Same daughter has some of my photographs printed on the VFA paper, matted and framed ? some of her artsy friends have mistaken my photos for paintings (this is what I consider a victory because its the look I often try to achieve.)

So ? yeah lots of stuff is fine art ? just ask the artist!

P.S. But calling your stuff fine art is a little clumsy I think -- I call mine ink jet prints but do mention the Velvet Fine Art paper so I let Epson do the talking.

I thnk of 'fine art' as a category rather than a degree of quality: fine art, as compared to editorial, stock, photojournalism, etc. It's fine art if the intent is that the photo be exhibited in a gallery for people to view, rather than be published in a magazine, as a post card or a on calendar. One would hope that if it's art and it's fine, that its presentation would be of high quality. Eye of the beholder....

Buck -- by George I think you've got it!!

Frank

I call "fine art" anything I can hang on my walls and look at day after day and never tire of the image. I don't care if it is inkjet, silver halide, ciba, or whatever.

Pretty much what Michael related in his first post. Applying the fine art adjective to photographic prints today despite its more focused past meaning is simply a necessary business term to alert customers that they are dealing with a photographer that is using one of highest current generation of processes and media.

In the 80s I always enjoyed looking at the finely crafted Cibachrome prints at the big Carmel galleries. On a recent visit looked at some of Burtynsky's masterpieces again and the highest end is certainly fine. As for the Cibachrome process, although the graphic image from original transparencies is certainly an excellent reflection of that original, the non-linear characteristic of luminance contrast and color always required considerable contrast masking, burning, and dodging to end up with prints that had good fidelity versus the original. Of course some images do well while others are simply too contrasty or the hues cannot be balanced. Accordingly one can argue if image fidelity is a goal, that current high end film to print processes offer a more consistent chance of obtaining that goal. One can argue smaller Cibachrome prints have a sharper look than digital processes, however not with large prints from large format. Just a few more in depth links below. ...David

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00En3t&unified_p=1

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=000dWp

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/digital-printing.html

If bodily fluids is considered to be art at some institutions such as the SFMOMA, then I have no problem with anyone calling their photography fine art.

I have to say I like Buck's explination.

What do you think constitutes Fine Art Prints.

The same things that constitute all art - passion, skill, and intent. Materials and medium are secondary if not irrelevant.

If you want to see how much inkjet art is out there, just run a quick search for "giclee".

Guy

Jack Dykinga: "Cameras and lenses are simply tools to place our unique vision on film. Concentrate on equipment and you'll take technically good photographs. Concentrate on seeing the light's magic colors and your images will stir the soul."

Sorry, Keith, couldn't resist. Surely art lies in the vision, the image itself, not in materials, processes, or equipment.

Cliff I never ask what makes a fine art photograph. So your saying if I make a image that stirs the soul it matter not how it is printed it could be printed on normal paper through my $100 printer that produces really bad results but it's fine art print because it's the image that matters. Their must be some type of standard in printing before people can call it a fine art print, sure the image maybe spectacular but that's not what I ask. I ask what constitutes a fine art print, It can't be just a good photo

It's fine art if the intent is that the photo be exhibited in a gallery for people to view, rather than be published in a magazine, as a post card or a on calendar.

Buck, does that mean that the images that I produce for my calendars and photo books are not fine art? Does that mean that Jack Dykinga and David Muench are not producing fine art prints being that most all of their fine photos end up in books and calendars? We all produce images for print in some form and most all images that make it in my books and calendars most always end up on someones wall and the owners most always consider it fine art. Why would I not put my strongest images in my books and calendars? This is ultimately why I produce books and calendar and not just prints for someones wall.

"I'm not talking about the professional Epson that give a superb job although I still don't think of this as Fine Art . . . "

"So your saying if I make a image that stirs the soul it matter not how it is printed it could be printed on normal paper through my $100 printer that produces really bad results but it's fine art print because it's the image that matters."

Keith,

You really seem to be emphasizing process over end result (the same way some digital shooters do). You admit the pro Epson printers do a superb job, then say they don't produce a Fine Art print. I don't get it. If it's a great image on a superb, archival print, why wouldn't it be Fine Art? Because it's not Cibachrome? Do artists need a government commission to define how prints should be labeled?

I don't know whether Ansel Adams stamped his prints with handmade logos or not, but even if he did, I wouldn't discard one of his prints because he forgot to stamp it. And even if stamped, I might trade an Adams for a Galen Rowell. Rowell used smaller film and "lesser" equipment, but I like his eye better, which is what really matters.

Keith - art being art, fine art is a subjective label. As one poster said, anything can and has been labelled as fine art, from bodily fluids to piles of sand on the floor. I wouldn't consider either to be art, but that's my view. Others differ - that's what's so great about art. One man's piece of crap is another man's masterpiece, and vice versa.

As far as printing goes, I wouldn't consider cheap prints made on an office-class inkjet printer to be fine art either, but again - some might. What is considered to be fine art is purely in the eye of the beholder and how refined their tastes are. That being said, I can't imagine a reputable gallery would take in such a print, nor would anyone but the most foolish pay any significant money for it.

I do very well selling my prints at exhibition (which are printed digitally on an Epson printer using archival rag paper, then matted and framed to museum standard). The people who buy my prints are proud to display them in their homes as works of art.

Do I have people come up to my work with eager looks in their faces and turn around in disgust when they realize it's photography and not painting? Yes. Do I lose sales to people who feel the uniqueness of a print is important and thus don't like inkjets? Probably - but not many, and certainly far less than those lost because the person doesn't believe photography is art.

I've lost count of the number of times I've heard people mutter as they walk away from my work saying "very expensive, they're just photographs!", or had people come up to me and say "I'm here for the art, but these photos are great!" at art fairs.

So the moral of the story is - there are no rules as to what is art and what is not. You obviously feel strongly that digital prints are not fine art, and that's your prerogative. There is a market of buyers out there that feel the same way as you, so you'll find people to sell your prints to. You will be able to use your particular printing process as a unique selling point and they'll be mightily impressed. But there will be people who will also pass you by because you're 'just a photographer', or because they simply like the work of someone else better - and maybe they don't care how the prints are produced.

At the end of the day, do what makes you happy. If people like it, they'll buy it. But don't get offended when someone labels something as fine art when you don't consider it to be that. If you do, you'll just end up giving yourself an ulcer. And remember - as another poster said, there are people making prints on older and more arcane processes than cibachrome that would not consider what you're doing to be fine art.

It's all subjective!

Peter