Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Selling Digital Art

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
February 14, 2005 9:03:43 PM

Archived from groups: rec.arts.fine,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.marketplace.digital,alt.photography (More info?)

I've been a photographer for 30+ years, and sold some work through
galleries and shows, but now want to try selling on the internet.

Does anyone ever buy artwork over the internet? Do you prefer art
galleries, art.com, eBay, or artists personal web sites? Ever feel
like the gallery sales people were used car salesmen last week? Is $100
too much to spend on a limited edition glicee?

-chasfs
http://www.artbyus.com/auctions.php?a=2&b=11133
http://www.artbyus.com/auctions.php?a=2&b=11141
http://www.artbyus.com/auctions.php?a=2&b=11144

More about : selling digital art

Anonymous
February 15, 2005 4:10:26 PM

Archived from groups: rec.arts.fine,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.marketplace.digital,alt.photography (More info?)

chasfs wrote in message
<1108433023.098355.72280@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>...
>I've been a photographer for 30+ years, and sold some work through
>galleries and shows, but now want to try selling on the internet.
>
>Does anyone ever buy artwork over the internet?

Yes (not me)

>Do you prefer art
>galleries, art.com, eBay, or artists personal web sites?

I don't think it matters (where people get it from).

>Ever feel
>like the gallery sales people were used car salesmen last week?

They are ALL $!scammers. Trust no one.

>Is $100
>too much to spend on a limited edition glicee?

Depends on the edition size. Last I read, editions should be numbered below
70-100. I don't think that's too much to ask for such a small edition. If
your edition was 10,000 or something like that, then you would be a
!$scammer too. Limited should *mean* limited.

>
>-chasfs
>http://www.artbyus.com/auctions.php?a=2&b=11133
>http://www.artbyus.com/auctions.php?a=2&b=11141
>http://www.artbyus.com/auctions.php?a=2&b=11144
>
Anonymous
February 17, 2005 11:14:43 PM

Archived from groups: rec.arts.fine,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.marketplace.digital,alt.photography (More info?)

"chasfs" <chasfs@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Is $100 too much to spend on a limited edition glicee?

I don't understand the concept of a limited edition ink jet print.

--
Eric
http://canid.com/
Related resources
Anonymous
February 18, 2005 9:12:48 AM

Archived from groups: rec.arts.fine,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.marketplace.digital,alt.photography (More info?)

ericm1600@yahoo.com wrote:
> "chasfs" <chasfs@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Is $100 too much to spend on a limited edition glicee?
>
>
> I don't understand the concept of a limited edition ink jet print.
>
> --
> Eric
> http://canid.com/
>
Then you simply do not understand the art market. If the print is a good
one from a good photographer then it is a fair price. What is it that
you do not understand about a limited edition ink jet print that is any
different from a limited edition made from a negative? It all boils down
to the integrity of the artist.
And I also assume that you are unfamiliar with giclee, as you do not
know how to spell it. An INK JET it aint! Go look at one and see for
your self.

Ed
Anonymous
February 18, 2005 9:30:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.arts.fine,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.marketplace.digital,alt.photography (More info?)

grol wrote:
> "Who me" <user@example.net> wrote in message
> news:AHfRd.50719$Th1.37051@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > ericm1600@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > "chasfs" <chasfs@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >>Is $100 too much to spend on a limited edition glicee?
> > >
....
>
> And it was the OP who spelt it incorrectly, not Eric.
> grol

I'm the OP. Sorry about that!

-chasfs
http://www.artbyus.com/auctions.php?a=2&b=11561
http://www.artbyus.com/auctions.php?a=2&b=11560
http://www.artbyus.com/auctions.php?a=2&b=11133
Anonymous
February 18, 2005 9:48:59 PM

Archived from groups: rec.arts.fine,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.marketplace.digital,alt.photography (More info?)

I've heard of few photographers that destroy their negatives. Many
photographers made multiple prints of their work, and then, after the
photographer's passing, the same images were printed by others. Its
true that photography can require less work to create the 2nd, or Nth,
piece than other art forms. That said, it seems that most people who
purchase art want to see it up close before they spend any significant
amount of money.

I'm always afraid to post a high res image on the web for fear someone
will rip it off and use it themselves, though perhaps I flatter myself.


Galleries have skilled sales people, that cajole and persuade their
customers to buy. I guess that the web can't really compete with that.

-chasfs
http://www.artbyus.com/auctions.php?a=2&b=11561
http://www.artbyus.com/auctions.php?a=2&b=11560
http://www.artbyus.com/auctions.php?a=2&b=11133
Anonymous
February 18, 2005 11:02:37 PM

Archived from groups: rec.arts.fine,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.marketplace.digital,alt.photography (More info?)

"Who me" <user@example.net> wrote in message
news:AHfRd.50719$Th1.37051@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> ericm1600@yahoo.com wrote:
> > "chasfs" <chasfs@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Is $100 too much to spend on a limited edition glicee?
> >
> >
> > I don't understand the concept of a limited edition ink jet print.
> >
> > --
> > Eric
> > http://canid.com/
> >
> Then you simply do not understand the art market. If the print is a good
> one from a good photographer then it is a fair price. What is it that
> you do not understand about a limited edition ink jet print that is any
> different from a limited edition made from a negative? It all boils down
> to the integrity of the artist.
> And I also assume that you are unfamiliar with giclee, as you do not
> know how to spell it. An INK JET it aint! Go look at one and see for
> your self.


Actually, an inkjet it is:
http://www.gicleeprint.net/abtGclee.shtm

And it was the OP who spelt it incorrectly, not Eric.
grol
Anonymous
February 18, 2005 11:02:38 PM

Archived from groups: rec.arts.fine,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.marketplace.digital,alt.photography (More info?)

> Actually, an inkjet it is:
> http://www.gicleeprint.net/abtGclee.shtm
>
> And it was the OP who spelt it incorrectly, not Eric.
> grol
>
I agree with this in kind, but it is a far better process than say your
common wide platen HP ink jet printer. I did not see the original post
as to spelling.
I also think of art differently than that of being a totally exact to
the process photograph.
A photograph is many times manupilated by the photographer to render the
image differently than say a landscape differently than what the eye
would see at the actual time and place the photograph was taken.
So one could argue the point that a doctored image and printed on Fuji
Crystal Archive paper via an image setter is not art. Same holds true
for the Giclee print.

Just IMHO,

Ed
February 18, 2005 11:02:38 PM

Archived from groups: rec.arts.fine,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.marketplace.digital,alt.photography (More info?)

grol wrote:
>>And I also assume that you are unfamiliar with giclee, as you do not
>>know how to spell it. An INK JET it aint! Go look at one and see for

>
>
> Actually, an inkjet it is:
> http://www.gicleeprint.net/abtGclee.shtm
>

I read somewhere that a gallery owner coined the term "giclee" to refer
to inkjet prints, because he thougth that the label "inkjet" was too
pedestrian. Same article said the closest translation is actually
"ejaculate." He had a sense of humor, no?

AFAIK, there is no hardware sold as "giclee." But some service bureaus
do offer printing services (on their big inkjets) under that name.

Bob
Anonymous
February 18, 2005 11:02:39 PM

Archived from groups: rec.arts.fine,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.marketplace.digital,alt.photography (More info?)

"Who me" <user@example.net> wrote in message
news:%%mRd.235818$w62.59994@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > Actually, an inkjet it is:
>> http://www.gicleeprint.net/abtGclee.shtm
>>
>> And it was the OP who spelt it incorrectly, not Eric.
>> grol
>>
> I agree with this in kind, but it is a far better process than say your
> common wide platen HP ink jet printer. I did not see the original post as
> to spelling.
> I also think of art differently than that of being a totally exact to the
> process photograph.
> A photograph is many times manupilated by the photographer to render the
> image differently than say a landscape differently than what the eye would
> see at the actual time and place the photograph was taken.
> So one could argue the point that a doctored image and printed on Fuji
> Crystal Archive paper via an image setter is not art. Same holds true for
> the Giclee print.
>
> Just IMHO,
>
> Ed

A market observation:
There are potentially more buyers of artworks than there are works
of art, so in some cases, instead of buying lesser and unsatisfactory
works, there is a demand for repros of the better stuff.
Not anywhere near as good as original art, but perhaps better than
inferior original stuff. ?

On the Giclee issue, it was once an inferior product but has improved,
offering archival colours and paper.

How does the process beat a deskjet printer of quality , coupled
with a reasonable scanner assuming both processes are using the best
available paper and inks?

Thur
Anonymous
February 18, 2005 11:02:40 PM

Archived from groups: rec.arts.fine,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.marketplace.digital,alt.photography (More info?)

"Thur" <no-personals@z.com> wrote in message
news:SynRd.2043$EA2.611@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net...
>
> "Who me" <user@example.net> wrote in message
> news:%%mRd.235818$w62.59994@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>> > Actually, an inkjet it is:
>>> http://www.gicleeprint.net/abtGclee.shtm
>>>
>>> And it was the OP who spelt it incorrectly, not Eric.
>>> grol
>>>
>> I agree with this in kind, but it is a far better process than say your
>> common wide platen HP ink jet printer. I did not see the original post as
>> to spelling.
>> I also think of art differently than that of being a totally exact to the
>> process photograph.
>> A photograph is many times manupilated by the photographer to render the
>> image differently than say a landscape differently than what the eye
>> would see at the actual time and place the photograph was taken.
>> So one could argue the point that a doctored image and printed on Fuji
>> Crystal Archive paper via an image setter is not art. Same holds true for
>> the Giclee print.
>>
>> Just IMHO,
>>
>> Ed
>
> A market observation:
> There are potentially more buyers of artworks than there are works
> of art, so in some cases, instead of buying lesser and unsatisfactory
> works, there is a demand for repros of the better stuff.
> Not anywhere near as good as original art, but perhaps better than
> inferior original stuff. ?
>
> On the Giclee issue, it was once an inferior product but has improved,
> offering archival colours and paper.
>
> How does the process beat a deskjet printer of quality , coupled
> with a reasonable scanner assuming both processes are using the best
> available paper and inks?
>
> Thur
>
>
Heck Dye-Sub printing has been doing that for over a decade now ( quite
cheap to ).

--
M.Stepelton
http://MStepelton.freeservers.com
Anonymous
February 19, 2005 2:10:01 AM

Archived from groups: rec.arts.fine,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.marketplace.digital,alt.photography (More info?)

In article <bqja11t3a1po9g89qpdhhhb5j6kth24djf@4ax.com>,
ericm1600@yahoo.com wrote:

> "chasfs" <chasfs@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >Is $100 too much to spend on a limited edition glicee?
>
> I don't understand the concept of a limited edition ink jet print.
>
> --
Theoretically the photographer destroys the image.
Anonymous
February 19, 2005 12:18:24 PM

Archived from groups: rec.arts.fine,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.marketplace.digital,alt.photography (More info?)

"M.Stepelton" <MStepelton@NoWay.net> wrote in message
news:p NnRd.181$DW.158@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "Thur" <no-personals@z.com> wrote in message
> news:SynRd.2043$EA2.611@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net...
> >
> > "Who me" <user@example.net> wrote in message
> > news:%%mRd.235818$w62.59994@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> >> > Actually, an inkjet it is:
> >>> http://www.gicleeprint.net/abtGclee.shtm
> >>>
> >>> And it was the OP who spelt it incorrectly, not Eric.
> >>> grol
> >>>
> >> I agree with this in kind, but it is a far better process than say your
> >> common wide platen HP ink jet printer. I did not see the original post as
> >> to spelling.
> >> I also think of art differently than that of being a totally exact to the
> >> process photograph.
> >> A photograph is many times manupilated by the photographer to render the
> >> image differently than say a landscape differently than what the eye
> >> would see at the actual time and place the photograph was taken.
> >> So one could argue the point that a doctored image and printed on Fuji
> >> Crystal Archive paper via an image setter is not art. Same holds true for
> >> the Giclee print.
> >>
> >> Just IMHO,
> >>
> >> Ed
> >
> > A market observation:
> > There are potentially more buyers of artworks than there are works
> > of art, so in some cases, instead of buying lesser and unsatisfactory
> > works, there is a demand for repros of the better stuff.
> > Not anywhere near as good as original art, but perhaps better than
> > inferior original stuff. ?
> >
> > On the Giclee issue, it was once an inferior product but has improved,
> > offering archival colours and paper.
> >
> > How does the process beat a deskjet printer of quality , coupled
> > with a reasonable scanner assuming both processes are using the best
> > available paper and inks?
> >
> > Thur
> >
> >
> Heck Dye-Sub printing has been doing that for over a decade now ( quite
> cheap to ).

Aren't most dye-sub printers only 300x300dpi (well the consumer ones are),
whereas say a new Canon PIXMA iP5000 is 9600x2400dpi?
February 19, 2005 12:18:25 PM

Archived from groups: rec.arts.fine,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.marketplace.digital,alt.photography (More info?)

grol wrote:

>
> Aren't most dye-sub printers only 300x300dpi (well the consumer ones are),
> whereas say a new Canon PIXMA iP5000 is 9600x2400dpi?
>

You're mixing your pixels and dots. Dyesub printers are up to 300 ppi;
it takes many, many, inkjet dots to make a pixel.

Bob
Anonymous
February 19, 2005 12:37:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.arts.fine,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.marketplace.digital,alt.photography (More info?)

"bob" <not@not.not> wrote in message
news:F8sRd.462$hd6.43@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
> grol wrote:
>
> >
> > Aren't most dye-sub printers only 300x300dpi (well the consumer ones are),
> > whereas say a new Canon PIXMA iP5000 is 9600x2400dpi?
> >
>
> You're mixing your pixels and dots. Dyesub printers are up to 300 ppi;
> it takes many, many, inkjet dots to make a pixel.
>
> Bob

Sure, so doesn't that make 9600x2400dpi have more resolution then, than
300x300ppi ? The many dots that make up a single pixel can vary to give great
resolution. Last I heard, only monitors really deal with pixels.

The consumer level dye-sub are indeed only 300x300dpi. Not ppi. For example the
Canon CP400.
http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=ModelDe...
http://www.teds.com.au/www/6/1001102/displayproduct/108...

Where is the iP5000 inkjet is 9600x2400dpi.
http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=ModelDe...

grol
Anonymous
February 19, 2005 6:45:59 PM

Archived from groups: rec.arts.fine,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.marketplace.digital,alt.photography (More info?)

<chasfs@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1108780205.570396.163890@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> grol wrote:
> > "Who me" <user@example.net> wrote in message
> > news:AHfRd.50719$Th1.37051@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > > ericm1600@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > > "chasfs" <chasfs@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >>Is $100 too much to spend on a limited edition glicee?
> > > >
> ...
> >
> > And it was the OP who spelt it incorrectly, not Eric.
> > grol
>
> I'm the OP. Sorry about that!

Don't worry, it's just that the spelling police are out tonight. ;-)
!