I had to laugh when I read George Barrs post today. It seems people can’t get their head around the difference between buying a painting and a photograph; Is It A Print Or Is It The Original?
twice this month I have been asked this question while selling my photographs. I point out these are photographs (in case they think they are paintings) but that doesn’t satisfy them. I don’t know how to reply. I guess it probably doesn’t matter as the question means they almost certainly aren’t going to buy – but my explanations seem to leave them thinking I am lying, or cheating or defrauding them – anyway they go away unhappy – I was polite, I explained the nature of photographs and original negatives, slides or digital files – but that doesn’t cut it – oh well.
I guess in theory the photographer could sell the original negative along with the print but how would a digital photographer provide an “original” without any risk of being accused of falsely selling a “copy”? The whole concept just doesn’t work in Photography really does it?
3 Comments
Is there a difference between the original and a print? Sure, there are multiple prints, but to add value many photographers only make a limited number of prints and number them, providing an individual touch to each image.
Next thing, people will be saying that photography isn’t art. I’ve already heard that from an uncle of mine who is a painter. He sneers at the mere thought of photographic art!
As soon as some one asks of a photograph “Is this an original?”. They know nothing about photography or do they mean “has it been manipulated (by digital means)?” It is the wrong question to ask a photographer. Perhaps a short answer in the affirmative, because you know they aren’t going to buy anyway. Vic
The only way to make the photograph a one off and totally unique os to destroy the negative or originating file, and no more copies of the work are made.
Bip