LeicaS2 Posted June 9, 2014 Share #1 Posted June 9, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) TOP "the on line photographer" blog is offering a 36"x24" print from an S2 for $400, not the camera. The Online Photographer: Leica S-Series Print Offer: Jack MacDonough Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted June 9, 2014 Posted June 9, 2014 Hi LeicaS2, Take a look here Leica S2 for $400 . I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Berth Posted June 9, 2014 Share #2 Posted June 9, 2014 The claim he's one of the few earning a living from his prints is more than a little disingenuous. It's his retirement hobby, he's a multimillionaire who reaps a rich harvest from his holdings from the time he was CEO of Miller Brewing. His 'printing' sales are a pittance compared with that income. Silly. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwilliamsphotography Posted June 11, 2014 Share #3 Posted June 11, 2014 The claim he's one of the few earning a living from his prints is more than a little disingenuous. It's his retirement hobby, he's a multimillionaire who reaps a rich harvest from his holdings from the time he was CEO of Miller Brewing. His 'printing' sales are a pittance compared with that income. Silly. Is "Silly" your name, or is that an editorial comment? FYI, Jack is a genuinely nice person whom I've had the pleasure of exchanging tips and comments with as a fellow S2 user. In all that time I had no idea he was CEO of Miller, or anything of the sort. Jack is kind and considerate and never puts on airs, or is demeaning to fellow photographers. The point being made in the article was that he was making a good amount of money from his photography, not that he needed to make that amount. Fact is he's making a heck of a lot more for his efforts than most I know. If he is tapping into contacts he made while in his previous career, so what? I should be so lucky. BTW, he wouldn't be the first photographer to spring from wealth and social contacts …. photo history is peppered with them. - Marc Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkP Posted June 11, 2014 Share #4 Posted June 11, 2014 BTW, he wouldn't be the first photographer to spring from wealth - Marc HCB Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arif Posted June 11, 2014 Share #5 Posted June 11, 2014 FYI, Jack is a genuinely nice person whom I've had the pleasure of exchanging tips and comments with as a fellow S2 user. In all that time I had no idea he was CEO of Miller, or anything of the sort. Jack is kind and considerate and never puts on airs, or is demeaning to fellow photographers. - Marc I second that! Though we have never met, we have always had genuine exchanges where his gentleman personality shows. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwilliamsphotography Posted June 11, 2014 Share #6 Posted June 11, 2014 HCB To name but one Mark … : -) Niepce's father was a very wealth lawyer in pre-revolutionary France, and fled the terror to England, along with the family fortune. Daguerre was an Architect, and also invented the diorama. Julia Margaret Cameron's was descended from a Chevalier and French aristocracy, started photography late in life when her financial situation was quite substantial. Fox Talbot was professor of literature and successful at many endeavors prior to photography. Jacques Henri Lartigue was born with a silver spoon in his mouth, started making photos before he was 10, and was famous for shooting his wealthy environment. Alfred Stieglitz attended the best private school in NYC, and like many upper class family members spent the summer on Lake George. Albert Kahn was a wealthy banker and photo philanthropist. Etc. I guess they are all … hobbyists. LOL! - Marc Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkP Posted June 11, 2014 Share #7 Posted June 11, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) I guess they are all … hobbyists. LOL! Like us LOL! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berth Posted June 11, 2014 Share #8 Posted June 11, 2014 I'm sure he's a very charming man. He's not earning his living from his prints though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 11, 2014 Share #9 Posted June 11, 2014 Earned his living....past tense. Spending his earnings...present tense. SO he could be living on the print sales and not touching his investments.... Bob Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted June 12, 2014 Share #10 Posted June 12, 2014 From the linked artcle : "To give you an idea, his standard price for a large 7.5x5-foot print is $17,500, and he recently delivered a multi-print order to a private client (he usually sells to corporations) with a total bill of many tens of thousands of dollars." Considering that there is a production cost not negligible (you can read that he has a partnership with an expert printmaker) , so that he could fetch, if the above figure is real, 60-70% of the bill, with around ten prints sold in a year, and not spending too much to go around to take pictures... it's not to far from "making a living onto" , even if the fact of not really NEEDING this income to live, is surely of help... ; nice job for a retired photo hobbist, anyway... I think is the dream of many amateurs, which few decide to really pursue when is time to.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwilliamsphotography Posted June 12, 2014 Share #11 Posted June 12, 2014 Personally, I think the whole point is being missed. It's a sad commentary that some semantics about "making a living" (made by the author, not the photographer) is the one part of the text being focused on … and has derailed a positive report about a fellow photographer's success. In an age where photography is becoming more and more devalued and democratic, that anyone can produce high value images and art prints, command such prices, and most importantly, get those prices, should be a cause for celebration. - Marc Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted June 12, 2014 Share #12 Posted June 12, 2014 I agree : is a pleasant story in itself... a proof that there are still market opportunities for good printed pictures, which for many of us are still the final product we are focused onto... be it for enjoying, sharing, ...or selling. And... also much more reasonable, and next to our experience, than some oddities in the ART Market like the Million Dollar Photo that was discussed time ago (the "Rhein"... I don't remember exactly the timing and haven't time to search for the thread about...) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NB23 Posted July 18, 2014 Share #13 Posted July 18, 2014 Wow! I don't know how I stumbled bere and how and why I read the ad, but let me tell you that was some meta marketing bullsh*t. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Printmaker Posted July 22, 2014 Share #14 Posted July 22, 2014 From the linked artcle :"To give you an idea, his standard price for a large 7.5x5-foot print is $17,500, and he recently delivered a multi-print order to a private client (he usually sells to corporations) with a total bill of many tens of thousands of dollars." Considering that there is a production cost not negligible (you can read that he has a partnership with an expert printmaker) , so that he could fetch, if the above figure is real, 60-70% of the bill, with around ten prints sold in a year, and not spending too much to go around to take pictures... it's not to far from "making a living onto" , even if the fact of not really NEEDING this income to live, is surely of help... ; nice job for a retired photo hobbist, anyway... I think is the dream of many amateurs, which few decide to really pursue when is time to.... Just to give an idea of the printmaker's business model, I print for about 30 artists on a monthly basis as well as a few photographers. When an artist brings a painting into my studio, I'll shoot it with either my 4x5 and BetterLight scanback or my S2. The choice of camera depends on the amount of shadow detail and the size of the final reproduction. 30x40 is about as large as I will take a S2 file. They can go larger but I get more information from the BetterLight file if the final reproduction is to be 40x60 or larger. After shooting, I'll spend an hour or so in post matching colors. Profiles will only take a file so far and out-of-gamut colors will require masking and adjustment to bring them closer to the original. Then I'll print a set of proofs showing slight variations of contrast and saturation. When the artist comes in to view the proofs, we may make small changes to the file to enhance color or mood. Or they pick one of the proofs. All of this is a $130 charge. Not a lot of money for the amount of work involved but it is a partnership. If I do a good job and the art is good, I'll print this file dozens if not hundreds of times over the next few years. Printing is straightforward. There is a square inch charge and, if the work is on canvas, a charge to stretch the canvas on bars. The charges tend to be more than one would pay to an internet print mill because of all of the time spent and the level of care taken. Still, a 24x36 inch photo print on Canson or Hahnemuhle paper is a $150 investment in my studio. If Jack is only charging $395, well his prints are a bargain. That is fair market value for a 8x10 or 11x14 inch photo print in most galleries. If he were to go through a gallery, his prints would be priced three or four times higher... plus the frame... plus crating... plus shipping.... Galleries typically take my work and mark it up five to ten times. But even with those markups, prints sell day in and day out. I've always had as much work as I care to do. This is a business and a partnership where everyone wins. Few get rich, but most of us make a living. Anyone interested in the mechanics of the process can find a downloadable how to PDF on my website: How to Print the Perfect Gicl Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.