Backing Board

[misterdiy]

In my experience, most people who come in with expensive artwork might like it very much but use it as an investment. It is a way of saving for retirement (risky as fashions change) just as people that do up properties and rent them out are hedging for retirement (not so risky) so if a customer has=d a very valauble picture he may not want to display it but would like a copy of it framed.

I know if I had a painting worth more than £100k I would not want it on the wall of my house as sure as eggs is eggs my house would be broken into and said painting would disappear. I would want a high class copy to display and let people know it was a copy too.

I did have one such customer in a couple of years ago who bought a painting in that he thought was too valuable to put on the wall and wanted me to copy it and frame it to look like the original. In this instance I was unable to copy it due to copyright issues (artist was dead but not that long ago that copyright did not become an issue) but I said I would be happy to frame any copy he bought in.

It happens and probably more often than you think

[hyperfocal]

I had no idea my simple post would lead to such a lively discussion.

I believe, from experience, in the case of photographic images the customers considerations are quite different from someone who brings in a painting or a object with historical significance to frame.

Most people who have a picture of their Grandparents Wedding, a portrait of Great Uncle Bob before he went off to war, or even that 1970's family picture taken at the local studio want as good a reproduction of the image as possible. For them foxing, creases, tears, warping, colour fading and other blemishes are not a desirable pointer to the pictures age and authenticity. The style of the photograph and the clothing the people are wearing offer just as an effective guide. If the groom is wearing a brown suit, ruffled shirt and velvet bow tie, you don't need the colours faded back to magenta to tell it was taken in the 70's.

The original photographs can be professionally restored or stabilised by a conservator but few can afford it. However we can scan the image, correct any flaws in Photoshop and print out a new archival print which will look great for the next 100 years, within most peoples budget.

When the lady I first mentioned collects her frames, she will have a great series of pictures from the past which she can hang on the wall to enjoy. The originals are safely put away for future generations and a digital file is available for any other family member who may want a copy.

[prospero]

When it comes to photographs there really is no merit in trying to display a faded or cracked
'original'. I use the word original advisedly as the original is really the negative, which in the case
of vintage photos would be a huge glass plate, long since lost. So what you have is a copy, probably
the only copy. You aren't going to frig about trying to physically restore it. One mistake and it's lost
for eternity. Nowadays we are fortunate to have the facility of digital manipulation. No airbrushing or
touching up like the old-school photographers did. If you have a bit of patience and a PC you can do it
yourself. If you make a cock-up you can do it again. No brainer.

Copying 'art' for whatever reason and putting the original in a safe place is a slightly different kettle of fish.

[Jamesnkr]

I believe, from experience, in the case of photographic images the customers considerations are quite different from someone who brings in a painting or a object with historical significance to frame.

If only you'd called it a "photograph" in the OP rather than a "picture"....

[Pro-Am]

My apologies for being inprecise in the original post, from my perspective pictures are photographs, so I can see where the confusion arises. However in my defence, a couple of posts later, I did clarify we were talking about photographs.

I promise not to do it again and shall remove myself to the naughty corner for the remainder of the day.

[prospero]

Why not make a clone of yourself and send that to the naughty corner? >

[Jamesnkr]

I did clarify we were talking about photographs.

I think you only said that the copies were photographs, not the originals... My fault for not interpreting picture sufficiently widely, sorry.

Anyway, more interestingly, the originals were presumably B&W photographs. B&W photographs don't fade, thanks to the process that made them - the black is silver metal. I imagine your repros come out of your usual colour process, so aren't true B&W, so will fade - for all that the paper on which you print may be archival.

[prospero]

A lady brought in a large photo of a ancient relative once. It was in perfect condition having been
hidden away for years and years. Very sharp. These old photos were printed from huge glass negs,
maybe 10x8" so the resolution was amazing and all printed by hand.
The sad thing was the lady had got the photo out ready to bring in to have it framed and someone rested
a cup of tea on it. Big brown ring on the photo. Thing is, there was no way that the tea stain could ever be
removed. Destroyed in seconds. The only option would be to copy/digitally restore and reprint.

[David McCormack]

I promise not to do it again and shall remove myself to the naughty corner for the remainder of the day.

Why not make a clone of yourself and send that to the naughty corner? >

Hyperfocal is a clone of Pro-Am so he can go to the naughty corner