It is overwhelming to think of how many photographs there are in the world. John Szarkowski, former Director of the Photography Department at the Museum of Modern Art in New York, once suggested there are more photographs than bricks, and French critic Roland Barthes bemoaned the way they multiplied ‘like some weed.’ Fortunately, appraisers deal only with the comparatively small percentage of photographs that have commercial value, and in the United States, which is the center of the photography market; they deal primarily with 20th century material.
In appraising 20th century photographs, just as in appraising paintings and prints, the artist’s identity is critical to value. A fine 1920s still life of a pepper by an anonymous artist might be worth $2,000. By the great California modernist Edward Weston, however, who was famous for his powerful photographs of fruits and shells, it could easily sell for more than $100,000 depending upon the quality of the print, the date it was printed and by whom, its condition, whether it was on the original mount, whether it was printed for exhibition or publication, whether it was signed and, if so, by the photographer or by one of his sons with his authorization.
A photographer’s signature always adds to the value of a photograph regardless of the reason the photographer signed it. The photograph is less valuable, however, if it was signed by an authorized person or by the photographer himself many years later. All contemporary photographers sign their work, making any unsigned image suspect. It may be a rejected print given to or taken by an assistant, a friend or companion.
The image also is critically important in valuing a photograph. Most collectors are interested in published or quintessential images by well-known photographers. Unfortunately for the field, there are relatively few buyers who stray from this well-worn path to buy lesser-known works that might broaden their understanding of a photographer’s range.
Having established the identity of the photographer, the appraiser must next decide if the photograph is a vintage or a non-vintage print, a distinction that is critical to value and connoisseurship in this field. A vintage print is one made by the photographer or someone approved by him about the same time that the photograph was taken. The market values a vintage print over a reprint, which may have been done several years or decades after a photograph was taken or even posthumously. Not only do vintage prints carry within them the feeling of the time they were taken; they often have so-called "object" quality and are therefore rare.
Before 1975, the year Sotheby’s New York launched the photography market by scheduling regular auctions, few photographers ever made more than a handful of prints of any image. Printing was difficult, messy, and time-consuming. And perhaps most importantly, there was generally no demand. After 1975, however, photographers, many of whom had eked out a living for years, began to reprint old negatives to sell to an eager new market. These reprints were usually perfectly printed, beautifully mounted, signed, and sometimes identified with an edition number. The collector did not have to search for them and they were moderately priced. Today the prices of vintage prints of great images have soared. Reprints, which were for many years a staple of the market, have fared less well. (The major exception to this rule is fashion photography, where the scarcity of vintage material has reached a point where even the most serious collectors turn to reprints.)
As a general rule, appraisers will have little difficulty distinguishing between vintage prints and reprints. It is not difficult to train one’s eye to spot older papers, many of which offer a wider range of tonalities than the ones photographers use today. And as one begins to understand the working methods of individual photographers, the distinctions become easier. Edward Weston, for example, often spent an entire day making one exposure and then, using the most rudimentary printing equipment, would create a brilliant print without any manipulation. After seeing a number of Weston's prints, it is easy to distinguish them because they glow with the time and artistic energy that went into their making. The original mounts of vintage prints are usually brown, battered and brittle. (A vintage print remounted archivally may gain longevity, but it always loses value.) Often vintage silver prints oxidize along the edges, a condition that is considered a detriment in most instances, although it is prized by many romantic Man Ray collectors when oxidation appears in his Dadaist Rayographs. Commonly referred to as ‘silvering,’ oxidation can often be arrested, but rarely totally removed.
The waters are a bit muddier when dealing with the many different processes used by the Pictorialists in the early 20th century. This group popularized pigment processes such as bromoil, carbon and gum bichromate, platinum and silver. While it is not absolutely necessary to be able to distinguish each of these processes, it is necessary to be able to distinguish them from the beautiful photogravure reproductive process, which Alfred Stieglitz used in his famous quarterly publication Camera Work from 1903 to 1917. A common mistake occurs when an appraiser values Camera Work photogravures as if they were platinum or pigment prints, which are worth far more. An original silver print of the image printed in the late 1920s or early 1930s (there are no "true" vintage prints of the image in the marketplace) would be priced at more than $100,000.
Press prints (prints made for publication), which quite naturally are virtually all vintage, form a category of their own. They began to be made in large numbers in the 1930s when photographers could earn a living working for the illustrated magazines that proliferated in the late 1920s. Press prints are usually glossy, stamped rather than signed and printed, rarely by the photographer himself, in gray tones with reproduction in mind. This is in contrast to fine prints the photographer would print himself or have printed under his supervision with a view to being seen directly. As a general rule, press prints are less highly valued than fine prints but more highly valued than reprints.
Rarity is extremely important in valuing photographs. It is ironic that the biggest fear of new collectors is the existence of hundreds, maybe thousands, of prints of each image, with assembly lines of printers turning out even more. In fact, the scarcity of vintage prints of important and interesting images is a major problem in the marketplace and is forcing many new collectors to turn to contemporary work. Still, the appraiser must judge if there are two or three vintage prints of an image, which might be true of Alfred Stieglitz, or fifty, as might be the case either with a social documentarian like Lewis Hine, who used his photographs to publicize his concerns, or a professional press photographer like Weegee. To do this, an appraiser needs to have some familiarity with the individual artist’s working methods and should consult auction catalogues, knowledgeable dealers and curators for assistance.
The general scarcity of vintage material renders condition less important than with reprints or contemporary work. Regrettably, however, some dealers frequently over-restore vintage prints so they "look like new." These prints, virtually perfected by restoration, appeal to the less sophisticated collector and eventually lose their value.
Provenance (as opposed to title) is not as important an issue in photography as it is in many other fields, but it still carries commercial weight. Images that had been owned by Julien Levy, the dealer credited with bringing Surrealism to New York, and one of the first to exhibit paintings and photography together, are highly valued as are images deaccessioned by museums, even if accompanied by statements that they are duplicates of lesser quality. An image Brassai had given to his wife would probably not have additional value, but an image he had given Picasso undoubtedly would.
Most fine art appraisers, working with intelligence and care, will be quite comfortable appraising 80% of the 20th century material they encounter. It is only at the highest end of the market that nuances can translate into $10,000 and $20,000 value differences.
Nineteenth century photographs include treacherous terrain for even the most knowledgeable appraisers. Connoisseurship is more serious and intricate than with 20th century material and, particularly when dealing with French and English prints from the 1850s that can sell in six-figure range, one must understand the way the medium developed both visually and technically.
While most general appraisers can adequately handle 20th century material, few have the expertise to deal well with photographs from the 19th century. Fortunately, most of the people in this rather rarified field are generally very willing to assist.
