Yeah, tell us who the artist is!!!
OK, now that that’s out of the way, I have some thoughts, which may not necessarily answer your specific questions:[ul][li]Can I negotiate the price?[/li]I doubt it.
[li]Is $900 too expensive for a photograph?[/li]Depends. I’ll give an example: The last time I checked, a 16x20 of Ansel Adams’s Mt. McKinley and Wonder Lake ran around $20K, while an almost identical photo by Henry Gilpin (I can’t find that particular image online, but this is another version by the same artist) is around $1000. Both are silver-gelatin prints and are the same size. Both are made by mature, well-respected photographers. So, objectively, both are identical pieces of paper, yet one costs as much as a car, while the other one – not peanuts, granted – is much less. Artistically, then, is the Adams better? Maybe – but some have called the Gilpin “the best ever” – in any case, IMO it certainly isn’t 20 times better. But you pay for the fame. As a corollary, a young-career photographer will command lower prices.
[li]How do I know what the fair price is?[/li]Answer A: What’s it worth to you?
Answer B: If the artist isn’t just starting out, her works may very well have been sold in the secondary market. Go to your local university or museum’s art library and ask to see their auction records. Try to find pieces of similar size and style to what you’re looking to buy, and note their prices.
Answer C: If the artist is represented by a large number of galleries, then there will probably be a single price list, which they all follow. Wider representation also means that the prices are more likely to reflect what the market will bear.
[li]Will I regret this purchase in the future?[/li]First of all, don’t look at this as an investment. While one should certain do one’s due diligence before making a purchase, it is impossible to predict fluctuations in the art market. Do your homework, but buy for love, not money.
Having said that, due diligence consists of not just researching prices and making sure that is fits in with your overall finances, but also educating your eyes. Go to museums. Go to galleries. Buy books. Look at as many photographs as possible. Figure out what you like and why. And finally, realize that even after all this, your tastes will probably change over time.
[li]Should I ask about the print and developing processes?[/li]Let’s separate these two processes. I wouldn’t worry about how the photos are developed. In other words, if you like the end result, the development doesn’t matter.
You should, however, ask about the printing method, but only so that you learn more about your purchase. An artist will decide on an output method for whatever reason, and you don’t get a say. In case the photos are printed by multiple methods, each will carry a different price.
In general, B&W silver-gelatin (or is it platinum? My brain is bombing out) prints have the greatest longevity. Color prints made from slides are generically called Type R prints. Of these, one type – Ilfochrome – is especially known for its color permanence. Prints made from color negative film are known as Type C, or chromogenic, images. I don’t know how widely these are used in fine-art circles, though I believe there are now papers (from Fuji, I think) that provide archival colorfastness. Similarly, recent advances in inkjet (or Giclee) technologies have also produced archival inks and papers.
[li]On that series of 5…[/li]I’m curious about the word “re-issued.” Is 5 the total number of prints she will make? Or is she cranking out 5 more every time? Anyway, assuming it is a limited edition, then the prints should be signed and numbered, as others have posted above. Note, however, that owning “Print No. 1” doesn’t mean a whole heck of a lot.
The artist will usually make a number of proof prints to get the process down; these are not included in the numbered editions, and are usually not sold. Once the process is settled, then all the prints for sale should look the same. As a tangent – this probably doesn’t apply to your intended purchase – sometimes all prints in an edition are not made at the same time, and may even stretch over several years. In that instance, the papers and chemicals available may have changed, and these factors will affect the look of a particular print. There are also cases (Ansel Adams, again, being an example) where an artist will re-evaluate an image, and the later prints will look different from the earlier ones.
[li]Should I be concerned about the condition of the print?[/li]Unless you’re buying in the secondary market, then the print should be, well, “good as new.” Otherwise, it is advisable to examine the print for damage before purchase. One would hope that a gallery should be careful enough not to subject their pieces to any harm, and pray that UPS (or whoever the shipper is) doesn’t let their gorillas loose on it.
As an aside on buying secondaries – any reputable gallery should provide you with a full history (provenance) of who has owned the piece in the past. I don’t think it applies to you here, but that’s one way stolen/looted artwork get tracked down – just like how gaps in a resume will provoke suspicion.
[li]Anything else?[/li]Ask for her biography. Although it may not mean anything to you that she’s been included in X number of group shows or is in the private collections of people you’ve never heard of, it will tell you the length of her career and, in very broad terms, how she is regarded in the art community (or at least by gallery owners). Solo shows are more significant than group shows. And if she’s in the collection of a major museum, then that’ll probably drive her prices up.
It has been mentioned already that exposure to light will cause photos to fade, so get them framed behind anti-UV glass. If these are already matted (likely), then you don’t have to worry about mounting, but if not, you should find someone who does conservation framing so that the framing process won’t lead to long-term damage.[/ul]
Further, many of her subjects are among our favorite plants growing in our gardens.