Stephen Perloff. Photo by Judith Harold-Steinhauser "Our strengths come from publishing what we believe in rather than just the latest hot trend, using plain language that an intelligent audience can understand rather than talking in art-speak..."

Stephen Perloff is the founder and editor of The Photo Review and editor of The Photograph Collector. He has taught photography and the history of photography at numerous Philadelphia-area colleges and universities and has been the recipient of two grants from the Pennsylvania Council on the Arts for arts criticism. His articles have been reproduced in dozens of other journals and he has been called on as an expert to comment on the state of the photography market for publications such as The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal.

His photographs have appeared in numerous exhibitions and reside in many museum and private collections.

He has curated more than a score of exhibitions including an exhibition of environmentally-concerned photographs, "Paradise Paved," for the Painted Bride Art Center and "Radical Vision: The Revolution in American Photography, 1945-1980" at the James A. Michener Art Museum.

MJ: Could you share a brief personal history about how you got involved in this kind of work? At what age did you know this was the profession you would pursue?

SP: I got my first camera — a Davy Crockett camera — when I was eight and I was interested enough through high school to ask for a 35mm SLR as a high school graduation present. There were no photography classes at college but I took a private beginning class with Michael A. Smith in Philadelphia. I eventually had a few small shows of my own work.

After the first full-time photography gallery opened in Philadelphia in 1974 there started to be more and more photography shows at various galleries and alternative spaces, but no coverage in the Philadelphia media. I wrote some reviews and took them around to the papers, but no one was interested in photography. A few friends suggested I just start my own journal and the first issue of The Photo Review came out in January 1976. I was 27.

MJ: Where can we see your work exhibited? What inspires the photography you do?

SP: Most of my work has been documentary – photographing the built environment in Philadelphia, or a long-term project on Centralia, Pennsylvania, where an underground coalmine fire still burns. But putting out these publications and curating has left me with little time to make new work in the last five years or so.

MJ: What is/are the most significant change(s) you’ve observed in fine art photography since you founded The Photo Review in 1976?

SP: There have been many changes: the acceptance of color, the move away from "straight" photography as the dominant form of photographic expression, the rise of photography as an influential medium in contemporary art, the explosion of prices for photographs in the art market, and of course the rise of digital imaging.

MJ: The Photo Review quarterly journal has earned a reputation as one of the most serious photography publications being produced today. What greatest strengths do you credit for this position?

SP: Our strengths come from publishing what we believe in rather than just the latest hot trend, using plain language that an intelligent audience can understand rather than talking in art-speak, providing a venue for up-and-coming photographers as we do in our annual competition, now in its 23rd year. MJ: What plans do you have for The Photo Review in 2007?

SP: As a non-profit with a limited budget, we haven't been able to publish in color very often, but we are about to come out with a full-color issue. We have a range of fascinating articles on tap on historic figures like Roger Fenton to Louise Rosskam to contemporary photographers like Bill Owens and Nancy Hellebrand.

MJ: In addition to The Photo Review you are also the editor of The Photograph Collector, the leading source of information on the photography art market. What was the biggest surprise(s) in the photography market in 2006? Who is the most highly valued contemporary photographer? ... The most undervalued photographer?

SP: Prices really exploded in 2006, with a record of $2.9 million set for Steichen's Moonlight — The Pond. Two works by Andreas Gursky sold for over $2 million. Records were set for an Ansel Adams Moonrise and for Mapplethorpe's unique work of Andy Warhol — each sold for over $600,000. The Sotheby's sale of duplicates from the Metropolitan Museum and the Gilman Collection in February, which included the Steichen, set a record of over $14 million.

But perhaps the biggest surprise was that the four main New York auction houses totaled over $20 million in sales this fall with no special single-owner sale and a lot of run-of-the-mill material.

Gursky is clearly the most highly valued contemporary photographer, with prices for Richard Prince, Cindy Sherman, and Thomas Struth also up there. Photographic works by contemporary artists like Mike Kelly and Charles Ray are also in the stratosphere. Among more traditional photographers, prices in the fashion arena — Penn, Avedon, and Newton, as well as Mapplethorpe's flowers — have been rising steeply.

There are numerous undervalued photographers, people like Duane Michals, Larry Fink, and Bruce Davidson have had a tremendous influence on the medium but are only moderately recognized in the marketplace.

MJ: What predictions can you make in the world of fine art photography in 2007?

SP: Perhaps obvious, but there will be an increasing acceptance of inkjet prints as more and more artists go digital. And not in 2007, but in a few years, as silver prints are made by fewer and fewer photographers, their value will rise.

MJ: What do you think is the greatest misconception about photography?

SP: Still, that anyone can make worthy photographs. This canard has been revived somewhat with the ease of use of digital cameras.

MJ: Has digital photography impacted fine art photography in any negative ways, and if so, how?

SP: As I mentioned above, only that too many people think they can make great images because the technology is so accessible. And digital printing is certainly no easier than traditional methods of printing. I see a lot of poor digital prints.

MJ: On the other hand, how has digital photography positively impacted fine art photography, if at all?

SP: It gives photographers many more choices and a larger toolbox. We just lived through a huge anomaly in the history of photography. Over the first 100 years technologies changed constantly – daguerreotypes, salt prints, albumen prints, wet plates, dry plates, portable cameras, roll film, platinum paper, silver paper, etc. But for 60 years the technology stayed essentially the same before the advent of digital imaging.

MJ: What is the major pitfall buyers should be aware of when purchasing photography?

SP: Make sure you buy from a reputable dealer (there are many). If you buy at a commercial auction, make sure you examine the print closely and get a condition report (absentee bidders have sometimes bought prints with damage). And check out the benefit auctions like the one The Photo Review holds annually or the ones that many other non-profit photography organizations hold. They're a great place to get wonderful work at reasonable prices and help the photography community as well.

MJ: Your annual auction benefit is always such a treat. It set a new record this year. Which images attracted the highest bids?

SP: We had Arnold's Newman's portrait of Max Ernst; a fabulous Carleton Watkins large-format landscape; Barbara Morgan's famous photo of Martha Graham, Letter to the World (The Kick); and a great new picture by Duane Michals, The Startled Cat. We also got good prices for prints by Lucien Clergue, Larry Fink, Chip Hooper, Gordon Parks, an Atget printed by Berenice Abbott, Ray K. Metzker, Jerry Uelsmann, Philip Trager, Michael Kenna, Elaine Ling, and Elinor Carucci.

MJ: If you could change something about how the critical world sees photography what would that be?

SP: There are a broad range of voices in the critical world now. I wouldn't change that discourse.

MJ: As a curator what qualities do you look for in determining your choices?

SP: Generally I like to include some surprises that will make the show more interesting for knowledgeable viewers. For example, when I curated "Camera Work: A Centennial Celebration" I included some lesser known images by the better known photographers and work by some of the lesser known photographers who Stieglitz championed but are mostly forgotten today. For "Radical Vision" I choose not only Arbus's famous Twins but also her extraordinary but rarely seen portrait of Tiny Tim. I'm now curating a retrospective of the work of Andrea Baldeck to open at Moore College of Art in Philadelphia in January. She has a broad body of work that has been published in five books. I've chosen work that flows together and plays off each other, but again, also some new work that has not been published or exhibited before.

MJ: Who is your favorite photographer of all time?

SP: Alfred Stieglitz, not only for his own work, but for his tireless promotion of the art of photography through the Photo-Secession, his journal Camera Work, and his various galleries.

MJ: Who is your favorite living photographer?

SP: There is no one favorite.

MJ: More and more I am seeing photographers disregard setting numbers to limited editions. I realize it is a complicated subject, but, is there a standard rule regarding editions of photographs? If not, what should be the rule?

SP: There are no standard rules but many complications. Unlike, say etching, most photographers do not print an entire edition at the same time. They may print five prints at a time. So the last prints in the edition could be made five years or more after the first ones. Or the edition may never be completed. Except for the most popular photographers — people like Sally Mann, Michael Kenna, or Keith Carter, for example — the majority of photographers do not sell out their editions. Thus editioning actually INCREASES the number of photographs in the world.

MJ: Are you available to photographers as a professional consultant and do you ever review portfolios and offer feedback?

SP: I have consulted with a few photographers independently, and have also through my role on the advisory board of the Center for Emerging Visual Artists in Philadelphia. I've also done portfolio reviews for FotoFest, Atlanta Celebrates Photography, Positive Focus, and SPE, and I've juried scores of shows.

MJ: Do you have any advice for photographers who would like to increase their sales outside the gallery system?

SP: There are many venues for commercial uses of fine art work from book and album covers to advertising. (The master consultant here is Mary Virginia Swanson.) I know a few photographers who have built their own networks over the years and sell prints through open studios or by traveling the country to visit collectors. Selling work takes personal contact and a lot of time. You just have to make the commitment to marketing yourself, not an easy task for most people.

MJ: What do you think about photographers who work primarily in digital images and print on canvas?

SP: There are numerous beautiful papers out there that were not available to photographers before the advent of digital printing. Canvas is trickier. I have seen a few good prints on canvas, but most people use it to make imitation paintings. Why bother?

MJ: Please tell us about your annual Photo competition. The 2006 competition was juried by Philip Brookman, Senior Curator of Photography and Media Arts, Corcoran Gallery of Art, Washington, DC. How many entries did you receive? How many photographers are selected? When is the 2007 competition deadline?

SP: Last year we received about 4,500 images from 1,045 photographers and work by 99 photographers was selected. That work is all reproduced in our competition issue and the 15 prizewinners also had their work exhibited at the photography gallery of The University of the Arts in Philadelphia.

Our juror this year is Toby Jurovics, curator of photography at the Smithsonian American Art Museum. Work is due between May 1 and 15. All the information will be up at our website (www.photoreview.org) in February.

Some of the photographers who were introduced in our competition early in their careers are Jock Sturges, Andrea Modica, and Elinor Carucci. There are dozens of others who are now well known.

MJ: If you were not in this profession, what alternate profession would you choose?

SP: If it were today, I'd choose to be a left-handed pitcher.

For more information about Stephen Perloff, The Photo Review and The Photo Collector, visit www.photoreview.org