The fine art photographer and third party prints

I�ve had a fair few prints made over the years, some by fine

printers, but never really been satisfied with any of them. No

surprise here, for how can anyone other than the person who created

an image define how a print should look?<p> I suppose what has really

brought this home to me is being in the position where I can now do

all my own printing digitally, or at least in the case of larger

prints prepare the print file for output. The degree of control is

simply awesome, though admittedly often at the expense of balanced

mental health.<p>Surely, fine art photographers who delegate this

part of the creative process to others are selling themselves and

their images short, only doing half the job?<p><a

href="http://www.keithlaban.co.uk">www.keithlaban.co.uk</a>

Keith said: "I suppose what has really brought this home to me is being in the position where I can now do all my own printing digitally, or at least in the case of larger prints prepare the print file for output. The degree of control is simply awesome, though admittedly often at the expense of balanced mental health.

 

Surely, fine art photographers who delegate this part of the creative process to others are selling themselves and their images short, only doing half the job?"

*************

Digital printing will be a blessing to those who were previously unable, for whatever reason, to use a darkroom. Notwithstanding the issue of quality, at least Keith and others can now participate in the making of and the look of the final print.

 

Are those delegating the printing to others only doing half the job? Don't know. I suppose it depends on how much value one puts on being responsible for the actual physical photograph, from either the photographer's perspective, or the viewer's. I know I'm MORE impressed by a wonderfully crafted print hanging on a wall if I know the photographer made the print himself. In my own work, I find it far more satisfying making my own prints because of the control factor. The final image shown to others is completely the result of my skills and talents (or lack thereof), and the viewer can judge for himself whether I succeeded in capturing the image and then producing it.

 

On the other hand, when I used to shoot color, I always hired out the printmaking, simply because I found color printing too tedious and time consuming (also, critical temp control, short life of chemicals, etc). I never particularly valued the skill of rendering on paper what my chrome looked like, so I preferred other printers at labs doing it for me. In my black and white work, however, I've felt for many years I can produced a better print than even the better professional photo finishers. Why? Not because I'm more knowledgable, but because I CARE more. I'll go the extra steps and expose more paper to get the print exactly the way I want it. I'm more passionate about it, whereas the other guy has a business to run.

Before I built my darkroom, I had a good relationship with a custom lab near here; I would make an enlarged xerox of a contact print and would make all sorts of notations on it about where to have the dodges and burns, how to split the contrat, etc. It was a relationship that grew over time and they could do a very nice job.

 

Now that I am in the darkroom, one of the aspects that I value the most is not the ability to be obssively controlled but rather to see what the mistakes look like and to do off-the-top-of-the-head experiments. I find that the darkroom process can be much more improvisatory than I ever realized before. I see a mistake and suddenly realize that it opens a whole new interpretation of the image, one that NEVER would have occurred to me just by looking at the neg and recalling my original intention.

Being a great photographer and being a great printer have no more relation to each other than being a great photographer and being a great car mechanic. Some people are multi-talented (Ansel Adams and Edward Weston might be classic examples), but there are many, many good photographers who don't know their way around a darkroom.

 

The only trick is finding a printer who shares your vision and has excellent technical skills.

I agree that letting someone else do the printing doesn't have to

be a compromise of ones vision. For those who've seen <i>

War Photographer</i>, think about the scenes in which

Nachtwey gives precise direction for what his printer needed to

do to deliver Nachtwey's vision for the image. Unfortunately, that

kind of relationship (and that level of darkroom skill) isn't readily

available when farming out printing work.

I'm not convinced that a better printer couldn't make a better print from one of my negatives than I can, but why should someone else have all the fun? I enjoy printing at least as much as any other part of the process, and enjoy the feeling of continuity that printing my negatives affords. I don't believe as Bob Atkins does that photography doesn't include printing, but I understand that some photographers choose not to print their work for reasons of their own, and I respect their choices as artists.

Ditto to Jay's thoughts. I am confident that there are a great many printers who could take my negatives and make a better print than I ever would. It might not be exactly what I had in mind- but if it's better, I don't know that it would matter to me a whole lot. If I felt I could print my prints better than anyone in the world, then I'd be very reluctant to let anyone else have a go.

 

I recall from reading Roger Hick's articles that it is largely his wife that does the printing of his B&W pictures. There's no reason not to use a partnership like that if it is workable.

I use a darkroom that I rent by the hour for my black and white work. There is a resident professional printer, and he is more efficent than me, and for a few really difficult negs, he might get better results than me. However he is very good at taking instructions and will deliver a print which matches the photographer's vision pretty well.

 

If I was doing 16x20s for Exhibition I would get him to do them - using my 10x8 as a guide to what I want.

 

If you just hand over a neg and say "Print this" you get the printer's vision of how the neg should look. Sometimes it matches, sometimes it doesn't, so if you really are a fine art photographer you should get to know the printer - just as if you are a sculptor working in bronze, you don't do your own casting, but you build up a relationship with the foundary. Or perhaps if you are a recording artist, the recording engineer is crucial.

 

Personally I'm printing a lot less than I expected digitially. The print quality of B&W scans is just not the same (although some of the treatments I can do outweight that). For Colour (or tinted B&W) I find printing the files through a wet process lab gives be results equal to my inkjet (which is impressive on the part of the inkjet) but they are cheaper. For anyone in the UK Boots are doing 2 for the price of 1 and 50 6x4s for £5. Epson ink and paper cost more than that.

I agree with the other posters who say great photographers and master printers are not necessarily one in the same. In fact many top photographers do not print their own work, but they do direct the work. The same is true for artists who make lithographs, silkscreens and the like. They often go to print specialists to who execute their work for them.

 

The interesting question you raise, however, is how important is the hand of the artist in the final product? I would say all that matters to the viewer is the end result. While this may not satisfy some purists, in the visual arts the process is generally less important to the audience than it might be to the artist.

The hand of the artist is very important when it comes to $$$$. An Ansel Adams print made by Ansel Adams commands 10x the price of an Ansel Adams negative printed (perhaps equally well) by one of his authorized printers.

<i>"Being a great photographer and being a great printer have no more relation to each other than being a great photographer and being a great car mechanic."</i><p>Bob, are you saying that a great printer could have the same level of understanding of photography as the average car mechanic and still be a great printer?<p><i>" I'm not convinced that a better printer couldn't make a better print from one of my negatives than I can"</i><p>I agree that there are many fine printers who may well in technical terms make better versions of a photographer�s prints than the photographer themselves, but in terms of the photographers intent, vision and emotion I somehow doubt it?<p><i> "The same is true for artists who make lithographs, silkscreens and the like. They often go to print specialists to who execute their work for them."</i><p>The one overriding thing that I learnt when making lithograph and silk-screen prints at art college is that knowledge of the techniques and hands on experience are part and parcel of the creative process for the artist and their image.<p><i>" how important is the hand of the artist in the final product? I would say all that matters to the viewer is the end result. While this may not satisfy some purists, in the visual arts the process is generally less important to the audience than it might be to the artist."</i><p>I absolutely agree with you: this is my exactly my point.<p><i>" The hand of the artist is very important when it comes to $$$$. An Ansel Adams print made by Ansel Adams commands 10x the price of an Ansel Adams negative printed (perhaps equally well) by one of his authorized printers."</i><p> But why is this so, is it just about the hand of the artist adding to the value of a print, or could it actually be that buyers also value and appreciate that the hand, intent, vision and emotion that the artist brings to the print is simply beyond a third party.<p><a href="http://www.keithlaban.co.uk">www.keithlaban.co.uk</a>

Keith,

You seem to be suggesting that the photographer is more capable of expressing his vision by printing his own work, than a master printer, regardless of the photographer's printing skills. Just because it is the photographer's vision and intent that is important, doesn't mean that the photographer has the skill to acheive it in his darkroom. Why should he not defer to the skill of a master in order to fulfill his vision?

<i>"Keith, You seem to be suggesting that the photographer is more capable of expressing his vision by printing his own work, than a master printer, regardless of the photographer's printing skills."</i><p>No, not at all, or at least certainly not technically. I realise that in the real world many photographers simply don't have the experience or facilities to undertake their own printing. I was in the same position myself until I took the bull by the horns by making my own prints digitally. This being the Philosophy of Photography Forum, it is perhaps more of a philosophical question and aimed at those that have the skills but for some reason don't make their own prints, or those such as Bob who believe that the two disciplines are quite separate. Having said that, unless the photographer works to gain the skills, how will they ever know the answer to this question?<p><a href="http://www.keithlaban.co.uk">www.keithlaban.co.uk</a>

As I've written, for me it's a personal matter, and I happen to enjoy printing. I think that photographers who don't print their own work out of intimidation or a lack of understanding short change themselves. On the other hand, those who know the process and decide for their own reasons to have others print their work are certainly entitled to do so, but I think there is a penalty for it, fair or unfair.

The fun happens when the Photographer is color blind; has only one eye; and likes the printer's color skewed duds; made before the machine was calibrated. Then one has to try to make more of these "dud" copies; that are missmatched by the printers eyes; but are "perfect" in the eye of the customer. This can happen where the original is pastel; the scanner or copy negative blows the blues; and/or the customer is colorblind; and sees the print in a different way than all the rest of us. With a color blind customer; the printers calibration sequence doesnt matter; if they dint like the print. Sometimes the prints can be taken in the back room; and juggled; and the customer will reverse his "best choice". The color temperature; type of lighting; and illumination level should be standardized; and or recorded to prevent one from chasing ones tail; in pleasing an "artist" type; and corporate logo stuff. These groups are abit more difficult to please sometimes. Framing glass; lamination; and choice of matte and color of matte also change a customers emotions and real feelings on what is the best copy to use.

Bah. Plently of great photographers had other people print their work.

 

Bresson, Kertesz, almost anyone who worked for National Geographic.

 

Digital printing doesn't bring that much new to the game. Certain manipulations are

now more repeatable, but this doesn't guarantee great or consistent prints. Just ask

the color profiling people and the ink jet mavens about how hard it is to get real

repeatability.

Keith

 

Surely, fine art photographers who delegate this part of the creative process to others are selling themselves and their images short, only doing half the job?

 

--------------------------

 

Many noted fine art photographers from the Weston's, Ansel Adams and Ruth Bernhard had assistants doing their printing for them. Michael Kenna spoke a bit about his printing experience while he worked with Ruth Bernhard in an interview "LensWork" did with him on pg 62, issue number 50.

 

Whether or not they sold themselves short, I can't say but both Bernhard and Adams were really prickly about their images and I'm sure, considering the Westons and Adams hung out together, he was the same:)

 

So it's a toss up, sometimes it's a good thing and sometimes it's not.

 

Hope this helps.

I'm well aware that many photographers past and present, great and small have delegated their printing. My argument is that a third party by definition cannot hope to match a print that exists solely in the mind of the photographer.

Keith

 

I'm well aware that many photographers past and present, great and small have delegated their printing. My argument is that a third party by definition cannot hope to match a print that exists solely in the mind of the photographer.

 

----------------------

 

As picky and well known as Ansel Adams was for perfection in printing, I think he thought of this. The fact he had others printing for him, says that he thought it through and came to the conclusion it was good enough for him. Ruth Bernhard, she's as much of a printing stick as anybody, when it comes to her printing demands. She too came to a similar conclusion. So they both must feel that having a third party print an image for them, doesn't harm the creation process sufficently to not use somebody else to do their printing. Photographers aplenty have been using third party printers on a daily basis for decades.

 

I'm only sharing what well know noteables did/do. You have to make the final decision what you feel comfortable with.

Where did this discussion get sidetracked? Origianlly, I believe Keith was simply and enthusiastically describing his new found ability to control the look and feel of his prints, rather than relying on a third party to read his mind. That's simple enough to understand.

 

Then, I thought he asked US, as fine art photographers, whether WE felt it important to be involved with the printing process as a means to fullfill a total creative process.

 

It's rather obvious photographing an image and printing it are two distinct disciplines, isn't it? It's also quite obvious that some famous photographers used a third party to print their negatives. I don't think Keith asked Kertez, Adams, Bresson, etc their opinion (which would be hard to get a response in some cases), but he asked US. My original response earlier was an attempt to answer his question. Most other responses seem to want to demonstrate their knowledge of photographic celebrity.

I really consider the printing of the black and white negative to be part of the overall process of photography. I enjoy this process immensely and wouldn't necessarily hand over my negatives to someone else to print without very good reason. But I never print a negative the same way twice. I don't enjoy the process of duplication. My enjoyment in the darkroom is continuously playing around with the negative and seeing how subtle changes during printing or using toners will look. If an art dealer called tomorrow (not a likely scenario for sure) and wanted me to print an edition of 50 identical photographs, he (and I) would be SOL. I have no interest in that. I would try to find a printer who would use my choice of a master print and duplicate it 50 times.

Peter.

 

Keith wrote;

 

Surely, fine art photographers who delegate this part of the creative process to others are selling themselves and their images short, only doing half the job?

 

------------------------

 

I thought the above quote by Keith was the original question:) So with that in mind, it would stand to reason to look at how other, top dog notable, fine art photographers handled the act of printing and the delegation there of. Fine art noteable's past behavior gives us a clue as to finding a viable answer to the question above.

Being an artist with film and an atrist in the darkroom require two different skill sets. If you have both, great but to think that if you only have one you are somehow short changing the public or even yourself is just nonsense.

 

It's nice to imagine how Bach would have played a particular organ piece but that doesn't mean that you can not get a great experience from listening to a contemporary recording of it. There are plenty of musicians today that can play pieces better than the orignal composers could play them. That's why we have musical notation (sheet music) in the first place. Ansel wanted students to have access to his negatives so they can use them to interpret a new. Ansel seemed very secure about what he did.

 

Printing is an interpretive art form like dancing or being a musician. You can applaud the musician and the composer at the same time. And besides, why limit yourself to your own skills when you can get an expert to help you. Why think that you can not take pictures because you don't have darkroom skills? Just have a little fun and stop thinking like a prisoner in some cult.

Peter, many thanks for trying, but they're still not getting it are they! :-}

Keith

 

Peter, many thanks for trying, but they're still not getting it are they! :-}

 

----------------------

 

Maybe you can restate your question and help us:)