With whom does the credit lie...

I dont usually comment on this forum, however, working extensively in B&W film

and, considering the amount of post-processing effort often involved, I find

myself thinking about an issue on which Im curious to hear the views of others here.

 

A number of well known and famous photographers use/used assistants to perform

all their darkroom work. Given the potential darkroom effort and skill-level

necessary to achieve some of these final prints from the negative; who really

warrrants the credit for the final print? The photographer or the master

print-maker...

Excellent question, and considering I am one of those people who does a lot of the 'printing/prepping' work for others (in Photoshop these days, not the darkroom), I've often found a good photographer has no problem noting your efforts...they are HAPPY to have their images popping out on the page......and you as well as the retoucher need to make sure your part of the job is explicated. I seem to recall in Adams' books he gives much credit to his printer...and in the good old days, when I had my darkroom marathons with new photographers, they were always very grateful...

 

But as far as formal credit goes, I'd be really curious as to some answers myself...paid vs. unpaid efforts especially...where in the first case you might end up giving your rights for money.

 

Shawn

The credit should lie with the person who makes the photograph that you see. It is a peculiar perversion in photo-culture that the credit tends to go to the person who made the original exposure even if they did nothing else subsequently. Exposures, for heavens sake, aren't even photographs. At best, exposures can be turned into negatives which then go on to be the subject matter for the final photograph. Photographing a negative using paper backed photographic emulsion is really photography not printing (sic) and it offers more opportunities for skill and personal expression than the original point 'n click moment.

 

Photography ultimately is about visually, emotionally, and intellectually engaging photographs. Subject matter is just another ingredient, considered, consumed, and finally discarded that you need to use on your journey to the final result.

 

Many people, even some photographers, forget that the photograph on the gallery wall is not a photograph of what was in front of the camera but rather of what was in the camera.

The photographer gets the credit unless the print maker makes an interpretative versuion

of the image so different from the photographer's intent that the photographer either

refuses to take credit for it or can't recognize it as his own work. And any "master print

maker" or assitant who is honest will back me up on this.

 

The photographer may choose to credit the print maker -- Henri Cartier-Bresson once

famously said that print makers are "the real artists in photography" and repeatedly and

highly praised the man who printed his work from the mid 1940s until the end -- but

without looking it up on the internet or in a book or other reference material can you tell

me that man's name?

It is strange to me that photographers have such a problem with the concept of working with a master printer maker. In other areas of print making (etching and lithography for example), the printing processes and equipment required are so difficult to fully master, that the artist usually works collaboratively with a master print maker to generate the printed image.

 

The print maker is acknowleged on every print through an embossed "chop" that is a distinctive design of the master print maker. Most artists working in intaglio processes would readily concede they could not arrive at the final image without the collaborative effort of the master print maker. Why photographers seem to have such a problem with this type of working arrangement is a bit baffling - as it's a type of relationship with hundreds of years of precedence.

<I>Why photographers seem to have such a problem with this type of working

arrangement

is a bit baffling - as it's a type of relationship with hundreds of years of precedence.</I>

<P>Almost all artists who work with paint, stone, metal and wood all work to varying

degrees with apprentices, fabricators, interns, and other categories of assistants. Some

acknowledge those comrades-in-arts , and some choose not to. I don't understand why

many people who think of themselves as "photographers" (beyond casual snapshooters)

think that straight photography means that no manipulation can be done to the image

once the shutter release button is pushed, that film based photography is inherently more

true to what is in front of the camera than digital based photography is, or other either/or

absolutes like the one Craig posits must prevail. These attitudes mystify me.

"But as far as formal credit goes,..."

 

In real terms, today, it should be like fashion, where credit is given where credit is deserved/due.

 

Photographer

 

Printing by

 

Digital PostProcessing services by

 

Designes by

Shoes by

 

Tailoring/alterations by

 

Hair

 

Nails

 

Makeup

 

Lighting by

 

Catering

 

Transportation

 

Security

 

Choreography

 

Grip

 

Best Boy

 

Assistant to

 

Rentals by

 

Modeling agency

 

Models

 

And a special thanks to the accounting department for without their services, so everybody get's paid on time, none of this would be possible:)

 

And a big thank-you to all who came before. For without their efforts, I'd know nothing and so in retrospect I'm "internally" (not to be confused with eternally) grateful to everyone.

 

Seems reasonable to me.

I think Ellis' first post is articulate & pertinent enough not to need any re-formulation.

"I seem to recall in Adams' books he gives much credit to his printer"

 

 

Adams printed his own work throughout his career although certain "finishing" steps (spotting etc.) were delegated to assistants.

As I see it, those who assist in the making of a print are part of the process, along with the camera, lenses, film, etc. and deserve no more or less credit. They get paid to do their job and shouldn't require further acknowledgment. When a chef creates a fine meal, does he share credit with the chicken?

Thomas, models do not get credit for the majority of fashion work. They never have and probably never will.

 

As for the main question, I see no reason to give formal credit to the printmaker. They chose the profession and are paid for their work regardless if the print sells or not. If a photographer wants to give credit then that's great but there should be no expectation.

Ditto Ellis. No matter who does the "heavy lifting", the photographer has the final creative say.

 

I've mentioned this before. I once got to watch Robert Rauschenberg making prints. There was a small army of people working away, but there was no doubt as to who's art is was.

re: <I>"I seem to recall in Adams' books he gives much credit to his printer"</I><P>To

clarify: Adams (I'm assuming you mean Ansel Adams) was giving credit to the people at his

publisher who were printing the book.

"They never have and probably never will."

 

Probably why they're listed just above accountants:)

 

I guess the printing assistant or third party print services should be considered in the same vain as a ghost writer.

 

Dali publically (was filmed overtly doing so) used surrogates and this point never seemed to taint the value of his signed efforts.

It seems to me that everyone who contributes should get recognition. That's one of the really nice things about the modern movie industry; I really like those long lists of the people involved and the music over the credits can be great fun too.

"It seems to me that everyone who contributes should get recognition."

 

Seems reasonable. Now to what extent is contributary thanks given?

 

Not trying to be rediculous in my below, just being a muse.

 

Does one give thanks for anybody who's helped with the devlopment of their photographic eye, sold them equipment or helped in their selection of photographic gear? Would it be proper to not mention the fine, influential advice received here on this philosophical forum? How far down into the support network is one responsible to mention? Would it be correct to say: "I made the pic and Buddy here did the printing."; and leave out all the rest of the "wee little people" even remotely attached to the process as a whole?

 

Where does it begin and where does it end?

It certainly does make one think when one considers the reputation enjoyed by such as Robert Mapplethorpe who employed people to set his lights, position and set his camera and then process and print his film.

I think if printmakers, assistants et al want to be known, they had better start taking their own photographs.

The Photographer.

 

I have read and seen (via video) accounts of Louis Faurer's directions, re-directions, and re-re-directions to his printer, who was no slouch, until it was the way Faurer wanted it. I have seen a video of Richard Avedon's directions to his printer......same scenario. I have read countless articles in American Photographer (circa 1970's......when they use to show photographer's contact sheets, and directions to printers in the articles) and it was much the same.

 

I have little doubt that even though the printer may be a master at his craft, the "art" of the image is still closely controlled by the photographer.

 

I edit and print my own stuff. I tried early on in this hobby to get labs to print things the way I wanted....but, either they couldn't do it.......or I sucked at directions. Probably a little of both. So, I decided I had to learn it for myself. Now with photoshop, and the little tweaks I can do here and there in the editting........I can see why I was never quite satisfied. If any of you have ever seen Louis Faurer's self titled book's rough print mark up to his printer..........I get a lot like that.....I would probably drive even the best printer crazy with my little tweaks here and there.

 

So, anyhow, thats why I think it's still the photographer who should get the credit. They are the ones that know what they want....and if they care at all, they WILL drive their printer crazy trying to get it to look that way.

"...they WILL drive their printer crazy trying to get it to look that way."

 

Many years ago, in my younger days, for an old man I painted a front door. I lamented to a friend about how the old man commented and hung on my every move, being ever so critical of my effort in the process.

 

My friend commented... "Well, if he was so damn worried about how the door was painted, then why didn't he do it himself?" It was there that I realized and commented, "He did, he just used my hand." :)

 

Now, who painted the door? Me or the old man? :)

You know, the big problem today, in commercial work, is how many photographers just

turn their raw files over to the client. In most cases, they are routinely processed and

nothing special is done, but it makes no sense--no sense of artistic pride.

 

That said, any photographer worth anything will give directions and "approve" the final. In

that way, they are in control of the process and so there shouldn't really be any question

about credit. If there is major digital compilation, I always give credit to the digital house

that does the work, even if I shot all the elements, but I don't really have to--they do work

for hire.

 

A few years back, this question came up with regards to stylists. Those who set up a shot,

create the set. There was a ruling that came out that the credit for the shot was a shared

thing if the stylist was in control of the set. I have never heard anything more, but most

photographers don't relinquish that much control. The stylist works at the photographers

direction.

 

In art, there are a lot of situations where the artist never touches a thing(sculpture, glass

etc--Thomas Kinkade!?!?!?!?), assistants do all the work, but it is still the artists work.

"The man who knows how will always work for the man who knows why" - Anon.

"Does one give thanks for anybody who's helped with the devlopment of their photographic eye..."

 

That might be an option, Thomas. There's a system of document history used in many organisations that allows you to see everyone who worked on a file. In these days of digital, I suppose it could be applied to photographs.

Have any of you ever printed for anyone? I have, both photographically and fine art lithographs. In both settings, it was collaborative effort. This means, I used my expertise and judgement to accomplish things the artist could not do himself. The artist could not arrive at the final image without my participation in the process.

 

In both cases (photography and lithography) the artist chose me to make the prints specifically because of my technical skills AND the ability to collaborate with the artist. This is a process in which I work with the artist to arrive at the final image. It is much, much more than the artist saying, "I want this color, and this area darker, and crop it this way."

 

It is a give-and-take between the printer and the artist through which the image is discussed, the intent of the artist is discussed, and how the intent may be best expressed in the final print is discussed. I give the artist my ideas on how to treat the image to get the final result that's desired. The artist will respond and we "work it out" together to get the result we both agree will best represent the artist's intent.

 

In lithography, this is acknowleged on every single print through the printer's mark which you will see in the lower right corner of any professionally printed fine art lithograph. This mark is the credit given to the lithographer for his contribution to the final image.

 

In the case of wet darkroom photographic prints the printer's mark would not work as it is an embossed (raised) graphic in the surface of the print. This would crack the emulsion, or in the case of a material like Ilfochrome professional paper, could not be embossed because it is a polyester material.

 

In this case, the credit was given through the frontspiece in the portfolio; and in the show, through the artist's statement that was part of the show.

 

While there are no hard and fast rules about doing this, or a requirement that a photographer provide this type of credit, it is just common courtesy to provide credit where the printer has worked in a collaborative effort with the photographer.

 

Where there is no collaborative effort between the photographer and the printer, and the printer is merely acting as a technician in executing a set of instructions from the photographer, certainly no credit is due the printer as the printer has had no creative input to the final print.

 

The point being, there is not one single paradigm where the photographer is always the only person give credit for the end result.

However choice of subject, framing, lens, and film was done by the same person who chose the darkroom technician.