Do you have to do your own printing?

[tom_johnson2]

 

<p >How do you feel about printing your own shots? Of course these days that just means making your images viewable, and presentable in some way, as apposed to having someone else do them. I have always felt that processing, and printing was so much a part of photography, that if I was unable to make my own prints, it hardly worth spending the time to shoot. There was a point in my photographic life when this actually happened to me (<a href="http://www.squidoo.com/tandwcafepress">Click here to read full story</a> ). I think, in my case, this is because I started print making at an early age, at about the same time I started shooting.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >I wonder if there are a lot of photographers who feel as I do on that subject. What's your spin on the whole, “shoot, and print" philosophy? </p>

[irusan]

<p>I do my own fine art prints and have done so now for about half a year. It took me a month of experimenting and researching to get the process down to a state where I am very satisfied with the results. And I am speaking as someone with a strong background in print and color management.</p>

<p>Now, I cannot imagine sending out images for printing unless I need something large.</p>

<p>The advantage is that I now have total control over the photograph's lifecycle: capture, edit, print. The disadvantage is that I now have total control over thephotograph's lifecycle.</p>

<p>It's added more time to my schedule and I shoot less but I am at a point where that is a good thing. Shooting digitally made me a lazy photographer. I could shoot a lot, delete the bad frames (yes, I still refer to them as frames) and keep the rest. Digitally shooting, I was keeping less than 5% at the worst point.</p>

<p>Now that I have my finger on the entire flow, I shoot far less but my rate of keepers is much higher. I was at the Chicago Botanic Gardens a few weeks ago and pressed the shutter a mere eight times over a period of three hours. I tossed three of the images.</p>

<p>I am starting to keep field notes again - a habit that I have no idea why I stopped. I don't record silly information like aperture, shtter speed, ISO becase it's in the EXIF info AND each situation is different that what I did once isn't necessarily what I'd do again. What I do record is where I was and what I was trying to capture. I read those notes again as I do my post-production so that I can recall what I was trying to capture and make the final image reflect that vision.</p>

<p>I then re-read those notes when I select the paper I print on and before I send it to the printer.</p>

<p>So, Tom, I am with you. But it took me a while to come around again. :-)</p>

[charlesheckel]

<p>I agree that post-production is an integral part of the process, but it doesn't have to be printing. The final output can be a Web image, a magazine page, or an image used in turn in some other medium, such as a motion picture, and teamwork may be involved. My post-production may simply be producing a file that conveys my vision when subjected to the output process in question. </p>

[irusan]

<p>I think you're absolutely right, Charles.</p>

<p>Personally, I find myself printing more of my images than before because, more often than not, my web images feel like they have less value or are not as "real" as a printed image. There is absolutely no sane or rationale argument for this, just a weird gut feeling I have.</p>

<p>My vision has more life when printed.</p>

[luis_g]

<p> Some famous photographers do not do their own post-processing or printing. Art Wolfe and Jay Maisel come to mind. This is not to say that they don't exercise control over the process, of course.</p>

<p> </p>

[machts gut]

<p>For some time now I don't have access to a darkroom. I hope this will end soon, because I hardly shoot anymore. If I do I take my DSLR most of the time, which I actually don't like very much.</p>

[jtk]

<p>My photos aren't finished unless I've printed them to my own satisfaction. My files are like negatives and my important negatives are mostly files already (brutal selection). I don't post anything that I've not printed to letter size or larger. YMMV</p>

<p>I'm not sure an image works, does what it needs to do, until I'm happy with my print. I often abandon an image after repeated mediocre (but technically correct) prints, then come back with fresh eyes and find success. Couldn't afford that with a lab, wouldn't learn as much about possible potential.</p>

<p> </p>

[thomas semesky]

<p>No you don't have to do your own printing, but I think that there is a lot more pride and satisfaction in the finished product if you do. </p>

[luis_g]

<p>Others that do/did not print their own color work: Ernst Haas, Pete Turner, William Eggleston, Sonja Bullaty, Harry Callahan, Sam Abell, Galen Rowell, Barbara Cushman Rowell, Garry Winogrand, Nan Goldin, Rineke Dijkstra, Mapplethorpe, Helen Levitt, Todd Hido, Misrach, Larry Sultan, THeo Allofs, Phil Borges, Frans Lanting, Art Kane, Cindy Sherman, Irving Penn, Barbara Bordnick, Patrick Demarchlier, Walter Ioos, Ruth Orkin, Eliot Porter, Roman Vishniac, Gordon Parks, and many others.</p>

<p>It must be said that like most of us, most, if not all of these pros, with few exceptions, learned to print B&W during their early days. YMMV.</p>

[don_e]

<p>I'd rather have someone with skills I don't have and the equipment I can't afford do the printing for sizes larger than letter. I proof anything I send out on my inkjet.</p>

<p> </p>

[spanky]

<p>As already mentioned, many well known photographers from the past would outsource the printing and processing responsibilities. I do my own but still rely on school and by-the-hour darkrooms, thus I'm often backlogged with rolls going back several months or more before I get around to printing from them. One interesting thing I've noticed is that when a popular photographers work goes on auction or for sale in a gallery, pictures printed by a third party never seem to go for as much as those printed by the photographer themselves.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Luis, are you sure about Eliot Porter? I might have misinterpreted the bio information, but when I saw an exhibit featuring Porter's work at the Amon Carter I had the impression that he did at least some of his own dye transfer printing.</p>

[luis_g]

<p>Lex wrote: Luis, are you sure about Eliot Porter?</p>

<p>Yes, he did do his own dyes for a long time. Ken Lieberman still lists Porter among his client list. I believe he turned to Lieberman as he got older.</p>

<p>See here:</p>

<p>http://www.lieberman-labs.com/</p>

<p> The way one poses the question defines the range of possible answers. Does one have to do his own printing? Obviously not. If Tom had asked if he should learn the process, I would have responded with a resounding "yes".</p>

<p>One thing that a lot of people overlook is that a guy that prints eight hours a day, every day, can print far better than one who doesn't. If he has a good idea of what you want, he can print your own work better than you can, 24/7. Tom Baril would be the perfect (paper/film) example.</p>

<p>http://www.holdenluntz.com/artist/baril/baril.htm</p>

<p>What a printer doesn't know is exactly how the photographer envisioned the picture, and this is the crucial part, the communication between the two. Same with having someone else do your digital post-processing. If that isn't there, or a test print(s) made, a lot gets lost in translation. As previously pointed out, this is expensive. One has to generate enough volume to develop a close relationship with the printer, and be able to sell it at high enough prices to make the whole enterprise economically feasible.</p>

<p> Arthur Siegel, a significant Chicago photographer (New Bauhaus, LIFE, Fortune, Colliers Institute of Design) did a superb series titled "In Search of Myself"...</p>

<p>http://www.iphotocentral.com/search/full_image.php/256/Arthur+Siegel/0/6713/1/6713Siegel.jpg</p>

<p> ... which he had printed as dye transfers. He had a small edition made of each, and as it turned out, only a few sold. This broke Siegel, who had borrowed money to make all the prints, to work two jobs in his prime for years to pay for it.</p>

<p> </p>

[steve_swinehart]

<p>You do not have to print your own work if you can find a printer that you can work with. This is NOT the same as sending a file to a service or dropping off a piece of film at a lab. This is a working relationship between the artist and the printer - as in other areas of print making (usually intaglio or lithographic printing) in which the artist does not make the final print, but relies upon a master printer.</p>

<p>In the best working relationship - it is a collaboration between the artist and the printer that can be beneficial for the artist. The printer brings a different point of view of the work that the artist might not see. 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.</p>

 

[KenPapai]

<p>Let's see:</p>

<p>I "print" (final permanent output) to</p>

<p>1. the Web--Facebook, my photo blog, my regular Web page, Photo.net portfolio and No Words Forum (JPG images between 600 px and 1240 px wide)<br /> 2. to email -- sending out to friends, family, & colleagues (JPGs between 800 and 1200 px wide)<br /> 3. To archival paper with my Epson R2400, for portrait work, art work, collages for family, and photos for framing and large portfolio book collections (sizes 8x10 inches and up, never smaller)<br /> 4. Occasionally I farm out to local or online labs 4x6 or 5x7 print jobs for quantities of proofs and all of my 35mm film<br /> 5. My own PC and disks full of images for browsing at anytime, nothing gets lost, super easy to find--so much handier than the several dozen photo albums I accumulated in my film-only days that sit in the closet.</p>

<p>I print a lot! And more people see my work now than at any time prior to 2001.</p>

[steven_clark]

<p>I got into photography with the express purpose of making prints. I don't have someone else print, or even scan if I think I can do it properly with my equipment.</p>

[oskar_ojala]

<p>Like others said, you must know how post-processing works and have control over the process. Of course it can be outsourced, but at the high end, it requires a working cooperation between the printer and the photographer. Many of us do it ourselves, because it's not economically sound to outsource printing and digital makes post-processing a lot easier to approach than before.</p>

[john_liberty]

<p>Either way. I don't think H.C.B. printed much of his later work and it looks great. On the other hand people like Weston and Adams printed everything themselves. Which ever works best for you.</p>

[hjoseph7]

<p>I started out as a printer right after highschool, but soon got tired of coming home with dirty fingernails. Nevrtheless, I have 4 different printers at home and I'm thinking bout getting another one in the not too distant future. I love making my own prints whether in the darkroom or digital, but when it comes to bulk work(20 Plus prints) , I rather send it out. It's just not worth the time and effort. Of course if I was retired, or home ridden it would be a different story. </p>