The power of the print.

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>I recently visited the Wildlife Photographer of the Year travelling exhibition. It's an amazing exhibition. Seek it out if you haven't already seen it.</p>

<p>To get to the point, I was struck by the quality of the prints - despite the needlessly dim museum lighting. In contrast to the video and screen-presented still images they were much more "watchable". The colour appearing much more natural, even in those prints where the photographer had obviously wound the saturation up to eleven.<br>

The screen displays seemed crass, overly bright and lacking in highlight detail by comparison. And yet it's become the norm to view ephemeral glimpses of photographic images on a screen, with prints becoming a rarity. It made me realise how much I miss being able to take the time to really absorb a still image through a tangible and permanent display medium.</p>

<p>How do others feel about the current passing and near death of printed pictures?</p>

[Sandy Vongries]

<p>A question I saw somewhere that really resonated with me, and actually got me to buy a Pixma Pro 100, "Is it a photo if it isn't printed?" I have screen saver slide shows and a digital picture frame, but also framed prints of various sizes, some which I rotate in and out of frames.</p>

[sjmurray]

<p>Well, I developed negs and made my own prints for 30 years or so. I embrace the digital age for the amazing technology that allows me to explore color, share on pnet, facebook, etc. But, I still love the tangible print. I have way too many with nowhere to put them all (need to put some energy into finding galleries!). I made a small book through Blurb a few years ago, which was a fun project and when people hold the book in their hands and look at the printed photos, their reaction is much stronger than if they simply saw them on facebook. I guess from that observation, I have to say that prints have the potential for providing a more real and powerful experience for the observer than looking at an lcd screen. I am currently working on a project of making a series of 16x20 prints in hopes of getting a showing at a local gallery. I'm also thinking about making some 20x30 in prints because the 24mp camera I have is certainly capable of making a respectable print that size. In my black and white darkroom days, I only printed up to 11x14 due to size of trays. <br>

If you are unfamiliar with Blurb, check my book here: http://www.blurb.com/b/2116848-images?SSAID=314743&ce=affiliate_network</p>

[Julie H]

<p>For me:</p>

<p>A picture on the screen is a performance.</p>

<p>A print, by contrast, has identity; it's fragile, mortal.</p>

[ellis_vener_photography]

"The print is the proof."

[sjluke]

<p>Locally, we have a monthly meeting of photographers called "Print Night." And we share and critique only prints. It is the single best thing that ever happened to my own growth as a photographer. Years ago, I had a darkroom and enjoyed the wonder and delight of making my own prints. Advances in technology, the rise of digital photography, personal computers and printers have only enhanced that experience.<br>

I also have a great old flat file in which to store all those prints that come down from gallery displays, or never make it on a wall, but that I can keep to look at any time I want. </p>

<p> </p>

[User_5888660]

<p>I do find it interesting how much the definition of "photograph" has changed in a very short time.</p>

<p>The historical definition of photograph was an image, usually a positive, that is created by the action of light on a light sensitive surface and fixed for permanence. When I was in college in the 1970s, there was much discussion on what was and what was not a photograph. Images in magazines and newspapers were not photographs; they were ink print reproductions of photographs. The issue got very interesting in analyzing platinum prints versus photogravures, the first a photograph, the second not, but not always distinguishable by the human eye. Historically, a negative was not a photograph, but a step in the process to create a photograph. There was much argument about slides. Photographs were almost always prints, and the print was always made from a light sensitive surface. </p>

<p>Of course, the discussion was about the historic and scientific definition of photograph. In general use, most people referred to magazine images as photographs.</p>

<p>This historic definition of photograph has all but disappeared. The different dictionaries refer to images created by the action of light on surfaces such as film or digital sensors. To me the irony is that film was not a photograph, but a step toward creating a photograph. The shift has gone from printing to capture. Historically, a camera was not essential to the definition of photograph, now many dictionaries refer to a photograph as being an image created with a camera. </p>

<p>I'm not saying the change is bad. English adapts and changes rapidly. Photography has changed and language is keeping up with the changes. But I sometime chuckle when I hear statements like, 'More photographs have been taken in the last year than in the previous 100 years." Well, that's true, but only because the definition of photograph has changed. According to the historical definition, far fewer photographs were made last year.</p>

<p>We've gone from photographs being almost exclusively prints, to prints being a rarity. I like being able to send images to friends from my phone. I enjoy browsing Photonet and other sites with images. But, there is still something special about a well made photograph--whether a darkroom print (which meets the historical definition of photograph) or an image printed with inks or pigments (which doesn't meet the historical definition). </p>

<p> </p>

<p> </p>

[c_watson1]

<p>It's the <em>persistence</em> of prints that now seems to matter more than ever.</p>

[AJG]

<p>I agree that prints are a different and better experience, particularly as lot of projection of digital images is lacking in subtlety. The classroom at the community college where I teach has a classic too bright, too contrasty projector, and I constantly have to remember that what I am working on on my monitor isn't what my students are seeing. </p>

 

[jose_angel]

<p>Allen, very interesting. I still assume the original (or traditional) "photography" concept. BTW, personally, an inkjet print could be also a (non traditional process) photograph.<br /> <br /> Prints are in another level. If we look at the world`s image production, there are billions of images but not that many are printed to be seen on quality materials. Compared to the whole, my guess is that only a small percentage are made to be tasted on exhibition papers. And the percentage is even smaller if they are made as original copies or so.<br /> <br /> To me it`s not only the image; I use to enjoy the texture, the substance of the product. The printing material counts, the expertise of the printer, how it has been mounted, the signature, etc.<br /> <br /> I tend to feel that video and screen presented still images are just images, not photographs. I enjoy the photographs on my hands, hanged in front of me; a load of consecutive images on a screen (or even on some kind of publications) are merely documentation (not pejorative, just a different thing).</p>

[Lou_Meluso]

<p>Near death? A rarity? Not in these parts. You make your own mind up about these things. I can understand traditional darkroom wet work going by the wayside but inkjet printing is the bees knees. It's a world of expression and control one could only dream about years ago. If you don't print you are missing out on that expression not to mention the archival properties.</p>

<p>I can understand not wanting to take the time and energy to print most of the slosh posted on line. Printing is the process of making exceptional images into exceptional objects. Real objects that last. Do you have images that are worth the trouble? Only you can make up your own mind about these things.</p>

<p>The proof of the picture is in the print. Take no screen pixels as substitute.</p>

[James G. Dainis]

I would often say that I made a certain print in my darkroom. I have the three books in Ansel Adams' photography series, <I>The Camera, The Negative, the Print</I>. That said, I dislike the word "print" when referring to a photograph. There are just too many other images that can be called prints besides what one turns out in a darkroom - machine offset prints, laser jet prints, ink jet prints etc. Whenever I see a genuine Ansel Adams print selling on eBay for $20 I suspect it is a genuine offset print and not a darkroom print.

[Norma Desmond]

<p>I don't love getting into "which is better" debates. So what I'll add to the discussion is that I pay a lot of attention to the differences between screen images and prints. I generally have two different files of the same image, one for the screen and one for the print. Those two different files take into account the very different characteristics of each. There are several of my photos that I much prefer printed and several that I much prefer on the screen. Sometimes, I will make the files different in order to get them to have similar feels in two different mediums (screen and print). Sometimes, I will want a very different feel from the print and the screen image because of how the content and feel of the image works with each. It's kind of fun dealing with all these different possibilities. </p>

<p>One aspect that feels somewhat objectively the case about a comparison between prints and screen images (again, without having to get into which is better) is that when I print something I know that those viewing it will see what I've produced the way I produced it. With screen viewing, I know that many people don't have calibrated monitors and there are vast differences among monitors, so I can't be sure what people will be viewing when they view my photos that way. The reason I say I don't think of either way as better is that I don't mind the unknowns inherent in screen viewing and have actually adjusted to that whole notion of uncertainty and have come to appreciate it in some ways. Those unknowns supply some room for accident and serendipity as well as an awareness that a kind of ultimate authority for screen images may never be achieved. I think about how composers feel who have to see their work presented by various orchestras and playwrights who see their works realized through different directors and actors. It makes for a different kind of living experience on some levels.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>This is one of the best topics that I have seen discussed here in a very long time. I tend to view the print as "the proof," as Ellis Vener says above. I have to say that my own printing abilities have a long way to go to realize the full potential of some of the images that I have captured over the years.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[spanky]

<p>People usually have a stronger visceral response to work seen in person then on a screen or a book. The only exception might be the Mona Lisa which several people I know have seen and said they were disappointed in it. I guess they were expecting more; when one gets into their car and drives to a place to look at art they are making an effort so there is a level of expectation. When sitting in front of a screen in ones bathrobe eating toast while looking at any number of the millions of photographs uploaded the night before, maybe no so much. As a film shooter I value prints in a big way. I would much rather people see my work in person in print form and many do. However, I still scan and upload prints because it's fun and some photographers are able to take something away from them and that's a good thing.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>If you are unfamiliar with Blurb, check my book here: <a href="http://www.blurb.com/b/2116848-images?SSAID=314743&ce=affiliate_network" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://www.blurb.com/b/2116848-images?SSAID=314743&ce=affiliate_network</a></p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Steve, those are some great shots!</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>People usually have a stronger visceral response to work seen in person then on a screen or a book.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Marc, I do agree with you about having a stronger reaction to an original print than to a scan of that print I might see on my monitor. The thing is, a lot of times in today's world of photography, the screen image IS the work seen in person. Often all there is is a screen image. It's not like there's an in-person print somewhere that could be seen. A lot of photos that we see on screen will never become prints and what's happened is that "in person" is now something we can do sitting in front of our computers instead of having to travel because often there is nothing to travel to. All there is is a screen image. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>The only exception might be the Mona Lisa which several people I know have seen and said they were disappointed in it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I am one who was disappointed when seeing the Mona Lisa at the Louvre. I was disappointed because the viewing was sort of shattered by all the tourists taking snapshots of it. It wasn't disappointment in the Mona Lisa itself, which is magnificent. It was disappointment in the kitschy and distracting viewing experience. To me, there are few worse uses for a camera than taking a picture of the Mona Lisa.</p>

[Uhooru]

<p>For me, if I get a print I like from a photograph I've done, its alchemy. There's some kind of magical return of energy from the process that's different from electronic display. I don't know why, must think on it.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>I print a lot, especially when I'm shooting events as I try to make sets of images work together and for that I need to see the prints spread out on a table. On the computer I cannot see multiple high resolution images at the same time (though a 4K monitor would help with that to some extent) and I find that seeing them in physical prints makes it easier for me to study their relationships and ensure that the images are consistent and work well together. Then I can make adjustments and present the final set of images either in print or in digitally. Since the eyes and brain adopt to the brightness of the viewing environment, and as the monitor is usually the dominant light in the room, the eyes see the monitor image differently than the reflected light from a print which is not brighter than the environment. I find that if I optimize the image for printing, it looks good also on the monitor, but not the other way around. And for monitor viewing you never know what the viewer will see if they use a random monitor, this means there is a lot of variability in the viewing experience and thus room for disappointments. As furniture I also use large prints as well as sets of smaller prints framed. I don't think print as a medium is dying but it is perhaps now seen as secondary in importance. But that doesn't make it unimportant.</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>I don't print as much as I should, but I enjoy it when I do. It is certainly true to me that seeing a print for a long time is required before I can know whether I really like and/or can live with the image.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Some new monitors are capable of high quality reproduction of the digital image but most, including my older one and the small monitors of tablets or intelligent phones, do not have a similar capability, partly related to their ppi level and color gamut limitations. Prints also have their limitations and require a good degree of experience and expertise to present all the qualities present in a good digital file or negative. It all depends upon how critical one is of the technical aspects of reproduction when viewing a monitor image or a print. Highest possible quality is not always needed. That is sometimes overpowered in importance by the content of the image.</p>

<p>Inkjet prints of black and white images have had a difficult time in reproducing the level of tonal quality possible in very good silver base negatives projected onto photosensitive paper and well processed, but the gap has narrowed quite a bit. I often wish I could transfer my digital captures (particularly B&W) to a good negative and print it in the darkroom. The print has a texture that a monitor does not and that agreeable aspect of a print is what will probably make it a preferred medium for some photographers. It excels where a monitor image displayed for public viewing announces a sort of transient or non material quality (electrons or photons temporarily on a screen, dependent upon a computer being open) whereas a print is as permanent as its structure permits (some are measured in several hundred years of image durability) and that permanence and invariability (except for the variable interpretation of the image in the mind of the viewer) is part of its power and why I think it will remain as an often preferred medium of photography. </p>

[Julie H]

<p>To give a different perspective on screen images, here is what Jeff Wall has to say about them (he uses backlit transparencies in many of his exhibitions). He talks about how an onscreen picture always has a "hidden space -- control room, a projection booth, a source of light of some kind -- from which the image comes":</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>A painting on canvas, no matter how good it is, is to our eyes more or less flat, or at least flatter than the luminescent image of cinema, television, or the transparencies. One of the reasons for this is that the painting or the ordinary photograph is lit by the same light that falls on the room and onto the spectator him- or herself.</p>

<p>[<em>line break added</em>] But the luminescent image is fascinating because it's lit with another atmosphere. So two atmospheres intersect to make the image. One of them, the hidden one, is more powerful than the other. ... The site from which the image originates is always elsewhere. And this "elsewhere" is experienced, maybe consciously, maybe not, in experiencing the image.</p>

<p>... It's an experience of dissociation, or alienation. ... It is a classical site of power.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>[The " ..." parts that I've left out are where Wall inserts blame on capitalism, which are not fit for a Casual Conversation.]</p>

[tholte]

<p>I don't have a favorite way to view images. I enjoy seeing real prints when I go to a museum or gallery and I enjoy viewing them on a monitor, tablet or what ever digital device. I have thousands of my own prints in albums, boxes and all over the place but I would rather go on my computer to really look at them. Each to his or her own I guess.</p>

[maris_rusis]

<p><em>Pictures</em> are basically swarms of marks on a surface that we interpret as a representation of something. Because there are many many ways of getting marks onto a solid surface I like to keep some intellectual clarity amidst all the potential confusion.</p>

<p>A <em>photograph</em> is a surface that bears picture-forming marks as a consequence of that surface being struck by light. <em>Paintings</em> and <em>drawings</em> are characterised by having the marks placed by hand. And <em>prints</em> are pictures where some visible substance is placed on a surface by a technical or mechanical method. There are so many ways of <em>printing</em> I reckon it's a good idea to use specific terms like etching, woodcut, ink-jet, lithograph, aquatint, and so on.</p>

<p>Because this is a photography forum it's fair to point out that paintings, drawings, and all the printing methods can be executed in a room where there is no light. Sure, you can't see them but there are there. Photographs too can't be seen in the dark but given the absence of light they can't be be made at all.</p>

<p>In terms of describing subject matter photographs are more powerful than prints, paintings, and drawings, because their authority comes from direct physical causation rather than mere resemblance.</p>

<p> </p>

[AlanKlein]

<p>I visited Clyde Butcher's gallery in Florida last month. http://clydebutcher.com/<br>

There's nothing like seeing 5 and 6 foot wide BW prints. They just pull you in. </p>