The power of the print.

[spanky]

<p>I hope nobody minds if I shift gears here slightly. I'm curious to find out what people think about ink jet prints vs. silver gelatin prints. By this I mean in the marketplace such as art fairs, galleries, online sales forums and so on. Should a ink jet print sell for the same, more, or less then a darkroom silver print? I ask because I recently visited a gallery where a group show was being shown. All the photographs were black and white ink jet prints. Setting aside the strength of the pictures content, and just considering ink jet vs. silver print I thought a significant number of these were over-priced, some considerably so. I mean to make a darkroom print requires a degree of skill that sitting at a computer and using photoshop or lightroom cannot match. I also question any ink jet print that states "archival ink jet print." Really? Says who? Are there examples that are 100 years old that prove this? I don't mean to be a film snob, but in my humble opinion a darkroom print should always sell for more then a ink jet print. In fact, with ink jet prints now being the norm, I have yet to see any I would consider spending more then maybe $50 on. Any thoughts? </p>

[Uhooru]

<p>Marc, I think there are many more important factors in what values a print in the market place than what the media was, at least in color printing. You're talking about B/W and even here I think the distinction is lessening. Normally you would expect a Silver print to command a higher price, all other factors being equal. But then, if you have a popular photographer commanding high prices for their work, the type of print may not be so important, especially if they are doing limited edition prints. Also, there are new techniques, papers etc for B/W inkjet printing that are really really good. Also, making exhibition ink jet prints, color or b/w can be just as time consuming and more expensive to make than dark room prints. I'm not sure I agree with you about computer skills compared to darkroom skills. You maybe correct, but its not always so simple to get a great digital print and requires all kinds of skills, knowledge and patience. I was told by a professional darkroom printer that it takes a good 8-10 years to be a master printer, and of course that's was just his opinion, but he's also was talking about knowledge of development, chemistry, papers and techniqus. <br>

I think one can pick up digital darkroom techniques faster than that, but to really be a professional level digital printer and retoucher? I don't know. A lot of us have fairly decent digital darkroom skills but really top notch? There's a good question for everyone. What do you think your level of digital skills are and roughly how long did it take you to get there?</p>

[tholte]

<p>Many of the really good photographers I have seen the last few years at art fairs are printing on aluminum. No matt, frame or glass required, light weight and you can wipe off future finger prints and dust. </p>

[spanky]

<p>Excellent points guys, thanks. I'm the first to admit that I am quite computer illiterate and generally have to rely on the kindness of friends to help me out with any computer issues that come my way. </p>

[sjmurray]

<p>Marc, over 10 years ago, ago when I was transitioning from darkroom to digital printing from scanned negatives, I participated an on line forum: "The Large Format Photography Forum." There was a lot of discussion about inject printing. Many experienced black and white silver process printers who experimented with inkjet became converts, talking about the increased dynamic range in a digital print and the better control overall of the tonality. There are also many types of papers and surfaces to select from too. I experienced this when I was able to better control the highlight and shadow detail from the scanned negative, allowing me to make prints I was not able to do in the darkroom. I'm sure there are plenty of people that still prefer the look and feel of a silver print, but many people who want the most creative flexibility in their final product find digital printing the best answer. </p>

[AlanKlein]

<p>Clyde Butcher charges more for his silver gelatin prints than for his digital prints. Beside the "appeal" from the buyer, there's more time spent to create each individual print what with developing, spotting, etc. Once you finalize a digital version you just run off an many copies as you need.</p>

[dirk_dom1]

<p>Maybe this is of interest:<br>

http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2016/02/12/hasselblad-xpan-a-print-solution-by-dirk-dom/<br>

How I made a 24 inch photo book.<br>

It was worth it.<br>

Dirk.</p>

 

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>Why do folks want to make a better print if the print matches to what's on their screen? Why make it so hard?</p>

<p>I have a commercial press background and what I'm getting on my $50 Epson "All In One" rivals the best high end offset press prints I saw back in the '80's & '90's.</p>

<p>What's to obsess over about getting a better print?</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>Why do folks want to make a better print if the print matches to what's on their screen?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Suggestion: Watch a painter painstakingly paint. Watch a sculptor sculpt, slowly molding and remolding his clay. Watch an orchestra rehearse, going over the same passage again and again to bring out every possible nuance of tone, color, and texture. Why would anyone think making a final print is any different? It's not just "hard." It's ecstatically hard.</p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>"Prints are in another level. If we look at the world`s image production"</p>

<p>Indeed.</p>

<p>Depends if you are just happy with just looking at your work on low res screens. Most folk are...sort of sad really as they missing out on a another level of enjoyment....</p>

<p>Fast food...quick and easy; with little use as possible of the mind is the measure of the day.</p>

<p>The way of world.</p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>Sort of like food....sugar and salt is the way to go for quick fix.</p>

<p>ask any food manufacturer.</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>Fred, I thought the photo was the art.</p>

<p>A print is just showing what that artistic vision looks like. I don't see art in a print unless a graphic designer is involved in selling a corporate or small business image in the form of brochures and annual reports. Craft paper is used because it can be seen and handled by potential clients as they flip through the pages or panels of the high end polished publications.</p>

<p>A print of a photo hangs behind glass on a wall where no one is suppose to touch it and only view the image, not the surrounding paper frame or texture.</p>

<p>Or are you being facetious?</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>No, I'm not being facetious at all. I'm being a photographer. Read Weston. Read Adams. The photo is the art and when a photo is printed you can't separate the photo from the print from the art. A photo is a visual medium and the print is what one looks at when one is looking at a print. It's a realized image. If you want to say "a print is showing (I eliminated the "just" because it's unsuitable) what the artistic vision looks like" that's fine. I have no quarrel with that. So is a painting. The print completes the process when a photo is printed. Again, compare it to music. One could say the score is the art (and, in a sense it is). But the orchestra realizes it and the orchestra is doing a lot more than just making audible the artistic vision. It becomes part of the artistic realization. That's how the print works. And a print can be fine tuned as much as an orchestra can be. Think nuance!</p>

[Uhooru]

<p>Dirk, the book looks great! Very nice.</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>Fred, how do you make the print come across as artistic and/or as an element of the artistic aspect of the photographic image especially if it's an inkjet, excluding darkroom prints?</p>

<p>Are you including the frame and matting as part of the art of the print?</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Tim, I'm seeing something on the screen and I'm happy with it. Then I print it, which is a different medium, the print not being backlit like the screen image. So I make adjustments to the print to bring out certain things and to make it look a certain way. Those same subtleties wouldn't work the same way in the screen image because of the medium. I mean, many of us even make adjustments to the files depending on what type of paper we're using, because of different amounts of reflectivity and ink absorption. So, of course, we might want to finesse photos differently depending on whether they will be shown on screen or printed. No, this discussion is not about matting or framing, though I think those are crucial decisions as well. It's about making a photo, a photo for a screen or a photo for print.</p>

<p>For clarity, I don't think a print is better than a screen image, as I said in my first post here. I do both and I find that some of my photos are more suitable to one or the other and some work well either way. I'm also not out to convince you to print your photos or to work hard to print them or to care much about the prints and the differences they offer from screen images. I'm answering your question "Why do folks want to make a better print if the print matches to what's on their screen?" It's because prints have different characteristics than screens and many think the most should be made out of each medium and that each medium offers very different possibilities. I think anyone who wants to understand can. I suggested some reading and I've explained all I care to. </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>I think anyone who wants to understand can.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm sorry. This may not be so. One would have to see and feel how different a print is from a screen image in order to understand why each might be finessed very differently and why, in many cases, "matching" the two would be undesirable, impossible, or irrelevant. It may be that some and even many folks simply don't see and feel those differences between the two mediums I'm talking about, in which case it would be extremely difficult if not impossible to understand this.</p>

[spanky]

<p>What Fred said above. I was at the Getty Center a year or so ago where they had a number of Ansel Adams prints on exhibit. On one wall there were two side by side prints of his famous Moonrise, Hernandez New Mexico each printed many years apart. It was to show the change in how Adams would print a negative as time passed. The earlier print was much softer in contrast whereas he printed the later version with harder contrast. Which one was more effective? That's for the individual to decide. Likewise what Fred mentioned about music. Anyone who listens to classical music knows how different a opus can sound like when played by different orchestras and different conductors. Listen to a common recording like Vivaldis Four Seasons and you will hear very different interpretations.</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>So it's really about nuances seen only by the photographer making the print.</p>

<p>I find the environment where the print is viewed has far more influence on its artistic appeal whether it's displayed in a high end gallery versus in someone's home next to an unkept desktop computer workstation with papers strewn about. </p>

[jose_angel]

<p>Everything counts, everything! The media, the display, illumination, wall color, the mounting, frame, paper/monitor quality, the print/screen size, the exhibition posters and introduction, even the photographer`s background. Exhibition curators knows it quite well, and make use of this (specially when the exhibition is not so good! It`s quite common to see artist`s work where the -only- appeal were in the size of the prints).</p>

<p>Needless to say that a b&w print or a paint work looks better on certain frame color/type than on others. If you know about the artist`s life or behavior you`ll appreciate (or not) his/her work more easily. But it has nothing to do with the raw image. The image need to have anything on it that hits the viewer`s heart.</p>

<p>To me craftsmanship`s obviously count. In the same way a sculptor make first a bust in clay to be then built in bronce after a process, the photographer can make a hand or traditionally processed print. The sculptor can get a head`s 3D scan to be then 3D printed on a plastic block, it could be comparable to a digital shot straight printed through an inkjet device or viewed on a screen. I personally consider the first more valuable, the second is simply 3D or 2D reproduction.<br>

We all know that oil painting has always been considered a more elevated art compared to photography. My mother, painter, always considered watercolor to be a "step down" art compared to oil (I never understood why). </p>

<p>I have seen some A. Adams original famous prints that look really bad (well, that was my impression). Dull, yellowed, just another soul-less landscape image. The first time I was really disappointed. Although not my favorite, I`d pay money for that prints, they are part of <em>my</em> life as photographer.</p>

<p>But at the end, we are talking about art, so I think it`s just about feelings and emotions. Other than this is simply documentation. Sometimes feelings and emotions could be not justified, but that`s another topic.</p>