Just how important is the printing material to impact?

[robert_cardon]

After reading all the hullabaloo over the Azo �crisis,� I got to

thinking of just how important is the print emulsion used, or

technically-derived aesthetic nuance, to the overall objective, i.e.,

creating prints with compelling visual impact. What is the optimum

balance between craft (and I�ll include materials as part of craft)

and content? Ideally both the craft and content are 100% but in real

life it doesn�t work that way. For example, perhaps craft can be

perfected on a 12x20 contacted on Azo or platinum. However, the

cumbersome nature of the format will severely limit content

potential. On the other hand, 4x5 gives the most options for

content, but probably will never quite equal a 12x20 contact in the

craft department.

 

Since in my book, content is always, always king, I have opted for

the 4x5 format. Will my enlargements achieve the look M. Smith got

on that Azo print of the pile of stacked firewood he brought to the

LF Conference last year? Probably not, but then I�ll get 16x20 or

20x24 enlargements of images he�ll never be able to make and contact

at that size. So perhaps it�s all about tradeoffs.

 

Perhaps a more significant question relates to one�s audience; who

will see the prints? I notice a huge focus on the technical in this

forum, which is not good or bad per se, just what it is. I can�t

help but think that many are overly concerned in evaluating their

prints by a standard of craft which few beyond the technically astute

(other photographers and curators) will appreciate. This is

perfectly acceptable as we all have to please ourselves, but there is

a danger in letting craft supercede content, with the result being

technically perfect but visually insipid images.

 

There was an interview in Lenswork recently where someone remarked

that some galleries stopped differentiating silver from platinum

because most people couldn�t tell the difference. I think this is a

very telling remark. If one aspires to reach a large, disparate

audience (art for the masses), then it makes me wonder if obsession

on craft over content (which to me is at the heart of the Azo

postings) is not wasted on the average content-oriented Joe Six-pack

or yuppie who won�t know the difference, or appreciate it (now they

will see a difference in a Van dyke vs. a silver print). In other

words, if your pictures are appreciated only by MOMA curators, other

photographers, photochemical technicians, and Art History PhD�s, then

something is wrong. Nor should it take pedantic A.D. Coleman style

prose to explain your prints intent or aethetic value.

 

Any thoughts?

 

RJ

 

*** This post doesn�t consider contacting large negs digitally

produced from smaller formats, another can of worms. ****

[dick roadnight cotswolds]

Phgotography is begining (after more than a centuary) to catch up with painting in the use of a variety of (printing) materials.

 

We choose the film and camera at one point and the paper later, and we can re-invent the picture in the computer in between.

 

For many of us the question is "who will buy the prints?"... Is it a sad reflection, on the the way the market sees our art, that a photograph that looks like a painting tends to be more saleable?

 

I am thinking more about what the ink (or emulsion) sticks to than the emulsion itself, but how many of us set out to make a photograph look like an oil painting or a water colour?

 

... and some of us are more interesten in making a profit that an impact - and why not?

[maury_cohen]

Robert,

IMO... on the surface, to the average viewer any technical background is pretty irrelevant. However, texture, tone, etc. all have concious and subconcious effect on how we react to an image.

I had recent reminder of this while watching a DVD movie. DVD's frequently include directors comments on special features not part of the original theatrical release. In these comments the director will often describe many of the subtle qualities that he/she put into the film for specific emotive reasons.

So in way, EVERY deatil we put into an image has an effect on the viewer, as subtle as it may be.

[jim_galli4]

Very well said and thoughtful post.

 

I have often thought about where my desire for both began. Wherever it was, and I believe it was in a museum in Los Angeles as a small child, I looked at photographs that were different than we could make with our family Kodak. It's telling that I can't remember what the photographs were "of" but something in my small brain said "these are different in a value kind of way. These are fabulous. Look at the detail in that locomotive that's a whole city away."

 

I always kind of suspected that perhaps I'd been gifted with a "good eye" (I only have one that works) so never thought much about content figuring it would take care of itself. But craft has been an exciting adventure that I'm no where near the end of. As a small child and younger man I simply assumed that the kind of quality that had mesmerized me was not available to me. When I gradually learned that it actually was an exciting adventure began and continues to this day.

 

We've all seen the pictures that are all craft/ no content. Platinum prints of nothing taken inside a trailer park?? On the other hand as young boys we could be in a museum with Van Goghs on the wall, and if some kid had brought a 2X3 inch picture ripped out of Playboy........well, content is sometimes king. But it is the magic combination of both that makes the good pictures work.

 

Obviously there's no 1 right answer to the question but it is valuable for this community to be reminded that the difference between a 4.5/90 Rodenstock vs a 5.6/90 Schneider is not going to make a bit of difference towrds that ultimate goal of pictures that plant a subliminal memory in a small boys brain that comes to life later.

[tedharris]

Dick asked, "Is it a sad reflection, on the way the market sees our art, that a photograph that looks like a painting tends to be more saleable?"

 

No, I don't think so because I don't think it is always the case. Depends on the specific subject, the image in your (the artist's) eye and the type of wet and/or computer manipulation and processing you feel is appropriate, coupled with the final printing technique and paper to most closely achieve the image that is in your mind's eye or one that most closely approximates it.

 

Many of the fine art images I create start as 4x5 or 8x10 chromes but the image in my mind's eye is frequently more akin to a watercolor. Years ago I used to work toward that image with a laborious collection of wet processes and was still not usually satisfied with my paper choices, even when I painted an emulsion on watercolor paper. Today I use Photoshop manipulation, then scan the chrome and print it as a giclee on watercolor paper and I am very satisfied. Most of these images I sell as 10 x 15 or 16 x 20 prints. The 10 x 15�s usually sell for around $300-350 matted and framed and make a tidy profit at that. I do think the printing process does make a difference as I have asked a number of folk if they would prefer the giclee or �straight� print. I have asked a number of folk to make choices from side by side comparisons and they always take the giclee. Granted, this is only partly the process, a lot of it is being very sure what paper, what process mates best with a particular image or subject.

 

Is it partly public taste, I think so. I also think it is the artist thinking broadly of the entire process of creating and presenting the image, not just stopping with the choice of the film or limiting himself to a single printing process, or size, etc.

[john_cook1]

After pumping out thousands and thousands of hard-core nuts and bolts black and white 8x10 AZO contact prints of things like Church toilet seats in the 1970's, I am mildly amused that this paper currently has such a cult following. Who knew!

 

Sadly, content is the only thing which will survive the ravages of offset lithography and cheap scanners. Almost every fine, handmade print looks like gray mush in all but the most expensive art books. And today so few young people have ever seen a real black and white print.

 

The classical rule for maximum impact has always been, "If you can't make it good, make it big. And if you can't make it big, make it colorful". You know, there IS something to be said for 8x10 Velvia transparencies!

[aaron_van_de_sande]

You really think that there is nothing more than a stack of wood to the content from people who are contact printing? Michael Smith has portraits, cityscapes, possibly anything you can think of. Consider Weston's work, most of it contact printed, is it wanting for content? Reasoning like yours is what lacks content.

[sandy_sorlien]

Great thread.

It's not about selling, it's about communicating. We are collectors, showoffs. We go out and collect (photograph) the stuff we want to preserve, or we go out and see something we want to show someone. Either way we are trying to share it with others. However you do it, with Azo, with ULF, with a Diana, or anything in between, if you are not communicating YOUR VISION to the people you want to understand it, then your technique needs work. If you are communicating it, then forget about micro-managing every little thing and trying different developers and papers. Just go out and "collect" some more stuff. You will know when something isn't working, like if you can't get blacks as rich as you'd like, or if you keep saying, Gee I wish I had a longer lens for these shots.

 

I believe in content first, then you'll figure out a way to get it across.

 

Cheers,

Sandy

[ken_lee11]

<i>"In other words, if your pictures are appreciated only by MOMA curators, other photographers, photochemical technicians, and Art History PhD�s, then something is wrong."</i>

 

<p>You may be right, but it seems to me that progress (artistic and scientific) is made by raising the standards, not by lowering them. The audience of tomorrow may very well be much more sophisticated than that of today. It's best to aim as high as you feel comfortable.

 

<p>I agree with you that there is a sweet-spot where optimum quality, portability, cost, flexibilty and usability converge. For me too, it is 4x5.<div></div>

[john_gerndt1]

Content or form, this is not a choice but a relationship. I shoot all formats; each has possibilities the other does not; that is why they exist. I never could commit to only one because I hated being limited.

 

Now the concentration of people talking minutia within this forum continues because it is mostly factual. Who will discuss content? Who cares about sales? Is there a splinter group or two to be formed?

 

Is there an assumption underneath the question asked that there is a right and a wrong way to make photographs? Is that what sticks in the craw of someone who couldn�t care less about AZO? AZO is from one beloved technique and I understand its attraction and thus bemoan its possible loss from my own bag of tricks. It is not the only way to make images but it IS one of extraordinary beauty. So is B&W infrared. I would hate to loose that possibility and you can bet there would be an outcry if that was threatened albeit on some other forum probably.

 

There is a knowledgeable way to attempt and control processes and a point where most people give up on absolute control. That knowledge and wisdom is what I seek from the forum and it provides much of what I need. I have talked content and intent for many hours in art school. You need a lot of images and artists to do it well. It could be done on the net and might be a fine splinter to form. How are we set for data space?

 

John

[wally_hess]

I'm just a beginner so I'm still looking to find the right combination of materials, technique, and secret sauce to mix together to acheive my vision. I have considered using Azo simply because I've never seen it and dont know what I may be missing. The problem is, no local store sells it and I sure would like to see some examples of Azo prints to judge for myself.

Are the differences between an Azo vs a normal type paper print too subtle to scan and exhibit here? If not, can someone please post examples of each to look at? Maybe in this case a picture truly is worth more than a 1000 words.

 

Thanks

[john_kasaian1]

Content! An interesting image from a ratty negative will beat flawless fluff anytime. As to AZO: It is one more 'tool.' I like tools. Its a real bummer when you need a tool and you find out they don't make 'em anymore, which is why your high school shop teacher was always telling his students to "take care of your tools." My 2-cents.

[jim_ryder5]

If truthful communication is considered to be the purpose and use of a work, which I think is an extremely high goal, then Heidegger's comments in Poetry, Language, and Thought are revealing: "Both the formative act and the choice of material-a choice given with the act-and therewith the dominance of the conjunction of matter and form, are all grounded in such usefulness. A being that falls under usefulness is always the product of a process of making." (Colophon, p. 28) The materials and the processes, the matter of the work are essential facets of it and cannot be abstracted from it. They are indicative of the maker and the work of making. The final work is only the last precipitate of the whole and cannot stand outside it. A heavy metal on paper fused with a chemical catalyst feels, means and is something other than a bit of dye or some plastic. The understanding of this relationship leads to a proper respect for the processes and materials and therefore to significantly different work which more completely respresents the truth of the relationship between the maker and the made which is at the heart of the communicative act. Heidegger continues by writing of the importance of "preservers" who understand these works in all the truth of their complexity. "Rather, in the work, truth is thrown toward the coming preservers..." I should hope they understand and if my materials, processes and images are adequate, they will.

[john_kasaian1]

Heidegger? I think I went to school with His sister! ;-)

[howard_singer]

sometimes you just have to take the picture and do what you want with the negative. if you must make a living at it you play under those rules. if you want to take a picture and want to process and print it because you feel like doing it a certain way, then on rare occasion the audience will come to that picture. maybe someone will pay you something for it and maybe when you die the picture will still have an audience, a life of its own.

 

hsinger

[michael_a._smith1]

The optimum balance between craft and content FOR YOU is

whatever gives you the most satisfaction and pleasure. No one

else can begin to answer that question for you.

 

There is no one optimum way. Different formats do different

things (although I do have a number of 8x20 contact prints of

people moving in "decisive moment" pictures) and it is not the

format or the process that makes a photograph succeed. (Once I

juried a major juried exhibition at a major museum. Everyone

thought I would prefer the straight, traditional, large-format

photogaphs, but by far the best photographs were the heavily

manipulated ones.) Each work of art much be looked at on its

own terms. Ideally, for what you are trying to do there would be a

perfect melding of form and content--or craft and content to stick

with your terms. But how that was achieved would vary with the

artist, the maker.

 

One makes art for oneself, not for a public. If people resond to it

that is wonderful, but it is a bonus. In fact, a successful

photograph is a bonus. Artists are concerned with making, not

with things made.

[skip_a]

Michael, I really appreciate your very balanced response on this subject. Here is what you've caused me to realize...

 

There is no formula, no "correct" balance between content and craft. Everyone has their own definition of "impact", their own personal sense of value, and their own individual objective in making and presenting prints. Who can say for anyone else what degree of emphasis of either craft or content constitutes obsession? It's a personal thing, inextricably tied to the intent of the artist.

 

Content alone is not the print, it is not the image or the art. By itself, it is abstract. It cannot be separated from the form in which it is presented without changing how it is perceived. The same content presented in different form (by the manipulation of craft) is an altogether different thing, and not a different version of the same thing. An 8x10 enlargement of a 4x5 image of some content on one paper is not the same as a similar enlargement on a different paper and not the same as an 8x10 contact print of the same content. So who can say that content is more important than craft, or vice versa, when any variation in either yields something completely unique?

 

You are a very clear, logical, and reasoned thinker, and you express yourself very well. I always learn a lot from you. Thank you.

[skip_a]

Robert, I also want to comment on the practice of some galleries that you reported was mentioned in Lenswork. I think Jim Ryder's quote of Heidegger touches on some of what I would say.

 

If some galleries have stopped differentiating silver from platinum or otherwise educating the viewer on the unique physical form or craft characteristics of various prints, then it seems that they must also hold that content is of primary importance, and that the form or craft is not an equally important and intrinsic aspect of a work that contributes to its uniqueness or specialness.

 

If the viewer sees a mass-produced 30x40 poster of an image as just a bigger version of an 8x10 contact print "picture of the same thing", then he's completely unaware of the art that is represented by the contact print. Content and form simply cannot be separated from each other in the context of art.

 

So if what Lenswork reported is true, then the gallery is doing the viewer and the artist a disservice, and likely diminishing their potential sales, as well. An educated viewer is more apt to discover and appreciate the fine nuances that make any particular print unique. He won't just say "which would look better on my wall, the brown old-timey looking one or the bright silver one?". If he's educated, he may know that the print scale is different between the two, and that this has an impact on the mood conveyed by the image, the sharpness of detail, and the degree of separation visible in different parts of the print value range. He may learn to appreciate the differences in the processes used to produce each type of print. He may study the print more deeply as a result, discover things about it he might never otherwise see. His experience may be enriched, and he may pass it on to others.

 

Hey, he might even become a collector of fine art prints. And wouldn't that be a good thing for all of us who strive to produce and sell them?

[nicholas_f._jones]

From Ken's post: "I agree with you that there is a sweet-spot where optimum quality, portability, cost, flexibilty and usability converge. For me too, it is 4x5."

 

 

Besides 4x5, there is at least one other format where desirable features converge�whether optimally or not depends on what you�re looking for. And that�s 8x10.

 

On the downside, greater expense, reduced availability, greater weight and volume and so decreased portability, etc. The impact of reduced DOField depends in part on your shooting style. I personally tend to choose my subjects in the wide-to-normal range; my longest lens is 450mm and I have only very seldom felt the need for anything longer. So DOField is not that major an issue for me.

 

Only the upside, the negative is four times the surface area of 4x5 and can go much bigger when enlarged. IMO, the big enlargement is one of the solid, tangible payoffs of doing LF�just how big being a matter of subject, place of display, and intended viewers. I do 20x24 on foam boards right now, but I look forward to the day when I will mount my Zone VI 8x10 on the wall and print 30x40 on the floor. If the photographer/printer has successfully matched subject to print dimensions, then by no means, as already stated, is a poster merely a bigger version of a print taken directly from the negative.

 

But the single greatest advantage of 8x10 (and one that IMO puts it ahead of 4x5 in terms of what I personally want to achieve) is that this format is ALSO acceptably large enough to contact print. I can�t prove that a contact is superior to a projected �enlargement� of the same size from the same negative on the same paper, but 8x10 contacts tipped onto the page of a coffee table-sized book would be just right for lap- or tabletop viewing�-plus there would be none of the disadvantages imposed by wall-hanging, esp. by the glass/acrylic (glare, reflections) and the fixed height and angle of display, etc.

 

With 8x10 you can have the best of both worlds: big enough for acceptable contacts but not so big that your negs can�t be enlarged on currently available equipment. True, expense, weight and size, and the other downside factors constrict shooting when compared to 4x5, but my philosophy has always been to go for a relatively few really good images. Besides, the Nikon is always within reach.