A platinum print by any other name . . .

[Ian Leake]

I agree, and I think almost everybody feels the overall impact (or lack thereof) of a photograph as the primary interaction. I think, however that most platinum printers are comfortable about the content and concept of the work (well, as comfortable with it as an artist can be, for me that varies), and choose the process simply as a means to an end.

Big cameras and platinum prints enable me to reveal to others the world as I see it (so yes, they are a means to an end). When I make a weak photo, the fact that it's a platinum print doesn't turn it into a strong photo - it's still weak. But when the image and the process work together the total is greater than the sum of its parts.

 

[sanking]

That said, almost everybody I have seen working in alt process is at a point where the content of the work is benefited by the chosen process, and mastery of an arcane skill such as platinum printing is simply a part of a particular artistic work flow, no different than any other in that way, but having distinct characteristics of its own. The rush to equate all photographic process as homogeneous to validate ones own work is as great a display of ignorance as you'll find in any field, anywhere, and is truly the bane of modern photography. It does, however, sell a lot of electronics.

I can describe a silver print as just silver, or silver gelatin, or silver gelatin fiber, or selenium toned silver gelatin fiber, with increasing accuracy. None would constitute a willful deception, and I can't see how describing a platinum print in short terms constitutes some sort of machination, unless one is exceedingly paranoid, and also ignorant of the process.

I agree with your basic premise the the content of the work is benefited by the chosen process. In fact, content and form are totally inseparable for any specific media.

As for the issue of what constitutes a platinum print, my take is that a platinum print is made only with platinum salts and no palladium. Any print made with a combination of platinum and palladium should be called a pt./pd. (or platinum and palladium), even if only a drop or so of the other salt is used (as in the Na2 method for example). If you consider the image characteristics of a print made with only platinum salt or one made only with palladium salt you will find them to be very different, though each has a rather wide range of variables.

Sandy King

 

[Trevor Crone]

Robert you raise an interesting point, 'what is a bad photograph'? One man's meat is another man's poison. It's all very subjective.

I remember seeing Irving Penn's wonderful images (funny enough they happened to be Pt prints) of street detris, cigarette buts, crushed cans etc., some 20 years ago. I thought they were stunning, however someone else probably loathed them. Look at the fuss William Eggleston caused when his work was first exhibited at the MOMA (I think it was that museum), Ansel Adams for one spoke out against giving wall space to such photography.

 

[RobertP]

Trevor, Its all very subjective. Its like asking that aged old question, " What is art?"

 

[Trevor Crone]

Trevor, Its all very subjective. Its like asking that aged old question, " What is art?"

Don't you just love it? In this day and age when we feel the need to 'pigeon-hole' everything........"What is art?", still remains elusive.

 

[df cardwell]

"Art is technique charged by emotion.
Technique, on its own, is impotent to create anything." Baudelaire

If we can agree that technique is the vehicle used to fulfill a photographer's
intention, well and good.

Edw. Weston created quite a stir in years long gone by,
when he brashly announced he would print on a bath mat
if it gave him the results he wanted.

It was an age of rigid conformity. Compositional rules were enforced by those who had established themselves the arbiters of taste and excellence. Genre pictures had criteria, points and ribbons were awarded to those who illustrated the dogma of Pictorialism. Salons dictated who was worthy. The vitality of the early years of camera work had eventually been choked off and the barbarians cast out. The right people had saved Photography from itself. It was now dignified. It was tasteful. And it was boring.

The rules appealed to folks who needed authority, and who wanted to belong. Pictorialism still exists, and it is concerned with making the right kind of pictures with the right kind of equipment, with the right kind of materials.

The Alt printing movement was a curiosity, an attempt by 'artists' to subborn photography, as in the 19th century, to complete a photograph by the hand of man. Or woman. A straight photograph had no value.

Today, photography has a wonderful opportunity to reform itself, along the most traditional lines, as the craft which expresses our vision with a camera.

A good picture can be made with a Holga, an Utra Large Format camera,
or by just laying objects on a sheet of paper. We can print on store bought paper, hand made paper, or emulsion on fiber. A good picture might be small, or immense. The only criteria that must be fulfilled is that the object is expressive of what the photographer intended.

It doesn't matter whether it is a platinum print, a palladium print, a silver print, or whatever. And, for my own work, it is just as well if the technical details aren't mentioned. Somebody asks, fine. But all that matters is the picture.

The trouble is that most observers have no idea what is good,
what has value, and how to decide for themself what value it has.
Art galleries have to think for the viewer, lead the viewer, and sell the viewer. When the picture leaves the hand of the photographer, it becomes a commodity, and we return to a hierarchal system of worth.

Gold. Platinum. Silver Gelatin. Giclee.... Bullshit.

I've printed platinum and palladium for 30+ years. Today, I'm happy with palladium. I'm happy with silver. There are other processes I hope to learn. In the meantime, I make no explanations or excuses for my work, and no attempt to impress somebody by what I call it.

But if I'm ASKED what it is, I'll describe it straight-forwardly. If it is platinum, I say it is platinum; palladium, palladium; if it is an ink-jet, ink-jet. If they ask, they want to know, and deserve the truth.

If traditional photography is going to thrive, it has to be photography and not marketing crap.

If photography is going to be retaken by salons and 'the right sort of people', then rules and standards have to be re-established, and you will be able to call a straight print something wonderful and special as your organisation encourages you.

It boils down to a choice between a good picture that stands on its own, or marketing rubbish.

 

[Trevor Crone]

It boils down to a choice between a good picture that stands on its own, or marketing rubbish.

But what is a good picture and what is rubbish?

Is William Eggleston rubbish is Ansel Adams good?

Who decides? Who is correct?

For me there is no definitive answer and that's the way I like.

 

[bill schwab]

Irving Penn had no need to inflate his image.

Sorry Don, but I see this as silly. A print is no more inflated calling it a "platinum" print than it is if it is called a "palladium" print. Of course platinum is more expensive than palladium, so if the cost of the materials is what gives a print value in the eyes of the beholder, I suppose it might matter. However, in the eyes of many "platinum" printers, nothing beats the beauty of a pure palladium print, even though many will still call it "platinum". It has a wider exposure scale, more warmth, etc. In fact, I'll take a pure palladium print over a platinum almost every time and think a pure platinum print looks inferior in comparrison. Even though my prints are clearly marked as to their contents, I find it easier to simply call it platinum printing as it is more widely known and accepted among lay people. To say that by doing so I am attempting to artificially inflate the value of my work or "cheat" people is ludicrous and offensive.

edit... This was posted before reading Don's recent post above.

"It doesn't matter whether it is a platinum print, a palladium print, a silver print, or whatever. And, for my own work, it is just as well if the technical details aren't mentioned. Somebody asks, fine. But all that matters is the picture. "

Now I am confused by the intention in the original quote? ....sorry. Back to vacation mode.

 

[scootermm]

But what is a good picture and what is rubbish?

Is William Eggleston rubbish is Ansel Adams good?

Who decides? Who is correct?

For me there is no definitive answer and that's the way I like.

Going along with what you seem to be saying Trevor, its purely subjective.
Which I kinda agree with.
So in DF's quote, he decides, and he is right. At the same time, you decide and you are right. I decide and I am right. Ahh... the relative beauty of subjectivity.

Have to agree with Mr. Schwab as well. It is mildly offensive... or at least as offensive as words on a forum can be.

 

[2F/2F]

Thank you, Don. Well put.

 

[df cardwell]

Bill, I was responding to this:

"Irving Penn often added iridium to his mix of platinum and palladium to alter the tonality and colour. Sotheby's and Christie's refer to those prints as platinum prints." He didn't need to puff himself up, he didn't need to say they were Platinum / Unobtainium Prints. His work stood on its own. It didn't need to be explained. Lesser photographers often point to the technique instead of the picture.

Even though my prints are clearly marked as to their contents, I find it easier to simply call it platinum printing as it is more widely known and accepted among lay people. Exactly right.

When a photographer is marketing his work as SPECIAL because it is on PLATINUM,
it irritates me; for example, "I ONLY work in the rare and exceedingly difficult medium of PLATINUM,
which makes me special and distinguishes my work from everybody else because I'm SPECIAL and they aren't !"

And that is the danger of labeling our work.

To say that by doing so I am attempting to artificially inflate the value of my work or "cheat" people is ludicrous and offensive. Wasn't doing that. You're as straight as they come, if taller than most.

Time for some Oberon.

d

 

[RobertP]

DF, Can you point me to a photographer who is marketing his/her work as "SPECIAL because it is on PLATINUM" because I haven't seen this. Please feel free to do it in pm. I especially like the part, "which makes me special and distinquishes my work from everybody else because I'm special and they aren't." I assume from your quotation marks this is an actual quote.(or paraphrase) I would love to have a look at this persons work and possibly discuss this with them.

 

[bill schwab]

Definitely Oberon time! It is now after noon and that is a great suggestion Don!

He didn't need to puff himself up, he didn't need to say they were Platinum / Unobtainium Prints. His work stood on its own. It didn't need to be explained....

OK... I am getting it now. I guess I missed where someone was trying to inflate their worth by mentioning the process. I thought the thread was about full disclosure when it comes to the contents of an alternative process print using precious metals of one sort or another.

Like I said... back to vacation mode. I am clearly not staying on topic very well.

 

[bill schwab]

Like I said... I am clearly not staying on topic very well.

Hey! Wait! I was on topic. Are you trying to confuse me Don?

Seriously though, I think we've gone off on 2 versions of this thread. On one hand we're arguing the ethics of full disclosure of contents to describe the process. On the other, we seem to be saying that the simple description of the process makes the photographer guilty of trying to inflate the value or worth of their photographs.

Which is it?

 

[df cardwell]

Which is it?

Oberon

 

[Allen Friday]

Earlier this week, I was reading an article in the Atlantic Monthly, “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” Atlantic Monthly, July/August 2008. The full article is on line at the Atlantic Monthly web site. The following discussion caught my attention:

“Sometime in 1882, Friedrich Nietzsche bought a typewriter—a Malling-Hansen Writing Ball, to be precise. His vision was failing, and keeping his eyes focused on a page had become exhausting and painful, often bringing on crushing headaches. He had been forced to curtail his writing, and he feared that he would soon have to give it up. The typewriter rescued him, at least for a time. Once he had mastered touch-typing, he was able to write with his eyes closed, using only the tips of his fingers. Words could once again flow from his mind to the page.
But the machine had a subtler effect on his work. One of Nietzsche’s friends, a composer, noticed a change in the style of his writing. His already terse prose had become even tighter, more telegraphic. “Perhaps you will through this instrument even take to a new idiom,” the friend wrote in a letter, noting that, in his own work, his “‘thoughts’ in music and language often depend on the quality of pen and paper.”
“You are right,” Nietzsche replied, “our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts.” Under the sway of the machine, writes the German media scholar Friedrich A. Kittler, Nietzsche’s prose “changed from arguments to aphorisms, from thoughts to puns, from rhetoric to telegram style.”

 

[bill schwab]

I have to learn to read complete threads before commenting... sorry.

 

[Ian Leake]

If photography is going to be retaken by salons and 'the right sort of people', then rules and standards have to be re-established, and you will be able to call a straight print something wonderful and special as your organisation encourages you.

Ironically this is exactly what you're doing here. You clearly consider yourself to be 'the right sort of people' and that you have the duty to force your rules and standards onto others (some may consider this to be artistic rape). You are proclaiming that if another photographer doesn't fit your personal world view then they are liars and fraudsters trying to 'subborn' photography with 'marketing bullshit'.

Clearly in your eyes I’m not the right sort of person as I only print with platinum processes. And I do believe that platinum processes are 'special' (though as I said before it doesn't stop a weak photo being a weak photo). And I do believe that I can convey an emotion with platinum processes that I can't convey with other processes. And I do believe that, for me, big cameras are better than small cameras.

I have no concern whether other people want to work with platinum, silver, inkjets, big cameras, small cameras, paintbrushes, pencils, or crayons. And I have no concern what they call their work so long as there’s no intention to deceive. And sufficient people like what I make for me to really not worry in the slightest if you think that by specialising in what's important to me I'm somehow corrupting the purity of your world view.

But, with the greatest respect, I get really irritated by arrogance. And I get really irritated by grandstanding. And I get really irritated by people implying that because they have '30+ years' of experience that they have the right to dictate to others on matters such as taste and art.

If the art of photography is going to survive in the 21st century then it's going to survive because people are using it in the here and now to create new work which connects with people today, not because of tired old 'straight' versus 'pictorialist' arguments from the last century.

 

[df cardwell]

Ian

Funny, you made the same arguments I tried to make. Bettter, too.

As for my arrogance, well, maybe, just maybe, you missed the context of some of the things which were said.
As for grandstanding, sorry. My statement about years making platinums was in response to an earlier post

Clearly in your eyes I’m not the right sort of person as I only print with platinum processes.
If that is what you got from what I wrote, I did a poor job writing.

 

[Ian Leake]

Sometimes what we think are opposites turn out to be equals, and what we think are equals turn out to be opposites. It's only through debate that we discover which is which. I misunderstood you.

 

[scootermm]

dont worry I think I did some misunderstanding as well.

didn't someone say something about oberon?

 

[RobertP]

DF, In post #6 you claim, " Calling a pt/pd print 'platinum' is as much a lie and affectation as suggesting there is magic in azo" Then in post # 36 in response to Bill's post where he writes, " Even though my prints are clearly marked as to their contents, I find it easier to simple call it platinum printing as it is more widely known and accepted among lay people." You respond, "Exactly right!" I find these to be very contradictory remarks. Could you explain? Either Bill is professing a lie as you claim in post #6 or he is exactly right like you claim in post #36. As Bill asked before, "which is it?"

 

[RobertP]

Hell with the Oberon...pass the single malt. And Bill... pull the cork on that collodion bottle and pass that ether smell this way.

 

[df cardwell]

Robert

The setting & the intention.

You go to a cookout tonight and say that you are a platinum printer. Fine.

When the guy expresses interest, and you show him your latest
palladium prints, you say, "These are made from palladium". Fine.

 

[df cardwell]

... I misunderstood you.

I didn't help very much !

Thanks.

d