Artists shouldn't compromise...

After seeing 'Landmarks: The Fields of Photography' at Somerset House in London, I came away feeling overwhelmingly indifferent. Firstly, the staff weren't exactly friendly - a great ordeal for them to point me in the right direction in a confusing building with no directions.

I was most eager to see Nadav Kander's prints, but apart from the fact that they were significantly peeling away from the mountboard, they just didn't have any impact on me as 'photographic objects', 'original artworks'. They were C-prints, which I'm sure many on APUG have opinions about, and even the small size prints by others (displayed on the same 'media') had little substance. There were a few optical prints, most notably Thomas Struth's El Capitan - a wall sized chromogenic print, the detail of which held up pretty well from about a foot away. Smaller prints on the other hand by Simon Roberts and Mark Power (whose work I greatly admire) were softer - they were C-prints. It was hugely dispiriting seeing many images I've had strong responses to in reproduction, as large, soft, underwhelming prints on the wall.

The thing that baffles me a little bit, especially in regard to Burtynsky (also on display) and Kander, is that their images are some of the most defining of this period in photography. I just wonder, if in 20 years, looking at their soft C-prints will be like watching a classic film on VHS is now. As artists whose work sells for great sums, I don't see any excuse for them not to make optical prints. I know for a fact Nadav Kander and Mark Power shoot 4x5 colour neg.

I really think this is an issue that needs to be discussed (however controversial), especially in relation to some of the biggest names in art photography. Why are they compromising (technologically) with their prints? How will they hold up to posterity, if in my eyes, they don't today? I should say that I had been unaware of Robert Bourdeau's work until seeing this exhibition, whose toned silver gelatin prints of industrial ugliness were like jewels on the wall - for their great substance, detail and tonality. They were out of place as photographic artworks, in a good way.

I came away from the exhibition more certain that photography's natural and best presentation format today (and legacy as an art form), is in reproduction - books. So why waste time and energy to see the same reproductions in a gallery, just because they are larger and framed?

Disclaimer: I ask this on APUG because it's probably the only place on the web where people are incredibly knowledgeable about both traditional and 'modern' photographic printing, and some even recognise the names mentioned above! So as much as it ultimately appears like 'another one of those threads', this is in relation to photography as art at the highest level.

Michael R 1974 said:

I realize this has to do with distorted viewer reference points and expectations as opposed to artists compromising quality, so it may not be worth much.

Click to expand...

This was part of my problem I presume, with the images I was most familiar with, but the issue remains with the ones I wasn't.

I saw the Adams exhibition before this one and while the prints didn't quite hit me as I'd imagined, I spent most of my time with my face right up to them, just immersing myself in the detail. I wish I could have done this with Kander's prints, many of which feature people quite prominently, but I certainly couldn't make out the expressions on their faces. Whereas I could see the detail in leaves in the midground of Adams' prints. This seems like a fundamental problem in photographic presentation and communication of the image.

As with any 'show' the quality of the pieces that are on display depends on many factors such as finances, availability and logistics. If one is truly a connoisseur of the analog medium it is understood that each print is unique and if one is collecting or 'just looking,' the best prints are not always easy to find. Having mentioned that, I can't offer anything more without actually seeing the show myself.

What the heck is a "C-print?" I've read the term as used for chromogenic color prints - conventional RA4 and, prior to that, EP2 or previous process, as opposed to Ciba/Ilfochrome, dye transfer etc. I can tell you mean something else, but I don't know what.

I saw a small exhibit of Ansel Adams prints once back in the 90s and was blown away. Of course I'd been making my own black and white prints since the late 70s and had seen only a few Adams photos in books and those not large so I both had an idea what a black and white silver print looks like and the possible advantage of never having seen Adams images anywhere near so large. No disappointment there for me. I also saw an exhibit of Ralph Gibson at the High here in Atlanta and, while not "blown away" as with Adams I was struck by the strong graphic quality he managed. I also saw Cartier-Bresson, but of course he didn't make his own prints. The quality of printing over his career varied enormously and his impact is most often in what one might call the "gross image" not the minute detail, subtle shadows, grain or lack of etc.

FWIW, "C-print" in the past has always referred to a print on colour photographic paper - currently RA4 or the non-Kodak equivalents.

In recent years, this has included both optical prints, and prints exposed using digital laser sources.

That's what I thought, but that doesn't seem to be what the OP means. He specifically refers to other prints as "chromogenic" implying that he means something else by "C-print."

EDIT: Computer prints? A new term for ink-jet? Some ink jet prints can look fantastic. I don't enjoy making them so I generally don't, but they aren't categorically abysmal anymore and haven't been for quite a while.

batwister said:

I just wonder, if in 20 years, looking at their soft C-prints will be like watching a classic film on VHS is now. As artists whose work sells for great sums, I don't see any excuse for them not to make optical prints. I know for a fact Nadav Kander and Mark Power shoot 4x5 colour neg.

I really think this is an issue that needs to be discussed (however controversial), especially in relation to some of the biggest names in art photography. Why are they compromising (technologically) with their prints? How will they hold up to posterity, if in my eyes, they don't today? [/I]

Click to expand...

If their prints are less than sharp, this has nothing to do with whether or not they were exposed optically or digitally. Anyone working with laser light or led exposures knows that resolution is not the weak point of this process.

Furthermore, if one were to compare a traditional c-print to a digital c-print that was matched by a skilled operator they would have a very difficult time distinguishing one from the other let alone identifying which was the analogue print and which was the digital print.

I believe the letdown you experienced has more to do with the glut of large c-prints and the dumbing down of content - two negative aspects of the current marketplace mentality of contemporary photography.

the problem is there is so much HYPE about everything that when you actually see it in "real life"
it doesn't seem like it should. i remember seeing the mona lisa at the louvre when i was a high school student
and while i didn't mind having to stand back behind the rope &c it just didn't have the presence that it had
later on when i studied renaissance painting and da vinci's work. i think michael r 1974's suggestion is right-on .. sometimes
publications make things look different ...
digital c prints, optical c prints there really is no difference .. it has to do with the person printing them as frotog said ...
just like b/w prints .. a skilled printer can make a print sing and a not so skilled printer ... meh.

I have a theory. Be careful about how much of other people's work you study. Whether it be in either of the 2 of the 5 senses that "art" can enter your brain. It can be very polluting to your own style. I would think that Mozart had little exposure and contamination in his day. Just make the best print you can. That's all you can do. "Art" is one thing that can become inbred very easily. The best inoculation against copycatitis is staying away from carriers.

I meant Lightjet prints. The more appropriate term might have been 'C-type'. Sorry. To confuse matters even more, there are Lambda and Lambda C-types.

I've only ever had a 'C-type' made.

plus 2

C print-Colour Print- RA 4 Print- Dye Coupler Print . all the same

whether by enlarger or Laser or LED.

frotog said:

If their prints are less than sharp, this has nothing to do with whether or not they were exposed optically or digitally. Anyone working with laser light or led exposures knows that resolution is not the weak point of this process.

Furthermore, if one were to compare a traditional c-print to a digital c-print that was matched by a skilled operator they would have a very difficult time distinguishing one from the other let alone identifying which was the analogue print and which was the digital print.

I believe the letdown you experienced has more to do with the glut of large c-prints and the dumbing down of content - two negative aspects of the current marketplace mentality of contemporary photography.

Click to expand...

batwister said:

I meant Lightjet prints. The more appropriate term might have been 'C-type'. Sorry. To confuse matters even more, there are Lambda and Lambda C-types.

I've only ever had a 'C-type' made.

Click to expand...

Hum. I can't tell the difference between a good Lightjet print and a good optical print. Either can be screwed up, of course.

Perhaps I am in the minority, but I have seen Burtynsky's work up close and was blown away by the quality of the print.

Further, I went to an Adams exhibit and while the content didn't thrill me, the printing was outstanding.

jnanian said:

the problem is there is so much HYPE about everything that when you actually see it in "real life"
it doesn't seem like it should. i remember seeing the mona lisa at the louvre when i was a high school student
and while i didn't mind having to stand back behind the rope &c it just didn't have the presence that it had
later on when i studied renaissance painting and da vinci's work.

Click to expand...

In some cases this can be true. But a couple of years ago I was privileged to view an exhibition of Yousef Karsh portraits. I was in a state of reverential awe as I moved from one to another. Maybe it was partly due to the places in history the subjects occupied: Ernest Hemingway, Ingrid Bergman (the most beautiful photograph of a woman I have ever seen), Winston Churchill. But I think it was more due to Karsh's mastery of composition and pose and lighting. Those photographs certainly had presence for me.

And, living in the same city as the O. Winston Link museum I can go look at his work whenever I like. I am always impressed by the impact that his prints have on me.

desertratt said:

I was not impressed when I saw the Rocky Mountains for the first time.Tthey did not look very magestic. I was unimpressed by the Pacific Ocean, the first ocean I had ever seen. It just sat there. I was disappointed by the skyscrapers in New York City until I went to Wall Street. The streeets are so narrow there the skyscrapers look impressive. Ya think the problem is me, not those objects?

Click to expand...

Neither, it was the lighting. All those things require a sunset to look good!

batwister said:

Why are they compromising (technologically) with their prints? How will they hold up to posterity...

Click to expand...

Maybe they should just be held up to posterior.

Look, I have this same argument with myself at least every other month, and I never win. Some of the 5x7 greeting cards I have had made with inkjet processes appear to me to better in some visual regard than the finished fine art GSP's they were scanned from, or they're larger siblings. They're just not the same beast, anymore than a Daguerreotype is a GSP. Photography has moved on, and digital printing processes are only one more, albeit the latest, way to present an image in tangible form. Successful photographers adjust and grow with the times, or else starve (and/or die). Me? I'm just an uncompromising, starving and dying, anachronistic silver printer. OTOH, I just watched a webinar on printing digital B/W and had to laugh, at myself, when nearing the end the presenter suggested using a software film grain filter to give the piece that "film" look . So don't get your bats all in a twist over it.

You know where I've seen some pretty good stuff?--Right here on this site by some of you people. Sure has been inspiring in my attempt to get in gear and get back to doing some photography.

HTF III said:

You know where I've seen some pretty good stuff?--Right here on this site by some of you people. Sure has been inspiring in my attempt to get in gear and get back to doing some photography.

Click to expand...

You haven't understood a thing. You've seen NO photographic prints on this site.

I've seen enough to be motivated and get busy. Some of you people do way better work than anything I've done, computer monitor nothwithstanding.

ROL said:

You haven't understood a thing. You've seen NO photographic prints on this site.

Click to expand...

it all goes back to plato ... doesn't it ?


LOL

HTF III said:

I've seen enough to be motivated and get busy. Some of you people do way better work than anything I've done, computer monitor nothwithstanding.

Click to expand...

No, you still haven't seen any prints on this site.

You have seen an image on your monitor (or phone, tablet, whatever) created by its display drivers and display hardware from information encoded from a scan of a print, manipulated who knows how (I always tweak mine to try to make the scans look more like my print, at least on MY monitor) and sent over the web.

You haven't seen a PRINT on this site unless someone in your house taped one over your monitor.

Or you've participated in one of the APUG print exchange activities. For better or worse, THAT is the only sure way to accurately and correctly experience an image on APUG.

I'd encourage everyone to try one of these exchanges. But be forewarned, if you expect what you are eventually holding in your hands from an exchange participant to look exactly like what you are seeing from his or her print scan in an APUG gallery, you are going to be sorely disappointed.

Ken