BW Prints. Forums vs Museums.

[Ko.Fe.]

After I started to print (BW) I also started to pay attention for what others will say about prints. And I also started to look at prints in museums (it was only paintings for me before).

At forums obsession with contrast (camera lens, print) and sharpness (camera lens, print) seems to be prevalent most of the times.

In Museums...
The Photography exposition was closed today at Detroit Institute of Arts. But some prints were on display at "prints and drawings" section. I have seen Lange, Weston, Evans and some others gelatin silver prints.
Some photographs had rich and deep contrast. Well, few, to be exact. And plenty with grey and white, no blacks. And sharpness was next to none, even at small prints.

I'm not the expert. But what I see on forums and in museums is often different.
I don't care for the name. I look at print always first. And often I wouldn't know the name after I would check it. So, it is not the name factor, but what I see and what I like in museums vs contrast and sharpness suggested importance on some forums which is not so important to me...

Cheers, Ko.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

Yes, you're correct that there is a difference of emphasis. On gear-oriented forums, it will be the technical aspects that people comment about -- although I have seen many aesthetically pleasing photos on APUG.

In museums, I would think it's all about art - composition, lighting, subject matter, and how the photograph makes you feel.

Over the last 10 years I have been moving towards the artistic aspect rather than the technically perfect photo.

 

[summicron1]

You must remember that photography, like everything else has fads. In the the thirties it was fashionable to have a kind of soft focus to everything, for example. Crisp contrast was not always prized, and why should it be?

Another the is that you discover that a lot of the masters were not cleanliness or archival freaks. I had a chance to graze through the storages drawers at the Getty once, and was amazed at the fingerprints on margins, smudges, and so forth.

 

[gone]

As you've noticed, museums tend to place emphasis on the image vs technical details. They have older works in them too. Styles change over time. Most people on forums aren't really photographers. I mean, they haven't quit their day jobs to take photographs, it's a hobby. Many are simply gear hounds too, a trap that's all too easy to fall into (and I know from personal experience). Other than getting some specific questions answered, if you're interested in photography, spend your time taking photographs and avoid forums. It really is solely about the image, and a good photograph will convey something deeper than technique and technical details.

 

[pschwart]

I look at print always first

- Not all print processes or modes of expression optimize sharpness and contrast
- When you are on a forum, you are *never* viewing a print, even if the image is scanned from an actual print. Online viewing is a poor approximation of most handmade prints beyond subject matter and
composition.

After I started to print (BW) I also started to pay attention for what others will say about prints. And I also started to look at prints in museums (it was only paintings for me before).

At forums obsession with contrast (camera lens, print) and sharpness (camera lens, print) seems to be prevalent most of the times.

In Museums...
The Photography exposition was closed today at Detroit Institute of Arts. But some prints were on display at "prints and drawings" section. I have seen Lange, Weston, Evans and some others gelatin silver prints.
Some photographs had rich and deep contrast. Well, few, to be exact. And plenty with grey and white, no blacks. And sharpness was next to none, even at small prints.

I'm not the expert. But what I see on forums and in museums is often different.
I don't care for the name. I look at print always first. And often I wouldn't know the name after I would check it. So, it is not the name factor, but what I see and what I like in museums vs contrast and sharpness suggested importance on some forums which is not so important to me...

Cheers, Ko.

 

[Dali]

Unfortunately, only a very few forums are dedicated to image. For most of them, the bandwidth is primarily used to rant about gear, technique or inflated ego. I know 1 photo forum I visit mostly because the gallery part is very active and very well designed. It is a really inspiring and I often use it as a starting point for new experiments.

Museums are for photography the same as for painting, interesting from the history viewpoint but a dead end in terms of practice.

 

[MDR]

Dali can't agree with that statement, many new Artists were discovered by museum curators first and only later got Gallery representation. Some Galleries only take work from artists that are already in a museum collection (this is the case in some better known galleries in Europe at least, don't know the US gallery scene, but I am sure this applies to a certain extent).

Contrasty and sharp images work better for books and internet they are instant attention grabbers, whereas less contrasty and sharp images are sometimes too subtle for the internet (they are also much harder to scan) sad but true. Museum exhibits give you the time to immerse yourself in the print, the internet is fast food. Sharpness and contrast is also a known quantity and easier to talk about than "artistic" things.

 

[removed account4]

After I started to print (BW) I also started to pay attention for what others will say about prints. And I also started to look at prints in museums (it was only paintings for me before).

At forums obsession with contrast (camera lens, print) and sharpness (camera lens, print) seems to be prevalent most of the times.

In Museums...
The Photography exposition was closed today at Detroit Institute of Arts. But some prints were on display at "prints and drawings" section. I have seen Lange, Weston, Evans and some others gelatin silver prints.
Some photographs had rich and deep contrast. Well, few, to be exact. And plenty with grey and white, no blacks. And sharpness was next to none, even at small prints.

I'm not the expert. But what I see on forums and in museums is often different.
I don't care for the name. I look at print always first. And often I wouldn't know the name after I would check it. So, it is not the name factor, but what I see and what I like in museums vs contrast and sharpness suggested importance on some forums which is not so important to me...

Cheers, Ko.

People learn the rules, and once in a while then they do what they want. ( stuff in galleries and museums )

Most amateur peer reviewed photography websites are dedicated in expressing current RULES of photography,
if you don't like the rules they believe are most important, well, you're an outlier, or don't get a lot of comments / likes &c ..
and people are more interested in "likes" from strangers and the peanut gallery than anything else

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I wouldn't declare it as RULES, but general assumptions for persons with average capabilities to see the image. I'm outlier from this for sure. Because pics with big numbers of likes are often too primitive for me.
Even many of my pictures which have lots of comments, likes makes me believe what most viewers have primitive minds. I prefer to have few comments, but from advanced viewers.

 

[rowghani]

After I started to print (BW) I also started to pay attention for what others will say about prints. And I also started to look at prints in museums (it was only paintings for me before).

At forums obsession with contrast (camera lens, print) and sharpness (camera lens, print) seems to be prevalent most of the times.

In Museums...
The Photography exposition was closed today at Detroit Institute of Arts. But some prints were on display at "prints and drawings" section. I have seen Lange, Weston, Evans and some others gelatin silver prints.
Some photographs had rich and deep contrast. Well, few, to be exact. And plenty with grey and white, no blacks. And sharpness was next to none, even at small prints.

I'm not the expert. But what I see on forums and in museums is often different.
I don't care for the name. I look at print always first. And often I wouldn't know the name after I would check it. So, it is not the name factor, but what I see and what I like in museums vs contrast and sharpness suggested importance on some forums which is not so important to me...

Cheers, Ko.

Great observations dude. Although I agree that there are general characteristics that are pleasing to the eye, such as contract/sharpness those to me are the least important things about a shot. Joel Sternfeld is one of my favs and he uses an 8x10 camera to create beautifully detailed landscapes but that's not why i like him. On the other hand William Eggleston who is my fav, has many BW shots with minimal contrast, lots of grain, and out of focus subjects. there should never be rules in art. if you're down to Toronto some time shoot me a msg. lets go shooting. best.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Stereotypes apply to neither category. Yeah, lots of museums get stuck in trends, looking their over their shoulder to see what the other
place is doing. There are some droids in the game. But there are also monetary incentives to have carbon-copy shows, or even to present
"controversial" content to attract ticket sales, as if anyone could be shocked by anything anymore - that game has itself gotten utterly predictable and boring. But some of these academic pros do have a good eye. You have to know some of them to know what they are actually thinking. There are a lot of constraints to the profession. I've had a degree of public whatever - my fifteen seconds of fame, perhaps; but I'd never compromise my own work just to pander to the latest fad in the artsy world.

 

[skorpiius]

Unfortunately, only a very few forums are dedicated to image. For most of them, the bandwidth is primarily used to rant about gear, technique or inflated ego. I know 1 photo forum I visit mostly because the gallery part is very active and very well designed. It is a really inspiring and I often use it as a starting point for new experiments.

Museums are for photography the same as for painting, interesting from the history viewpoint but a dead end in terms of practice.

Could you share what forum that is? I've been looking for an image-centric forum.

 

[Doc W]

... Other than getting some specific questions answered, if you're interested in photography, spend your time taking photographs and avoid forums. It really is solely about the image, and a good photograph will convey something deeper than technique and technical details.

This is wise advice, but I would temper it a little. I don't centre my photographic life in forums but I find many of them very useful. There is a lot of technical knowledge and experience here and asking the right question can solve problems and save you both time and money in the darkroom. Like all forums, one has to avoid those who can make technical discussions even more heated than religious ones, but I have learned a lot from photographers here and I use it as a knowledge base, being careful to discriminate. I am not interested in equipment for its own sake and I am definitely not a collector of gear. They are tools I use for creative expression. Nor am I interested in procedure or technique outside of what it can allow me to do with film or paper.

All artists, regardless of medium, need to know basic materials and techniques. Artists share technical expertise and learn from each other and this forum is really helpful, especially now that analogue users are scattered more thinly. The final expression is very personal, of course, but knowing what you are doing will help you realize your artistic vision if you have one.

 

[paul ron]

cruising galleries n museums, i too find myself scratching my head wondering whats so special about alot of the stuff im seeing.

i often wonder if it's brand thing or a sign of the times.

but thats only my opinion regardless if anyone agrees or not.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Few things have done more to degrade visual sensitivity in terms of printmaking than the web. It's about the crudest medium conceivable
other than newsprint for communicating visual nuances. So yeah, I do strongly endorse getting off one's arse and looking at serious prints
in a venue with actual fine prints on a wall, or paying a visit of a known fine printmaker. Otherwise, all our discussion about technique and
craft is a bit hypothetical. These web forum are good for discussion itself. But whenever I hear someone going around stating they just care
for the "image" and not the print itself, well, that's like expecting you to listen to a symphony performed by the local junior high marching
band. No thanks. Unfortunately, that kind of mentality has invaded certain institutions too, probably because the poor curators are buried
under so much busy-work, like fundraising, that they no longer have time to look at actual prints. Visual illiteracy in action.

 

[removed account4]

I wouldn't declare it as RULES, but general assumptions for persons with average capabilities to see the image. I'm outlier from this for sure. Because pics with big numbers of likes are often too primitive for me.
Even many of my pictures which have lots of comments, likes makes me believe what most viewers have primitive minds. I prefer to have few comments, but from advanced viewers.

maybe my word " RULES" was not quite right, and i should have said "CONVENTIONS"
not really sure what you mean by primitive or advanced viewers ..

YAMMVFTWS

 

[eddie]

So, it is not the name factor, but what I see and what I like in museums vs contrast and sharpness suggested importance on some forums which is not so important to me...

Don't worry about what isn't important to you. Make the images you're drawn to make. If you spend time making photographs based on other peoples requirements, two things will happen: 1- they won't be very good. 2- you'll soon find your interest in photography dwindling.

I, too, am confused by the primitive and advanced comment.

 

[Prof_Pixel]

cruising galleries n museums, i too find myself scratching my head wondering whats so special about alot of the stuff im seeing.

LOL. I often find myself looking at some prints on display thinking 'that print would have ended up in my darkroom dust bin'. It seems that if I can understand it, it isn't 'art'.

 

[NB23]

All this pixels, sharpness, megapixels, boukah talk is for losers. Just show me a nice photograph. That's the only thing I want: A nice photograph.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Fora tend to emphasize the technical aspects [exposure, how to use a light meter, the Zone system, how a particular camera works,how to fix a particular camera, where to fix a particular camera, qualities of cameras and lenses, film and film processing questions, darkroom work] and do not put much effort into the artistic aspect [perception, how the eye sees, composition]. Museums take the opposite approach and additionally look at societal changes [Dorothea Lange and the "Migrant Mother", Ansel Adams and his landscapes, Ed Weston and his work on shapes and forms], the art of photography and photography's impact on art, history, politics and culture.

I come the internet for the technical and to occasionally purchase supplies or camera equipment. However when I go to take each photograph the technical part is incidental and I am looking at the composition, balance, using the light to emphasize what I want to print to show and how it will look when printed. I know the rules and conventions, but I do not let them interfere with my work. I find that fora and digital galleries by their nature and not properly display a photograph. Books to a better job, but even the best of them fall short displaying a silver gelatin print. Therefore internet et al and books are not the places I go to see really good photography, I have to go to real world galleries and to museums for that.

 

[removed account4]

LOL. I often find myself looking at some prints on display thinking 'that print would have ended up in my darkroom dust bin'. It seems that if I can understand it, it isn't 'art'.

i read this and smiled.
last year i went to see a well spoken about
photography exhibit at boston's museum of fine arts
we went through the museum and marveled at the paintings, drawing, masterful work,
sculptures and artifacts. i hadn't been in a long while and it felt like
i was home again because i visited often when i was studying in the area
( was always free on wednesdays from what i barely remember )
anyhow we saved the best for last and went downstairs to view the 3 or 4 walls of photographs
i recognized many of them for one reason or another and i have to say i wasn't impressed.
not sure if it was the muted lighting, glarry glass, muted contrast, print quality that seemed "lacking"
(for lack of a better word ) i left disappointed, no full of excitement .. i was more excited seeing the ancient artifacts
and paintings and other "stuff" than the photos ..
i was kind of bummed out, and wished i saw man ray's " le cadeau" ( the iron with tacks welded to the bottom of it )
and jasper john's "ballantine ale" ( bronzed beer cans )

 

[Sirius Glass]

LOL. I often find myself looking at some prints on display thinking 'that print would have ended up in my darkroom dust bin'. It seems that if I can understand it, it isn't 'art'.

​

I also think that about some photographs that people post on fora.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

maybe my word " RULES" was not quite right, and i should have said "CONVENTIONS"
not really sure what you mean by primitive or advanced viewers ..

YAMMVFTWS

IMO.
Viewers with average imagination are often attracted with something obvious, viewers who are capable to see what I see are advanced and not so abundant

But, I'm not into insulting anyone personally, it feels nice if some of my primitive pictures are getting noticed.

This is primitive picture:

and this one even more primitive and more "popular".

While this one is for advanced viewers.

It was about six, seven people around dining table looking at this print among others at the same time. Only one of them noticed this picture and was able to explain why I printed this.

I like prints and paintings where you have to look and read it, not just grasp over it at first glance. I'm glad to see something like this in museums and on-line. Personally, I have some internal vision, but I'm not even close to get how I want it on prints.

Don't worry about what isn't important to you. Make the images you're drawn to make. If you spend time making photographs based on other peoples requirements, two things will happen: 1- they won't be very good. 2- you'll soon find your interest in photography dwindling.

I, too, am confused by the primitive and advanced comment.

Years ago I registered on photography stock. Never submitted my first ten. I realized it is not my interest, because it is primitive kind of photography.
It was like on photography forums, has to be sharp, in focus and no noise (grain).

Cheers, Ko.

 

[MattKing]

A few years ago I visited a local museum that was presenting a show of Henri Cartier-Bresson's work. Most, if not all of the prints were older ones - I believe current to when they became well known.

The print style was more traditional than what would be seeing now. And most of the prints were smaller than what may be common now.

But when viewed together, they were quite special. It was really important to see them in context with each other. That helped to dispel the "noise" created by having seen some of them too frequently, in other media (books, magazines, internet presentations).

cliveh would have enjoyed the experience .

 

[removed account4]

IMO.
Viewers with average imagination are often attracted with something obvious, viewers who are capable to see what I see are advanced and not so abundant

But, I'm not into insulting anyone personally, it feels nice if some of my primitive pictures are getting noticed.

This is primitive picture:

and this one even more primitive and more "popular".

While this one is for advanced viewers.

It was about six, seven people around dining table looking at this print among others at the same time. Only one of them noticed this picture and was able to explain why I printed this.

I like prints and paintings where you have to look and read it, not just grasp over it at first glance. I'm glad to see something like this in museums and on-line. Personally, I have some internal vision, but I'm not even close to get how I want it on prints.


Cheers, Ko.

thanks for the explanation and i agree most people lack imagination. but that's OK they are doing their thing
and having a good time. i've noticed that it is very hard for people to see what i see with out prodding or pointing
in the right direction. heck, sometimes it takes 30 years for me to see what i saw when i made an exposure.
people have different life experiences which aid and hinder understanding.
if we all enjoyed, understood, made the same sorts of things, life would be very boring.

john