Can a prints technical brilliance overtake the subject matter?

[Jim Chinn]

"Technically brilliant, artistically rotten", was Alfred Steiglitz's common reply to submissions made to the first magazine he edited for the Camera Club in New york.

 

[Tom Stanworth]

Michael,

Thanks. I do not neccessarily agree with much of what you say, but that matters not. If there is one sentence (which you agree) that sums up the huge gulf between our ideologies (which is perhaps why I have found some of your answers not direct enough or faithful enough to the original question), it is this:

TS: Emotions are derived from mental activity.

MAS: No. Emotions do not come from mental activity. They arise spontaneously from what one feels, not from what one thinks. This is a discussion for another forum. We will have to agree to disagree on this one and leave it at that, even though this very thing may be central to our opposing views.

I agree that there is no point discussing this. Amongst other 'backgrounds', once is biological sciences. Naturally, I find this response impossible to deal with. I would say that of all the points we have discussed, where opinion matters, this is one where it does not. This is completely incorrect and based on a complete lack of understanding, flying in the face of known and well proven fact (tested from evey angle repeatedly). I could talk for a while about behavioural ecology, imprinting, clinical psychology or anatomy where case studies clearly demonstrate the effect of brain 'damage/change' on a person's personality and emotional profile...or the effect on drugs which target neural activity, but somehow I suspect that my efforts would be in vain.

Thanks Michael. I am mightly pleased that unlike some others who flung themselves blindly into what they thought were my 'shots' at you, you realise that I do not 'hate' you or anything remotely approaching dislike. I have learned a lot about you and you me (you may not regard that as significant)...but the more people we meet and understand.........

Tom

 

[Ed Sukach]

The essential question here is what makes something valuable? It's probably the most important question one can ask,...

Very well said, Peter. A welcomed clarification.

Bravo!!

 

[Tom Stanworth]

Very well said, Peter. A welcomed clarification.

Bravo!!

Yes, an important question, but I dont think it is the same as the original question behind the thread. It opens up new questions and does not address some of the original ones, but very important nonetheless.

Tom

 

[TPPhotog]

Michael , Sorry it took a while to reply to this one but I've been at work for the last 23 hours

I would agree that seeing the print allows the viewer first-hand experience of the photograph. But is that the important thing as the composition or capture in my opinion is the important factor, or as in the original question posted ... the subject. The print therefore can only provide a second-hand experience and as such the medium (photographic paper, book print or even web jpeg) is less important.

It would appear looking at this thread (but I may be wrong) that possibly many people consider the technical merits of the prints to be at least as as important as the subject.

BTW Cartier-Bresson printed to the aspect ratios of 35mm, but admitted towards the end of his life that he did crop which his negatives confirm. There again most praise about the wonderful subjects he captured and the work he produced was I understand was met with his stock reply "BS"

 

[David H. Bebbington]

Thanks Michael. I am mightly pleased that unlike some others who flung themselves blindly into what they thought were my 'shots' at you, you realise that I do not 'hate' you or anything remotely approaching dislike. I have learned a lot about you and you me (you may not regard that as significant)...but the more people we meet and understand.........

Tom

Tom, I thank you for your response to my earlier posting, and I accept that your many postings represented an attempt to arrive at a higher truth as you see it, but I still have to say that in my view an adversarial approach is distinctly unfruitful. If I engage in an exchange with an artist about his/her work, as I very frequently do, my only desire is to gain a deeper understanding of this, and I would never dream of attacking the said artist, or seeming to, not even as a debating strategem. It may be necessary in the context of a debating society to demolish your "opponent's" arguments in order to "win", but I am genuinely unable to see how such an approach relates to art! Even if you know you have no malicious intent, it is very easy for onlookers to get the wrong impression!

 

[Ed Sukach]

Ed, this was not rhetorical, I ws asking your to question your own apporach (choice of words), hence the quote.

Here, I think you meant to write, "This question WAS rhetorical", did you not?

I, for one, would have understood your position, quite clearly, without a reference to any particular photographer's work. It would have been much easier to stay on topic with a discussion in generalities..

Fine, however it was a judgement I made at the time and you may not speak for everyone. In any case why should I not use a person's work as a case in point. This is being precious.

.... ??? I am being ... what?? --- Of great value?
You certainly are free to write whatever you want, however,
A suggestion- seeing that a LOT of suggestions are being made here...
*I* will refrain from anything like "selecting a guinea pig" to illustrate a point. *I* will either try to slog through with my limited knowledge of the English language, or submit one of my OWN images as an illustration. Saves a lot of unintended animosity as a result. You can do choose to do whatever, though. I am not your boss.

Again, in my opinion, there was a lot of, "The composition is obviously "bad" - there is nothing to prevent it, so one's eyes wander all over the place, and only stop as a product of fatigue" (not a direct quote - only my interpreted impression) .... And it certainly sounds to me that you are trying to expound "great truths" from the top of the mountain..

No Ed. I merely suggested that Michael seemed unable to put his finger on anything specific regarding the artistic merits of his own prints prints, preferring to use somewhat vague nonsensical generalised explanations. He appeared to me critical of so many aspects of (un?)creative photography like having a subject, or subjects or the notion of the importance of content or deliberately 'weighting composition'. These ideas seemed to be scoffed at as basic and for unaimaginative simpletons who have no hope of operating at a claimed 'higher level'

Then, include me in the category of "unimaginative simpletons." I do not choose - nor can I, "put my finger on anything specific regarding the artistic merits" of my work, either. To do so, I would have to explain and define "art" itself ... a task I still pursue -- but I've realized that I have very little chance of accomplishing.

A question - choose to answer or not .. Do you think there is a "right" and "wrong" in art/ photography?.

Come on now, Ed! No, but there are always valid opinions, including mine. If I do not think it works for me, it does not mean I am lacking in my understanding of it. It could mean that what the artist is trying to achieve has no meaningful impact upon me, leaving me unmoved. Invalid opinions are for subjects where a point can be proven or disproven. Like an opinion based on a car being an unreliable model when worldwide data show this to be untrue.

I wasn't talking about whether there were valid or invalid OPINIONS. I was talking about some ultimate truth in art. I don't think it exists... My OPINION - hopefully as "valid" as anyone else's.

Aside from the discussion with Michael Smith - You have written that intense criticism (I take it largely the negative kind) is necessary if we are to improve/ grow - and that we cannot learn primarily from our own interpretations and experiences - that outside help is an absolute necessity. Did I read that right?.

No. But discussing these points with an open mind (ie not dismissing the person (critic) as a halfwit who only finds satisfaction with 'simpler less complex' work befitting of their need for a photographic easy visual 'quick fix', happily derived from second generation reproductions) can only heighten one's understanding of the way others see your own work (whether you give a damn or not). It certainly does no harm.

I mentioned nothing about "critics being "halfwits". I don't think they are, but I think many - MOST are misdirected. Harsh criticism can be devastating, especially to the neophyte. Long ago - really long ago - I was the victim of exactly that. I did not pick up a camera for four years or so as a result - that, in no way, could be considered as "enhancing the inner spark to lead anyone to greater things". I will suggest that supplying inspiration is FAR more helpful than anything else - even including education.

Now, enough. There is no point in continuing this further, already Volume I has been completed and we have enough words to be halfway into Volume II. I have to return to my life - my darkroom awaits and I have eight rolls of 120 - nudes - to process and print.

 

[Leon]

I havent read all through the multitude of apges on this forum so forgive me if the discussion has evolved somewhat ....

My take on this is that the subject matter, composition, materials, technique and fine print all need to connect with my own tastes, likes and aesthetics for me to enjoy a photograph. Sometimes I see a 8x10 contact and I think that for some reason I should like it, but i dont because it just doesnt cut the mustard, whereas a 35mm enlargement all gritty and unresloved could blow me away.

so, it doesnt really matter, cos you are never going to please everyone. Print as you like and hope others do to.

 

[Tom Stanworth]

Ed

My response had related mainly to what Michael had said and your response to it, not what you had said on the subject (which was not much).

You know what I mean by precious, Ed. If I am correct in thinking that we should not be able to discuss another person's work without their consent, this is daft IMHO. I did not 'pick on' someone who is unvalidated or new as a photographer (which would have been cruel) but someone who has work with many galleries and is vastly experienced etc. I therefore felt that MAS was probably robust/experienced/confident enough to discuss the questions posed from an irrelevant nobody like me - which he was! I was completely confident that my comments would not outweight the validation he has recieved elsewhere over many decades.

As for your comment: "Harsh criticism can be devastating, especially to the neophyte. Long ago - really long ago - I was the victim of exactly that. I did not pick up a camera for four years or so as a result".

I cannot relate to this at all. It is sad nonetheless. This is perhaps as much a confidence issue on your part as tact deficit(?) on the part of the critic. I personally get frustrated with so many topics (generally in life) being off limits becasue people are not robust enough to deal with discussing them, instead so much gets tip toed about. Michael has largely answered my questions as best he can 'with his head on' and I greatly respect that. I doubt I have changed anything for him, which would not be my intention, however, if it was so, so be it. In which case it would certainly be of his own choosing, not because I had forced a change through a brief exchange on a forum.

I reaslised early on that MAS and I were different beasts, however, this was concluded indirectly through our thoughts on the topis discussed. However, his final comment about emotions and his belief that mental acticity (the brain) is not involved in emotion or feeling absolutely defined that difference and rendered my efforts to disccuss specific points impossible to achieve because we actually cannot communicate effectively. There are different 'rules' or 'logics'. This for me is 'closure'. Perhaps the answers have not been fully answered or direct enough, but now I understand why.

I would hope that you can understand where I am coming from a little better now. I am not simply a beligerant thug [with a poor grasp of language (cheap insult Ed - it was a long day and a lot of typing which I am sure you reaslised)]. I am confident others see this, although perhaps not everyone. I am happy with that.

Tom

 

[Michael A. Smith]

Well, I didn't want to get into it here, and really won't, but you did and I cannot let it rest. Yes, although brain damage and drugs, etc, can influence emotions (I would never deny that), and I also will not deny that for many, if not most people, their emotions are filtered through their brains, I believe, based on my serious study of human functioning (my little known second career) for longer than I have been a photographer , that when emotions get filtered through the brain it indicates a disruption of involuntary, spontaneous plasmatic functioning and is not healthy. Not that it doesn't happen. It most assuredly does. But in an energetically healthy organism it does not. Thinking is an important function. But it is different from the expression of emotions.

 

[jovo]

I am not emotionally ready to use my intellect to wade through the preceding discussion. Perhaps after the application of some mood and mind altering substance (read: Tequila), it'll be possible...unless sleep occurs first;-) Best wishes to the participants.

 

[glbeas]

Michael the brain is such a complex wonderful thing you should not discount its many activities. The analytical mode you attribute to "brain" is mainly a prefrontal cortex function, while the general upkeep of the body and the emotions reside in deeper more "primitive" areas. I put the primitive in quotes because I don't think such functioning is primitive, but very complex and for the most part below the concious level. Emotional states are based in the mind but also are linked very closely to the hormonal chemistry raging through the body. The heart, alas, is merely a pump that has little input to the hormone balance in the body other than to keep it fed. So in being creative like you've indicated you have to let go of that prefrontal dependance and get in touch with the rest of the brain as well for maximum performance. It's not easy, thats for certain!

 

[Michael A. Smith]

A further thought: I believe that the difference between a reproduction of a photograph on the Internet and the photograph itself is a difference in kind, not in degree. Comparing the two is, to use a cliché, like comparing apples and oranges. The reproduction on the Internet is a picture of the object, not the object itself. A reproduction of a photograph is no more the original photograph than the original photograph is the thing photographed. It truly amazes me that people think they have seen a photograph when all they have seen is a reproduction of it. What something, even a photograph, looks like in reproduction, is very different from what it is. I understand many will not agree with me about this. But I believe that those who do not understand this are, de facto, denigrating the medium of photography, whether they know it or not.

 

[georgep]

This is an interesting discussion and there is so much to respond to and I don't have time for it all right now, but a few comments about viewing pictures on the web vs. the real thing and Michael A. Smith's photography:

Viewing scans of prints on the internet provides an idea of what a photograph looks like but it is an approximation and much different than viewing the actual print. A JPEG is essentially a reproduction, and a poor one at that. There is a huge difference between an original photograph and a reproduction of the photograph, even if the reproduction is accurate. A person may be able to decide if they like a photograph or not based on the scan, but I think an evaluation of an artist’s work should be based on the actual art work. It could happen that the reproduction improves or fixes problems in the original and then the original is a disappointment, not faithful to the reproduction.

The artist makes the art object and a machine makes the reproduction. Thus there is a different energy and effect on the viewer. This “energetic presence,” as Michael put it, is at the heart of the art object, and is not conveyed in reproductions, and is not even a visual property, though related to how well the photograph is made. Visually-objective properties of the original photograph such as sharpness, detail, tonal scale, tonality, and important subtleties are lost in a low resolution JPEG.

Concerning Michael A. Smith’s work, I wonder how many people who have commented have seen actual prints vs. reproductions? My guess is that the majority of people who appreciate his work have seen his prints and the majority of the people who do not appreciate his work are basing their opinion on reproductions. To be fair to any artist, I think a person should spend some time viewing the work, and a body of the work, not a single piece, and not reproductions. Then your opinion is better informed. Opinions are subjective and not everyone is going to have the same opinion of any work of art. But some opinions are better informed than others are. Would you base your opinion on an artist’s work simply by reading a critique, without ever seeing the work? Basing a critique on reproductions, and not originals, is not the best-informed way to go.

Any photograph, no matter how great, will be filtered and interpreted by the viewer according to the viewer’s state of consciousness. Most of the “great” photographers were not recognized in their lifetimes, or if they were, it was towards the end. One of the things that affects interpretation of art is politics. It is difficult to be open to an artist’s work if you don’t like the artist personally. Likewise, if you know and like an artist personally, that can affect your opinion as well. Most of the big names in photography we never met and have had no direct personal interaction and that might mean a less-biased opinion, though no doubt we have been affected by what others have said about both the person and the artwork.

I’ll go on the record as saying I think Michael A. Smith will go down in history as one of the great photographers. My opinion is as subjective as anyone else’s, but I am basing that opinion on seeing many of his prints and being able to spend some time looking at them. I also own two of Michael’s photographs and one of Paula’s and most of their books. Besides the artwork itself, there is the context. Michael’s lifetime commitment to the medium is extraordinary and rare. I don’t know if anyone has worked as hard and as long at it. Being a technical master only adds to his legacy, and not detract. Being a technical master frees him from technique, and permits his attention to go to seeing.

In terms of technical matters, contact printing is one of the simplest ways of working photographically. It is less technically orientated than enlarging. No need for an enlarging system, and many of the compromising variables associated with enlarging are eliminated. If I understand Michael correctly, he wants to make the best photographs he can. To his eye, contact prints look better than enlargements, so why compromise? Why make a photograph that is less than it can be? It does not mean it is the only way to work, or that enlarging is inferior… it is just a choice. For an artist, it is important to be authentic and choose one’s methods, mediums, and approach in an authentic way, that is, not according to what others think.

 

[jd callow]

If I understand Michael correctly, he wants to make the best photographs he can. To his eye, contact prints look better than enlargements, so why compromise? Why make a photograph that is less than it can be? It does not mean it is the only way to work, or that enlarging is inferior… it is just a choice. For an artist, it is important to be authentic and choose one’s methods, mediums, and approach in an authentic way, that is, not according to what others think.

IMHO...
This is all well and good for those who create negatives to be contacted.

It is not the best way to make a print, just one way, nor is contact printing necessarily better than enlarging. (and I am not saying that georgep is saying contacts are the best)

Some people make negatives for enlargement because their 'vision' requires the final piece to be larger than can be shot to film. Others make enlargements so they can have greater control over the final image and still others make enlargements because they wish to make a print that pushes the boundaries of the film (they may wish to see the image begin to fall apart or want more grain).

As to the original question, more often than not, an image that succeeds is one where the content and craft work hand in glove. This is how I understood Blansky's take and I agree. So the answer is mostly no.

Is technical perfection overrated when it comes to producing a successful image? My answer is no.

This seems to be a secondary quest of this thread. I think technical perfection becomes subjective once you start applying your vision (this can also be read into Blansky's post). In other words your vision says print it darker/lighter, with less/more contrast or more blue/red/green etc. and suddenly the neg is not printed to its fullest technical potential based upon the neg's density, tonal range and or colour balance. It is being printed based upon the vision of the photographer. Hence technical perfection is no more quantifiable than the vision.

Does this make me a relativist? I don't know but I sure did like Peter's post. It has been a real long time since I even thought about relativism .v realism. Now I am having a hard time not thinking about it.
.

 

[Michael A. Smith]

Mr. Callow: "I think technical perfection becomes subjective once you start applying your vision (this can also be read into Blansky's post). In other words your vision says print it darker/lighter, with less/more contrast or more blue/red/green etc. and suddenly the neg is not printed to its fullest technical potential based upon the neg's density, tonal range and or colour balance. It is being printed based upon the vision of the photographer. Hence technical perfection is no more quantifiable than the vision."

Absolutely, yes! I recall once in a workshop I taught at the Friends of Photography in 1975 looking at a young lady's photographs. She had two sets of prints of the same full-range scene. One set had about two zones in them.The prints were wonderful, though I don't think I would ever have printed like that--until then anyhow. The more full-range prints were boring, boring, boring. The negatives were obviously a little underexposed and underdeveloped, but I've never forgotten those wonderful gray prints. I told her to go with the gray ones-they had such a great moody feeling.

 

[Jorge]

A further thought: I believe that the difference between a reproduction of a photograph on the Internet and the photograph itself is a difference in kind, not in degree. Comparing the two is, to use a cliché, like comparing apples and oranges. The reproduction on the Internet is a picture of the object, not the object itself. A reproduction of a photograph is no more the original photograph than the original photograph is the thing photographed. It truly amazes me that people think they have seen a photograph when all they have seen is a reproduction of it. What something, even a photograph, looks like in reproduction, is very different from what it is. I understand many will not agree with me about this. But I believe that those who do not understand this are, de facto, denigrating the medium of photography, whether they know it or not.

I think you have misunderstood the point completely. What many of us are saying is in fact diametrically opposite to what you posted. I beleive the web is such an inadequate medium to show photographs that in fact it acts like a filter or sieve. It removes all other considerations like texture, tonal range, tonal transition, and leaves us merely with the content of the print.

I dont think anybody here is saying looking at a web shot and looking at the actual print is the same, but it does give you a good indication of the subject matter and the overall content of the print. This is something we can use to assess the work of other people. Then again there are web sites like Per Volkuarts' (sorry if I mangled your last name Per) or Ron Rosenstock's, where the beauty of the prints comes through even on the web...

 

[djklmnop]

I think the whole idea of not caring or attempting to understand the technicals is nothing more than an excuse to be lazy.

If you shoot a wonderful Cartier Bresson image, then I commend you for capturing a great image when those elements presented themselves. But just because an image is well captured does not excuse the photographer from printing it poorly! And the excuse of "Technical will make me a boring photographer" is not going to fly! I shoot my images the way I do to satisfy my own desire of vision and technical perfection. My second priority is to convey to the viewer how I felt or how an image makes me feel. I learned long ago that you can never please the entire audience, and that is why I shoot mainly for myself.

A business lesson I learned in the past: There is never such a thing as 100% customer satisfaction. If the company spent all their money and effort on it, the company would go bankrupt. So stop shooting to try to satisfy the audience. Shoot because you are trying to satisfy your own goal. If it's not technical perfection, then thats your choice. If it's a boring subject to others, yet is compelling as hell to you, then thats your choice. But if you want to pass something off as art, then you better speak the language.

Andy

 

[James Bleifus]

I'm sure there were probably beautiful sunny days at Auchwitz (sp?). The problem is we can't bring ourselves to see it that way. We need to see it as a horror.

[snip]

Does that make Dorothea Lange a better photographer of the human condition than Ansel Adams? Perhaps. But he saw what he saw.

Michael

Thanks Michael. The cognitive v. the aesthetic. As I considered my earlier response I realized that, as you've surmised, it's the Adams style, not the printing that disturbed me about the book. I should have remembered Gene Smith who made some of the most (to me) moving photographs of all and was a tremendous printer.

Cheers,

James

 

[James Bleifus]

This is something we can use to assess the work of other people. Then again there are web sites like Per Volkuarts' (sorry if I mangled your last name Per) or Ron Rosenstock's, where the beauty of the prints comes through even on the web...

Yes, it is something we can assess in the work of other people. There's a print I'm fond of by Huntington Witherill called Setting Moon and Boulders. It's a delicate image and I've been fortunate enough to see the original print, the reproduction in ORCHESTRATING ICONS and in his interactive CD catalog. The original print is wonderful, the image in the book is darn good and the image in the catalog is dead. There is something essential that was lost in the translation to digital (and I don't think anyone would consider Hunter a slouch with PS). What that is I can't describe but I can easily recognize it. Not all prints (maybe even not all photographers) experience this but there is a characteristic to some prints that doesn't translate over to the web. To some, though again not all, photographers, that subtleness is the key.

Cheers,

James

 

[Jorge]

Once again, those qualifiers like "subtle" are not percieved in a web shot. Let me put it this way, lets say tomorrow all museums went to "juke box" art. If you wanted to see a photograph you would first have to pick it out of a screen shot and then a robotic arm would go get it for you and place it in frontof you. How would you choose which ones to see? I would choose those that have content that appeals to me and then I would examine the "technicalities".

 

[David H. Bebbington]

I dont think anybody here is saying looking at a web shot and looking at the actual print is the same, but it does give you a good indication of the subject matter and the overall content of the print.

I agree with you completely, Jorge (isn't that nice?). The Internet is a great tool for getting your work seen by millions of people to whom you would otherwise have no access. A digital image on a web page is of course not a full equivalent to looking directly at a hand-made print, there are no tactile qualities and if a photographer's work depends on tone and texture rendered at a large print size, it will suffer all the more from this. I personally am more than willing to accept this limitation in order to get my work seen, but it is of course something to bear in mind, people should take every opportunity to see "real" photographs face to face, they will then be better able to view web images and imagine what they "really" look like. There is an analogy to entering national and international photographic exhibitions, you know your submission will be viewed during the selection process for a very short time, which is not at all what you want, you simply have to decide for yourself whether on balance the exercise is worth while.

Regards,

David

PS: I like the idea of "juke box art" in museums. This would of course have the limitations I have described, but it would result in a lot more work being seen by a lot more people!

 

[Will S]

A further thought: I believe that the difference between a reproduction of a photograph on the Internet and the photograph itself is a difference in kind, not in degree. Comparing the two is, to use a cliché, like comparing apples and oranges. The reproduction on the Internet is a picture of the object, not the object itself. A reproduction of a photograph is no more the original photograph than the original photograph is the thing photographed. It truly amazes me that people think they have seen a photograph when all they have seen is a reproduction of it. What something, even a photograph, looks like in reproduction, is very different from what it is. I understand many will not agree with me about this. But I believe that those who do not understand this are, de facto, denigrating the medium of photography, whether they know it or not.

Michael,

I know you are a busy guy and I hate to take up your time, but this last sentence above seems a little heavy-handed to me and difficult to understand as well. Are those who look at books with art photos in them who do not understand that the reproduction in the book is not really the photo itself, and that the photo is not really the thing itself, denigrating photography as an art? I've only really studied music, and the idea of the work of art being different from its reproduction has been around there for a long time, since even before recordings. If you hear a very scratchy, poorly recorded, badly played version of Beethoven's 9th Symphony on your tiny little AM radio through a 2" speaker is it no longer Beethoven's 9th Symphony? True, it is a very poor rendition of Beethoven's 9th. But imagine a listener who had never heard it before. If they respond to it emotionally (which there is a good chance they will if they are a westerner) what are they responding to? Has something of Beethoven's "art" and meaning managed to come through even with all of that distortion? But where is that "art" coming from? This paradox gets even more complicated when I think about how the performance itself is being translated from the non-auditory medium of music notation to begin with.

I think photography shares this same paradox. If the print and its reproduction are not the same thing (which is absolutely true) but the reproduction, however poor, is still capable of transmitting some of the emotion/intent of the original work, where does that emotion and meaning come from? If the presentation is unseparable from the content does removing the presentation (or even just severely degrading it) remove the content as well? Perhaps just some of the content is removed. Yet, if some content does remain, where does it reside? The logicial part of me argues that it is in the grosser details of composition, the significance of the subject matter to a specific cultural place and time, etc., etc. The more mystical part thinks that it resides somewhere outside of the thing itself and that the photo, itself only a positive reproduction of a negative, which is, in turn only a negative reproduction of light bouncing off of the subject, is merely the vehicle whereby that meaning is transmitted to the viewer. But transmitted from where?

Thanks,

Will

 

[mark]

I think you have misunderstood the point completely. What many of us are saying is in fact diametrically opposite to what you posted. I beleive the web is such an inadequate medium to show photographs that in fact it acts like a filter or sieve. It removes all other considerations like texture, tonal range, tonal transition, and leaves us merely with the content of the print.

I dont think anybody here is saying looking at a web shot and looking at the actual print is the same, but it does give you a good indication of the subject matter and the overall content of the print. This is something we can use to assess the work of other people. Then again there are web sites like Per Volkuarts' (sorry if I mangled your last name Per) or Ron Rosenstock's, where the beauty of the prints comes through even on the web...

Bingo. the jukebox art idea was pretty cool too.

My concern is why would anyone put a photo on a website they felt did not give at least a hint of what the actual print looked like. Why have a website with samples to view, and then tell folks that what they see is nothing like what the original is, and how bad the photo representation on the web is? Sounds pretty stupid to me.

Michael-Why do you have images on your website if you think, by your own admission, they are not good? Are you promoting the denegration of photography by posting crappy digital representations, that might cause someone to want to explore your work further because of what they saw at http://www.michaelandpaula.com/mp/photographs.html I guess I don't get it.

I am just trying to understand the person behind the statements you have made, and who owns a website which contains images.

 

[Bob Carnie]

Images to web vs Images to print

For years I tried to match my printing of lith prints to those prints in Anton Corbijn Star Trak.
For the life of me I thought that I was just not good enough, finally a few of my clients pieces were published to print and holy shit they looked a lot like the images I saw in Antons beautiful book.
I , at the time did not catch or understand the translation a photograph undergoes from print to book.Now I do and am more comfortable.
When looking at images on the web now I envision how it looks and leave it at that. If I like the image I know it will translate backwards to the original print.
I am not sure if this is some what of what is being discussed here by my second 2cents to this thread.