Thomas Bertilsson
Member
The picture is about the picture, not the paper it was printed on. All else is personal preference and we will never all agree. Period.
If someone believes that their process is the cat's meow to making the best prints they can make, then why stop them from thinking so? Because it probably is true!
But that doesn't discount all other methods out there. I have seen many photographs in my day, and I never even reflect upon what kind of paper was used, or what chemistry. I have seen many photography shows where digital prints far surpassed analog prints, simply because they were better pictures, better thought out, better composed, had more emotional impact, etc.
Any aspiring photographer should know that consistency in using your materials, and learning HOW to use them in order to yield prints that are satisfying, is the way to work. Stop chasing silver bullets. Chase subject matter. Chase light. Chase expression. Chase your soul. But do NOT chase silver bullets.
I have no problem admitting that Michael Smith's prints are excellent, (although I prefer Paula Chamlee's pictures). But so are Bill Schwab's. One set are made with Azo/Lodima in Amidol and ULF negs. The other set is made from a Hasselblad with off the shelf materials (literally materials I can buy around the corner in Minneapolis). What gives? It's NOT about the stupid materials! It's about HOW you use them and what you do with them. df cardwells photographs are fantastic works of art too, he's a master portraitist.
What these three photographers and artists have in common is that they know their materials inside and out; they know exactly what they are capable of, and are able to extract the most of them. THAT is the common denominator.
Just get over it and get back to what really matters. CONTENT. And let's help the original poster with his quest to get his printing on a roll.
If someone believes that their process is the cat's meow to making the best prints they can make, then why stop them from thinking so? Because it probably is true!
But that doesn't discount all other methods out there. I have seen many photographs in my day, and I never even reflect upon what kind of paper was used, or what chemistry. I have seen many photography shows where digital prints far surpassed analog prints, simply because they were better pictures, better thought out, better composed, had more emotional impact, etc.
Any aspiring photographer should know that consistency in using your materials, and learning HOW to use them in order to yield prints that are satisfying, is the way to work. Stop chasing silver bullets. Chase subject matter. Chase light. Chase expression. Chase your soul. But do NOT chase silver bullets.
I have no problem admitting that Michael Smith's prints are excellent, (although I prefer Paula Chamlee's pictures). But so are Bill Schwab's. One set are made with Azo/Lodima in Amidol and ULF negs. The other set is made from a Hasselblad with off the shelf materials (literally materials I can buy around the corner in Minneapolis). What gives? It's NOT about the stupid materials! It's about HOW you use them and what you do with them. df cardwells photographs are fantastic works of art too, he's a master portraitist.
What these three photographers and artists have in common is that they know their materials inside and out; they know exactly what they are capable of, and are able to extract the most of them. THAT is the common denominator.
Just get over it and get back to what really matters. CONTENT. And let's help the original poster with his quest to get his printing on a roll.
Last edited by a moderator: