F#@%ing Fakes

[Vaughn]

...Does anyone know of any university photography courses that do film justice?

At Humboldt State University we start all students in the standard wet process or film and B&W prints. There are digital and wet process courses on the intermediate and advanced levels. Every few years we toss in an alternative photo processes class.

HSU was the third college in the nation to establish a photography program within a Department of Art. Radical thinking in the '50's, I guess. And the program is still art-based. One would graduate with a BA in Art with a studio emphasis in Photography. But one would get a well-rounded art education -- one can not hide out in the darkroom all four years! LOL!

Vaughn

Disclaimer: I am the photography/Darkroom Tech for the program. I graduated from HSU with a BS Natural Resources Management degree in 1981. It took me 8 years, partly because I was hiding out in the darkroom a lot...

 

[Loris Medici]

Huh? Enrolling a university course to learn more about film processes!? C'mon, it's not rocket science, there are many on-line resouces (you've already found one of the bests...) and many books around, still selling / still on the shelves...

You can do it yourself, just by reading alot, practicing (and good note taking / analytic approach) and asking clever questions...

Do you REALLY think Ansel Adams or Edward Steichen or ... (thousands / millions more) went to university to study film processes?

Regards,
Loris.

...
I've read some comments on here in the thread saying that university photography courses seem to teach digital over film. Is this universally true? Does anyone know of any university photography courses that do film justice? I'm looking to enroll myself and would love to learn film processes more.

Where can one find himself the materials and knowledge to know how to do some of these more obscure processes? Am I personally doomed to just try and learn myself?

I don't want to be a faker and I see digital and film as completely different tools (shooting in flight bugs would be impossible even with lasers on a film camera), but lets be honest how many places are there to even learn these processes anymore?

 

[JBrunner]

If you want to be a photographer, study business and art at university, and work on photography as mentioned by Loris. My 2 cents.

 

[Akki14]

All I learned at art uni was ... make up a bunch of bull "meanings" behind your work. Then I left because I got bored of being encouraged to lie & justify.
Business would have been much, much more useful.

 

[systemlayers]

All I learned at art uni was ... make up a bunch of bull "meanings" behind your work. Then I left because I got bored of being encouraged to lie & justify.
Business would have been much, much more useful.

I can attest to this being true having a cousin in university for art who never does assignments and makes some good stuff along with the 'interesting' meaning type stuff.
Plus stepping into almost any art gallery and browsing almost any 'contemporary' art exhibitions will also confirm this experience.
My art gallery has a piece called 'white fences in the night' consisting of a few hundred 4x6 pictures of white fences in the night taken with direct flash on some form of cheap camera.

I think in accordance with some of the replies here I will skip the usual art university education and just go to a local business+technical photography 2 year course.

 

[oldglass]

Gang, I hate to say it, but I sarted out several years ago with a digital in my hand. It was a first generation Kodak DC265. At one point in time, I also tried to reproduce the look of the old image. The years went by, and I gave myself the education I needed to roll myself into analog. To make a long story even longer, I no longer even own a digital camera. I have just recently purchased my first 8x10, and im killing myself trying to perfect the calotype. The moral of the story......keep doing what you do, and educate the public. I am one of the people that you have educated, and I thank you all for it. One year ago, I joined a camera club, and I was the only person in the club shooting analog. After winning most of the monthly photo contests, I now have another member joining my ranks. Keep sharing your talent, and keep the processes alive. By the way, I hand grind my coffee, and love it perked. Cheers.

Ah, almost my twin with that story (my first digital camera was the Kodak DC210 )
I was a happy-digital-snapper until that day the film-bug bit me.

I now spend most of my time shooting, developing, and printing -- for myself and for other photographers who love wet-prints but can't or don't have time to print themselves.

I also try to educate as many as I can who would listen, if I and vintagepics can embrace film coming from digital, so can a lot of people out there, especially younger generations.

Don't hate those who can't see the choice yet, educate them.

But If they came back with snarky remarks, leave them with that confident look that will haunt them in their dreams.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Ah, almost my twin with that story (my first digital camera was the Kodak DC210 )
I was a happy-digital-snapper until that day the film-bug bit me.

I now spend most of my time shooting, developing, and printing -- for myself and for other photographers who love wet-prints but can't or don't have time to print themselves.

I also try to educate as many as I can who would listen, if I and vintagepics can embrace film coming from digital, so can a lot of people out there, especially younger generations.

Don't hate those who can't see the choice yet, educate them.

But If they came back with snarky remarks, leave them with that confident look that will haunt them in their dreams.

Welcome to APUG oldglass

Steve

 

[hadeer]

I really feel honoured that those people try to mimic the classic techniques. There must be something very special about them.....

 

[Three Owls]

I am not aware of any serious artist selling an inkjet print as a "traditional darkroom print". I could be wrong but I don't think one would be silly enough to misrepresent and, frankly, I don't see the need. Like you've said, if it's good, it's good and it should end there.

I hate to bump up a now older thread...

But I have had the "hometown" gallery rep of a recent Guggenheim Fellow offer to sell me (for more than my most recent vehicle!) a "Carbon Pigment Print" which she (the gallery owner) said was made with traditional darkroom techniques. I was surprised by the look and terminology so I looked into it. A bit of research into that photog at luminous lint revealed that there is further confusion in the marketplace and they seem to incorrectly list him as working in carbon transfer process though I could find no evidence he ever did. I am 99.999% certain that the print offered to me was digital, it did not have a 3d look and it seems that "carbon pigment print" is now a commonly accepted term for a digital print- though this was explicitly offered to me as a darkroom print.

I'm not talking about some confused no-name selling pictures in a low end gallery for a few bucks, this is a known and collectible artist and there seems to have been a conspiracy to engage in fraud.

I really don't care too much about what people think is art when it comes out of their inkjets. I do care about fraudulent misrepresentations.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

Thebes, examine the suspected digi print with a high power loupé (8x - 10x); if you can distinctly make out red, blue, green dots, its an inkjet. Dots are very different in appearance to the grain visible in traditional wet darkroom prints. I have never ever heard of "carbon pigment print" from a darkroom. Where is the background literature to it as an alternotype??

 

[Three Owls]

Poisson. I had been out of photography for some time and was unaware that a "carbon pigment print" now referred to a giclee, schucksters seem to have come up with a great number of names for inkjet prints and many of them blatantly rip off older terminology. As you might know Mortensen and others made what were termed pigment prints, I had inquired with the gallery owner wondering if this was the process since they did not look like carbon transfer prints, I thought they might be something where carbon was retained rather than transfered. The agent lied to me and either was doing it intentionally or was grossly negligent given the value of the work and her claimed knowledge of the photog. The agent specifically said it was a traditional darkroom print. It cost well over a grand but I don't remember exactly how much more.

Also, not all digital prints have colored dots. A goodly number of digital prints are now being done with inks using multiple dilutions of carbon, this part I was aware of and although I could see no dots I suspect that the surface of the paper would have obscured them. I did not have a loupe handy but my vision is good enough that if I take off my glasses I could have seen colored dots on the surface of a paper, this print was within the paper not on its surface... I presume that these prints were made with cone inks or similar. Its a shame they were misrepresented, I rather liked them otherwise, the composition was excellent and unique.

 

[removed account4]

not all people know what a carbon transfer print is
and a carbon pigment print is exactly what is says it is carbon pigment on paper ...
it doesn't seem to me that anyone is misrepresenting anything.

i think the problem is that we traditional users want to own all the terminology

 

[eclarke]

Just tell everybody that the test of a fine print is to squirt it with a water bottle...EC

 

[lxdude]

not all people know what a carbon transfer print is
and a carbon pigment print is exactly what is says it is carbon pigment on paper ...
it doesn't seem to me that anyone is misrepresenting anything.

i think the problem is that we traditional users want to own all the terminology

They are using it to obfuscate its origin.

A pencil drawing and a charcoal drawing and an ink drawing and a brush and ink painting are all carbon pigment on paper. None of them are called that.

 

[removed account4]

They are using it to obfuscate its origin.

A pencil drawing and a charcoal drawing and an ink drawing and an ink painting are all carbon pigment on paper. None of them are called that.

i am sure collectors know what they are collecting,
and gallery owners know what they are displaying.
i don't really think many people besides traditional photographers really
care about or think of an image's origin like that.

i used the term "hybrid print" in 1989 ( until about 2004 ) to describe a process
where i printed both camera-made and hand made negatives.
when people began to combine traditional with non traditional printing methods
and calling their process a "hybrid" process should i have insisted they call it something else because 15 years before i used it first ?
none of these names are owned by anyone.

 

[lxdude]

i am sure collectors know what they are collecting,
and gallery owners know what they are displaying.
i don't really think many people besides traditional photographers really
care about or think of an image's origin like that.

Then why don't they just say "Ink-jet"? Did people come up with "Giclee" because it better described the print?

i used the term "hybrid print" in 1989 ( until about 2004 ) to describe a process
where i printed both camera-made and hand made negatives.
when people began to combine traditional with non traditional printing methods
and calling their process a "hybrid" process should i have insisted they call it something else because 15 years before i used it first ?

Well, if your term had gained widespread use, maybe so.

none of these names are owned by anyone.

Obviously. Nor is that the issue. It's whether descriptions confuse or differentiate.

I understand what you're saying, and there's validity to it. But these descriptions are being used, IMO, because they sound serious and cool.

 

[Hexavalent]

I'd have to say that "Hybrid Print" does not imply a particular process, whereas "Carbon Pigment Print" and "Platinolike" (yes, I've seen that!) do.

 

[hpulley]

Caveat emptor I say. If the paper falls apart and the ink dissolves when they try to conserve it in a water bath years from now they'll know...

 

[removed account4]

i guess i would rather give someone the benefit of the doubt.

have you ever spoken with a d-photographer
and asked them why s/he uses terms specifically to
confuse and obfuscate its origin ?

and if you did, what did they say ?


glicée means to spray a fine mist ..
maybe the people who were doing this to
make images were from ciba ...
they are located in switzerland and
probably came up with the terminology.

 

[lxdude]

i guess i would rather give someone the benefit of the doubt.

Fair enough.

have you ever spoken with a d-photographer
and asked them why s/he uses terms specifically to
confuse and obfuscate its origin ?

No, that would be rude. And presumptive, as I don't know if that is their motivation, or if they are just using the term because others have.

Seeing its general use, though, I'm reminded that the art world has never lacked for pretension.

But there is a guy nearby, a good self-promoter, who has a business going, with a showroom (I wouldn't exactly call it a gallery). He prints landscape photos, color mostly, from digital and scanned film, makes it clear his prints are ink-jet, and states his preference for it.

glicée means to spray a fine mist ..

And so is not really accurate, as ink-jet attempts to precisely deposit discrete droplets.

maybe the people who were doing this to
make images were from ciba ...
they are located in switzerland and
probably came up with the terminology.

Maybe...probably...perhaps...could be, I guess.



Using "carbon pigment" for ink-jet using carbon inks is not inaccurate, as far as it goes. But if a description is to inform, it should be specific enough to do so. "Dye-transfer" doesn't describe much of the process, nor does "silver gelatin", or "carbon print", but they are specific enough to be names of different methods.

 

[removed account4]

well, i was wrong ..
this had nothing to do with switzerland
or france or anything european
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iris_printer

ink jet ... nozzle, does it really matter ?
it doesn't to me ...

 

[Wayne]

i am sure collectors know what they are collecting,
and gallery owners know what they are displaying.
i don't really think many people besides traditional photographers really
care about or think of an image's origin like that.

Unfortunately this is very true. But I see this as a good reason to point it out at every opportunity, while others (not saying you) see it as a reason to be apathetic. Many people who dont care about a print's origins still like to feel they are educated people, and that's all any of us can reasonably ask-that everyone have the knowledge available to them. Whether they choose to care about is just that-personal choice

Footnote-in my experience some gallery owners DO NOT know what they are displaying. When I asked an owner why all of their photography was labeled simply "Photograph", she did not know and directed me to ask the artists. I told her it was a rhetorical question, and I didn't need to.

 

[BetterSense]

But I see this as a good reason to point it out at every opportunity, while others (not saying you) see it as a reason to be apathetic. Many people who dont care about a print's origins still like to feel they are educated people, and that's all any of us can reasonably ask-that everyone have the knowledge available to them. Whether they choose to care about is just that-personal choice

I agree completely. The idea that we should let the masses, rather than the experts, dictate terminology and in fact dictate our artistic direction by affecting the way we value different media is rubbish. It's basically just lowest-common-denominator philosophy. It's perfectly natural and normal for photographers and serious art collectors to make distinctions that are lost on laypeople. The fact that the distinctions are lost on laypeople is not a justification for ignoring the distinctions; on the contrary it should be further justification for preserving them.

I don't know anything about horticulture; but my sister does. Although she is very serious about it, it's natural that I don't understand the distinction between X variant of sunflowers and Y variant of sunflowers. They are all sunflowers to me. But it doesn't bother me that people that take horticulture seriously DO know the distinction, make an effort to understand it, and preserve it. If I want to learn more about sunflowers, I have someone to ask. I would never, ever expect them to "dumb it down" for me and pretend that there is no distinction, because "I'll never notice the difference anyway". The very idea offends me. If I ever get into sunflower collecting, I would expect to have to learn something about sunflowers.

I still maintain that only optical prints are properly labeled "photographs". An inkjet print is more accurately labeled a painting than a photograph. It's evidently a mechanical painting, but there isn't even any light used to produce it. The image might represent some past photograph, but the print itself is not a photograph. I'm making no value judgments on the respective merits of photographs and inkjet prints, or digital art by making these statements. These distinctions may be lost on laypeople, but it is the duty of the art world to observe, understand, and maintain them, in the spirit of integrity and excellence.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Also, as mentioned before, you cannot count on gallerists or the consuming public to understand the distinction. There are a lot of "galleries" out there who are little more than glorified interior decorators and who will take it on faith what the artist says about their work, as will their customer. It is important for a whole slew of reasons to accurately describe each component of a piece of artwork, because at least in theory each component was a conscious choice of the artist and has significance to the piece of art. Making an inkjet print makes a statement about the production of the work in relationship to the technology of image capture and consumption. Making a platinum print today makes a very different statement with regards to technology, consumerism and resistance to mass-production and consumption. An oil painting made on wood panel makes a very different statement than an acrylic on canvas, because while each is a painting, and both are applied with the same kind of brushes, they have different textures and surface qualities, and will convey very different emotions to the viewer even when showing the same subject matter.

 

[railwayman3]

They are using it to obfuscate its origin.

A pencil drawing and a charcoal drawing and an ink drawing and a brush and ink painting are all carbon pigment on paper. None of them are called that.

I agree....to me, what is wrong is not so much using photoshop to make a print which looks like carbon/platinum/daguerrotype or whatever, but pretending or
deluding oneself or others that it is in any way the "real thing".

I print quite a few of my B&W scanned negs on the inkjet Harman and Harnemuhle fiber-based papers, particularly the "watercolor" texture version of the latter. They look nice to me, but I don't pretend that they are the same as the darkroom prints which I make.....and my wife, who paints watercolors, would have something caustic to say if I tried to pass them off as watercolors!