Film negative is just a start

[radiant]

This is the first time I’ve heard that Europeans don’t consider printing a creative step in photography. (??) I also didn’t know there was an American way to print.

I actually have not ever heard that printing is somehow considered as a separate step in photography. Maybe there is some kind of culture in America where printers are noticed.

Burning and dodging take intense work. People want to become better photographers more easily than that. So they think changing cameras or lenses will do the trick. That's easy to do.

Burning & doding is only one way to alter the outcome. There are many many other ways. And that is the point; if you try to do "traditional" print and burning & doding isn't saving the photo, maybe try other ways (I listed few in first post).

As far as “trash negatives” Moriyama was hailed for printing his culls, even those trampled under foot. In art, it seems, anything goes.

This is exatcly what I'm thinking. I didn't list trampled negatives as one way to give negative new life? In my youth I shot some test film strip and took one shot of my sunglasses on top of book with wide aperture. I then processed the negative and just dried it with my hands, I cannot remember how but the negative was heavily scratched. It wasn't my plan to print the negatives at all but I decided to print that frame and it had really something special. The scratches suited the style so well.

One finnish photographer was shooting refugees in southeast Europe and shot the frames on polaroid. After developing the "print" he threw the negative part to his pocket with dust and everything in it. Sometimes dropped to ground to get local dirt into it. He used only the negatives, threw the original "print" to trash..

 

[radiant]

Found that photographer, Esa Ylijääskö. Some of those polaroids here: http://www.100finnishphotographers.fi/esa-ylijaasko/

 

[warden]

I actually have not ever heard that printing is somehow considered as a separate step in photography. Maybe there is some kind of culture in America where printers are noticed..

Beats me, and I live here. ;-)

I've always considered every step in photography important, from scouting locations to hanging the finished print. I agree with the idea that all sorts of negatives, from conventionally "correct" ones to damaged or somehow incorrect ones can be used to make a fine work of art. Pushing the shutter button is but one of the many steps that can be used to make art.

 

[warden]

Found that photographer, Esa Ylijääskö. Some of those polaroids here: http://www.100finnishphotographers.fi/esa-ylijaasko/

He's good!

 

[radiant]

He's good!

He is. I think most of those photos would not work without that look. The dog picture in "all perfect tones" + "no scratches" would be maybe boring?

Actually the Esa's photos are perfect example for this topic.

 

[MattKing]

On the subject of great printers, Voja Mitrovic comes to mind.
He seemed to be important to Henri Cartier Bresson.
And I don't think Ansel Adams would be as renowned as he was, if his printing skills were pedestrian.
Printers aren't often noticed, except by photographers who understand what is involved in really creative and impactful darkroom work.

 

[Doremus Scudder]

In the argument about "content vs. craft," I will consistently and decisively take the position that one should not exclude the other. While I sincerely believe that the most important thing about photography is what you point your camera at, not having enough technique at your disposal to realize an adequate image of what you wanted to capture or, worse, calling one's technical ineptitude "art" (since it obviously can't be "technique") and disparaging works that demonstrate technical excellence, is just plain amateurish.

Granted, there is a lot of discovery and serendipitous accident that often goes along with the artistic process; even intentional sloppiness as an end in itself, but lack of intent equals lack of content in my book, and lack of technique to realize the intent is the same.

Doremus