Why? What do you exactly experience on the print that you cannot in screen, the quality of the paper or texture of it as you said? Is it really that important? It is not painting where the paint has a material texture. And I am saying it me who love prints that is why I buy so many photography books. But I dont believe they are superior to an image in any other form. An image has no material identity it exists in many forms. Maybe like a musical score. And the prints or edits are interpretations
...."the map is not the territory"
.....the menu is not the meal....
This is getting a bit metaphysical, isn’t it?
A bit metaphysical! You really have to stop using the so-called "British understatement, Jonathan
pentaxuser
...."the map is not the territory"
.....the menu is not the meal....
This is getting a bit metaphysical, isn’t it? The photo is not the girl in Sifnos either.
And the prints or edits are interpretations
There is no way to experience any of these things except through interpretations. And a print interpretation is different than a screen interpretation.
I'm okay if some don't care where and how and through what medium they see and/or experience the photography.
But to my mind I like best the "performances" that are in print form.
And I always have in the back of my mind that HCB expected his photographs to be seen as prints, not as images on a screen.
I take slides with the expectation that they will be projected.
And I take black and white images with the expectation that they will be presented as prints.
And those expectations influence how I expose the film.
Me too..... which is why i will go out of my way to see photo exhibitions in any city I visit.
The impact of the print is orders of magnitude more than the picture of the image on a screen or in a book.
Hmm I don't know. I have been to museum and seen painting I only saw in books and I was ... wow!!!
On the other hand, I have seen prints that I have seen in books or screens too and I didn't feel such a difference
Not surprising with the media relationships being so different, with the printing of photographs in books tending to much closer to the "real thing" -- and often 'improved'.Hmm I don't know. I have been to museum and seen painting I only saw in books and I was ... wow!!!
On the other hand, I have seen prints that I have seen in books or screens too and I didn't feel such a difference
This is getting a bit metaphysical, isn’t it? The photo is not the girl in Sifnos either.
Several years ago I was able to attend a travelling exhibition of the original prints that HCB himself would have approved - as I understand he didn't make most of his own prints.
They were quite interesting.
One, they were invariably quite small - 8x10 usually.
They were very subtle prints - some of the more famous images are commonly reproduced in somewhat more dramatic ways.
A couple showed some signs of minor damage, which fascinated me.
I would wager that they were 8x12, or perhaps 6x9, but printed on 8x10 paper, for the most part. True 8x10s would have required cropping.
Several years ago I was able to attend a travelling exhibition of the original prints that HCB himself would have approved - as I understand he didn't make most of his own prints.
They were quite interesting.
One, they were invariably quite small - 8x10 usually.
They were very subtle prints - some of the more famous images are commonly reproduced in somewhat more dramatic ways.
A couple showed some signs of minor damage, which fascinated me.
Yes - on 8x10 paper.
Or if there was/is a European size close to that, it could have been that.
no...... but a screen picture of a photograph is not the photographic print either.
Some photographers see printing as a significant part of the creative process, others not so much. HCB was happy to let others do his darkroom work, and clearly felt that the creative stuff was already done and printing was just a matter of faithfully expressing the image he had made. We should also remember that much of his work was commissioned for magazines, or made into books, so I don’t think it’s true that he expected it to be seen as silver-gelatine prints.And I always have in the back of my mind that HCB expected his photographs to be seen as prints, not as images on a screen.
That’s certainly true. His contemporaries commented on the gentle contrast that he preferred.They were very subtle prints - some of the more famous images are commonly reproduced in somewhat more dramatic ways.
I don’t think it’s true that he expected it to be seen as silver-gelatine prints
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?