How to reproduce final prints

[bibowj]

Hello all- I have a somewhat simple, and slightly embarrassing question. Ive combed the internet, but all i can find are unrelated answers..


So, I shoot all film and develop and print traditional wet set up..and the only part that I go digital is to scan the prints for email/posting etc.. I use everything from large format to 35mm and 1/2 frame. Lately, Ive been creating a body of work that I could see starting to have enough concruncy that I could (eventually) have a show..even if its a small art fair thing. However, being that I feel that well over 1/2 of the finished product comes from work done in the dark room (anywhere from dodging/ burning to filtering with lace, sand etc) and I rarely print larger than 8x10, Im not sure how to reproduce the work for display. I mean, I get that the work on "the wall" will be from a print I will do by hand and Ill choose the size and display medium, but what if I eventually want to do a book? or print advertisements? I really don't like the idea of scanning negatives being that the print itself is the product... How do people reproduce their work for displaying? Im sure this is simple.... Ive just seen some of my fav artist who work in 1/2 frame have gallery work that is well past life size displayed...and it makes me curious

Thanks!

PS: Please don't Dpug flame me, this is NOT a hybrid question at ALL. I don't do anything hybrid....

 

[erikg]

Photographic prints that are intended for a book are photographed the way any print or 2-D work of art is photographed, that is with a reprographic set up. I do this every day. Basic set up is two lights, camera on a copy stand, macro lens, and it goes on in complication from there. Any book you see of vintage photography by Adams, Siskind etc. was made this way. Scanning negs is very rare. Of course if you are making your own book with your own photographs you can choose to scan your negs.

 

[snapguy]

hand

Many people who collect fine art photo prints prefer photo prints that were hand-made by the photographer himself. The time and trouble you went through making the prints you have already made shows that a photo print by you is unique. so you should make prints yourself if at all possible.

 

[wildbill]

Many people who collect fine art photo prints prefer photo prints that were hand-made by the photographer himself. The time and trouble you went through making the prints you have already made shows that a photo print by you is unique. so you should make prints yourself if at all possible.

read the op's post. They want to reproduce the prints for other purposes like web display, cards, books, etc.
photograph them as noted above or scan them

 

[snapguy]

How

"How do people reproduce their work for displaying" is what it says. What about that do you not understand, WB?

 

[Bill Burk]

In the back of Ansel Adams' The Print, is a small section on printing for reproduction.

He basically advises to make a slightly flatter print than your display print, because a process camera operator adjusts the contrast to fit the printing press. The goal for the camera operator is to make the blacks come out very close to solid while holding a very tiny clear spot, after printing ink spreads (so maybe 3-5% clear to allow 2% dot gain). In the highlights you make tiny black spots that are just big enough not to wear off the plate. A mistake leads to a distinctly unattractive "salt and pepper" look.

I don't know any practicing process camera operators still working with analog processes, but at one time I aspired to be one, so I know what he's talking about. I "assume" the same advice would still hold true for any work you send out to press today... Make a "Pilot" print that shows what it should look like, then make a reproduction print, slightly flat, with all the handwork that your "Pilot" print has.

 

[Bill Burk]

p.s. Most of my prints are 11x14, from negatives that might stand up to greater enlargement. If I wanted to exhibit large, I'd reach out to Bob Carnie or Lenny Eiger and I'd give them a pilot print and the negative and let them scale it up for me.

I know Bob would throw the pilot print in a drawer, never to be seen again...

 

[eddie]

It seems to me the OP is asking two questions:
1- How to create the work for art festivals, and
2- How to create the work for reproduction.

They're two different questions with two distinct answers. I don't see why you're combining them.
For art festivals, print them in the darkroom, as it seems to be your preference. If you want them to be larger than your normal 8x10, just print them larger.
I can't be much help with the book/advertising question. Whenever a gallery has needed promotional postcards of my work, I've given them an 8x10, and they had the cards printed. I never inquired about the process, but always asked to approve a proof prior to the printing run.

 

[bibowj]

Thanks everyone for your answers so far, very enlightening.

What I was getting at is that each print can't always be replicated from enlarger.... or at least lets assume its a 1 of 1. So, I have the display print in say 8x10 or 11x14 and thats the ONE. Now, over the years I create a body of work and would like to use THAT image (and other 1 of 1's) in a book, magazine (self published or not) and maybe further enlargements for advertisement purposes. What would be the normal way of doing this, is my basic question.

The reason I ask is Ive been following this guy named Giacomo Brunelli (Italian analog photographer) and theres a photo of hum standing at one of his exhibits in London, and along the wall is a massive print of one of his images..and i KNOW the images was done on 35mm and can't be replicated exactly via a re run on the enlarger (its the exact same images..you can tell by scratches, marks etc)...so this got me thinking on how I would do that and how I should ensure my process allows for this possibility.

 

[darkosaric]

The reason I ask is Ive been following this guy named Giacomo Brunelli (Italian analog photographer) and theres a photo of hum standing at one of his exhibits in London, and along the wall is a massive print of one of his images..and i KNOW the images was done on 35mm and can't be replicated exactly via a re run on the enlarger (its the exact same images..you can tell by scratches, marks etc)...so this got me thinking on how I would do that and how I should ensure my process allows for this possibility.

Scanning the print with a scanner or digital SLR and then edited in photoshop to get the same look as much as possible, and then print digitally.

 

[tkamiya]

I have seen plenty of prints in 8x10 or even smaller in museums and galleries. In that setting, it shows little differently than larger prints. Not better or worse, just different. In art festivals; however, large print seems to be the favorite. This may be of wow factor, difference in clienteles, and a simple fact it's done outside.

I've done scan and print from 8x10 to 11x14 and it looked OK. With my equipment, going any more magnification will show too much. I've also seen someone here on APUG who has shot their printed large frame work (with significant darkroom work) to a negative, then darkroom printed it for mass sale. He said it worked well and the gallery owner approved them for purchase.

How about printing one or few larger work in darkroom for a wow factor, then have smaller prints also for display for the rest? People do value original darkroom work and value less of reproduction, especially if they are not buying. In art shows and such, I've seen price talks and quality, not so much. So for that, it may not matter.

Good luck with your future shows.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

The absolutely best way to photograph any flat art is to use a calibrated setup with color charts and polarized lights (yes, lights). I used to work at a professional photography lab where they also did repro work. They had a dedicated dark room with an 8x10 camera (with 4x5 reducing backs that also took 6x9 roll film backs) permanently set up to photograph through a hole in the wall. They used a vertical mount for the art work, which moved on rails.
The artwork was lit by polarized lights from two directions.

The same could be accomplished on a smaller scale with a copy stand and a critical view of the lighting with respect to color accuracy, reflections, etc.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

I saw Michael Kenna's France show last weekend. There's a sumptuous book that had some of Mr. Kenna's work in it. I asked the gallery director about the the books were scanned from his prints and he said yes. If I remember correctly. He doesn't use computers much with his work. If you're a Francophile that loves analog photography, this is a must see show and this Dead Link Removed is a must have.

 

[bibowj]

@maincoonmaniac.. thank you so much, that pretty much answers my question!