I'm going to be controversial with this post

Everytime I go to Yosemite, I have to visit the Ansel Adams gallery. I just bask the romance of those Ansel Adam's prints. Some were not printed by Adams of course. Some were prints were printed from his negatives. I also saw some ink jet prints and my gut reaction was that this cheapened the image. But the prints look just as good as the silver gelatin prints. Is it live? or is it Memorex?
http://www.anseladams.com/ansel-adams-photography/modern-replicas/

Well, AA knew what he wanted and got there in the darkroom; but I'd wouldn't put him on my "A" list of printmakers per se, and I've had opportunity to see any awful lot of his work close up. And I do know people with serious press type operations who can make stunning ink
reproductions (No, NOT common inkjet - serious stuff that requires a true $$$$$$$ industrial setup). And I do have friends who are some of the best of the best of digital printmakers - the gurus - and frankly, think own their darkroom work was better than their digital. I'm relatively neutral conceptually. To each his own. Do your best with whatever you've got. But I can spot a typical digital print pretty damn easy, and
do not envy them.

In 1873 Timothy O'Sullivan photographed the White House Ruins in the Canyon de Chelly on a glass plate. Sixty-nine years later Ansel Adams made at least two photographs of them on film from almost exactly the same spot. I prefer O'Sullivan's version. Thus one might wonder if any digital capture could compete with a glass plate or sheet film photograph of that subject, or if just possibly the vision of the photographer is more important than the camera.

The last time someone posted a thread with a warning like the one in the thread title it was me, and we ended up with a photo of StoneNYC.

So be warned .....

Mainecoonmaniac said:

Have you ever looked at a photo that you're completely in love with? You find out it's a digital image, you then later don't hold the image with the same esteem?

Click to expand...

If it's a photo I'm "completely in love with" it wouldn't matter how it was created. Love is unconditional.
I do find myself more drawn to analogue images, though. I think it's because I have a common frame of reference with the photo's creation. I can better appreciate the craftsmanship, having created my own images in the same manner. Since I don't do any digital, it's harder for me to feel the same degree of empathy for work created digitally. Still, if it was true love , I'd buy a digital photograph without hesitation.

MattKing said:

The last time someone posted a thread with a warning like the one in the thread title it was me, and we ended up with a photo of StoneNYC.

So be warned .....

Click to expand...

Oh the Humanity! That could cause blindness! I will now view this thread with my eyes closed so that I do not see a nude photograph of StoneNYC!

eddie said:

If it's a photo I'm "completely in love with" it wouldn't matter how it was created. Love is unconditional.

Click to expand...

How primitive.

eddie said:

If it's a photo I'm "completely in love with" it wouldn't matter how it was created. Love is unconditional.

Click to expand...

Not me either.

Are Clyde Butcher's new prints worthless given that they were captured using a Sony A7R and printed on an inkjet? (This assumes you value his analog work.) Would St. Ansel have used digital had it been available to him for any number of reasons?

I am fortunate to be able to visit a gallery here in Louisville that includes a mix of analog and digital prints. The analog ones definitely move me the most, including an original print of Afghan Girl and Karsh portraits of Churchill and...the writer whose name escapes me holding his pipe. Many of the digital prints of newer artists, like Howard Shatz are stunning and very moving. I find many "important prints" to be utterly boring even though they are analog. This is likely due to the subject matter rather than medium. Frankly some of AA's work is overly dramatic and overwrought. This has less to do with medium or even content and more to do with manipulation. I detest "HDR" images.

For me it is subject matter (content) in conjunction with treatment (manipulation) over medium. I do find I prefer analog, or rather discount digital, but this might simply be due to learned bias ("Aren't analog prints supposed to be better.?")

I prefer to shoot analog. The process is fun. I like the images I get, both color and B&W, over the digital images that I make with the digital cameras that are in my possession. Sometimes I look at my digital images and throw up a little in my mouth. But, my favorite print of mine is digital, a grab shot down an alley in Italy, shot on a Canon 450D at ISO 800 and printed on an inkjet. It's the content of the image that I love, not how it was captured.

To each his own.

Regards,
Rob

Devil's advocate, on the subject of value. How much would Clyde Butcher's (pick someone else if you want) prints be worth if the file he prints from is copied? Easy thing to do. Now you have the exact copy of the file someone spent some good bucks on, no difference. You can now print off as many copies as you want, you can post the file for everyone to use, free art for the masses. How much would his prints be worth if hackers decided this is a good way to make some bucks or they feel art should be free for everyone. We aren't talking about forgery (stolen, yes) but a bit for bit copy, you can't tell the difference between one print or the other. Would anyone (sane) pay big dollars if there was a possibility (high) that everyone could have the exact same print. Would that kill digital art?

Old_Dick said:

We aren't talking about forgery (stolen, yes) but a bit for bit copy, you can't tell the difference between one print or the other. Would anyone (sane) pay big dollars if there was a possibility (high) that everyone could have the exact same print. Would that kill digital art?

Click to expand...

You can make as many prints as you want: from film negatives OR digital files. The value has always been in having a signed, limited edition print.

From a time constraint, you can't make as many prints as you want, I was in the darkroom this afternoon, and not all prints will be the same . Even AA has been known to comment after morning of printing "that was the best print of that image ever". Limited editions, you have the copy, from your pull down, how many copies (exact) would you like 1-10000. Have a couple of beers and let it rip. No such thing as limited, what computers are really good at is making the exact same thing millions of time. If you can crank out thousands of prints in an afternoon I would love to see you work. Signatures not a problem. Like I said, just playing devil's advocate.

The fallacy here is that the digital print, aka inkjet, is digital. It is not. It is an analog print. It is just as real, and imperfect, as a silver gelatin print. It may be easier to craft copies which are very close to reach other, but they are different. The ink that gets laid on a given sheet of paper is different than the next.

This ability to produce copies which are close to identical is due to the degree of automation involved. If the same effort has been made on the optical print, nearly identical copies could be made as well. Dodge and burn? Density masks. Stage height, illumination uniformity, etc? Better controls.

The differences in optical prints are that the "settings are not saved" for each print. It's as if, for each inkjet print, the digital printer went back to the original raw digital image, pulled it into Photoshop, and started editing from scratch, a new file to be printed on the printer, then closed Photoshop without saving the changes to the raw file. That would approximate what the analog printer does in a darkroom without automation.

I'm strictly speaking of automation here as it applies to print to print variation, not anything regarding print quality.

Regards,
Rob

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

Still doing the Devil's advocate thing From a time standpoint, you can't print off a thousand prints from a negative. As you can tell I'm not familiar with PS. So, once you edit the file, it is never saved or is that just an option? Do people regularly not save their work? Even if the edited file is not saved, someone will make a copy, edit the file. Since there is no saved file to compare to which is the original? Did I mention the hacker posted the raw file and was downloaded 50K times. Since inkjet prints differ which one is the original, the money one? How much is the print worth?

DA

Old_Dick, you seem to be saying that since it is possible to make a million inkjet prints of a digital image that all inkjet prints are inherently worthless. Just because millions of prints have been made of Ansel's work on calendars and postcards, etc, the value of his optical prints are not diminished. I would say the same thing about Clyde's inkjet prints. The inkjet prints that he makes have value above and beyond mass-produced prints of the same image that might appear in calendars, for example.

You are taking about counterfeiting. A counterfeit may initially sell for a lot of money, but once it is discovered to be counterfeit it is worthless. You are also taking about provenance. Prints bought from Ansel or Clyde, regardless of how they are made, should come with a letter of authenticity proving the provenance of the print. Yes, you could fake that too, but that takes this discussion down a ridiculous rabbit hole.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

I made a print trade with a Flickr friend. He is a film only user so I assumed the print he sent me would be a Silver Gelatin. I loved his image on line and sent a Platinum print as my end of the trade. When I got the print it was immediately obviously an ink jet. I tried to like it but the surface was ugly and the depth of tonality lacking. Had I known he would send a digital print I wouldn't have made the trade. I shouldn't have assumed.

I thought about this around 3 or 4 weeks ago when I took a chance image with my DSLR, the image is almost B&W a brown dried up flower head on a printed page scanned from an Orwo Rezeptes book.

I really like the image (as do others) and thought I'd re-shoot it Large format B&W but after sleeping on it decided against it, I did shoot it with my Spotmatic F on AgfaPhoto 200 (Fuji) film though. It hadn't been a set up image, I'd only placed the flower head there temporarily intending to keep it for a still life image. So I will print the digital image, and get the 35mm version printed or maybe print (RA4) myself.

Personally I prefer using film & making conventional analog prints, B&W or colour, but there are excellent digital prints and papers around. I've used the Harman Baryta Inkjet papers and they match darkroom prints well. Sometimes you have to use what's most appropriate.

Ian

The quality that attracts me to analog prints is their durability and also that they are more ' hand - made ' than inkjet/digital printing methods.
There's more of the printer's own effort than in an inkjet print (on average), I feel. Plus seeing 100yr old prints with that 'pop ' is another thing altogether.
Digital is easy to Print,easier still to screw up. The chap from whom I get my digital prints done, looks up the colour on them on an old CRT monitor, and then prints them. we generally get talking about photos when we meet. So he told me last how difficult it is to match colors on LED/LCD screens to the prints(or preview on screen).
But even then, larger size Digital prints need more work I feel.

How easy is Digital to screw up? I had shot sky and water - almost matching colours and separated by border of light poles and lights. Another Printer decided that they're different colours and promptly darkened the sky. (this was going to be a 3' Print).

I don't see the need to denigrate one to favour the other, but the hand made one surely is more ' special '.

you have asked two questions here. While I doubt very much whether I will fall completely in love with any digital image, If I did, Yes, I would not hold that image in the same esteem.
I collect portraits of 1850 to 1950. I actually do have some photogravures, which I do not call photographs, but rather photo mechanical images.
I do not have an interest in oil paintings, water colours, or digital prints. While, I think any analog print is worth at least, as a starting point from labour and materials, $100, I am terribly bigoted about the value, to me, of a digital print
Your second question is, on the other hand, to be answered differently.
Of course, a good shot is a good shot regardless how it's made. As a good painting is good regardless of how it was made.
Just not for me.
I realize I am terribly narrow minded, limited in outlook and missing out on a great deal.
I just cannot rise above the my preconceptions of computer alterations.
I admire what I admire and keep it to myself, by enlarge.
I don't think I am harming anybody

Mainecoonmaniac said:

Has this happen to you? Have you ever looked at a photo that you're completely in love with? You find out it's a digital image, you then later don't hold the image with the same esteem? I want your spin on cognitive bias with photography.

Is a good shot is a good shot regardless how it's made? For disclosure, I prefer to shoot film, but I use a digital camera also.

With photography, I don't think there are any right or wrongs.

Click to expand...

Hi rbultman

I'm not saying a print doesn't have any value as art, they most certainly do. My views are a culmination of my work background (retired) Unix systems, and a few threads I've recently read either in APUG or LargeFormat or both. One person couldn't give away his prints, most of the replies said something like this. If it is free it can't be worth much, so start selling your prints and people will cherish them. The other was about digital prints, selling in the millions. It appears that success is measured in money. If I can dig it up, I think I saved a copy of an article about D vs A. The question was, would you rather make $10K selling 10 silver prints at $1K or $10K selling 10K inkjet prints at $1. I can't remember the exact numbers, you get the idea.

I can see paying big bucks for an Edward Weston print. Great work of art, made by the man himself, with his two hands, not many of those around, no more of those to be had. Copies made by someone else, yes. Bitmaps will be around long after the photographer/artist has passed. At least until that format is not supported, I used 80 column cards at one point.

In the digital world, everything is a file.

Hey Old_Dick,

I agree with your points about value. As I have stated in this thread, I too value the silver print over the inkjet print, I'm just not entirely sure of my reasoning beyond learned bias. I do think that it can be hard to make an inkjet print of great quality - there is mental effort as well as material testing, etc, that goes on in a manner similar to how materials are tested, etc, in the darkroom. A print, optical or inkjet, has exactly the value that people are willing to pay for it. Currently the edge goes to optical, but that might not hold true forever...or it might.

Regarding getting $1 or $1000 for a print that I might sell, it depends on my motivation for selling. If I was a starving artist I might be willing to sell 10K prints at $1 because I get to eat after selling the first print. If I sell a print for $1K, I still get to eat after selling it but I might have to go hungry between sales. If my desire is to be a Great Artiste, I might hold out for $2500.

I've been to art shows where photographers have silver prints for sale well above $1K. They also offer the same print, usually at a smaller size, in inkjet, for a lot less money. I see that as a practical commercial decision. Their work, and their name, gets out at a lower price point while still retaining the fine art aspect and price of the larger silver print. The inkjet still has value, just not as much, even in the eyes of those artists selling both.

Would Clyde be offended by this? Given that he has moved to digital for aging reasons, would he be offended to hear that his same-sized inkjet prints are worth less than silver? (I don't know if they are or should or should not be.) Maybe he sees less effort in digital and is ok with it. Or, maybe he thinks this attitude devalues his vision as an artist. If his problem is in the field and not in the darkroom, would creating optical prints from digital negatives get back that hand-made quality of the silver print? Or, is it important that the entire workflow be analog in order for the final silver print to have the most value?

I just missed the punch card era by one semester and currently make my living writing embedded software. As you said, the file lasts as long as the technology exists to read it or until all copies have been deleted and their storage locations wiped in a manner that makes recovery impossible. One of the Westons famously destroyed his negatives so that no prints of those are possible. Presumably someone could delete the digital file and truly have a limited number of inkjet prints. I think that controlling the number of prints made is not hard whether digital or analog.

Regards,
Rob

To keep things in perspective with respect to "value": a routine commercial print by someone really famous like AA or EW is worth very little. A relatively poor print of a famous "art" images of theirs, printed by themselves, can be worth a great deal. A really stunning print of the same image made by one
of their assistants is worth relatively little. A high-end reproduction is worth what you paid for it at most, then only diminishes from there. In the graphics world, a silkscreen print or true lithograph is inherently limited because the plates or screens wear out. Something mass-produced like a photolithograph is rarely worth the frame it is place in. So where does that place digital prints? I don't really care. People who spend huge sums of money
on something like that just for the bragging rights are conspicuous-consumption types anyway. They'll spend fifty grand on the sofa too, and throw it
a year or two later - so there goes the damned oversized inkjet with it. Might as well be an overpriced Elvis rug as far as I'm concerned. Do what you
enjoy, take pride in your craft, argue about your preferred tools if necessary, but I already know what I like to do.

Old_Dick said:

In the digital world, everything is a file.

Click to expand...

Damn...

In eight short words that is as close to a profoundly perfect definition of the core issue as I have ever read.



Ken

Ken Nadvornick said:

Damn...

In eight short words that is as close to a profoundly perfect definition of the core issue as I have ever read.



Ken

Click to expand...

... and an 'analog' image is just a piece of plastic. What's the point? Both a film negative and a digital file can be printed in MANY different ways, depending on the skill of the person doing the printing.

It's the skill of the printer that ultimately determines the final print quality.

I thought a file is what helped a couple of goons recently break out of prison.