is it the process or the final print that is important?

<Water color are around with its own roles. Water painting is mainly for children and guys in retirement to kill the time. It is rare case to use it for making artwork. So somehow it is correct you found in the book. <

I shouldn't. I mustn't. I won't.

Art is the process...otherwise you could hire someone to make the negative and print for you, based on your 'concept".

The print is just another step of the process.

Vaughn

Peter Schrager said:

We may care as a group but in the end the viewing or buying public could care less how the final print was made. I rarely if ever have anyone ask me how I took or processed the photo when I have a show....I mean just look at most of the crap that sells in the REAL world!!

Click to expand...

Maybe we're talking about different things. I agree that people don't care how the picture was taken, what camera equipment was used or what film developer, brand of paper or any of that. I've never been asked for that kind of information, and have never asked for that kind of information about work I'm thinking of buying. But I do care by what process the print is made, and in my experience buyers do care very much how the print, the actual object they're buying, was made.

For example, a friend of mine who owns several Phil Borges platinum prints was planning to add to her Borges collection a couple of years ago, but changed her mind when she realized that the prints she was considering were inkjet reproductions of scanned platinum prints, not original platinum prints. I know it's conventional wisdom now to say that people care only for the image, not the object, but my own experience and observations simply don't support that notion.

People who buy my prints wouldn't buy them if they didn't like the image, but they are also very interested in the process that created the print, and in the handmade nature of the physical object.

Svend Videbak said:

I shouldn't. I mustn't. I won't.

Click to expand...

I know exactly what you mean.

Katherine,
I agree.
In 4 years at the art shows, I've never met another color darkroom printer. Some BW, but no color.
Inside my booth I have a poster that reads "Real Color Darkroom, No Computers"
Nearly everyone of the buyers said they respect that I'm "old school," and appreciate all the hard work that goes into color printmaking without using computers.
For me, the process is just as important as the finish product. They appear to agree.
DT

With me, its the process...not the final print. I make very few prints....I'll leave that to my kids after I'm gone! (or maybe they'll just throw the negs away with the trash)

mark said:

Mel Stabin, in his book WATERCOLOR: SIMPLE, FAST, AND FOCUSED, says it is the process of painting that is important not the final product. (paraphrased of course) this got me thinking about my photography. At least the photography I did when I had the time to actually do it on a regular basis. I then looked at the number of unprocessed negs I have and realized that those final steps were not as important as the making of the photograph. Maybe I am screwed up but I really have very little desire to process and print those negs that are sitting there. I suppose I will get around to them but I am not in a rush. So for me it really is the process of taking that image that is important to me.

Now, I am in no way saying there is a right or wrong answer to this question and my way is definitely not the way of many others but I thought it was an interesting realisation.

So which is it for you?

Click to expand...

Mark,

I think you should use a digital camera. That way you can get immediate feed back about your work, not have to have quilt feelings for not processing your film. Who knows the quality your work may improve also.

You don't even need to bring the images into your computer, simply look at them on the camera and then delete them. You might as well go for a camera phone while you are at it that way you won't really even have to carry a camera.

In fact you should consider quiting photography altogether, I don't think it is for you.


Don Bryant

Mark,

I think you should use a digital camera. That way you can get immediate feed back about your work, not have to have quilt feelings for not processing your film. Who knows the quality your work may improve also.

You don't even need to bring the images into your computer, simply look at them on the camera and then delete them. You might as well go for a camera phone while you are at it that way you won't really even have to carry a camera.

In fact you should consider quiting photography altogether, I don't think it is for you.

Click to expand...

20 years ago i was told to throw away my camera and that i was wasting my time.

priceless advice!
i didn't throw it away, but i stopped for a while, and can see better because if it.

john

ps. don -- your signature says it all ...

Mark, unless you're a pro, with clients, you're under NO obligation to process or print anything. If you enjoy shooting but not processing, there are many labs to do that. The rude and sarcastic post suggesting you give up photography is an embarrassment to the poster, and emblematic of the prevalent attitude that there is some standard by which to measure the pursuit of photography. There is not. Do what you like, as you like, and enjoy it as much as you're able. If you begin to feel inferior to, or intimidated by those who react to your opinions in crass and mannerless fashion, have a look at their "work", and I'm sure you'll feel better.

cahayapemburu said:

The rude and sarcastic post suggesting you give up photography is an embarrassment to the poster, and emblematic of the prevalent attitude that there is some standard by which to measure the pursuit of photography.

Click to expand...

I'm not embarassed at all. I have no standard that I'm trying to hold anyone to. APUG is about photography and photography is about making photographs. One doesn't need a camera or film not to make photographs.

I have no standard that I'm trying to hold anyone to. APUG is about photography and photography is about making photographs.

Click to expand...

I don't really know what apug is about, I just got here, but your definition of what "photography is about" is your personal standard and opinion, and nothing more. Mark's approach clearly differs from yours, but that doesn't lend your brash and crude post validity, or improve the quality of this discussion.

cahayapemburu said:

I don't really know what apug is about, I just got here, but your definition of what "photography is about" is your personal standard and opinion, and nothing more.

Click to expand...

Photography is NOT about making photographs???
Then I guess it won't matter if film disappears...
and APUG will have no reason for being...
nor will anyone who calls himself a photographer.

"Curiouser and curiouser." I'm still thinking about what someone said early on, to the effect that if you've previsualized a result, you've already created the result, and that a product is evidence that something has been created, but not a necessary result of the creative process itself. And now the idea that photography is about making photographs is being challenged?

Maybe it's that I work in gum, but for me visualizing what I want to produce... well, yes, it's important because without the vision the work could never be created, but it's only a small part of the actual process. I'll "see" in my mind what I want to do, but getting there can require days, weeks or months of work in the shop, often involving considerable trial and error, as each project introduces new technical challenges. (A couple of examples: when I visualized very big prints, bigger than I had sinks or trays to accommodate, then I had to figure out how to develop big prints. When I visualized images that weren't there and then suddenly appeared, it took weeks of experimenting to find a way to get the effect I wanted. And so forth.) The visualization is only a fantasy, a dream, until the challenges are met and the work is created. To think that imagining the result is the same as creating the result is to fail to understand the process of creation. Imagining, dreaming, about creating art doesn't make one an artist; it only makes one a dreamer. Only the hard work of actually creating art makes one an artist.

Katharine Thayer said:

The visualization is only a fantasy, a dream, until the challenges are met and the work is created. To think that imagining the result is the same as creating the result is to fail to understand the process of creation. Imagining, dreaming, about creating art doesn't make one an artist; it only makes one a dreamer. Only the hard work of actually creating art makes one an artist.

Click to expand...

Amen, Katharine, amen. Very well said.

donbga said:

Mark,

I think you should use a digital camera. That way you can get immediate feed back about your work, not have to have quilt feelings for not processing your film. Who knows the quality your work may improve also.

You don't even need to bring the images into your computer, simply look at them on the camera and then delete them. You might as well go for a camera phone while you are at it that way you won't really even have to carry a camera.

In fact you should consider quiting photography altogether, I don't think it is for you.


Don Bryant

Click to expand...

Don,

Who pissed in your cheerios? If you were looking for a rise you won't get it. If you were just looking to be an ass you accomplished it, pat yourself on the back for a job well done.

cahayapemburu said:

I don't really know what apug is about, I just got here, but your definition of what "photography is about" is your personal standard and opinion, and nothing more. Mark's approach clearly differs from yours, but that doesn't lend your brash and crude post validity, or improve the quality of this discussion.

Click to expand...

when you strip the mystique and fancy art speak away APUG is an internet forum about film based photography. It is a place inhabited by folks who do know something, and those who know nothing, and those who imagine they know something. Then there are the rest of us in between. It can get pretty caddy, as Don's post did, but for the most part these are some pretty decent folks.

I figured my post would get some strong remarks because there are some passionate people hear. To each their own. I have enjoyed reading the responses. Most differ from my point of view but so what. It is good to see how others think.

Of course I will not be throwing my cameras out or getting out of photography. I am taking a hiatus from BW photography, and large format photography in general. The wonderful thing about film photography is the low cost of the equipment. To move up to large format I did not have to get rid of my 35mm or my MF cameras. Thus I have cameras that take less planning before I take them out. I admit that I miss the LF process though. Setting up the camera, focusing, tilting, swinging, metering, figuring exposure, loading the film holder in the camera setting the lens then tripping the shutter at that exact moment that you know what is on the negative is exactly what was in your head when you started the process was nice.

Katharine Thayer said:

The visualization is only a fantasy, a dream, until the challenges are met and the work is created. To think that imagining the result is the same as creating the result is to fail to understand the process of creation. Imagining, dreaming, about creating art doesn't make one an artist; it only makes one a dreamer. Only the hard work of actually creating art makes one an artist.

Click to expand...

For the most part I would have to agree with you but I think we have two fundamental differing opinions of what photography is. For me the photograph is the negative, the print is a different beast all together. For me the creation of the negative is the creation of the art. The print is an interpretation of the negative. How that negative is interpreted and through what medium creates an entirely different piece of art built from the initial piece of art work.

I am not out to create ART, many folks here would agree with that. I am out to please myself, to be out and about viewing the wonders around me then going through a process that brings me closer to those wonders. If something is created in the process all the better. Different strokes I guess.

Mark, I think you're overinterpreting my post. I said earlier in the thread that I have no argument with people who are more interested in creating negatives than in creating prints, and I haven't changed my mind in the intervening days.

My post of today was a response to a suggestion made earlier in the thread by someone else (sun of sand, maybe?) that the act of visualization IS the creative act; the creative process consists in visualizing an idea and it isn't necessary to bring that visualization into form. I'm paraphrasing here from my recall of the earlier post. I was simply saying I don't agree with that idea. But all I was saying was that visualization isn't worth much if not realized; I wasn't saying that the realization must be a print, or that a person who only takes the realization as far as the negative is deficient somehow; that's not what I was saying.

I don't think there is a correct answer to the question "which matters to you more, the negative or the print?" I'm not sure it's true that we have fundamentally different ideas of what photography is, and I'm not sure it matters. The print is 95% of the thing for me, but as I said, I've got no argument with anyone for whom the negative is even 100%; it's no skin off my nose if you never made a print. As I said before, I can't identify with that for myself, but I don't have a problem with it, if that's what floats your boat. Okay?
Katharine

It seems to me that there is one word in the original question here that creates the majority of the problem - it is just two letters - it is "or".

I don't see that there is a need to choose one, to the exclusion of the other.

The irony is that those who have the greatest mastery of the process, probably get the best results in the final print.

I also think that those who more closely identify with the initial image, and the visualization associated with it, may care somewhat less about the fine details about the final print, but only if the final print still exhibits sufficient quality to be able to reveal what the photographer visualized in the first place - and that requires a sufficient level of quality.

I'll disagree a little bit with Katherine (if I understand her correctly) - it is important that some positive image is prepared, even if it is limited to a negative scan on a website. I don't think anyone is ever successful in realizing their vision, if they stop at the negative stage.

I would hazard a guess that the majority of the 22,000+ APUG members have never seen an absolutely top notch first class print. Of those who have seen such a print, I would hazard a guess that the majority do not own them - they've just seen them in a gallery, or museum.

That doesn't mean that the rest of us don't appreciate the craft and artistry in a fine print - in fact I know that I've even done a few good prints in my time, just probably not the greatest ones. This doesn't minimize the importance of the fine print, it just emphasizes that part of the process that more of us feel comfortable in sharing - the "capture" of the image on film, and the development of the negative or slide into something that can either be projected with satisfaction, or printed by someone with special skills.

Here is a query for you. I consider a number of the postcards I've received in the Postcard exchange to be fine prints (BWKate and blackmelas come to mind). Would anyone like to disagree?

Matt

MattKing said:

Here is a query for you. I consider a number of the postcards I've received in the Postcard exchange to be fine prints (BWKate and blackmelas come to mind). Would anyone like to disagree?

Click to expand...

Angus McBean made Christmas Card prints some of which were exhibited in the National Portrait Gallery a while back, so I don't see why the fact the prints are intended as postcards should matter. Why should a small print on postcard paper be considered different from a small print (e.g. a 6x6 contact) on another paper (except for the materials used obviously)? If the image works at that size and if the print is perfect, then why not consider it a fine print?

That being said, I must admit that so far I haven't seen a really well printed postcard, but that's probably because I don't participate in the postcard exchanges because I can't make them - my negs are a bit big. (So if anyone wants to send me one to enlighten me... )

Ian:

As I think you realize, I posed the question because I think it makes one think about what constitutes a fine print, not to deprecate the postcards. Many of them come to me showing damage from the mailing process, including the infernal barcodes that various post offices seem to want to imprint on them.

In Canada, we can send 5x7s as postcards. Do you print anything that miniature ?

If you will pm your address to me, I'll send you one of my poor attempts at same as part of the current exchange. It's great fun to both send and receive them.

Matt

Katharine Thayer said:

Mark, I think you're overinterpreting my post. I said earlier in the thread that I have no argument with people who are more interested in creating negatives than in creating prints, and I haven't changed my mind in the intervening days.

My post of today was a response to a suggestion made earlier in the thread by someone else (sun of sand, maybe?) that the act of visualization IS the creative act; the creative process consists in visualizing an idea and it isn't necessary to bring that visualization into form. I'm paraphrasing here from my recall of the earlier post. I was simply saying I don't agree with that idea. But all I was saying was that visualization isn't worth much if not realized; I wasn't saying that the realization must be a print, or that a person who only takes the realization as far as the negative is deficient somehow; that's not what I was saying.

I don't think there is a correct answer to the question "which matters to you more, the negative or the print?" I'm not sure it's true that we have fundamentally different ideas of what photography is, and I'm not sure it matters. The print is 95% of the thing for me, but as I said, I've got no argument with anyone for whom the negative is even 100%; it's no skin off my nose if you never made a print. As I said before, I can't identify with that for myself, but I don't have a problem with it, if that's what floats your boat. Okay?
Katharine

Click to expand...

Ok. I must have missed that post. I understand what you are saying and I have to say that I have definately made prints. ZI paid for a large part of my teaching certification classes by working in the darkroom of the college special collections. I got to print some amazing works for exhibition.l I think this is where I developed my idea that the print was another, different work of art. It was fun to be given a negative and then told to make an exhibition print. Then we would compare the original print from the photographer with mine. They were always different. My interpretation was mine. I enjoy darkroom work and went through serious withdrawls when I no longer had access. I started printing on POP and really liked it. I am just not in a rush to do it anymore. That may change someday, when the course work is done, and the boys are a bit older.

Thanks for making your post clearer.

Katharine Thayer said:

"Curiouser and curiouser." I'm still thinking about what someone said early on, to the effect that if you've previsualized a result, you've already created the result, and that a product is evidence that something has been created, but not a necessary result of the creative process itself. And now the idea that photography is about making photographs is being challenged?

Maybe it's that I work in gum, but for me visualizing what I want to produce... well, yes, it's important because without the vision the work could never be created, but it's only a small part of the actual process. I'll "see" in my mind what I want to do, but getting there can require days, weeks or months of work in the shop, often involving considerable trial and error, as each project introduces new technical challenges. (A couple of examples: when I visualized very big prints, bigger than I had sinks or trays to accommodate, then I had to figure out how to develop big prints. When I visualized images that weren't there and then suddenly appeared, it took weeks of experimenting to find a way to get the effect I wanted. And so forth.) The visualization is only a fantasy, a dream, until the challenges are met and the work is created. To think that imagining the result is the same as creating the result is to fail to understand the process of creation. Imagining, dreaming, about creating art doesn't make one an artist; it only makes one a dreamer. Only the hard work of actually creating art makes one an artist.

Click to expand...

What makes a good mother? Is a good mother who does all the hard work of being a mom and ends up raising a good kid a good mother? Yes
Is a good mother the one that thought a great deal on just how to be a good mother? I say yes. That's visualization. I don't believe you can be a good mother without putting thought into what being a good mother means or how one goes about becoming one
Not to say you're a polished mother with already perfect adults before you give birth -don't know if I can say that
It's the fact that you truly care that makes you


As one matures one will produce better and better "results"
I don't think it's the mistakes that makes one better at something or "the magic that happens along the way"
It is the perserverance to stick to their goals created at the beginning that makes one the good mother or artist etc
The process of motherhood -or anything- will be full of trial and error
You cannot get good without knowing what is bad
Keeping on the correct path leads to desired product

I believe once you say you want to be a
You are
That does not mean you are highly polished
I think that's the important part to understand

It's not the ability to sell something to another that makes one an artist
It is not actually the raising of a child to adulthood that makes one a mother/father
Producing a child does not make one a mother/father
It is the one that has thought about how one best goes about doing the act that is the
..whether they have a child of their own or not
..whether they have ever made a single print or not


"I'll "see" in my mind what I want to do, but getting there can require days, weeks or months of work in the shop, often involving considerable trial and error, as each project introduces new technical challenges"

It is not the mistakes/serendipity that makes you the artist
It is that seeing of something that drives you to do all that other stuff that is the artist within


Artist doesn't mean a person that produces artwork
Artist means a person that sees artitistically
The job/career/title "Artist" means a person who produces artwork

most everybody already sees artistically on some level
We all see how beautiful a sunset is and leaves in autumn and whatnot
It's the artist that loves experiencing that, though. "Lives" for that.
The artist is only a normal person that is operating on a different level actively seeking out the beauty in things rather than being content in being hit over the head by it
It's normal for an artist to want to "make a living" by producing artwork but producing something -I believe- has no importance on whether one is an artist

Product is only evidence of the process-the decision making
If a photographer makes millions of negatives but never prints any of them
What is he? What if someone 50 years later finds his stash and prints one
What is he now? What if the photographer takes the shots but has someone else print them
what is he then? What if the printer sucks ..what is he now? What if the printer is great? Is the printer the artist now? Are both artists? Is the beauty the artist and neither person gets full credit?

Who critiques the art that is created? If you have to produce than what you produce has to be marketable or else I don't see anyone calling you an artist ..more like time waster/dabbler. I can do lots of hard work and produce garbage. That's not going to make me an artist. Lots of people have done lots of hard work and only later were considered true artists.

If no one made paper anymore could you still call yourself a photographer?
Do we take pictures or make them?
Do we make pictures in camera or only on paper?
If you only make pictures on paper shouldn't you be able to make pictures using any negative?
If you can't use just any negative you have to be able to make pictures in camera
If you can do that than one does not need film because we make the picture through the viewfinder
Film just records what you saw for future viewing ..evidence of the moment/skill/artistry


man that needs editing but I ain't doing it