Lenswork - Ouch!

[thebanana]

I can look at an awful lot of photographs online.

But those images aren't available in my "library", ie the room in which I do most of my magazine reading

 

[Ian Leake]

I like Lenswork. Don't get me wrong. I look at images on line, as well, for my twenty bucks/month, but I'm not fooling myself that it is photography. They are images, facsimiles of photographs. The net, or a fine photo magazine is a wonderful way to peruse and expand ones understanding, especially if one lives where real photographs can't be readily viewed. That's where it stops for me. Some cold glowing phosphor, plasma, or LCD, or ink sprayed on paper isn't a photograph. A real print by a master photographer/printer is something entirely different to behold.

This is a very important point. The ultimate experience is seeing a fine print "in the flesh" without glass. (On the wall behind glass is a close second.) Everything else is a reproduction. While some reproductions are very, very good, many are very, very bad (and none of them are the real thing).

Digital images viewed on a screen often look nothing like the original. They have a different size, different tonal range, lost detail, processing artifacts, etc. Plus they're lit from behind the image rather than using reflected light.

I wish I could see more original prints, but most of the prints I see are reproductions. So I try to find the best reproductions I can. One of the big benefits of LensWork is that Brooks finds interesting portfolios and sends great reproductions straight to my door. They're not the real thing, but they're a whole lot better than most, if not all, online reproductions. Yes, they're an editor's selection. But that's the job of an editor: to edit. And on the whole I think Brooks does a great job at editing.

 

[Lee Shively]

I agree that Lenswork presents photographs as well or better than any other magazine available. I subscribed to it for several years. One thing I wanted to do in those years that I was a subscriber was to buy some of the limited editions photographic prints they used to sell. There were some classic "real" photographic prints available--one I particularly admired was the Wynn Bullock "Navigation By Numbers". They offered these prints at reasonable prices but I was too damn poor at the time to afford them. By the time I could afford them, Lenswork wasn't selling photographic prints anymore and was concentrating on the online magazine subscription.

I don't get to see many photographic prints other than my own. My way of seeing great photography has always been in magazines and books. Since magazines have to present a broad range of photography to appeal to a broad spectrum of subscribers, I've found I'm just not interested in the vast majority of what is published there. I let all my subscriptions lapse. I buy books by and about photographers. That way I can concentrate on the photographers and the types of photography that interest me the most--and that runs in cycles.

 

[Rob_5419]

This is a very important point. The ultimate experience is seeing a fine print "in the flesh" without glass. (On the wall behind glass is a close second.) Everything else is a reproduction. While some reproductions are very, very good, many are very, very bad (and none of them are the real thing).

Interesting opinion. The 'Ultimate'??? experience?

Naaa.....admiring the negative and refusing to print second rate from any of them is an even more ultimate step

I think you miss the point about photography: photography has a long history of reproduction. The more a photographer/printer tries to divorce photography from reproducibility, the more he unwittingly moves into the field of commerce and fine art pretensions.

The real thing is never the print. The real thing is never the negative.

 

[airgunr]

I've been subscriping to the extended edition with the DVD disk for a couple of years. I'm happy with it.

 

[bjorke]

http://acomplaintfreeworld.org

 

[bjorke]

Okay I will pick on Brooks a little bit.

There is usually a small pile we reject because every single blasted image is dead center. Bullet composition. Boring.

Dead Link Removed

 

[JBrunner]

I think you miss the point about photography: photography has a long history of reproduction. The more a photographer/printer tries to divorce photography from reproducibility, the more he unwittingly moves into the field of commerce and fine art pretensions.

The real thing is never the print. The real thing is never the negative.

The reproducibility isn't the point. Not at all. If you speak of the essence or spirit of a photograph, then I understand what you are communicating, but articulating a perception between a web based image on an LCD screen, and a physical print (the photographers exact intention), as different experiences, is hardly a commercial or fine art pretention.

 

[jd callow]

Interesting opinion. The 'Ultimate'??? experience?

Naaa.....admiring the negative and refusing to print second rate from any of them is an even more ultimate step

I think you miss the point about photography: photography has a long history of reproduction. The more a photographer/printer tries to divorce photography from reproducibility, the more he unwittingly moves into the field of commerce and fine art pretensions.

The real thing is never the print. The real thing is never the negative.

I guess real is a subjective term. There is a real difference between seeing a scan, halftone, dupe etc and seeing an original print and a projected transparency has no peer with regard to reproduction. There isn't any pretense it is simply the reality of generational loss and or the deficiencies associated with reproduction. It may be that an image's content is such that reproduction quality is not an issue, but I think this is generally the exception and I'm hard pressed to believe that the higher quality of an original does not improve the viewing experience.

 

[bjorke]

I guess real is a subjective term.

Well, sure. BUT:

If you are doing work for magazine reproduction, don't fool yourself about the "purity" of the print. Irving Penn didn't start with platinum prints, he built a fabulous body of work which reproduced well by the millions. The magazine page, the newspaper, the web page -- THESE ARE JUST AS REAL AS ANY OTHER PRINT. Penn found that many of his negatives could also be used to make fantastic art objects for display on rather expensive walls. But anyone who claims that photography is implictly "art" and that mass reproduction is somehow a lesser thing either doesn't know what they're talking about or they're blowing thickly pretentious smoke.

 

[jd callow]

Well, sure. BUT:

If you are doing work for magazine reproduction, don't fool yourself about the "purity" of the print. Irving Penn didn't start with platinum prints, he built a fabulous body of work which reproduced well by the millions. The magazine page, the newspaper, the web page -- THESE ARE JUST AS REAL AS ANY OTHER PRINT. Penn found that many of his negatives could also be used to make fantastic art objects for display on rather expensive walls. But anyone who claims that photography is implictly "art" and that mass reproduction is somehow a lesser thing either doesn't know what they're talking about or they're blowing thickly pretentious smoke.

I made no claims about originals being pure, or that photography is implicitly art; or that reproductions can be neither and I most assuredly didn't bring mass production into the discussion. As a matter of fact why did you quote me? I had turned away from the word 'real' to address the objects themselves. A scan may be as real as a print or halftone or transparency and I have and can enjoy them all. Its not hard to determine which are of higher quality and quality generally makes for a more fulfilling experience.

I do agree that people who speak in absolutes tend to be wrong, pretentious and or full of themselves if not hot air.

 

[Rob_5419]

Brunner -

you still fail to understand.

No one is claiming that the history of photography's reproducibility has anything to do with the essence of photography.

Originally Posted by Rob_5419
I think you miss the point about photography: photography has a long history of reproduction. The more a photographer/printer tries to divorce photography from reproducibility, the more he unwittingly moves into the field of commerce and fine art pretensions.

The tongue in cheek reference over refusing to print the negative, so that it could be even more irreproducible than the limited fine art edition of 1 print.....

Subsequent posters clarify the issue more succinctly...

Back to tongue in cheek:

I do agree that people who speak in absolutes tend to be wrong, pretentious and or full of themselves if not hot air.

Is than an absolute? ;`)

 

[jd callow]

without exception, almost

 

[rjas]

or ink sprayed on paper isn't a photograph. A real print by a master photographer/printer is something entirely different to behold.

you can behold your master prints all you want, the fact of the matter is society a hundred years from now will remember the images that matter, no one will care in the least bit (except for self righteous analog photographers who care more about the medium than the content) what the hell it's printed on, inkjet paper, silver paper, cheapo magazine paper, toilet paper, etc. And don't even start with the archival battle - what are the chance of someone caring about any of our photographs which can last 200 years? I've got magazines from the 60's that still get the point across. Who cares, lets all get over ourselves.

Photographs are meant to be reproduced. If all we cared about was the intrinsic qualities of the first generation and one-off's why wouldn't we just take up painting? Or just stare at negatives all day? Screw the print, it's about content, not about type of paper you are using. As soon as you start concentrating on the aesthetic qualities of the printed material more than your vision you've totally lost the ball and as far as I'm concerned are spiralling towards the "only make one print and burn the negative" camp.

but I'm on the wrong forum to be discussing content....

disclaimer: I don't even own a digital camera, or a capable scanner, or a photo printer. I do have a darkroom though.

 

[rjas]

The reproducibility isn't the point. Not at all. If you speak of the essence or spirit of a photograph, then I understand what you are communicating, but articulating a perception between a web based image on an LCD screen, and a physical print (the photographers exact intention), as different experiences, is hardly a commercial or fine art pretention.

What is it about touching a print that makes you suddenly realize the photographers vision? Do you sit around rubbing the surface of the print to find the photographer's true meaning? .

 

[Ian Leake]

What is it about touching a print that makes you suddenly realize the photographers vision? Do you sit around rubbing the surface of the print to find the photographer's true meaning? Keep kidding yourself.

Reproductions are not inherently bad, but they are different. They have a different purpose and have different qualities. They tell us about the thing they reproduce. They are not the thing itself.

For example, I saw Paula Chamlee's Iceland portfolio recently. Her prints were intense and powerful: they really took my breath away. Looking at the scanned images on her website afterwards I felt none of the immediacy or emotion: I could remember it from when I saw the print, but the reproductions just didn't communicate her vision as effectively.

I have experienced this same thing many, many times with photographs, sculptures, paintings and architecture. The reproduction is just not the same as the original. It can't be, and pretending it is the same is denial of reality.

 

[Ian Leake]

Personally, I think most of this false conception is caused by "master printers" hiding behind medicore photographs when they give it some fancy name like "Double Bubble Gum Platinum Palladium Gelatin Diaspora" print or something fancy.

Yes, the process on it's own is just a tool. A fine print of a shallow image is an empty vessel regardless of the process used. But I'd rather see a fine print of a meaningful image than a crappy print of a meaningful image. (Afterthought: And I'd prefer to see a fine reproduction of a fine print of a meaningful image rather than a crappy reproduction of a meaningful image.) That's my preference, others may differ of course.

 

[clay]

Is it possible that her skill (or more likely, her interest) in producing a print far exceeds her skill in producing a web-ready jpeg image? These two presentation media have entirely different purposes in this example. The print is what is being sold, while the web image functions as a catalog entry, in effect. If the final presentation medium was only the web, I suspect a little more of that 'immediacy and emotion' could be injected into its presentation.

For example, I saw Paula Chamlee's Iceland portfolio recently. Her prints were intense and powerful: they really took my breath away. Looking at the scanned images on her website afterwards I felt none of the immediacy or emotion: I could remember it from when I saw the print, but the reproductions just didn't communicate her vision as effectively.

 

[Ian Leake]

Is it possible that her skill (or more likely, her interest) in producing a print far exceeds her skill in producing a web-ready jpeg image?

This is entirely possible.

These two presentation media have entirely different purposes in this example. The print is what is being sold, while the web image functions as a catalog entry, in effect. If the final presentation medium was only the web, I suspect a little more of that 'immediacy and emotion' could be injected into its presentation.

That's exactly my point. Reproductions usually have a different purpose - they tell us about the the thing rather than being the thing themselves. In this specific case the reproduction is online with a fine print being the original. In other cases the original could be a digital image shown online, with the print being a reproduction. One could possibly argue that in photojournalism the original is real life, while the photograph (in any medium) is a reproduction.

 

[bill schwab]

Reproductions ... tell us about the the thing rather than being the thing themselves.

And how is it that photography, no matter how splendid, is not simply a poor reproduction of "real life"?

One could possibly argue that in photojournalism the original is real life, while the photograph (in any medium) is a reproduction.

Why would you argue this for only photojournalism?

 

[MurrayMinchin]

You may care about how your 'photograph' was made down to the deepest fibre of your being, but 95% of the people who will look at it without you there to explain its origins will only be judging it on content.

What was the original question in this post? Who is Art Soft anyway? Why has Art Soft only posted once? Interesting...

Murray

 

[bill schwab]

Personally, I think most of this false conception is caused by "master printers" hiding behind medicore photographs when they give it some fancy name like "Double Bubble Gum Platinum Palladium Gelatin Diaspora" print or something fancy.

???? Sensing some animosity here. I always find statements like this interesting. I've never understood why another's process should threaten anyone. I think a lot of the beauty of the processes you attempt to denigrate with your statement is that in most cases they can't be made by pressing buttons on a machine.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Quote:
Originally Posted by rjas
Personally, I think most of this false conception is caused by "master printers" hiding behind medicore photographs when they give it some fancy name like "Double Bubble Gum Platinum Palladium Gelatin Diaspora" print or something fancy.

Sounds like a case of "those who can, do; those who can't, cast aspersions".

 

[Ian Leake]

And how is it that photography, no matter how splendid, is not simply a poor reproduction of "real life"? Why would you argue this for only photojournalism?

I wouldn't argue this only for photojournalism, that was merely the first example that sprang to mind. And there are probably many examples from the field of photojournalism that aren't simply reproductions of "real life".

Of course this then raises the obvious question: when and why is one photograph a reproduction of real life while another is more than just a reproduction and has meaning in it's one right? But that's been argued over for a hundred years or so, and I doubt it'll be answered satisfactorily in my lifetime...

 

[lenswork]

I am very interested in the turn this thread has taken to a discussion of "reproduction" versus the "original print" and the experience of the viewer compared to the experience of the maker. (Does this deserve being its own thread? Has it been already and I've missed it?) I wrote about this very topic in the Editor's Comments of LensWork #73 (just in the mail yesterday, BTW) in which I asked lots of questions and for which I have no answers. It's a real stumper for my brain. I'll be anxious to see what answers develop from the collective experience here. In other words -- Warning, podcast topic-mining in progress!
Brooks