Pick an JBrunner original print for free, or a URL to view the image.

[Murray@uptowngallery]

It doesn't take a brain surgeon to ask for a URL (when the prints are gone!).

URL for me (this late in the game)

 

[phritz phantom]

what's the point of that poll? what do you want to prove?
i take a free print any day. if you ask me, if i'd prefer a digital print or a classic bw print, that would be a better match. (i'd take the one that looks better to me, of course).
if i had to pay for the print and i hadn't heard about you and your work earlier (which i havent, except from your posts here), i'd take the url.
pictures on the internet are like a catalogue. they are for a quick overview of the artist's work. who seriously considers pics on the net the real thing?

 

[jimgalli]

Looks like at least 57 people are in front of me. Did anyone say "trade" ? Where'd you get that Heliar?

 

[Katharine Thayer]

what's the point of that poll?

Isn't it obvious? The statement is often made these days that only the image, or only the content, matters, and the physical form the image takes is irrelevant. The poll simply tests that statement by asking this question: given a choice between the same image expressed as a photographic print or as electronic pixels, at the same price, which would you prefer? If it were really true that people are only interested in content and that the form is irrelevant, the pattern of responses should have been random, or in the direction of the immediately accessible URL rather than bothering to wait for prints to be made and sent, since it's the same image either way. I thought it was a brilliant way to test the point.

 

[mtbbrian]

I missed out on this!.

Brian
Print was my choice.

 

[highpeak]

I swear I will look into every "poll" thread from now on!

Alex W.

 

[jd callow]

Isn't it obvious? The statement is often made these days that only the image, or only the content, matters, and the physical form the image takes is irrelevant. The poll simply tests that statement by asking this question: given a choice between the same image expressed as a photographic print or as electronic pixels, at the same price, which would you prefer? If it were really true that people are only interested in content and that the form is irrelevant, the pattern of responses should have been random, or in the direction of the immediately accessible URL rather than bothering to wait for prints to be made and sent, since it's the same image either way. I thought it was a brilliant way to test the point.

This is my take as well.

To be fair the download should be of approximately the same resolution as the print, but I'd still take the print.


In the other thread the point was made that the original might actually be the scan or the halftone that is printed in a mag, book or whatever. In other words the film was shot to be scanned or offset printed and that these reproductions are every bit as real. I know that this is often the case, but it still does not detract form the fact that a print is generally more desirable and of higher quality. Even if content is king, appreciation of that content is generally greater when the quality is higher. There are times when the quality might be lower and there are times when the content is enhanced by a process that is actually lower than the potential quality of the original film capture -- this would argue for another of my pet peeves and that is that resolution, tonal range etc is not an end but a means to be used as needed. I think that there is a special value, however subjective or false on the face of the 'facts,' of owning, viewing, or holding in your hands an object made by the artist.

There is a wonderful, good for all, aspect to scans and printed pages. It makes far more work available to a far greater audience. As others have said if I can’t have the print, I’ll satisfy myself with the scan.

 

[JBrunner]

To be fair the download should be of approximately the same resolution as the print, but I'd still take the print.

I thought of this, however the download would be unmanageable, and could not be viewed 8x10 at any resolution that a computer screen can deliver, so I'll just make it as good as it needs to be for the reproduction.

Since I'm doing a bit more than a straight print, I have decided to scan the finished print, rather than the negative, so the scan won't be up till I finish printing.

 

[Ray Heath]

g'day JB and all

an interesting thread but i still doubt the value of asking this question on this forum

most (all) here will pick the print over the URL, that not only says the print is more highly regarded it also tells why these photographers are on this site in the first place

phritz asks "who seriously considers pics on the net the real thing?", well lots of people actually, try posting this question on a site these people visit, the results may well be entirely different

Ray

 

[Ian Leake]

Every now and then I offer a print (mounted & matted) to models I've worked with. All my models are paid so this is an extra, and other than a long wait there's nothing they need do for it. So far I've only ever had one model who said she'd rather have a scan, describing herself as, "a digital kind of a girl." And none have said no. So it's not just photographers who prefer the real deal.

 

[Ray Heath]

... To be fair the download should be of approximately the same resolution as the print, but I'd still take the print.

hi JD

i'd argue that it dosen't need to be

a digital print is a different thing than a traditional print, a screen shot is something else, a book reproduction is another entity entirely

would i pay good money for a print from a photographer who's work i barely know? not if i can have a selection, as in a book, if i wanted a physical copy, or a free URL if i wanted to check out the work before committing to a purchase

Ray

 

[JBrunner]

hi JD

i'd argue that it dosen't need to be

Ray

Agreed.

hi JD

a digital print is a different thing than a traditional print, a screen shot is something else, a book reproduction is another entity entirely

Ray

That is entirely the point.

hi JD

would i pay good money for a print from a photographer who's work i barely know? not if i can have a selection, as in a book, if i wanted a physical copy, or a free URL if i wanted to check out the work before committing to a purchase

Ray

Again, right on the money. You can get an idea of what you are considering, to a degree, examine the content, and perhaps form a reasonable idea of what the original might be like, from the perception of the reproduction, combined with past experience of examples of the original media.

 

[JBrunner]

g'day JB and all

an interesting thread but i still doubt the value of asking this question on this forum

most (all) here will pick the print over the URL, that not only says the print is more highly regarded it also tells why these photographers are on this site in the first place

phritz asks "who seriously considers pics on the net the real thing?", well lots of people actually, try posting this question on a site these people visit, the results may well be entirely different

Ray

I think the same offer posted on another forum, say Pnut for example, would engender a similar response over all, albiet with much spoiling, flaming, and the general lack of cordiality that is rampant on that forum. I'm quite sure, however, that most of the prints would be spoken for, in the same short order. In that enviroment you are going to encounter cranks that will be contrary if for no other reason than they can.

 

[JBrunner]

Just an update on the prints- I was not satisfied with my efforts on the day, so I am having another crack at it. Once I am happy with things, I will post the scan, collect up the postal info and send out the prints.

Thanks to all who participated, and thanks for your patience.

J Brunner

 

[JBrunner]

Ever notice how if you try to force a picture, it usually doesn't pan out? Well that's how it was the first Saturday with the Heliar. It's such a portrait oriented lens with that big honkin f4.5 on 8x10. I just couldn't make it happen.

Then the other morning I woke up, and it was quiet. Not just normal quiet, mind you, but that quiet that only happens when it has snowed here.

I looked out the window, and sure enough, there it was. I jumped out of bed, loaded the holders and off I went. I found this scene and set up. I could have shot it sharp, but then I'm like, hell, I could do that with about any lens, so I let the Heliar have its head, and so here is the sharp fuzzy result that is the print that will be going out to the poll respondents. As for the url, I guess this is it!!

Hope you guys like it. The print is a tiny itty bit better than what I can show here

 

[wildbill]

Nice! What i love about those lenses is the way it makes things look like miniatures. I don't know how else to explain it. Bitchin' image!
vinny

 

[jonw]

Nice shot. Looks like you have more snow in UT than we have up north in Idaho. Thanks. Jon

 

[KSLKelly]

I'd LOVE a print! Makes me wish I'd gone up the canyon Saturday!
Thanks! Kelly

 

[noblebeast]

A true work of art, and I'm not just blowing smoke! I'm so happy I got in on this early enough. This print already has a place of honor reserved on my wall.

Excellent work!

Joe

 

[walter23]

Sweet shot.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

I hate to be the one to fart at the party, but I'd disagree about this image, at least as far as I can see from the posted scan. I think it loses so much from the scan that I can't tell if I would like the print or not, and I would have to see an actual print. I also don't know if I agree with the Heliar getting the job done on this image - Without seeing the print, I can't tell if the Heliar smooshed out too much. I think the large areas of similar tone turn the separation and sharp/unsharp distinctions into a meaningless continuity.

With that said, I do appreciate your posting this inquiry, and for putting your work out there like this. I like many of your other images better - I think as you said before, this was a case of trying to force something that wasn't meant to be.

 

[Ian Leake]

... I can't tell if I would like the print or not, and I would have to see an actual print.

That's the interesting thing about this whole exercise. The nature of web forums is that we have to make photographic value judgements based on small digital reproductions. But how can we make considered judgements about a print when there are so many differences between it and the few square inches of screen area we get to see? Size, detail, viewing distance, lighting, (did I say detail?), sharpness, softness, tonality, depth, tactileness (tactility?), etcetera, etcetera. We can't - all we can judge is whether or not we like the reproduction.

Hopefully someone who gets the real thing will report back

 

[Ray Heath]

so where is my URL?

 

[gr82bart]

I think the image is interesting. I too would rather have the print over the web image. Personally, it reminds me of those shoebox miniature sets we used to make in grade school. Very neat shot.

Regards, Art.

 

[Steve Smith]

Obviously the print is going to be better than the screen image. But, if my scans are anything to go by, the difference will be even greater than normal due to the large amount of highlight detail in this image. Something which scanners don't handle very well (or is that just mine?).


Steve.