Print and/or Image Value

David Brown · Feb 26, 2012

OK, Clive. For you, there is no added value to seeing an original print over a reproduction. I will accept that, and maybe some others will ...

But you asked the question. Not everybody agrees, and when you ask this type of question, this is what happens.

I think the whole discussion comes down to the fact that you do not consider a print to be anything but a "reproduction" of the negative, so there is no more value there than any other type of reproduction. Fair enough. But, as you can see, there is a variety of opinions.

cliveh · Feb 26, 2012

Thomas Bertilsson said:
I'm not looking for an argument, but I don't agree with the 'latent image' being the purest representation of the artist's intent. It doesn't come alive until it's printed, so what's the point of worshipping the negative? It's an intermediary as a step to the destination of becoming something that is visible and comprehensible by the viewer. I mean, why do you feel it important enough to show prints here, in shows, and on your web site? Shouldn't you just let people look at your negatives? Or better yet, why not let them look with infrared light on an undeveloped piece of film with a latent image on it?

Artists make choices when they print, and it's the culmination of all their decisions in framing the exposure, exposing the film, choice of processing, interpreting the negative, cropping and framing the print, and finally toning and choice of presentation. All those decisions matter to me, and one thing that is immensely important to me is scale. Imagine a Gursky print that's several feet across, represented by an 800x600 pixel jpeg on a web site, or an 8x6" reproduction in a book. While I don't like Gursky's work in general, I can appreciate the impact of scale, which is another intention the photographer has when they make their exposures.

So, to me, and this is my opinion, I think the final print holds tremendous value for the viewing experience. It is an entirely different experience from looking in a book, on a computer screen or projection. Someone mentioned surface texture of a print; you mentioned photogravure - the relief of the print, which I think is an important aspect of making them in the first place, and it doesn't show in a book or on a computer screen.

There are many reasons for me to enjoy the print as the ultimate form of expression.

Thomas, I agree that the final print holds tremendous value for the viewing experience for many people and in some cases even me. By final print, I assume you mean a silver or wet print.

When Beethoven wrote one of his symphonies he may also/or not have conducted the orchestra to play it. This could be said to be unique, as it his original score and his interpretation of his score to performance. However, someone in the future may conduct a version of this symphony that most people consider better, but both versions come from the original score. This does not detract from the value of the writers original interpretation, but let us also remember that the original orchestrated by writer of the score, was also performed with the instruments and technology available at the time. Future technology may allow a better interpretation not available to Beethoven at the time.

Does this help, as I also am not trying to start an argument, it is just my opinion.

Vaughn · Feb 26, 2012

My end "product" is a finished hand-made print...an art piece. Any other form of my work is only a reproduction. But since many people will never get to see one of my prints, reproductions are a way to share what my art is like.

I try not to extend this bias to the work of others...mostly I am successful. I am equally an image maker and a print maker. To see only a reproduction of my work is to only see half of my art.

Vaughn

removed account4 · Feb 26, 2012

cliveh said:
Thomas, I agree that the final print holds tremendous value for the viewing experience for many people and in some cases even me. By final print, I assume you mean a silver or wet print.

When Beethoven wrote one of his symphonies he may also/or not have conducted the orchestra to play it. This could be said to be unique, as it his original score and his interpretation of his score to performance. However, someone in the future may conduct a version of this symphony that most people consider better, but both versions come from the original score. This does not detract from the value of the writers original interpretation, but let us also remember that the original orchestrated by writer of the score, was also performed with the instruments and technology available at the time. Future technology may allow a better interpretation not available to Beethoven at the time.

Does this help, as I also am not trying to start an argument, it is just my opinion.

the difference is that the score and the playing of the score are not the same as a photograph and a photoreproduction.
your argument would make (more?) sense if it was the playing of beethoven's piece LIVE and a reproduction of it
on tape, microcassett, reel to reel a wire recording of it &c.
beethoven conducting his own symphony and someone else conducting it ( days, years or centuries later ) has to do with interpretation,
like 2 different people making prints from the same negative ...

reproduction ( not matter what the technology ) has nothing to do with interpretation + creation...

Thomas Bertilsson · Feb 26, 2012

cliveh said:
Thomas, I agree that the final print holds tremendous value for the viewing experience for many people and in some cases even me. By final print, I assume you mean a silver or wet print.

When Beethoven wrote one of his symphonies he may also/or not have conducted the orchestra to play it. This could be said to be unique, as it his original score and his interpretation of his score to performance. However, someone in the future may conduct a version of this symphony that most people consider better, but both versions come from the original score. This does not detract from the value of the writers original interpretation, but let us also remember that the original orchestrated by writer of the score, was also performed with the instruments and technology available at the time. Future technology may allow a better interpretation not available to Beethoven at the time.

Does this help, as I also am not trying to start an argument, it is just my opinion.

When I view other people's prints, I am not judgmental with respect to what type of print it is. I enjoy inkjet prints, photogravures, silver gelatin prints, and RA4 prints with the same enthusiasm. For my own purposes, definitely a silver gelatin print, mostly because of how pure the process is; for me there is a very direct link between subject matter as I see it, and the final print with silver gelatin.

Re: Composers - I don't think the comparison is fair. A negative should be compared to the sheet music in my opinion, and a print, which is an interpretation of the negative, should be compared to a musical interpretation of the sheet music. We cannot listen to something that Beethoven conducted, obviously, but luckily there are many talented conductors that can. While we can never know exactly what Beethoven's preferences were, other than historical records, at least we have the sheet music.
With a photographic print, we're still in an age where prints made when the artists were still alive can be viewed, as a testament to their preference and decisions made while they printed them, and that is of tremendous value in my opinion. For example, I forget the name of that New York photographer whose negatives they found recently, documenting the city over decades. Finding those negatives holds tremendous value, but I think if they had found prints also, that would have been even more valuable. That would have been equal to knowing how Beethoven would prefer that his musical scores were performed.

I agree that future technologies may take us places we haven't even imagined yet. I have no idea whether I will like it or not. Only time will tell. Opinions change and vary with experience, that's for sure. I'm only 40 years old, and have been through many changes already, and I'm curious to find what the future holds.

cliveh · Feb 26, 2012

Thomas, I understand your view and I think you understand mine. Perhaps we should leave it there.

Bill Burk · Feb 26, 2012

I borrowed a CD demo which illustrated the compression ratio of MIDI technology and predicted one day MIDI technology might give a music student on one chip, a collection of all recorded music history. This predated current MPx technology that comes pretty close to realizing that prediction, but they weren't thinking lossy sound recording technology. Instead they were predicting sophisticated synthesisers. I'd rather hear a wire recording of a concert than listen to a synthetic reconstruction.

I nibbled on my son's fresh-roast turkey sandwich today (from the only local deli that still serves it) and was impressed with the fresh, dry texture of the meat. I don't know why the technology doesn't exist to preserve that fresh quality in prepackaged or deli counter turkey meat. They are always soggy and tasteless. The closest I can come to it is the day after Thanksgiving making leftover sandwiches.

When I visited the local Egyptian culture museum I was awestruck that they had the Rosetta stone on display where I could examine it up-close and touch it. It didn't take long for me to realize it was a casting, which I could appreciate as a reproduction of the original. But since it was not the original, I was no longer in awe.

Printing technologies used for art can give a reasonably low number of prints that I would value as originals, serigraphy, lithography - even, in the case of David Lance Goines, low-end offset lithography.

Even a lowly flyer printed letterpress by Jose Guadalupe Posado on crumbling newsprint, would strike me with awe. The value in my mind far in excess of a contemporary rubber stamp or finely printed reproduction of his work, maybe a hundred dollars to me.

So a local museum can't reasonably have original Rosetta stones. But when I see an Edward Weston print on the wall of a local museum, I don't have to suspend disbelief. I can relate as a photographer, to the pencil lines and slightly yellowed mat board before me, that this was done by his hand.

I value less-well-known photographers, and proudly display prints from 1884 by George Fiske as inspiration for a lasting quality. (Vaughn, look closely at your Three Brothers, I think it may be Fiske's work, it looks an awful lot like his #315). Again, value to me about a hundred dollars.

Vaughn · Feb 26, 2012

Bill Burk said:
...(Vaughn, look closely at your Three Brothers, I think it may be Fiske's work, it looks an awful lot like his #315). Again, value to me about a hundred dollars.

No -- definitely Watkins. I do not think Fiske worked with mammoth plate (the print is about 16x20) and has appeared in cataloges as Watkins. Also I showed the print to Peter Palmquist and he believed it to be Watkins. Fiske's winter Yosemite work is wonderful.

Vaughn

Alan Klein · Feb 26, 2012

Which people buy an image on a screen? Which people buy a print? Which people buy a book with the print in it. Which has more value? And to whom?

Bill Burk · Feb 26, 2012

Vaughn said:
No -- definitely Watkins. I do not think Fiske worked with mammoth plate (the print is about 16x20) and has appeared in cataloges as Watkins.

Ha, another victim of the computer screen. Fiske's work is usually 4 3/8 x 7 3/8 inches. When I examine it under a microscope even more detail is revealed than I get with 11x14 prints off 4x5. Makes me envious.

Mustafa Umut Sarac · Feb 26, 2012

I did not see a real Ansel print in my life and may be will never be. But even his books are amazing. Will I not give to these books a dime , no I will. I think if the subject is fine , technique is fine , there is no importance how you did see it. Look at magnum website , pictures are small but I feel great things like listening Beethoven .
If a horse turd on gold , its still gold.

Bill Burk · Feb 26, 2012

My brother in law has a real Ansel Adams print, and he also has a large poster of Clearing Storm.

Which do you think I look at when I go to his home? Ah, trick question since you know my preference for silver gelatin.

Some photographers work in ways that produce illogically more information than is required. That is, logically you only need 150 DPI of information for print production, anything excess is "headroom" for cropping or wasted. When printed by silver gelatin, a great deal more information is recorded on the print and can be seen on closer examination. Interesting work that is executed this way is best seen as originally expressed by the artist.

That which is beautiful by its idea, can be appreciated in lower fidelity. Mustafa and Cliveh, you are idea people. Your ideas are the kind which, if I took the idea and made a picture of it, it would be clearly your idea.

I work with ideas at a different level. If I took a picture of a certain tree, and you took a picture of the same tree at the same time, our pictures would reflect our approach to the subject and could stand independently. Mine would have an insane amount of detail and would be a portrait of the tree that would look OK. Yours might include a family running with their dog. Yours would look great on computer screen. Mine would just look like a tree until you got up close to the silver gelatin print.

Bill Burk · Feb 27, 2012

Bill Burk said:
I work with ideas at a different level. If I took a picture of a certain tree, and you took a picture of the same tree at the same time, our pictures would reflect our approach to the subject and could stand independently.

I stand by this statement.

Bill Burk said:
Mine would have an insane amount of detail and would be a portrait of the tree that would look OK. Yours might include a family running with their dog. Yours would look great on computer screen. Mine would just look like a tree until you got up close to the silver gelatin print.

This sounds like resolution-elitism which I did not mean. Every time I try to say how much I appreciate high resolution black and white images, it comes across wrong.

cliveh · Feb 27, 2012

Bill Burk said:
I stand by this statement.

This sounds like resolution-elitism which I did not mean. Every time I try to say how much I appreciate high resolution black and white images, it comes across wrong.

Bill, I think I understand, but if a printing method with higher resolution than a silver chemical image was offered would you change?

Bill Burk · Feb 27, 2012

cliveh said:
Bill, I think I understand, but if a printing method with higher resolution than a silver chemical image was offered would you change?

Ah, I have had my perception of value challenged over the past few years. Yes, I value silver gelatin irrationally. I value it even more if the printing is done by the photographer who took the shot.

I won't change my own printing at this point. For my own work I am committed to making the best prints I can with traditional analog workflow, without striving for perfection.

I believe new printing technology exists that can simulate silver gelatin very effectively, even to the point of museum quality. But I also think it is harder to make beautiful prints using the new technology than it is to make actual silver gelatin prints.

At a gallery, not far north of me last weekend, I saw a large framed print by a local photographer. This print has potential to be better edited and printed. The high contrast and sharpness artifacts bothered me.

Last summer I saw Robert Frank photographs at the LA County Museum of Art. Only the tags next to the prints gave away which were silver gelatin prints.

The weekend before last, at the de Saisset Museum in Santa Clara, I saw photos by Rick Nahmias. Black and white work captured on 4x5, scanned and printed by The Icon LA. These large prints were all beautifully created and mounted.

But downstairs of the de Saisset Museum I faced the greatest challenge to my perception of value. Andy Warhol's work is on display. Faded Polaroids that were once physically in his hands as they came out of the camera. I looked for his fingerprints. I know they are original artifacts but could not bring myself to feel their pricelessness. There were silver gelatins too, I assume taken with Minox C. Probably not printed by him. They are "prints" where the Polaroids are "originals". Graphically, compositionally, I think his Minox work is better. The Polaroids have a consistent, poor quality, limited by the stark flash which he seemed to use on every shot.

In all the work described, I would have to say I would rescue the Andy Warhol Polaroids if there was a fire. Even though I can't feel the value, I think that's the irreplaceable work.

Now if there were a similar tragedy at a museum where Ansel Adams or Edward Weston's prints were on display, I would save all the oldest vintage prints of theirs that I could carry. If two museums were engulfed, and Andy Warhol's work was next door, I'm afraid the world would lose a few Polaroids.

benjiboy · Feb 28, 2012

You bet your boots it is.

Thomas Bertilsson · Feb 28, 2012

cliveh said:
Thomas, I understand your view and I think you understand mine. Perhaps we should leave it there.

I'm ok with that Clive, because I don't think I'll ever fully understand. But I will always try to respect, hoping for the same in return.

One more thing I'd like to add to the discussion in general is the concept of effort and presentation. One can labor over Cibachromes, Silver gelatin prints, inkjet prints, photogravures, platinum prints, cyanotypes, etc for hours, or it comes easily for those that are very skilled, but I do appreciate the fact that someone cared enough to present their work in the best possible way. To me that shows a love, respect, and care of the medium. That's worth a lot to me as well.

Bill Burk · Feb 28, 2012

Thomas Bertilsson said:
One more thing I'd like to add to the discussion in general is the concept of effort and presentation. One can labor over Cibachromes, Silver gelatin prints, inkjet prints, photogravures, platinum prints, cyanotypes, etc for hours, or it comes easily for those that are very skilled, but I do appreciate the fact that someone cared enough to present their work in the best possible way. To me that shows a love, respect, and care of the medium. That's worth a lot to me as well.

+1

I have come to realize a few things in this conversation: The original is not it. The silver gelatin is not it. The signature and mounting is not it.

If an artist I appreciate carefully created a print. Then I appreciate it.

I appreciate it even more if it happens to be by an analog process. Just because that is one of my personal values.

But future generations of photographers must generate value for their work if they intend to survive. So if I were teaching students I would recommend that they see all the art they can. Make a few analog pieces of their own work to act as a benchmark. Then, exceed that work.

blansky · Feb 28, 2012

I think a photograph (or almost any art medium) is like a pair of glasses. You put them on and you see something. You see how the person that owned the glasses saw things. You get to see the world through his eyes.

A lot of this thread is about how nice the glasses are, are the frames metal or plastic, is the style current, do they have unscratchable lenses.

Perhaps were spending too much time looking at them and not enough time through them.

cliveh · Feb 28, 2012

blansky said:
I think a photograph (or almost any art medium) is like a pair of glasses. You put them on and you see something. You see how the person that owned the glasses saw things. You get to see the world through his eyes.

A lot of this thread is about how nice the glasses are, are the frames metal or plastic, is the style current, do they have unscratchable lenses.

Perhaps were spending too much time looking at them and not enough time through them.

Well said.

Thomas Bertilsson · Feb 28, 2012

blansky said:
I think a photograph (or almost any art medium) is like a pair of glasses. You put them on and you see something. You see how the person that owned the glasses saw things. You get to see the world through his eyes.

A lot of this thread is about how nice the glasses are, are the frames metal or plastic, is the style current, do they have unscratchable lenses.

Perhaps were spending too much time looking at them and not enough time through them.

I honestly don't understand the metaphor of the last sentence.
Are you saying that we spend too much time worrying about the process of photography, and not enough time with the actual content?

Not sure how that applies to everybody else, but to me the ultimate destination is a print, (i.e. looking 'through' the eye glasses). Others may or may not agree.
So the value of the print is, to me, that the artist cared enough about the picture to print it and present it in a way that it represents the idea, emotion, and message the artist intended. This involves size, print values, toning, etc. A highly literal interpretation of the negative might be exactly how the photographer sees things, or there could be heavy manipulation involved. Either way, to see a print in the way the artist intended it, trumps all other ways of viewing the work, and truly the way to see through the eye glasses, as you put it. The way a picture is printed heavily supports the content, in my own opinion. At least that is how I try to express myself and choose to view the work of others.

Maris · Feb 28, 2012

The original photograph made personally, start to finish, by the photographer is a full down-load of that photographer's mind. And down-loading one mind into another is the bedrock of the art process itself.

Camera-workers who merely select subject matter with cameras and then have others make things to look at don't deliver the full down-load. I'm greedy, I want the maximum possible committment from the picture-maker. And if I'm patient, selective, and not a visual magpie that pecks at everything in sight, I can have this.

If someone offered me a good quality, good condition, original Ansel Adams, say 16" X 20", characteristic of his mature style for a few grand I'd say sold! I'm interested in Ansel's mind, how he sees things, and the photographs are merely a device to make this possible. As for the photograph itself, it would be some distance down the track before I'd bother asking "what's it of"?

cliveh · Feb 28, 2012

Maris said:
The original photograph made personally, start to finish, by the photographer is a full down-load of that photographer's mind. And down-loading one mind into another is the bedrock of the art process itself.

Camera-workers who merely select subject matter with cameras and then have others make things to look at don't deliver the full down-load. I'm greedy, I want the maximum possible committment from the picture-maker. And if I'm patient, selective, and not a visual magpie that pecks at everything in sight, I can have this.

If someone offered me a good quality, good condition, original Ansel Adams, say 16" X 20", characteristic of his mature style for a few grand I'd say sold! I'm interested in Ansel's mind, how he sees things, and the photographs are merely a device to make this possible. As for the photograph itself, it would be some distance down the track before I'd bother asking "what's it of"?

Maris, we are on different planets.

MaximusM3 · Feb 28, 2012

A print is (or certainly should be) a labor of love. For some (Clive, it seems) it is simply a vehicle to convey what was captured on the negative. Therefore, value is placed strictly on content, which better be a damn good one if the print is meant to stand on its own. For me, the print is a form of expression, something that, at the end, I can be proud of or make someone else happy with. Its value is not taken lightly because I want it to be special. Frankly, the purist, elitist attitude of "my images are so good and strong, that all I need to do is slap some paper under the enlarger and transfer the negative" is a buch of BS. Within those parameters, a book reproduction has as much value as the print, because the artist did not express himself through printing but simply transferred information from the negative. Where is the added value then? Silver in the paper? If I spend 3 hours in the darkroom perfecting a print and achieving MY vision, the value is in not merely in content but in my original interpretation of the negative and skills as a printer.

cliveh · Feb 28, 2012

MaximusM3 said:
A print is (or certainly should be) a labor of love. For some (Clive, it seems) it is simply a vehicle to convey what was captured on the negative. Therefore, value is placed strictly on content, which better be a damn good one if the print is meant to stand on its own. For me, the print is a form of expression, something that, at the end, I can be proud of or make someone else happy with. Its value is not taken lightly because I want it to be special. Frankly, the purist, elitist attitude of "my images are so good and strong, that all I need to do is slap some paper under the enlarger and transfer the negative" is a buch of BS. Within those parameters, a book reproduction has as much value as the print, because the artist did not express himself through printing but simply transferred information from the negative. Where is the added value then? Silver in the paper? If I spend 3 hours in the darkroom perfecting a print and achieving MY vision, the value is in not merely in content but in my original interpretation of the negative and skills as a printer.

Maximus, dont take this the wrong way, as I value what you are saying. I am not saying that the image should be so good and strong, as to not warrant expert printing, as this should obviously be the next logical step. However, the time spent printing is not a reflection of image value. The time involved in making the print is of no significance to the value of the final print, if it be 10 seconds or several hours.

Print and/or Image Value

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency