Print and/or Image Value

[MaximusM3]

Maximus, don’t 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.

Of course, Clive, maybe my words came across the wrong way. The "real" value is not in the time itself (although, from a business standpoint time is money). I used 3 hours, but it could be two minutes, or whatever it takes to achieve a great print and one that the artist (and potential buyers/viewers) can be satisfied with. Now, from a "perceived" value standpoint, this could be looked at differently. Let's say I have a very difficult negative, of a great image, that I really want to bring out in print. Such negative may require extended time and a few somersaults in the darkroom. That final print may have more emotional value to me because it required extra time and effort, and a great result giving a higher sense of accomplishment. Now, if I can transfer that same notion of value to a viewer (or again, maybe a potential buyer), I have achieved my goals, an even greater sense of satisfaction, and "real" tangible value.

Max

 

[zsas]

Clive what do you think of the Straight Print (2) vs the Fine Print (8) at the below?
http://www.rangeoflightphotography.com/pages/making-a-fine-art-print

Do you really believe your quote below to be true after seeing the steps (ie time) involved to get from step 1 to step 8?

...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.

 

[blansky]

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.

What I'm saying is that the medium is obviously important BUT not as important as the impact of the content.

The OP asked about value. A beautiful negative and exquisite print with a mediocre subject is like a beautiful woman with no soul.

So to me, VALUE is about impact and not pretty prints.

The "lookiing through the glasses" is not the print, it's the subject.

I think you're still talking about the 2 dimensional print and I'm talking about the transcendent subject matter.

 

[Vaughn]

And then there is the middle ground.

I craft a fine print from the negative I carefully created as the result of the seeing I did in the field (I mostly work in the landscape).

But my prints are full-frame (no cropping) and with no dodging and no burning. I make my own materials (okay, I don't actually make the paper base, nor render the pigs/cows to make the gelatin, nor ground up the pigments, not grow/refine the sugar, nor make my own Ammonium dichromate from scratch -- and I buy the acetone).

I adjust the print contrast thru the exposure and development of the negative and by adjusting the pigment concentration I add to the gelatin and the dichromate amount/concentration I use to sensitize the resulting carbon tissue. I determine print color by the pigments I choose to mix with the gelatin and sugar.

So the music score and performance model does not fit exactly to the way I work. Instead I walk thru the landscape until I find the light that will convey my experience of the moment and then attempt to place that light via the negative onto paper in such a way that will express that experience to me and hopefully to others.

So there is no score, there is no music, there is only the relationship with the light I experienced.

Vaughn

PS -- the time it takes to make a print? It can sometimes be measured in days.

PS#2 -- For me, the image and print are just the two sides of the same coin.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

What I'm saying is that the medium is obviously important BUT not as important as the impact of the content.

The OP asked about value. A beautiful negative and exquisite print with a mediocre subject is like a beautiful woman with no soul.

So to me, VALUE is about impact and not pretty prints.

The "lookiing through the glasses" is not the print, it's the subject.

I think you're still talking about the 2 dimensional print and I'm talking about the transcendent subject matter.

No. I don't think we understand each other. A print is enhanced by someone who prints very well. But of course you have to start with a good negative. One does not exclude the other.
Neg = important
Print = important
Vision, content, subject matter = all is important. But, and this is my point, that good picture really comes alive in a great print. I really don't see how anybody could disagree. How does a great print of an already interesting picture detract from it? Could it?

 

[batwister]

'Fine art' photography and the 'fine print' are two terms I've grown very tired of, relatively quickly. I like to think that's because my appreciation of photogaphy lies with the image - that thing that stays in our mind once our eyes have been averted - which many, many, many people here constantly skirt around in pursuit of nuance, which because of a tradition delusion, is linked to image value, but actually quickly forgotten by the viewer. What's left is a completely *unmemorable photograph with a memorable price tag.

There's something inherently defeatist about the traditional 'fine art' photographer, almost a dissasociative personality disorder. They know full well their work, because of its label, has been restricted in its universalities and impact, but the label brings them comfort for their shortcomings, a tradition to blindly follow and a small audience. I'm offering some provocative outside thinking with that estimation, as I'm young enough to have broken the 'fine art' habit before it defined my photography and open minded enough to have a broader appreciation of photography as art. As much as I favor traditional materials, my value judgment isn't restricted to their use and my image making isn't restricted to the tradition of its use in representation (and presentation), which because of associated literature, has become blinkered. I want my work to have value outside of this cult of tradition and won't deny myself the possibility.*

I think by adhering to an aesthetic that sells the work has only attained an illusion of value. That's 'fine art' photography and that's all that's being discussed here unfortunately.*
*

 

[Bill Burk]

To illustrate the value of seeing a print in person, a print that does not come across on the web is...

Edward Weston, William Edmonson, Sculptor, Nashville.

http://www.artsconnected.org/resource/14590/william-edmonson-sculptor-nashville

When I saw this print in person, I was drawn to the textures of the earth, toes, the drapery. These come across ok on the web. But his eyes are awry. It setup an odd tension that I felt and that made me remember this print. You can't see his eyes clearly in this depiction. In the print it feels like a hot dry day. The print does not feel dark like the online presentation.

 

[Bill Burk]

Neg = important
Print = important
Vision, content, subject matter = all is important.

If you have excellent vision, content, subject matter.

Then Neg and Print do not need to be great. This is where you are Cliveh.

When Neg and Print are great but vision, content and subject matter are lackluster.

Then we all know this does not create value. We can only hope our prints do not fall in this category.

Elevated quality in a variety of these areas makes interesting photography.

 

[Bill Burk]

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"?

Viewing a print produced by the artist...

You can compare where you stand in relation. You can say to yourself... "I can do that!"... "I could do that if only I learn how to use Farmer's Reducer!"... "No wonder his Cibachromes look better than mine, he used 4x5 while I used 35mm"... "I could never do that so I will stand here in awe!"... "I could come close and that by itself would be an achievement!" You can see specific areas where you need to improve.

This is where vintage work has exceeding value to me! I try to see something human, an error perhaps, in early work of a highly-regarded photographer. Not to put down or feel high and mighty, but to feel more in touch with the artist as a person. What were they like when they themselves were just learning?

After viewing vintage prints I often feel this emotion: "Now maybe I can't take it as far as the mature artist did, but I can see that the young artist was a lot like me."

 

[Bill Burk]

Sorry to have hijacked this thread, but after a long run of Contrast Index discussion, this is real exciting.

Cliveh, you have plenty of cred. I am the one who needs to put some prints on the line so you can get to know me.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

'Fine art' photography and the 'fine print' are two terms I've grown very tired of, relatively quickly. I like to think that's because my appreciation of photogaphy lies with the image - that thing that stays in our mind once our eyes have been averted - which many, many, many people here constantly skirt around in pursuit of nuance, which because of a tradition delusion, is linked to image value, but actually quickly forgotten by the viewer. What's left is a completely *unmemorable photograph with a memorable price tag.

There's something inherently defeatist about the traditional 'fine art' photographer, almost a dissasociative personality disorder. They know full well their work, because of its label, has been restricted in its universalities and impact, but the label brings them comfort for their shortcomings, a tradition to blindly follow and a small audience. I'm offering some provocative outside thinking with that estimation, as I'm young enough to have broken the 'fine art' habit before it defined my photography and open minded enough to have a broader appreciation of photography as art. As much as I favor traditional materials, my value judgment isn't restricted to their use and my image making isn't restricted to the tradition of its use in representation (and presentation), which because of associated literature, has become blinkered. I want my work to have value outside of this cult of tradition and won't deny myself the possibility.*

I think by adhering to an aesthetic that sells the work has only attained an illusion of value. That's 'fine art' photography and that's all that's being discussed here unfortunately.*
*

Who mentioned 'fine art' photography? That's a term I'm deadly sick of too. It's just 'photography'.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

To illustrate the value of seeing a print in person, a print that does not come across on the web is...

Edward Weston, William Edmonson, Sculptor, Nashville.

http://www.artsconnected.org/resource/14590/william-edmonson-sculptor-nashville

When I saw this print in person, I was drawn to the textures of the earth, toes, the drapery. These come across ok on the web. But his eyes are awry. It setup an odd tension that I felt and that made me remember this print. You can't see his eyes clearly in this depiction. In the print it feels like a hot dry day. The print does not feel dark like the online presentation.

I once had the opportunity to sit, on my own, accompanied by the entire collection of Kertesz prints of the Minneapolis Institute of Arts. For as long as I wanted. What drew me to seek out this opportunity, were experiences of seeing his pictures in books, in catalogs, on the internet, and the odd museum exhibition where one or two of his works had been included.
To sit with the actual prints, with nothing but air separating myself from them, as close as I wanted. That was six years ago, and I'm still in awe. While I was 'reeled in' by copies of his work, I was completely arrested by the actual originals, their presence, their 'weight' both to my eyes and my carefully washed hands, and their subtle beauty.
Me and my eyes only, met what Kertesz and his eyes created. Does it get any more pure than that?

 

[blansky]

No. I don't think we understand each other. A print is enhanced by someone who prints very well. But of course you have to start with a good negative. One does not exclude the other.
Neg = important
Print = important
Vision, content, subject matter = all is important. But, and this is my point, that good picture really comes alive in a great print. I really don't see how anybody could disagree. How does a great print of an already interesting picture detract from it? Could it?

I think we pretty much agree that a great print enhances a great subject matter but a less than great print or some other medium can still be great BECAUSE of the subject matter alone.

And a great print of a mediocre subject matter is just a great printing job but the picture is still mediocre.

The reason I chimed in on this is because everyone was talking about great prints but nobody said anything about the importance of content.

 

[eddie]

... a less than great print or some other medium can still be great BECAUSE of the subject matter alone.

I think, even if the subject matter is superb, a less than excellent print wouldn't convey the creator's vision of the subject matter (as great as that subject matter may be). The subject matter, and technical expertise, are intrinsically linked. Failure in one is failure in the other.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I think we pretty much agree that a great print enhances a great subject matter but a less than great print or some other medium can still be great BECAUSE of the subject matter alone.

And a great print of a mediocre subject matter is just a great printing job but the picture is still mediocre.

The reason I chimed in on this is because everyone was talking about great prints but nobody said anything about the importance of content.

I apologize if I wasn't clear, but I sort of took that for granted, that content was important regardless.

I agree that a photographs that are merely an exercise in printing skill are not very exciting. I'm guilty of making those myself, but try to consciously steer away from that. What's interesting to one person content wise, though, can be lackluster to someone else, so there's a fair bit of subjective interpretation involved as well, which makes almost any philosophical discussion about photography about opinion, and we all know how hard it is to agree, or even to agree to disagree about those types of things.

Good printing = enhances the viewing. Shitty printing = detracts from the viewing. In my opinion. Either way, subject matter is important.

 

[MattKing]

A great print is itself an artifact worth examining.

It may not approach the value of the combination of great subject + great print, but it does have its own value.

 

[Vaughn]

Who mentioned 'fine art' photography? That's a term I'm deadly sick of too. It's just 'photography'.

I have to admit that I am not tired or sick of the term. It is just an adjective added in front of "photography" to delineate it from commercial, wedding, product, architectural, sport, and other types of photography.

Are you also against other adjectives on general principles, such a a beautiful woman, yellow taxi, etc? Just joking about that, of course.

I suppose it could just be art photography, but there can be an element of art in any type of photography. Fine art photography just means that the photograph was taken and made as a end in itself.

Vaughn

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Are you also against other adjectives on general principles, such a a beautiful woman, yellow taxi, etc? Just joking about that, of course.

I just think the term 'fine art' is abused, to the point where everybody who has a photography web site is a fine art photographer, so it stopped having a meaning equating to any value to me. But other than that, yeah I hate adjectives...

 

[ishutteratthethought]

I just think the term 'fine art' is abused, to the point where everybody who has a photography web site is a fine art photographer, so it stopped having a meaning equating to any value to me. But other than that, yeah I hate adjectives...

I prefer a fine fart over fine art, it is cheaper and more rewarding to me personally.

 

[cliveh]

Clive what do you think of the Straight Print (2) vs the Fine Print (8) at the below?
http://www.rangeoflightphotography.com/pages/making-a-fine-art-print

Do you really believe your quote below to be true after seeing the steps (ie time) involved to get from step 1 to step 8?

I can see that print 8 is obviosly a better depiction of tonal and density values. However, the content and composition remain the same, which is what I meant by image value.

 

[removed account4]

everything is still a shadow ( as plato would say ) on the cave wall.

some prints are terrible, even though they are a fine photographic silver gelatin, or cyanotype, or wet plate or ...
some reproductions, either electronic ( scan ) or physical ( print media, magazine, book &c ) are terrible too ..

they both give an idea of what something is/was like ...

i have a whole book of karsh portraits that were made to be removed from the book.
the printing was nice enough that karsh expected people to put the pages behind glass.
even the karsh originals aren't really churchill or keller .. they are
abstracted, manipulated reproductions of what was there infront of him ...

in the end it really doesn't matter much ?

nope ...

 

[Bill Burk]

To sit with the actual prints, with nothing but air separating myself from them, as close as I wanted. That was six years ago, and I'm still in awe. While I was 'reeled in' by copies of his work, I was completely arrested by the actual originals, their presence, their 'weight' both to my eyes and my carefully washed hands, and their subtle beauty.
Me and my eyes only, met what Kertesz and his eyes created. Does it get any more pure than that?

I imagine the only thing better would be to sit in the library at the artist's home talking about each print, and perhaps showing some of yours off at the same time.

 

[PKM-25]

For example, I own a few original Fan Ho prints and also a limited edition book, beautifully printed, "Hong Kong Yesterday".

I own that book too, brilliant as is Geir Jordahl's "Searching for True North" by the same publisher, Modern Book. I would love for them to print my Kodachrome book...

But seeing Avedon's work at ICP in huge form and Bresson's work at the MOMA was something utterly mesmerizing....Kind of like sitting on that nice plush bench in front of Rembrandt's "Aristotle" and getting totally lost in it, the emotion of the depth of it all..

Now....there is one book in my collection that evokes nearly the same kind of feeling, that would be Bresson's "The Decisive Moment"....the way it is printed is just out of this world, I have never seen anything like it, it looks like he held it under his enlarger and just printed away.

I take great pride in giving or selling people something that is literally hand made. And I take even greater pride in filling that print with an image the likes of which they have never seen before....

I believe a finely printed boring image of the same thing that has been seen over and over again is not such a fine print after all...

 

[cliveh]

Now....there is one book in my collection that evokes nearly the same kind of feeling, that would be Bresson's "The Decisive Moment"....the way it is printed is just out of this world, I have never seen anything like it, it looks like he held it under his enlarger and just printed away.

I believe a finely printed boring image of the same thing that has been seen over and over again is not such a fine print after all...

I take it that what you refer to is not printed by HCB?

 

[PKM-25]

'Fine art' photography and the 'fine print' are two terms I've grown very tired of, relatively quickly. I like to think that's because my appreciation of photogaphy lies with the image - that thing that stays in our mind once our eyes have been averted - which many, many, many people here constantly skirt around in pursuit of nuance, which because of a tradition delusion, is linked to image value, but actually quickly forgotten by the viewer. What's left is a completely *unmemorable photograph with a memorable price tag.

Amen to that! I can not believe just how many "Fine Art" sections of photographer's websites I have seen that are some of the most boring, vision lacking images ever, many in the traditional / analog sense sadly enough. I don't care if it is printed on parchment paper from the renaissance with gold plating, if it is at first glance, a bad photo, it is not in any way shape of form said "Fine Art"...or at least not good Fine Art.