Print and/or Image Value

[PKM-25]

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

No, but I do believe I read somewhere it was...Heliogravure...?...I can't remember. It is wonderful to peruse...I think I will get it out and look at it...

 

[Bill Burk]

No, but I do believe I read somewhere it was...Heliogravure...?...I can't remember. It is wonderful to peruse...I think I will get it out and look at it...

Gravure is an interesting print process because it is continuous tone.

 

[Bill Burk]

The photographer who does not do their own printing creates value by seeing and capturing the image, which is then communicated to and remembered by the viewer. That image isn't worth a lot per view (viewers pay only what it costs to pay attention). But that small amount multiplied by a large audience is priceless.

Prints created by the artist carry (at least some) value in their physical existence. Electronic delivery does not transmit this full value to the viewer. These prints are worth seeing in person.

One good way to get a feel for the print value is to join a print exchange. When you get your set, I believe you will agree that you hold between a hundred and a thousand dollars worth of prints in your hands.

A printed book reproduction of a similar collection might only feel like it is worth thirty dollars. An online gallery view of the set might only catch your attention for an hour.

 

[Vaughn]

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...

I have that book...one of the best I have ever seen. The images are reproductions, of course, and do not have the impact that Geir's actual prints (I have seen many and own a couple). But the book is a work of art in of itself (even though he did not print each copy himself...LOL!) The thought and work that he and his editor (Kate Jordahl) put into the book -- the layout, font, poems, et al -- are wonderful, and the book as a whole becomes something that is greater than the sum of the parts.

It is not just a catalog of his vertical infra-red "panoramic" photographs, but a true book in the manner that an author would write a masterpiece. The images are the characters and the arrangement of the images is the story line. In comparison, AA's The Range of Light is merely a collection of his images.

Vaughn

Kate produces series of hand-made books with hand-printed (silver gelatin) images tipped onto the pages. The best of both worlds!

 

[markbarendt]

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

As a rule, HCB didn't do any printing himself, it was all hired out to somebody else.

 

[markbarendt]

The photographer who does not do their own printing creates value by seeing and capturing the image, which is then communicated to and remembered by the viewer. That image isn't worth a lot per view (viewers pay only what it costs to pay attention). But that small amount multiplied by a large audience is priceless.

Prints created by the artist carry (at least some) value in their physical existence. Electronic delivery does not transmit this full value to the viewer. These prints are worth seeing in person.

One good way to get a feel for the print value is to join a print exchange. When you get your set, I believe you will agree that you hold between a hundred and a thousand dollars worth of prints in your hands.

A printed book reproduction of a similar collection might only feel like it is worth thirty dollars. An online gallery view of the set might only catch your attention for an hour.

I agree that prints, like paintings, have value in their physical existence.

The Georgia O'Keefe museum in Santa Fe, NM has a portrait of O'Keefe by Karsh. A very large print, it had its own small (for a museum) room when I was there. It covered the better part of a wall all by itself.

Part of "the original's" value is in it's size, it was approaching life size for the subject and felt much more like like being in O'Keefe's world rather than being a voyeur looking at her world via a 16x20 or a book. I'd describe the feeling as "getting close to meeting her".

A huge part of the photo's value is in it's composition; like in most of Karsh's work, there was nothing random about the elements included or the pose and it is a true formal portrait every bit as much as if had been done with oils.

 

[Bill Burk]

As a rule, HCB didn't do any printing himself, it was all hired out to somebody else.

And this is perfectly fine. He transcends this discussion, and this seeming contradiction makes it worth digging deeper into this discussion about the value of seeing prints in person.

Henri Cartier-Bresson is "really one of the greatest photographers in the world." ... He "needs walls for his pictures, like museum walls" - Willy Fleckhaus, 1969.

 

[markbarendt]

And this is perfectly fine. He transcends this discussion, and this seeming contradiction makes it worth digging deeper into this discussion about the value of seeing prints in person.

Henri Cartier-Bresson is "really one of the greatest photographers in the world." ... He "needs walls for his pictures, like museum walls" - Willy Fleckhaus, 1969.

HCB wasn't the only famous guy to farm out printing work, Salgado and Erwitt come to mind. Seems to me that many big name photographers had assistants "help" in the darkroom. I'd even bet a nickle that Karsh and Hurell had "helpers" that printed for them.

It also seems that it would be problematic to compare to compare HCB's prints to Karsh's. At 11x14 HCB was reaching some real limits while at 11x14 Karsh may have been making test strips.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

At 11x14 HCB was reaching some real limits while at 11x14 Karsh may have been making test strips.

What limits are you referring to?

I have seen prints much larger of his work that still look beautiful, organic, and convincing.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Who mentioned AA Cibachromes? He never printed Ciba nor was equipped to do so. Perhaps a lab was commissioned after his death. Where did you see them? ... Anyway, nothing in history has fostered photographic
mediocrity quite as much as the internet. The comparison to painting is something I agree with. I'd seen quite a
few coffee-table book reproductions of Rembrant's self-portraits and I kinda shrugged my shoulders. Standing in
front of the actual painting in the Natl Gallery with the delicate impasto and true pigments practically floored me. Once I get around to anything other than ignoring my own website (it's a very low priority), I intend to remove all images from it. The whole concept has backfired. Every jackass with a cellphone thinks he can do that. Viewing the prints in person is a whole different level of experience. I'm getting weary of arguing with
smart-alecs who think they can do everything the easy way and get comparable results. Not only have they
not learned to print; I doubt any of them have ever looked at good prints. But some people think that Denney's
is fine cuisine.

 

[cliveh]

As has been said before, a lot depends on the picture in question. If it is a picture like this –

Dead Link Removed

Printing values are not particularly important, as compared to a picture of a wooden fence by Weston and it must be remembered that there is an infinite myriad of images between the two.

 

[Andrew Moxom]

Now that's funny!!!!!

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

 

[Bill Burk]

As has been said before, a lot depends on the picture in question. If it is a picture like this –

Dead Link Removed

Printing values are not particularly important, as compared to a picture of a wooden fence by Weston and it must be remembered that there is an infinite myriad of images between the two.

I agree!

 

[markbarendt]

What limits are you referring to?

I have seen prints much larger of his work that still look beautiful, organic, and convincing.

I'm not saying larger prints can't work, it's not an absolute limit but, I find that prints I like which are larger than 11x14, coming from 35mm 400 speed negs are very few and far between indeed.

Typically for me the grain seems to start fighting with the details, smaller subject matter becomes a struggle. For example a head and shoulders portrait may work nicely at 16x20 but smaller subject matter such as faces in full length or group portraits start to compete seriously with the grain for my attention as a viewer.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I'm not saying larger prints can't work, it's not an absolute limit but, I find that prints I like which are larger than 11x14, coming from 35mm 400 speed negs are very few and far between indeed.

Typically for me the grain seems to start fighting with the details, smaller subject matter becomes a struggle. For example a head and shoulders portrait may work nicely at 16x20 but smaller subject matter such as faces in full length or group portraits start to compete seriously with the grain for my attention as a viewer.

I think we are of a different opinion about print size and grain. I see 30x40" prints from 35mm that I think work perfectly well and the grain adds to the print. My favorite size for 35mm Delta 3200 is 16x20 and 11x14.

The Bresson prints I saw must have been printed on 20x24, as they were at least 20" in the long dimension. It was in association with his death back in 2002, 2003, something, and I remember Ted Hartwell at the Minneapolis Institute of Arts dug out their Bresson treasures to honor his life. They might have been printed by Sid Kaplan, if I remember correctly.

 

[markbarendt]

I think we are of a different opinion about print size and grain.

And that's okay.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

And that's okay.

I sure am grateful for that... It's what makes discussions interesting.

 

[markbarendt]

I sure am grateful for that... It's what makes discussions interesting.

Me too.

 

[Bill Burk]

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.

Stumbled on this old thread looking for something else...

What a fun conversation it was.

Not sure this is what blansky had in mind when he brought up looking through glasses... I'm sure he didn't mean this to turn literally into into discussion of optical eyewear. but I've always been awfully nearsighted and my whole world changed when I first got glasses in seventh grade. That amazement of seeing distant detail stuck with me.

I spent the better part of 2016 visiting my ophthalmologist, repeatedly, until now I have a pair of glasses I can look through and see as clearly as I like to see my photographs. I had some double vision that needed prisms and the old technique of holding a jumble of prisms in your lap as you try to see which is better... just did not work for me. Finally in disgust I partially dismantled my Ikonta and used its rotating prism (my ophthalmologist called it a Risley prism). I researched what a diopter is (1 cm over 1 m) and calibrated that Ikonta prism and checked all my failed glasses against what my eyes really wanted. Armed with that knowledge, I went back and got one final prescription which, not surprisingly, works perfectly well for me.

I like to see detail sharply in real life, and its this preference that drives me to like to see it in photographs too. (And my nearsightedness also leads me to enjoy macro photography too).