• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Taking a stand...

Status
Not open for further replies.
To me there is a difference between the feel and the look of a double weight fiber print and the best digital print. From that point alone I can see Per's point.

I have looked at and handled Per's work and the real thing is much better than any of his work viewed from a computer screen. Frankly, most other work pales next to his, but the lower prices of the digital prints would hurt his sales.
 
Yes Alex...

In order to be critical and select our own direction it is necessary to fully understand differences in media.

Alongside my photography I have for years used Photoshop, Illustrator, In Design and a bunch of other image making program for graphic design work.
My first Photoshop version was 3.0, well before layers were invented.
Until recently I had two large Epson printers in the office.
In addition I do paint with both oils and water color... I began my career in the arts as an illustrator... a long time ago...



While my decision was based on personal preference for how I want to show and sell my work I also feel that it may be a good marketing / PR strategy (again from my point of view). I live and breathe art (and darkroom fumes) 24/7
so it is necessary for me to constantly try new directions in promoting my work.

This is by no means a gimmick as I totally stand behind my decision.

Per


Dead Link Removed
 
alexhill said:
Until I see facts stating otherwise, I will respectfully disagree that digital prints have reduced the 'value' of prints. Also anyone who think that there isn't skill or rigor required to make a flawless digital print is uneducated.
Click to expand...

A digital print has NO hand-made aspect being brought into it whatsoever. Printing in the darkroom, under the enlarger, wands flying back and forth, development in the tray influenced by feel and frequency, toning by feel, etc., etc. This is NOT present in digital prints and is intrinsic to the darkroom process. You know this.


I think you should re-examine your methods or what you consider as factors to determine a print as "done." Also, once a digital print is "done" it can be stamped out endlessly. This absolutely cheapens the value of prints.


A-F-Men.
 
alexhill said:
Until I see facts stating otherwise, I will respectfully disagree that digital prints have reduced the 'value' of prints. Also anyone who think that there isn't skill or rigor required to make a flawless digital print is uneducated.
Click to expand...

The problem is the print (or send) button. Literally once finished a digital image can be reproduced/copied exactly, instantly, cheaply, and reliably.

It is so reliable that when I owned a studio and shot digital I used two different labs completely interchangably and clients could never tell the difference. Pro-Labs turn out thousands of flawless prints daily.

Can't say that about my enlarger prints. I might be able get 8 prints an hour through my enlarger and Jobo.

The basic thing a computer does is automate tasks. People understand that. People expect digital stuff cheap (and expect to get more).
 
If the OP wants to shoot himself in the foot by giving up exhibition opportunities because, God Forbid, there might be a digital print on the walls nearby, so be it. You have every right to be stupid in our society, its still a free country. For those who make art because we have something to say rather than to demonstrate that we've mastered some archane technical skill, his decision just makes more room for those whose work is culturally relevant.

This whole thing reminds me of people in the past who refused to eat at restaurants that served black people, because the thought of maybe sitting next to a 'n----r' offended them so grievously. They only hurt themselves....the blacks whose presence offended the racist so deeply kept eating and were probably glad to be left alone by such ignorant fools.
 
An apology

I don't think this is a proper forum. To me it amounts to yelling fire in a crowded theater or pouring fuel on an open flame. It gets gets everyone of fired up. Instead, the OP should just quietly explained to his gallery reps his wishes and be done.
I have been sitting thinking of what I had added to this thread.
I wish to say my apologies to Per and to all sides of this age old argument.
I regret my adding to this falling out of ideas. As President Lincoln has said "A house divided can not stand."
I do think it's improper to say one form of expression is any better then another. I'll leave it at that.
Again lets close this thread and move on please.
 
an apology for what

the thread was silly in the first place. Who cares what per decides to do in his own life if it doesn't hurt anyone? the only people who give a sht are those who want to keep on talking sht about digital sour grapes whatever
it's a club/gang mentality. either youre whole heartedly in it or youre nobody

whats the apology for again? i see this sht behavior all the time too
i think they call it the high road.
well if a house divided cannot stand then what do you call a nation where some people want to drive this mythical high road to nowhereville and the others want to ride the can of worms all fkn day

not a solution
just masquerading as peacekeeper/leader
youre not moses
 
a Mother's Day Feature in True Confessions (1947) noted how "Grandma Moses remains prouder of her preserves than of her paintings
Click to expand...

..........
 

It's called conviction. Even though it's 2010, people are still allowed to have them. If Per doesn't believe in what it results in or how it impacts his own hard work - then he damn well has the right to not participate in it. If that doesn't matter to you and you take any opportunity to push your own stuff, regardless of the indirect cost, then go right ahead.


Yeah, whatever. Completely different levels there, pal.
 
Curt said:
..........
Click to expand...

what does that even mean?

I don't even now if thats supposed to be in reply to me or what but even if not

I had quoted "hobbiest" in the way the OGCr or whatever guy was using it

you cannot be a lowly "hobbiest" at one time and then another be seen as a great artist
you simply always were an artist in the truest meaning of the word and everyone that thought differently simply had no clue as to what the fk they were talking about
stubborn

grandma moses was always an artist
she was probably an artist in the fruit preserves world, too
i have no doubt
but no fat fuks can get rich quick off selling 40 year old jams and jellies so they sort of take a backseat
 


your attitude sucks, too
"If that doesn't matter to you and you take any opportunity"

someone ought to be telling you to stfu after that so i will
stfu



balls to talk about levels
segregation should be ranked a bit higher than photograph values but
"yeah, whatever"

digital prints next to film prints
"omfg you have convictions"

if per thinks what he is doing is great and deserves its own thread on apug surely whatever anyone else believes in deserves their own post

its a convictions thread
deal with em i suppose
 
my belief is that if your great work of art sitting directly next to a cheap one doesnt stand out
maybe your work simply isnt as great as youve been lead to believe here on apug and such

if that isnt the case
then you have to say that there is such a flood of crap that its hard to find the greatness in those places
why were you ever there in the first place?
convictions?
seems more like sour grapes

maybe true
if it truly is true
then you have much much much bigger fish to fry

thats conviction
one thread on apug is just the beginning
taking your work out
one step in the right direction

what else you have planned? ..cause it goes deep man
miles and miles away
makes this thread seem stupid
 
sun of sand said:
my belief is that if your great work of art sitting directly next to a cheap one doesnt stand out
maybe your work simply isnt as great as youve been lead to believe...
Click to expand...

Exactly............though I might say "not as valuable," as opposed to "not as great." After all, Per said that this is a decision he has made to prevent his work from being lowered in price.....

...and I will say it again; prints made from digital files do not "lower the value of photography in general" (whatever in high hell this means anyhow). A whole bunch of people making bad art using cameras, and the willingness to have this work displayed and priced as it is priced do this. We need to quit thinking that our shit is great or valuable just because it is shot on film and printed by hand. Most photography is crap, be it shot on film or digital...and certain elements from both sides will always feel that their medium of choice alone makes their work better than the other side's. Luckily, most photographers, digital or film, don't give a hoot one way or the other, and viewers care even less. People who buy art break down just about the same way, IMHO. It appears that the group of art buyers who think that medium matters are now the only group whose money Per is after. The plan could easily backfire, the way I see it. It is risky to deliberately limit ones potential buyers just to take the gamble that doing so may give one more appeal to a certain group of elitist buyers. In the end, I think it just comes down to whether or not anyone from this group of elitists with money to spend on art actually likes Per's work enough, or views it as enough of a financial investment, to buy it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
2F/2F said:
Exactly............though I might say "not as valuable," as opposed to "not as great." After all, Per said that this is a decision he has made to prevent his work from being devalued.....
Click to expand...

What's being devalued? Do these guys that shriek if there's a print in a medium they disapprove of also police EVERY image in the gallery to be sure someone hasn't gotten a photograph that just simply sucks admitted even if its the 'correct' medium? I doubt it. To me, thats far more important than what type of print someone is using...but the OP and those who defend him don't care about the image, its all about the technique. That's sad, and it devalues art far more than any 'bad' print medium because it makes artistic photography look empty and meaningless compared to the work of painters, sculptors, and others who actually have something substantive to say with their work.
 
You are correct Chris...

The message / content is the absolutely most important part of an image.
Without that the very best technical skills are waisted completely/

I prefer to have both unique message and the absolutely finest (in my opinion) print that can possibly be made...

When I posted this statement I had no idea that it would get this much response. In a way I am happy because I have read so many different viewpoints, yours included. This has given me a much better understanding how other photographers feel about their work, marketing their work and showing it to the general public.

Thank you!


Per


Dead Link Removed
 

This.

I've never described what I do as "analog(ue) photography".
 
edp said:
This.

I've never described what I do as "analog(ue) photography".
Click to expand...

Who I am talking to will change what I say. If I'm talking to someone who is a photographer/enthusiast, then I will say "I am an analog photographer". It rolls off the tongue much easier "than I work in a darkroom with chemicals and stuff using real silver to make prints"

If I'm talking to anyone else, I say I'm a photographer. Chances are they don't particularly care how I make images, or even that I do

per volquartz said:
The message / content is the absolutely most important part of an image.
Without that the very best technical skills are waisted completely/
Dead Link Removed
Click to expand...

I believe that how an image is made is directly tied to the conceptual aspect of any artwork. A viewer may ask "Why film?' and the answer must be relevant to the message of the image.

I'm not convinced that there needs to be another photo secession. We don't need to prove that photography is an art form. Thank you Stieglitz. We don't need to fend off digital imaging. To try would be suicide.

We also don't need to decry the short comings of digital images. Besides sounding elitist, to most people, digital serves its purpose perfectly. And to those elitists who claim technical superiority try printing on an epson 7700 on Hahnemuhle baryta paper. It's perfections in inkjet.

Also the argument that digital prints can be cranked out quicker, thus reducing the value of the medium as a whole is kinda weak. The local shop near me can crank out a hundred chemical prints an hour on its machine. No difference than a commercial digital lab.

I think its time to quote a dead guy:
When the age of mechanical reproduction separated art from its basis in cult, the semblance of its autonomy disappeared forever. The resulting change in the function of art transcended the perspective of the century; for a long time it even escaped that of the twentieth century, which experienced the development of the film. Earlier much futile thought had been devoted to the question of whether photography is an art. The primary question – whether the very invention of photography had not transformed the entire nature of art – was not raised.

We shouldn't be questioning the validity of digital imaging as art. Rather we should be exploring how it has fundamentally changed Art as a whole (our precious film based imagery included).

This same argument is had for every disruptive technology. Remember that photography started in the 1830's. We didn't have pre-made film until 60 years later. Polaroid's removed all the technical requirements another 60 years later in the 40's. Fast forward another 60 and you get digital.

Thanks to the digital revolution, now the few remaining practitioners can spread their knowledge to people like me and keep the craft alive. Without digital, I doubt we'd have seen the wet-plate renaissance we live in today.

Finally, can we please try to keep it civil in there?
[video=youtube;Cdiz0k0Rudw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cdiz0k0Rudw[/video]
 
alexhill said:
I believe that how an image is made is directly tied to the conceptual aspect of any artwork. A viewer may ask "Why film?' and the answer must be relevant to the message of the image.
Click to expand...

Because film has limits in the quantity that can be shot easily, film changes the way I interact with and think about my subjects. There is value in taking the time Karsh might have to make a portrait.

I'm not saying this can't be done digitally, but it's not the norm, nor is it digital's strong point.

Digital's strength is in democratization: everybody can do it, and with tools like the iPhone with it's PS app; nearly everybody will. From what I've heard 5mp phones are coming soon.

In art there is value in doing things that others can't or won't do.


There is a huge difference between 100-an-hour and the production of a commercial digital lab that that can do 1000's in the same time.

Automation is scalable but that beg's another question.

Why do I print by hand with an enlarger?

Because I can and do intend to create a fresh a interpretation each time. I don't resist the urge to "let each print find it's own personality".

I do resist the urge to create exact copies over and over and over. That is the antithesis of automation and digital technology.

In a world full of copies, it's nice to have something unique.
 
"Digital's strength is in democratization: everybody can do it, and with tools like the iPhone with it's PS app; nearly everybody will. From what I've heard 5mp phones are coming soon.

In art there is value in doing things that others can't or won't do."

You might help yourself(and everyone else here) bury this faked, self-regarding dichotomy by considering where today's equivalent of a master printer, Pascal Dangin, stands. His art certainly has value for the reason cited above, thanks to his extraordinary digital manipulation skills.
 
i had work in an art fair (the only one i was ever in )... 22 years ago.
i paid my entry fee and waited to see if i "made it in " ...
there was vetting / jury process to weed out some of the "artists"
the folks putting on the fair thought weren't a good "fit" ...

i had matted and framed 11x14 images / 16x20 frames.
a guy down the street had 4x6 mini lab prints that he had picked up at the fotomat.
my work was archival + presented as if the fair was an art gallery ...
his was just in a pile on a card table and thumb tacked on a cork board.

the lady next to me lived in the house behind her selling spot.
she was having a garage sale and had some nice nick-nacks and stretched soda bottles filled with pink and blue sand.

i was young and naive, and didn't know any better.
it seems that per knows what he wants, and knows how he wants his work presented.

i don't see a problem with that.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
We seem to have evolved into the old D vs. A, so....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Menu
Log in
Register