The Printmakers Art

[Gerald C Koch]

From what I have been reading/seen on APUG I fear that there is a group of people who have no idea of what a good print should look like. Why do I think this? From the questions being asked, from the questions that aren't being asked and from the darkroom techniques that some people seem to be enamoured with. I don't wish to get into specifics as this will only confuse the intent of this thread.

What is the intent then? People need to get out, go to exhibitions to see what an excellent print really looks like. The internet is worthless as its tonal range is severely limited. The reproductions is most books is almost as bad unless they are in high priced editions with expensive printing. Nothing compares to a real silver print made by a master of the technique. So visit print exhibitions whether in private galleries, museums or universities. This is a chance to improve your technique. My sympathies to those who cannot avail themselves of this opportunity because of location.

 

[Ian Grant]

Totally agree Gerald.

I'd go a step further and suggest people buy works from contemporary and past masters. Live with them, it need not be expensive. I mean artists not authors.

Ian

 

[removed account4]

i agree that it is a very good thing to see photographs or paintings or sculptures or any work of art
in the flesh, there is nothing quite like it.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Ian, excellent idea! Good prints need not be prohibitively priced.

Here in the US you can obtain silver prints from many famous artists' negatives owned by the Library of Congress. The prices are very reasonable. Here's your chance to have a Dorothea Lange photo on your wall.

 

[Ian Grant]

Ian, excellent idea! Good prints need not be prohibitively priced.

As I sit now Gerald I have images from 4 well known photographers (3 internationally) on the wall, there's a couple of images from unknown artists and 2 of mine that my wife owned before I moved here and got married. None cost more than about $160 (current exchange rates) but I'd double that figure today.

Back in the UK my main room for entertaining is the same, images from a number of well known photographers, including a wonderful Doisneau, gain none cost mega bucks, and none of my own

An important lesson is know your own place, be aware how good or bad your work is, don't kid yourself.

Ian

 

[Christopher Walrath]

And that is actually a great closing phrase, Ian. I personally have been looking for my own place in photography. I had kicked around ideas for the last couple of years. Books, magazines, website archives, personal printing. I have alot to learn and even more to just do. I think that I, and we all, need to stop trying to find our place in photography and just go out and photograph so that photography maintains its own place. I have always held the thought that we should just go out and make photographs/prints and let history judge just how important they are. Because that's not really up to us, now, is it.

 

[Klainmeister]

Could be a Stieglitz and force it down everyone's throat! That in mind, I think we need to be fair to what people think is a great print, because frankly, there's a lot of crap I've made that makes me very happy and no one else and who cares what others think? I suppose if you're trying to sell and put a gallery, then yes, that's important, but is everyone on here doing that? I don't think so.

 

[kevs]

From what I have been reading/seen on APUG I fear that there is a group of people who have no idea of what a good print should look like. Why do I think this? From the questions being asked, from the questions that aren't being asked and from the darkroom techniques that some people seem to be enamoured with. I don't wish to get into specifics as this will only confuse the intent of this thread.

What is the intent then? People need to get out, go to exhibitions to see what an excellent print really looks like. The internet is worthless as its tonal range is severely limited. The reproductions is most books is almost as bad unless they are in high priced editions with expensive printing. Nothing compares to a real silver print made by a master of the technique. So visit print exhibitions whether in private galleries, museums or universities. This is a chance to improve your technique. My sympathies to those who cannot avail themselves of this opportunity because of location.

Exhibitions are interesting, to view a range of work and see what others are doing. Exhibitions vary enormously in quality of prints, these qualities are the intent of the photographer, or at least it should be. I don't think that one way of printing is superior to any other way of printing. It's all about intent - how does the photographer wish to present his/her work to the viewer?

So what should a 'good' print look like? In any context, 'good' is a loaded term of little value unless it's defined in some way. The way a print looks is dependent upon the materials, chemicals and techniques used to produce it. What makes a print 'good'? A full tonal range? High gloss or dead matt? Is a platinum print 'good' compared to a silver gelatin? How about bromoil or gum bichromate? There are many, many variables and possibilities in photographic printmaking, all of them have relative merits, according to individual perceptions and intents.

IMO, one should define 'good' in terms of the qualities of print that one wishes to produce, then learn how to produce work using the appropriate materials, chemicals and techniques to attain the results one desires. How do *you* want your prints to look? It's no good producing a glossy RC print if what one wants is a dead matt FB one.

So by all means visit exhibitions and look at the quality of the prints made by 'master printers', but be aware that 'good' is a highly subjective and loaded term. Learn what qualities *you* want and admire in a print, then learn how to produce it.

All IMO, of course.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

I forgot to mention that the Library of Congress also sells copy negatives. So if you wish you can make your own interpretion of a classic photo.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

... People need to get out, go to exhibitions to see what an excellent print really looks like. ...

Agreed, but let's be careful not to force our idea of 'good' and 'excellent' onto others. I've seen a lot of great stuff in galleries, made by the masters of the field, but I've seen an equal amount of awful junk, just declared to be great because of the signature in the bottom right-hand corner.

So, I propose to go and see the masters, but only if you like what you see is it worth taking another look. Don't be impressed by names, be impressed by images.

In addition, let's not confuse great images with great print making. For example, I've seen great images by Man Ray, Weston and others, but the print making and the presentation was very disappointing. On the other hand, I've seen great prints made by Ansel Adams where the images and the composition were only so so.

Having both together, great images and great print making, is very rare. Surprisingly, I find the best examples more with contemporary artist than with the old masters. This may be due to the age of the print or equipment and material limitations, I don't know. There are exceptions of course, and it's all a matter of personal preference and individual taste.

 

[bwrules]

There is some confusion about prints and photographs. Good photographs don't happen often, and making final prints out of negatives of low value does not make much sense other than to maybe learn printing or mistakes. That's why work prints from less than desired negatives can still be of value because they teach you something.

In any case printing is very cost prohibitive in terms of paper cost and time. There is nothing wrong with sharing your work (which often isn't that great to print anyway, at least for me) through the 'net and viewing it on the screen. I have a hunch as the technology improves there will be less and less demand for prints. That said, I prefer to view photographs on paper (in either silver or book form), but don't mind viewing them on a screen either, if the first choice is unavailable.

 

[MattKing]

A number of years ago Donald Miller (who doesn't seem to participate here any more) made an offer to sell a limited number of what he referred to as "Reference Prints" to members of APUG. His price per print was considerably less than his normal website price. I took him up on his offer. As a result, I have a Donald Miller original that I can use as a reference. It exhibits appropriate macro and micro-contrast, a very long range of tones - with full blacks and well placed and brilliant whites - and subtle and smooth gradations of tone between the two.

Whenever I have a problem negative, and am getting frustrated with my results, it does help to step back and look at:

1) Donald's reference print; and
2) Prints I've received from others (primarily through APUG) that I like; and
3) Other prints I've done that I'm happy with.

I guess this is a roundabout way of saying:

a) I agree with Gerald; and
b) thanks again to Donald.

EDIT: As an interesting aside, I had Donald ship his print to me at my US shipping address and then declared the price I paid when I brought it into Canada. The Canada Customs people questioned the valuation and, right on the spot, searched for and checked Donald's website to determine what the normal value of the print was! If I hadn't had print outs of Donald's APUG offer and our subsequent pm correspondence, I would have had to pay duty on Donald's normal price.

 

[Vaughn]

I'll play Devil's Advocate here.

It was a good ten years after I started to teach myself carbon printing (from a ViewCamera article) before I saw an actual carbon print made by someone else...and what I saw was quite different from mine. I think I benefited from not knowing what a carbon print was "suppose" to look like. I tweaked the process to make prints that I thought expressed the light the best for me.

But I was already a decent silver gelatin printer, and had seen lots of original silver gelatin prints.

 

[ChuckP]

It's getting harder to see B&W silver gelatin prints in even photo shows. The juried show I saw Saturday had only 3 out of 33 exhibited prints. So exchanges are a good idea to see more prints. Also local gatherings where you can see actual prints. And go to workshops but they are getting costly. But some times I think my idea of a good print is trying to force my prejudices on some other person's work.

 

[36cm2]

It's getting harder to see B&W silver gelatin prints in even photo shows. The juried show I saw Saturday had only 3 out of 33 exhibited prints. So exchanges are a good idea to see more prints. Also local gatherings where you can see actual prints. And go to workshops but they are getting costly. But some times I think my idea of a good print is trying to force my prejudices on some other person's work.

I agree with this. I suggest that everyone send me their finest prints and I'll get them back to you right after I've perfected my printing skills... Excellent thread.

Leo

 

[nworth]

I agree strongly with Gerald's original post and with the subsequent comments. Moreover, you can not effectively develop your own capabilities and technique without regularly looking at and evaluating the work of others who may be better than you. Buying prints has real value. But you really need to see a very large and regularly changing selection. You also need to see different styles and subject material. This is pretty easy in large cities and in artistic centers where galleries and museums abound, but it is less so in smaller towns and rural areas. People who live in areas where good photographic exhibitions are not available need to plan visits to exhibitions when they travel or when the exhibitions come to cities within a couple of hundred miles. Unfortunately, photomechanical reproductions just don't work. While they can help you in subject evaluation and composition, there is a huge difference between these reproductions and an actual silver print.

 

[bwrules]

I must say for the most part I am usually pretty unimpressed with what I see, even from masters of the medium. I also find that generally (aside from us printers) when people look at photographs they are mostly unconcerned with print quality.

I am unimpressed with most contemporary stuff at the local galleries, but a couple of years ago I stumbled on the results of a competition judged by Ray K. Metzker in one of the galleries, and was really impressed. The work was interesting and printed well to boot. It's so rare to find interesting contemporary work from new authors. I find ninety percent of stuff in the art world is fluff. I see a lot of gimmicky conceptual work that does not do anything for me. Those galleries must be doing business somehow.

On the other hand, I had a blast at MoMA seeing work of Arbus, Winogrand, Friedlander, Erwitt, Kudelka and others. However, I find that print quality isn't always important depending on type. A decent print of a street photo is enough. Garry Winogrand said that anyone who can make a decent print could print his work.

Also most viewers, unless they are photographers rarely ask a photograph questions. Few care about how a photograph was made and printed. Some photographers create work that is of interest mostly to other photographers whether they are aware of it or not.

 

[Bob Carnie]

I was lucky enough to visit a friend who has a major collection of work.
The most compelling image that I saw was a Garry Winogrand image, five people sitting on a bench and having conversations, believe me when I say this collection had pretty much every major NA artist in print, and this 8x10 print stood out as simply brilliant. There was a Brett Weston that really caught my eye as an outstanding print quality as well, but I was caught off gaurd by the GW image as I never thought of him as a great printer , like Brett Weston.
So whoever made the print for Garry must have been one hell of a printer.

I am unimpressed with most contemporary stuff at the local galleries, but a couple of years ago I stumbled on the results of a competition judged by Ray K. Metzker in one of the galleries, and was really impressed. The work was interesting and printed well to boot. It's so rare to find interesting contemporary work from new authors. I find ninety percent of stuff in the art world is fluff. I see a lot of gimmicky conceptual work that does not do anything for me. Those galleries must be doing business somehow.

On the other hand, I had a blast at MoMA seeing work of Arbus, Winogrand, Friedlander, Erwitt, Kudelka and others. However, I find that print quality isn't always important depending on type. A decent print of a street photo is enough. Garry Winogrand said that anyone who can make a decent print could print his work.

 

[bwrules]

The brilliance could be the photograph alone. I have not seen the print, but it's an awesome photo. Iconic.

 

[Vaughn]

I recently saw a print of Brett's Holland Canal -- the richness of that print sets a very high standard, indeed.

http://www.photographywestgraphics.com/posters/pages/hc.php

I had to do a bit of a google search to find a representaive image -- really shows this limit of screen-based images!

 

[Ian Grant]

I think I'd add that it's just as important to see work you think you might not like. It can be a real eye opener, and you can come away with a different attitude more often than you'd expect.

It's about approaching work with an open mind.

You make an interesting comment about older masters and quality Ralph. I've found modern prints from people like Kertesz, Bresson (pre WWII) etc look poor when you see modern prints, but the original contemporary prints made at the time are quite different, jewel like, much smaller. Because films the used were nowhere near as good in terms of grain size & sharpness etc, they realised that using smaller formats opened up opportunities but at a compromise.

Some of the most disappointing prints I've seen from "The Masters" were actually Ansel Adams it was a show of work from his daughters collection that was touring the UK and elsewhere about 3 years ago. There was a thread here at the time and quite a few people made similar comments.

Ian

Agreed, but let's be careful not to force our idea of 'good' and 'excellent' onto others. I've seen a lot of great stuff in galleries, made by the masters of the field, but I've seen an equal amount of awful junk, just declared to be great because of the signature in the bottom right-hand corner.

So, I propose to go and see the masters, but only if you like what you see is it worth taking another look. Don't be impressed by names, be impressed by images.

In addition, let's not confuse great images with great print making. For example, I've seen great images by Man Ray, Weston and others, but the print making and the presentation was very disappointing. On the other hand, I've seen great prints made by Ansel Adams where the images and the composition were only so so.

Having both together, great images and great print making, is very rare. Surprisingly, I find the best examples more with contemporary artist than with the old masters. This may be due to the age of the print or equipment and material limitations, I don't know. There are exceptions of course, and it's all a matter of personal preference and individual taste.

 

[Klainmeister]

Here in SF is the Andrew Smtih gallery full of the masters. Highly recommended for anyone coming thru the area.

 

[bwrules]

Also Fraenkel Gallery.

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

I've seen an equal amount of awful junk, just declared to be great because of the signature in the bottom right-hand corner.

Case in point was the recent Helen Levitt exhibit at Stanford [Palo Alto, California]. The charitable explanation for the lack of quality would be that the prints were digital, though output to photographic paper. The grain had been removed so they were uniformly fuzzy and they had been 'gamma corrected' to they looked good on an LCD monitor [one would hope they looked good somewhere]. Better to buy the book.

Another example of horrid printing is in the Merideth collection of prints by Ansel Adams. The majority date to 1975 or thereabouts - it seems they were made by Adams for a ready-to-exhibit-in-toto collection. The prints were shockingly bad - in large part from expectations brought on by seeing earlier work. Much better quality can be had by cutting out and framing the prints from an Ansel Adams' wall calender. The Cleveland Museum of art had this to say "They share the strong contrast and large size that Adams preferred during those years, frequently avoiding the middle tones": soot-and-chalk anyone? The horrid dim lighting at the exhibition did not help.

Quite often the best examples of a photographer's output are in books. Paul Strand put most of his effort into preparing the books of his work and little into prints for exhibition.

 

[Bob Carnie]

Yes and Yes , but the print really was outstanding .

The brilliance could be the photograph alone. I have not seen the print, but it's an awesome photo. Iconic.