The Printmakers Art

[Allen Friday]

How about Art and Means. Art is what I want to convey, Means is the method I use to accomplish it. Sometimes I succeed, sometimes I fail. The better I get at the Means, however, the less chance there is I will fail because I don't have the skill or knowledge to express what I want to convey in a meaningful way.

 

[Klainmeister]

I don't know what everyone is getting on about here. It's just a bunch of opinions going back and forth, and as far as I can tell, everyone has a valid point (whether or not I agree is another matter). 2f/2f I think accurately described what I felt when I first read this thread and the responses to him have been interesting. It was a decent paraphrase and I'd stand by that as well.

To each their own, let the democracy of time determine if you are a better printer/photographer/critic/yadayada. Thoreau was ignored in his day and Hawthorne celebrated, but 150 years later.....

 

[ronlamarsh]

Totally agree

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.

I totally agree, that which is exhibited in Galleries and Muesums is often selected by a very small minority of people who bring their own particular values to the table. What sells in table top books is very dependent upon "what is popular" at the time. As an example of personal taste I would not hang anything done by Warhol in my house.....I don't like his work and it does nothing for me. Salvador Dali is a different matter. So much of "what sells" is the buyers/exhibiter's personal taste how can we use that a a measuring stick? I find much more inspiration in local coffee houses and restuarants that exhibit work done by local artists who make a living with a day job! This keeps it honest and pure. In my humble opinion to make a living at art one will sooner or later have to compromise their values so they can get the money. That said we are all not great artists either as another poster on this site so aptly said " one must know their place also".

 

[Klainmeister]

Speak for yourself ronlamarsh! I know I'm the best printmaker on earth!

 

[anon12345]

Speak for yourself ronlamarsh! I know I'm the best printmaker on earth!

Being associated with one of the "Gods of Printmaking" has been a long-time desire of mine. Would this deity be generous enough to list the steps required to create a good photographic print? Fine prints would be finer. But, being as greedy as I am, I want to create "Exquisitely Executed Fine Prints" on a regular basis.


Maybe there's a good book on this subject? Mr. A's book "The Print" gives general advice on fine print making. I'm sure there must be more detailed instruction in print.

 

[Klainmeister]

Being associated with one of the "Gods of Printmaking" has been a long-time desire of mine. Would this deity be generous enough to list the steps required to create a good photographic print? Fine prints would be finer. But, being as greedy as I am, I want to create "Exquisitely Executed Fine Prints" on a regular basis.


Maybe there's a good book on this subject? Mr. A's book "The Print" gives general advice on fine print making. I'm sure there must be more detailed instruction in print.

First, you'll need a trust fund.
Second, best equipment and ample time to practice.
Third, ??????
Fourth, Profit!

 

[anon12345]

I should like to add the following into the mix of thoughts . . .

"A straight photograph, that is, one in which the worker has not altered either outlines or values, is inevitably a machine product, a record of fact, lovely though it may be, and as such cannot be classed with work in which the artist has expressed, by various artifices, the soul that lines behind the material aspect." Paul L. Anderson, 1919

This is not a revelation, but in may explain in part why so many prints (pictures) are mediocre.

 

[Klainmeister]

I should like to add the following into the mix of thoughts . . .

"A straight photograph, that is, one in which the worker has not altered either outlines or values, is inevitably a machine product, a record of fact, lovely though it may be, and as such cannot be classed with work in which the artist has expressed, by various artifices, the soul that lines behind the material aspect." Paul L. Anderson, 1919

This is not a revelation, but in may explain in part why so many prints (pictures) are mediocre.

Ummm, what about composition, choice of equipment and film, etc....what is this so called "straight photograph"?

 

[anon12345]

Ummm, what about composition, choice of equipment and film, etc....what is this so called "straight photograph"?

One photographer in his book refers to "straight" as an unmanipulated print. This is in reference to a work print, and just before he goes through extensive dodging and burning of an example print.

I would say then, that my definition of a "straight print" or "straight photograph" would also have to be "Unmanipulated".

He also states early on, referring to Fine Prints . . . "the emotionally satisfying print values are almost never direct transcriptions of the negative values. If they are, the print may be informative, but often no more than that."

I find "straight prints" to be extremely valuable, especially as far as historical records are concerned. These images are time capsules of what was in front of the lens the instant the shutter-release was depressed. In my opinion if the photographer has manipulated the print values within the picture to express his/her vision for the picture, then this is not a "straight print" or "straight photograph".

 

[Klainmeister]

So essentially anything that required human thought before is not involved, but simply the output mechanics? (I'm not being particular, I'm just curious because i feel it's hard to take a straight....fact based image.)

 

[anon12345]

So essentially anything that required human thought before is not involved, but simply the output mechanics? (I'm not being particular, I'm just curious because i feel it's hard to take a straight....fact based image.)

Could you rephrase this one for me. I'd gladly give my thoughts, but I think I'm missing something in the translation.

 

[markbarendt]

I find "straight" printing a very useful tool and a great way to visualize and discuss how the scene and film and paper interact. The "straight" process though is not an unmanipulated process.

By putting a polarizer or skylight filter in front of the lens we are changing the response of the film to the scene, we get to see beyond the surface of the water or glass or past the "flare" that is blocking our view. Using a red filter is no different in method or degree, it is only different in the "choice" of "which" manipulation we choose to use.

If we choose Delta 100 at 100 over Tri-X at 3200, we are manipulating the texture and detail of the scene.

Change the f-stop and we change how/what we focus the viewers eyes on in the scene. Shoot in a "Pictorial manner" instead of an "f-64" manner and you focus the viewers attention differently again.

Choosing - or + or normal development for our film manipulates how much of the film's curve will "straight" print on to a certain paper.

Manipulate the papers development regime and again you have had the opportunity to change the look without dodging and burning.

My point here here is simply that straight photography is a great technical term but not one that should be used to suggest a "reality" of some sort.

Heck just composing a shot is cherry picking. Turn the camera left or right a few degrees and you can change that reality from the success of a robber baron to the plight of a homeless child.

Photography is, and always has been, a subjective endeavor.

One photographer in his book refers to "straight" as an unmanipulated print. This is in reference to a work print, and just before he goes through extensive dodging and burning of an example print.

I would say then, that my definition of a "straight print" or "straight photograph" would also have to be "Unmanipulated".

He also states early on, referring to Fine Prints . . . "the emotionally satisfying print values are almost never direct transcriptions of the negative values. If they are, the print may be informative, but often no more than that."

I find "straight prints" to be extremely valuable, especially as far as historical records are concerned. These images are time capsules of what was in front of the lens the instant the shutter-release was depressed. In my opinion if the photographer has manipulated the print values within the picture to express his/her vision for the picture, then this is not a "straight print" or "straight photograph".

 

[anon12345]

I find "straight" printing a very useful tool and a great way to visualize and discuss how the scene and film and paper interact. The "straight" process though is not an unmanipulated process.

By putting a polarizer or skylight filter in front of the lens we are changing the response of the film to the scene, we get to see beyond the surface of the water or glass or past the "flare" that is blocking our view. Using a red filter is no different in method or degree, it is only different in the "choice" of "which" manipulation we choose to use.

If we choose Delta 100 at 100 over Tri-X at 3200, we are manipulating the texture and detail of the scene.

Change the f-stop and we change how/what we focus the viewers eyes on in the scene. Shoot in a "Pictorial manner" instead of an "f-64" manner and you focus the viewers attention differently again.

Choosing - or + or normal development for our film manipulates how much of the film's curve will "straight" print on to a certain paper.

Manipulate the papers development regime and again you have had the opportunity to change the look without dodging and burning.

My point here here is simply that straight photography is a great technical term but not one that should be used to suggest a "reality" of some sort.

Heck just composing a shot is cherry picking. Turn the camera left or right a few degrees and you can change that reality from the success of a robber baron to the plight of a homeless child.

Photography is, and always has been, a subjective endeavor.

I agree. The photographer has numerous opportunities to inject variables into the process, that ultimately alter the results in print (the photograph, the picture). Though, I don't consider camera-work a printing process per se; I am addressing the printing process and the manipulation of the negative/plate and manipulations made during printing vs. no manipulation.

Photography is, and always has been, a subjective endeavor.

True. I also see it as a photochemical reaction with predictable results.

 

[markbarendt]

I am addressing the printing process and the manipulation of the negative/plate and manipulations made during printing vs. no manipulation.

Even here it is absolutely subjective.

Negatives generally have a long curves that hold at least 3-5 stops more detail than can be printed on a given paper in a "straight manner".

We are not even limited by the films latitude. A "straight print" can be made from any portion of a negative we want "highlighting" whatever subject we please in the process.

There is simply no such thing as an unmanipulated print.

 

[anon12345]

When I make family snapshots using film, I seldom alter the print values beyond choosing a contrast filter and suitable inexpensive paper. Of course that is manipulation, but that is not enough to raise the print above it's current status. Dodging and burning never enter into the picture because it is after-all it is just a copy of what was in front of the camera. In this case the prints are made specifically for their content. They are not created to be expressive. Anderson used the phrase "a record of fact". I think it is appropriate for this type of print.

There are so many opportunities for a photographer who prints his own work to raise the status of their work above that of copy-work. I think the most advantageous place is in the darkroom. Others may disagree, and they should if their work satisfies them.

 

[markbarendt]

When I make family snapshots using film, I seldom alter the print values beyond choosing a contrast filter and suitable inexpensive paper. Of course that is manipulation, but that is not enough to raise the print above it's current status. Dodging and burning never enter into the picture because it is after-all it is just a copy of what was in front of the camera. In this case the prints are made specifically for their content. They are not created to be expressive. Anderson used the phrase "a record of fact". I think it is appropriate for this type of print.

There are so many opportunities for a photographer who prints his own work to raise the status of their work above that of copy-work. I think the most advantageous place is in the darkroom. Others may disagree, and they should if their work satisfies them.

I think you are selling yourself short.

As normal and mundane as the choices you are making may seem, you are actually making decisions about your snaps that most people never make.