The Printmakers Art

From what I understand, Yousuf Karsh did not do his own printing -- but saw his work as a collaberation between himself, his studio assistants and his printer. Not the way I work, but I can see where this is a very valid way of working.

Click to expand...

IIRC Walker Evans was not very good at printing, but nevertheless he is responsible for starting the whole street and documentary genre.

Vaughn said:

I recently saw an incredible large silver gelatin print of this Yousuf Karsh image:

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl...page=1&ndsp=13&ved=1t:429,r:4,s:0&tx=46&ty=43

From what I understand, Yousuf Karsh did not do his own printing -- but saw his work as a collaberation between himself, his studio assistants and his printer. Not the way I work, but I can see where this is a very valid way of working.

Click to expand...

Vaughn:

As I understand it, Karsh either did his own printing, or supervised it very closely. I've recorded a really excellent 2009 documentary on Karsh that Bravo Canada broadcasted recently ("Karsh is History") and it included a lot of discussion about his darkroom techniques (he had his own favourite recipes for chemistry).

My sense is that the darkroom work for him was done essentially "on site".

Hi Matt,

I agree...that is what I meant by a collaberation -- the printing was not just handed off to the printer, but they worked very closely together...with the printer's input being as important (and treated as such by Karsh) as the photographer's. And I can see where this working together would be benefited if Karsh was intimate with the process to begin with.

I see this as very different than sending off a file (or negative) to a printer to be tweaked and printed "off site".

Boy, this is a really scary thread. There is so much to say about the many relevant points being aired. All of it personal opinion revolving around the OP's cogent observation...

... OK, having screwed up my confidence and now attired in asbestos clothing, here are some thoughts.

The APUG forums are a lie. "Analog" photography techniques are discussed here digitally both in text and image. We use digital devices and representations to educate, elucidate, illustrate, compare and contrast, and in many cases, self-promote business enterprises. Is it any wonder that users confuse image making with print making?

I suspect that most users of the Large Format Photography Forum, while invested in what may be the most traditional of analog tools, simply scan their film for presentation and digital printing. Very confusing, especially in Image Sharing threads, where images are exhibited by either film or (less-likely) print scans.

I have made it a personal choice that all exhibit images, of course presented digitally on my own site, be at least scanned from finished prints. It is by necessity that my photographs are viewed mainly (i.e., globally) in this oxymoronically "imperfect" digital form. But these light-transmitted, on-line representations don't really look like the finished, light-reflective prints. In fact, it so unnerves me that buyers consider a purchase without ever having seen the actual (unique) print that I require personal contact rather than sticking "Buy" buttons underneath them.

The acceptance of photography as a legitimate art form has, at its core, always been bedeviled by the repeatability of its image making. That is one reason why photographers are not necessarily considered to be artists, simply by virtue of exposing light sensitive material.

My POV is that print making is a necessary part of the photography artistic process. While there have and are many great photographers, I wouldn't consider any to be artists unless they've made there own prints. The print quality, good or bad, is an entirely different matter altogether – sometimes subjective, but certainly also by any objective criteria. But then, this site is not the Artistic Photography Users Group.

A darkroom lab is a commitment to the art of photography. Though many photography enthusiasts cannot devote space, time, or monetary resources to to traditional printing, it really defines the enterprise of unique, hand made artistic endeavor.

Size may be relevant as well. While grain-less, tonally beautiful artistic jewels can be accomplished in normal print sizes, I find enlarged "less than technically perfect" mural photographs, to stand on their own, sometimes bridging the gap between painting and photography, both in difficulty of execution and dimension.

Frankly, I don't know why commercial analog printers don't sign their names underneath the photographer's on the finished print – except that might not get them as much work .

My POV is that print making is a necessary part of the photography artistic process. While there have and are many great photographers, I wouldn't consider any to be artists unless they've made there own prints.

Click to expand...

Printing can be an artistic process, but it does not necessarily need to be performed by the photographer. It's possible for artists to let others do it for them as long as the artists dictate the final results.

Vaughn said:

...that is what I meant by a collaberation...

Click to expand...

No matter how close this collaboration was, only Karsh gets the credit. Actually, it's always the image taker who gets the credit, never the printer. Not quite fair, considering that the darkroom work has such a significant input to the whole creative process.

ROL said:

... The APUG forums are a lie. "Analog" photography techniques are discussed here digitally both in text and image. We use digital devices and representations to educate, elucidate, illustrate, compare and contrast, and in many cases, self-promote business enterprises. ...

Click to expand...

ROL

I agree (to a point), but this has been discussed so many times on APUG, and really has nothing to do with the original post.

I agree. Nothing is more important to me than a good print. I spend a whole day recently on one photograph and the next day, ripped them all up. The snap crackle and pop just wasn't there, thanks in part to 'dry down.' I will forever lament the loss of Agfa Brovira.

Gerald C Koch said:

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.

Click to expand...

Translation: "Most of you people freaking suck; you need to learn what the hell you are doing."

Do you feel better now that you have informed a bunch of people on the Internet that you, a complete stranger, think these things?

I may agree with you that most photographers suck and have no idea what they are doing. However, I would say that this has always been the case; it has nothing to do with the medium or the age. Some people are just good at things, and others ain't. Some photographers have eyes, and some don't. It ain't news, and there ain't much to say or do about it. There certainly isn't going to be a damned thing anyone can do to change it in a full-grown human being. Grown people are usually going to either suck or not suck, regardless of what is said to them, and who says it. They are going to suck or not suck based on their own mind and how they use it, their degree of self awareness (i.e. ability to analyze oneself and change one's behavior), and based on how hard they work to enact this change.

But if you think you are going to be the one to make peoples' minds work "better" by telling them they suck and need to learn what they are doing, you are just plain wrong. So, what was the point of your post, other than to say, "Most of you people freaking suck; you need to learn what the hell you are doing?" There is none. It is nothing but a venting of hatred, which is perfectly ok, but probably not in this particular forum on A.P.U.G. Take it to the Soapbox.

Additionally, this might also work well in the philosophy forum.

I think to suck less, as much as addictive these forums are, we should spend more time shooting.

I have to agree entirely with the original post - until one can see a "great" print it is difficult to measure your own work against that standard.

However, the opportunity to view prints of that standard in person can be difficult for some people. The web, inspite of all its disadvantages of print presentation can be useful to see different styles of "print" or image presentation i.e. very contrasty and harsh, very soft and muted or full tone representation (within the limits of the medium). This has a downside, in that one can end up trying to emulate a particular style rather than developing owns own style or "tune". Sarah Moon anyone?

I tend to feel that the extrapolation that one cannot be a good photographer unless one can print to the highest standard is slightly disingenuous, as is the suggestion that the "artist" has to print, mount and frame all their own work to be a valid "artist".

Weren't many photographers with an artistic eye said to be successful and good despite having work printed by others? Sure idealy, the "complete" photographer can take a visually interesting photo, master the technical aspects of the camera and film, be able to print like a genius etc etc but that is an ideal. Not everyone can reach those heights.

Having someone else print your work can be a help when learning about b/w film/development as it can be a fixed reference point to check ones understanding against i.e. that looks muddy because I underexposed the film or that looks grainy because I overdeloped the film. Taking the variable of printing out of the equation (when learning) can help to understand the neg.

Additionaly, some comments seem to dismiss the ability of someone who can actualy print to a high level but can't take a picture for love nor money - why should not photographers who can shoot be able to send them "interesting" negs for them to weave the magic on. I think there can be few things as dispiriting as seeing a technically beautiful print of a sterile subject.

Dangerous thread, but an interesting one.

Sim2
*off to hide*

RalphLambrecht said:

..., it's always the image taker who gets the credit, never the printer. Not quite fair, considering that the darkroom work has such a significant input to the whole creative process.

Click to expand...

Having seen many of the images that get foisted on Bob Carnie, and after witnessing the final print, I am in complete agreement.

Since this is APUG I hope my off-centre personal madness may get some sympathy:

The "print" is actually THE PHOTOGRAPH. It consists of a collection of marks occasioned by the impact of light in a sensitive emulsion. What more qualities does a thing have to have in order to qualify as a photograph? Surely the presence of paper under the emulsion instead of film-base doesn't condemn the picture to mere "print" status instead of exalted "photograph" status.

The negative that emerges from camera-work is A PHOTOGRAPH but it is really no more than the main subject matter for what happens next. It gets photographed! Photographing (or is that re-photographing?) camera negatives using paper-based sensitive emulsions is just as much photography as photographing anything on film.

It is a tragedy of ignorance, habituation, and history that the making of photographs on paper has become inextricably muddled with "printing". Think this isn't so? If photographs are prints then surely prints can be photographs. Remember this next time someone offers you an inkjet print-out and calls it a photograph.

What of people who don't make photographs but get called photographers?

Nadar, the 19th century portraitist, at the height of his fame never even touched a camera or went into the darkroom. He had "mechanics" do that stuff. He schmoozed portrait sitters and made posing suggestions. "Portraitist" maybe; "photographer" never.

Henri Cartier-Bresson did a lot of point 'n click, sometimes a hundred rolls in a weekend, but took no part in what happened next except to rage if the results failed to support his own legend. Call him a "camera-man" certainly but never a "photographer".

These days most images on surfaces are fabricated from electronic files and I see no problem in calling them "pictures". Declaring them as "photographs" or even "digital photographs" (sic) crosses an ethical line commercially, professionally, and personally. I speak out against this moral squalor publicly and privately and I have lost digi-friends over the matter. Worth it? Yes.

I don't see the point of all that, Maris. Photography has become a rather loosely defined word that is no longer (was it ever?) confined to its literal translation. There is no point in making it exclusionary, except to make one feels better about one's own work, i.e. elitism. Why care whether inkjets are called "photographs" or not, or whether a person who shoots but does not print is a "photographer?" If you don't like them, don't print them and don't buy them. But to deny that the word has taken on any meaning other than "light writing," or whatever the hell it means, is blind and pointless. Words change. Meanings shift and evolve. That is the nature of language. No one is being done any service by having strict definitions for artistic media thrown around, nor are they having it done by the loose use of the word photograph.

2F/2F

I do not understand your rant, I offered a suggestion concerning how people could improve their knowledge. Please don't try to put words in my mouth it was you who said "suck."

BTW, my post has nothing to do with philosophy. I was not defining good or bad but suggesting how people could learn these things for themselves.

I am not a stranger to APUG having posted here for many years. The current join date is not correct as I was not able to post for a few years.

To paraphrase:

"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."

The evidence proves that many people here do not know in the slightest "what a good print should look like."

In these few words, we already have two major underlying assumptions stated that may or may not be true, not to even mention the surface statement as to the content of the work and discussion on A.P.U.G.:

- The OP knows what a good print looks like; he is an authority in an elite position
- There is such a thing as a universally "good print" based solely on technical criteria.

Both of these are unprovable statements at best.

We have a strong establishment of the tone and of an assumed position of the writer. Additionally, the use of the word "fear" sets an overly dramatic tone and adds to the tone of self importance.

"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 believe this because I have seen things that prove it to me. People are asking dumb questions and not asking good ones. People are in love with techniques that do not produce "a good print."

This first paraphrased sentence is tautology through and through; the statement is true simply by being there. These sentences further shore up the possibly-very-incorrect major assumptions stated in the first paragraph. Additionally, consistency of tone is maintained; the writer is a self-appointed authority here to educate the unwashed masses.

"I don't wish to get into specifics as this will only confuse the intent of this thread."

But I am not going to bother to support any of these grand statements and judgments.

If I was going to critically and colloquially summarize the content and tone of this paragraph, and also respond to it in a single passage that makes my own views on it clear, the way I would do it is: "Most of you people freaking suck; you need to learn what the hell you are doing."

So, I think that what I wrote was quite calm and at least somewhat thought out, not a "rant." Informal, yes; opinionated, yes. But not a rant.

I gotta say this: Mr. 2f/2f, whoever you are, whatever your real name, I always cringe when I see the next post is from you because I know the thread is about to take a nose dive into the ad hominem. Not that you are the only practitioner here (and I agree with your reading of some of the original post here), but you consistently bury your insight and experience, which you do not lack, in vitriol. Dig it out man, and offer it in a nice way. People (like me) will listen to you more.

Chill, dude. Chill other dudes.

2F/2F said:

To paraphrase:

"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."

The evidence proves that many people here do not know in the slightest "what a good print should look like."

In these few words, we already have two major underlying assumptions stated that may or may not be true, not to even mention the surface statement as to the content of the work and discussion on A.P.U.G.:

- The OP knows what a good print looks like; he is an authority in an elite position
- There is such a thing as a universally "good print" based solely on technical criteria.

Both of these are unprovable statements at best.

We have a strong establishment of the tone and of an assumed position of the writer. Additionally, the use of the word "fear" sets an overly dramatic tone and adds to the tone of self importance.

"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 believe this because I have seen things that prove it to me. People are asking dumb questions and not asking good ones. People are in love with techniques that do not produce "a good print."

This first paraphrased sentence is tautology through and through; the statement is true simply by being there. These sentences further shore up the possibly-very-incorrect major assumptions stated in the first paragraph. Additionally, consistency of tone is maintained; the writer is a self-appointed authority here to educate the unwashed masses.

"I don't wish to get into specifics as this will only confuse the intent of this thread."

But I am not going to bother to support any of these grand statements and judgments.

If I was going to critically and colloquially summarize the content and tone of this paragraph, and also respond to it in a single passage that makes my own views on it clear, the way I would do it is: "Most of you people freaking suck; you need to learn what the hell you are doing."

So, I think that what I wrote was quite calm and at least somewhat thought out, not a "rant." Informal, yes; opinionated, yes. But not a rant.

Click to expand...

Thanks for that, I got a good laugh out of it.

tomalophicon said:

Thanks for that, I got a good laugh out of it.

Click to expand...

Glad someone can appreciate some humor without it needing to be plainly stated.

Someone actually asked me to use <sarcasm brackets> the other day. WHAT! Are you &#$^ serious?

jglass said:

I gotta say this: Mr. 2f/2f, whoever you are, whatever your real name, I always cringe when I see the next post is from you because I know the thread is about to take a nose dive into the ad hominem. Not that you are the only practitioner here (and I agree with your reading of some of the original post here), but you consistently bury your insight and experience, which you do not lack, in vitriol. Dig it out man, and offer it in a nice way. People (like me) will listen to you more.

Chill, dude. Chill other dudes.

Click to expand...

I'm a critic; what are you gonna do about it? (And no, I don't mean that "whaddayagonnado" as a challenge, but in a humorous way.) I truly don't care to be respected or have fans - only to accurately get my thoughts on issues onto paper (or Web, or whatever). If it is vitriolic, it is not by accident. The best and most effective criticism and humor can be quite stinging and dry. I am a nice guy, but I am also versatile. And I believe, through whatever has made me who I am, that acting nice is a tactic that does not always work for the situation at hand.

As for going ad hominem, I think that this is actually closer to what you are doing - attempting to link the validity of my posts to my personal character. I simply offered my critical analysis, summary, and response to of a piece of writing that I found to be in need of harsh criticism. And part of why it needed harsh criticism was in the character being assumed by the writer. I was not attacking his character in order to crush the work as a whole, but simply trying to analyze how tone was affecting the truthfulness and objectivity of the work. Read all my posts, and you will see that your judgment of me is only correct situationally, not on the whole.

jglass said:

I gotta say this: Mr. 2f/2f, whoever you are, whatever your real name, I always cringe when I see the next post is from you because I know the thread is about to take a nose dive into the ad hominem. Not that you are the only practitioner here (and I agree with your reading of some of the original post here), but you consistently bury your insight and experience, which you do not lack, in vitriol. Dig it out man, and offer it in a nice way. People (like me) will listen to you more.

Chill, dude. Chill other dudes.

Click to expand...

Well said.

bwrules said:

I think to suck less, as much as addictive these forums are, we should spend more time shooting.

Click to expand...

I agree. I say this often to the many students I work with. Effective practice, i.e. hard and consistent work, goes a loooong way in photography; it is perhaps the most important thing aside from natural ability. IMHO one will gain much more personal capability and confidence by practicing and discovering by oneself than by striving to meet commonly-accepted technical standards or modeling ones work after established artists. These technical standards are basic material in any good beginning photo textbook – good reading/knowledge/ability for everyone, for sure, but not the be all and end all of "good prints." We can't get all up in arms because some people are not at a certain level of technical quality. There is no point in working ourselves up over it. We just need to improve ourselves constantly and help others when we can. Someone will often ask me how I was able to get such and such a shot, when they have had trouble getting similar shots (usually low light, moving subjects, and other journalistic shots). Their problem is usually that they don't shoot enough; they don't practice enough. The answer isn't anything but PRACTICE, PRACTICE, PRACTICE. Having shot for a newspaper when I was learning photography, I shot a lot in terrible, one-of-a-kind shooting situations. Practice, practice, practice teaches you anticipation and preparation, and that is what gets shots in those situations. It isn't like I magically showed up my first day at the newspaper able to do my job well.

Gerald C Koch said:

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.

Click to expand...

Are we discussing the mechanical processes of creating a quality print in the darkroom?

or

Are we discussing what is required to create a "good picture" in a print?

It seems to me that we have several subjects running in parallel within the thread.

Viewing original prints has inspired me to no end, but sadly I have never found a print that would talk. Maybe I haven't been using the proper interrogation techniques.

visual hearing

Cesaraugusta said:

Are we discussing the mechanical processes of creating a quality print in the darkroom?

or

Are we discussing what is required to create a "good picture" in a print?

It seems to me that we have several subjects running in parallel within the thread.

Viewing original prints has inspired me to no end, but sadly I have never found a print that would talk. Maybe I haven't been using the proper interrogation techniques.

Click to expand...

Or maybe your eyes aren't listening!

And I agree about the parallel topics running here. I draw a distinction between the craft of printing, which involves the rendering of beautiful tones onto a piece of paper (more or less) and the art of photography, which, to me, is more about the rendering of an emotion or a thought or a statement about art itself onto a piece of paper.

Accomplished printing is not always necessary to creating a work of art. Nor is it necessary, even, that art be pleasing to the eye, in the conventional sense. One example of this approach is Stephen Shore who, as I recall, set out to depart from making "pleasing pictures." His art was about something else: space, geometry, the real, etc. His prints, however, in books at least, ended up having a beauty of their own.

Beautiful pictures are not necessarily pleasing pictures.

This thread, on the other hand, is more about the craft of printing, which is also what I consider APUG to be about. But, finally, the two come together in this thread because one learns art AND craft from looking at good pictures that inspire.