Sean said:
So does this mean the final work should be signed by two then?
photograph name... photograph by John Doe print by Joe Bloggs
or
photograph name... photograph by John Doe print by Imaging Company name
If people are making a firm distinction between the photographer and the printer, then it seems only fair the printer gets due recognition as well depending on his involvement..
Not at all - if you sign your prints in that way it probably indicates some sort of aspirations towards being an "artist" or "creator" - in which case, in parallel with most other similar art forms, the printer is viewed as a craftsman working under the direction of the artist (e.g. in some US States which have laws governing the sale of art and about what exactly is or isn't an "original", what is an edition and so on, that is how it is defined).
You could equally in some ways ask why it is that most photographers don't coat and use their own plates? (convenience?) But some photographers do. Does that make Sally Man that much more of a true photographer because she coats her plates, exposes them and makes the image, and then develops and prints them? Presumably she is more of a photographer than someone who just buys their film from a store?
In part I think it's tied up with the perhaps excessive fetish for the print as an object in and of itself in photography.
Yet a good (however you want to define that) photograph should be able to stand on it's own - whether the printing is mediocre or excellent. Good printing can,perhaps add something to it, but it isn't the most essential elements. Who was it that said any good photograph should be able to stand as a Xerox? (before the days of laser copiers). There is some truth to that. I have an old 1970 cheap paperback of Let US Now Praise Famous Men - the text pages are yellowed. The front sections which holds the photographs has screening so large you can just about see the dots from normal viewing distance. Yet the strength and meaning of the images still comes through clearly. Or look at Atget. If you've ever studied any of his original prints you'll generally find they are pretty workmanlike - yes, he was working with basic materials in those days - but the prints generally aren't especially polished and the work is often a little slapdash. Truth is, they don't really need to be perfect - the content of them just doesn't require it. The photogorpahs are so much much more than just the particualr print
For me, it's the content of the photograph which is primary, not it's presentation - which can take numerous forms (nor what film it was shot on or what camera or format was used). Yes - wonderful printing does add something - I just bought a lovely Pd Print because it was so attractive - but it should never be the essential component of the photograph.
A good photograph may often by aided and possibly even improved by excellent printing - but it should never be essential to it. A bad photograph can never be made better by even the most wonderful of hand printing. Every photographer wants their work presented int he best possible way and for it to be as close to their vision as possible. It's up to any individual photogorpaher whether they chose to do that themselves, or find someone who can do work with them to that for them.
What's that hoaky old St. Ansel quote - the negative is the score and the print is the performance? No analogy is ever entirly accurate, but not every composer plays their own work (or can even play their
