What is a photographic print

[kfed1984]

Starting a new thread from a previous discussion on digital vs. analog

I feel the need to release myself for a few minutes in this post:

I don't see why it has to be original light, and if we bring chemistry into the discussion then yes, we can call it Photochemography, as the light is first used to selectively activate the medium for the chemical processes afterwards. A digital image can also become a Photochemograph if it is exposed on Chromogenic or B&W Silver-Gelatin paper with a digital laser-exposure printer and developed with chemistry (C-type print). Then it becomes much closer to true photography. Also, these printers can produce very high-resolution photographs if the original digital image is high-resolution.

If you print with an inkjet ink on "photographic" inkjet paper, then what you obtain is an inkjetograph, of some sort. An inkjetograph from an original digital image, which was a phototelegram or photogram rather than photograph..

Gene Nocon puts it very nicely at the end of this interview, even though he praises digital for its technical possibilities:


If you're talking about using the original light in photography, there are direct positive methods for both color and B&W. Think of Polaroid for example, which produces positives instead of negatives using direct light. While these may not be technically the best, some of these B&W methods produce hauntingly interesting and detailed images on large format, indeed probably because they're produced by the original light. In these processes the medium was in fact touched by the subject being photographed, though indirectly. The photographed subjects are basically stamping/imprinting themselves on the medium. I like to think of analog photography as taking finger-prints of reality; you have more than information in this process, you've got a physical object/imprint. This object potentially carries a degree of quantum entanglement - more on this later, but that's only my speculation.

A digital image is like a scan of that fingerprint, you only have information, but no object. The original object in a digital camera is the sensor with electrical charges selectively distributed on it by the optical image, but then this object disappears when the charges are taken off the sensor during reading and sent to the SD card, then telegrammed to the computer, then the drive, then the short term memory of the printer, etc., etc.

When we talk about other analog printing processes like engravings, etchings, woodcuts, etc. we care about more than just information (x-y coordinates on paper and shade), we also care about the process used to make the final print and the final physical print. Albrecht Durer's paper engravings are worth tens of thousands, because the paper has been touched very intimately by his copper plate, which physically transferred the ink that his shop applied by hand to the plate, etc, etc. An ultra-high resolution scan of his engraving is not worth much, as its just information. We understand and appreciate these things for such processes but not for photography for some reason. Probably because photography has been hijacked by ink-jetters.

I remember when "photographic" inkjet paper was coming out in the 90s, and I could not understand how they could call it photographic, as its not light-sensitive, it was so obvious. It just felt like false advertisement at first, but over the years became forcefully instilled in our minds. I am saying this while not selling any images at all. I also find it kind of difficult to appreciate how one can sell an inkjet print while calling it a photograph. Kind of like selling sand at the beach, there's nothing special about it.

I can also get very deep into the potential quantum entanglement between the object + film and between the operator + film + the final print. Though this involves the concepts of quantum-based nature of human consciousness proposed by Sir Roger Penrose, and the possibility that we gain insight into the world around us via a non-information-based consciousness. Film-based photography can allow this, while digital is only information. But I personally don't need any of these explanations, because digital is just not interesting (because of the abovementioned I think). It may be a lot more superior in its efficiency but there's just something onanistic about it. The final apparent outcome is the same or even "better", but you're missing the point of it all and feel a bit deprived. I know what it is being in the digital world myself with digital SLRs.

Additionally, what is the best "look" obtained in digital imaging? Probably the "film look", with artificial grain and the film S-curve. I think Fuji makes a camera with these presets. There's something unauthentic about this. While the best digital look, just looks digital.... Along with the very digital looking ink droplets on "photographic" inkjet paper. When taking digital snapshots and printing on inkjet you are always aware that anybody can buy one of billions of high-res stock images online for under $1, give it the "film look" or some other look and send it out to Walmart print-center for ink-jetting, or one of thousands master ink-jetters in the city. Its like selling sand at the beach, very demoralizing for me. For others maybe not, as somebody was able to sell a very digital NFT for 60 million. But I would not count on this, as exception is not the rule.

In saying this I am not against digital as it is a different medium altogether, a digital media. I think digital can become very interesting if used in a hybrid process with C-type prints (chromogenic or silver-gelatin) where light-sensitive mediums are involved. Also digital technology can be used to make awesome color-carbon prints, which are true pigment prints, much more easily than with analog methods. These processes make extensive use of light to call them photographic, and enough labor to sufficiently entangle the artist/operator with their print.

 

[kfed1984]

Chat GPT4 interpretation of my earlier post, if unintelligible:

The person is delving into a nuanced discussion about the differences between analog and digital photography, especially with respect to the underlying processes and the value attributed to the final product.

1. Terminology & Processes: They introduce the term "Photochemography" to describe a process where light selectively activates a medium for subsequent chemical reactions, differentiating it from simple digital or inkjet printing. A C-type print, where a digital image is exposed on light-sensitive paper and developed chemically, is given as an example that comes closer to "true photography."
2. Value of the Medium: The person argues that in analog photography, you have a physical object that is more than just information. They refer to it as a "fingerprint of reality," speculating about the potential of quantum entanglement between the photographed subject and the medium.
3. Digital vs. Analog: Digital photography, by contrast, captures only information and lacks this physicality. Once the sensor's electrical charges are read and converted into a digital file, the original 'object' is lost, becoming just a series of data points.
4. Artistic & Market Value: The person argues that the process matters in defining the value of art. For example, engravings by Albrecht Durer are valuable not just because of the image but because of the physical interaction between ink, plate, and paper. In contrast, inkjet prints are not valued as highly because they are easily replicable and don't involve a unique, tangible process.
5. Authenticity: There's a criticism of how digital methods try to emulate the "film look," which the person finds unauthentic. Digital prints, especially those mass-produced by inkjet, are likened to "selling sand at the beach"—commonplace and unremarkable.
6. Hybrid Approaches: The writer is not wholly against digital technology. They suggest that it could become interesting if used in hybrid methods with traditional photographic processes like C-type prints or color-carbon prints, where the final print still involves light-sensitive mediums and a labor-intensive process.
7. Philosophical Notes: They touch upon theories involving the quantum-based nature of human consciousness proposed by Roger Penrose, suggesting that analog photography may allow a deeper, non-information-based connection to reality.

In summary, the person is advocating for a richer understanding of photography that extends beyond the immediate visual output to include the processes, materials, and even quantum interactions involved. They find more depth and value in analog methods compared to digital ones, though they acknowledge the potential for hybrid approaches.

 

[kfed1984]

What makes something a photograph? Is the paper it's on? Is it the device that was used? Is it the subject? Can it be on a lcd display? When you look through a photo book, say by Bresson, you are not seeing physical silver-gelatin prints. You are seeing reproductions of them - perhaps very good ones. Maybe the book you are looking at was made from digital scans of prints - maybe even from digital scans of negatives. But when you look, is that what you're looking at or are you looking at the content and composition of the image?

Anything you say about ink drops on digital photography paper (or however you phrased it) is as true for dye-clouds or silver grain clusters.

It is romanticism to see physical "touching" of reflected light in film photography: the light that touched the subject touched the film, changed the film, and gets "reborn" by enlarging. Contrasting this with data produced by a digital sensor emphasizes that romanticism. In cold practical terms, there is no fundamental difference: the process abandons the subject and provides a record.

Well I went into a lengthy rant on the previous post and even used Chat GPT to reinterpret it. To summarize again, here is another rant I need to let out:

- We started with an argument that photography is about making images with light, which I agree with. Call it photochemography if you like, but light needs to be involved. For this reason digital images printed on real photographic paper (C-print or B&W silver gelatin) can be considered photographs, even if the original image is digital. Inkjetograms are prints for sure, but they are not photographic, they are inkjetographs. I am not rejecting digital outright, as there's a great potential to make photographic, light-based color carbon prints with digital technology and also C-prints. These use laser or LED beams that are digitally controlled, the image if still shaped with light however.

- We appreciate the smallest differences between a lithograph, engraving, etching, wood-cut, etc. even if some of them may look similar to one another (etchings and engravings for example). If somebody made an ink-jetted image that looks like a lithograph or engraving, we would still call it for what it is; an ink-jet print in the style of a lithograph. Because we care about the process that made the print in these traditional methods, a lot. It's almost a no brainer. But not for photographic prints. They seem to have lost themselves in a definition battle with ink-jet prints and other misunderstandings. If you ink-jet an ink cloud pattern to resemble an engraving, it does not become an engraving. Even if you have to use a microscope to differentiate. These things make simple sense.

- To defend my view on analog photography, I pasted an interview with Gene Nocon (who was working with digital at that time) and he's definitely an authority. His main point is about the importance of the darkroom process, the physical involvement in the analog workflow. He said "digital is not photography, its digital imaging." Lacking this physicality, purely digital/ink-jet processes begin to turn into an artistic onanism of some sort (my analogy). Also, adding lead ballast weight to your digital camera to make this workflow more physical will not help you appreciate the digital workflow more. It's definitely not about that.

- Going further, and this is purely my theory; I personally believe that our consciousness is not solely information-based. This potentially comes into play a lot more with analog photography as opposed to digital. I used the Nobel Prize winner Sir Roger Penrose as a backup in case anyone needs a good support for this idea. He's my favorite authority on human consciousness, having partnered with Stuart Hameroff (a neuroscientist and anesthesiologist) to explore the idea that consciousness arises in bio-quantum-based processes, not computation/information-based processes. Consciousness and photography are closely-related topics.

- In my view this is why we care about whether a certain museum piece is fake or real. If the piece turns out to be a replica, people become very disappointed that they didn't come into contact with the "real" thing, and they are not stupid for doing so. Whereas someone who believes purely in information-based consciousness (digital) should be saying that it makes no difference, because the fake is exactly the same in specs and appearance as the real thing and it should be providing the same information to the viewer as the real thing, etc. In other words, with a purely information-based consciousness it is very difficult to differentiate between the "real" thing and a fake. Yet these things matter to most of us, a lot. Objects in contact with others through various processes become entangled at a quantum level. In physics its part of what's called by Einstein "spooky physics", in which consciousness and the act of observation changes the experimental outcome. Perhaps historical artifacts in museums, swords used in real battles or jewelry touched by certain people etc., may be acquiring a certain memory at a level of quantum entanglement. We would not want to wear a perfectly clean shirt worn/touched even once by Jeffrey Epstein, perhaps sensing a "negative energy". Sorry for using a very based/cliché example. We feel good sitting on a warm seat after a pretty girl sat on it in a subway, feeling the butt heat originating from that girl. If some bloke sat on that seat first, the heat feels a bit repulsive and intrusive. You can be as objective as you want here, but we all do these things, and I think there's a justifiable reason.

- We do all these things because perhaps we sense certain entanglements at a quantum level, having a bio-quantum based consciousness ourselves. Coming back to photography, my belief is that analog processes provide more of this entanglement than digital. I certainly don't think that looking at a book of Bresson's photos and receiving information about them is the same thing as holding his "real" print. I looked at a few of his prints here at Art Gallery of Ontario, in the print center, even though their quality was ok for silver gelatin. Certainly the value of an entire book of his photos is not close to that of his single print, and viewing them is not the same.

- Also think of sitting in a real masonry-based castle from medieval times that was turned into a café, it has a certain vibe to it. Compare this to sitting in a café in a castle from a movie set made of 2x4's and with stucco that looks like masonry. Totally different vibes, even if you are fooled initially. This vibe is real in my opinion. If you try to fake the vibe, by whatever means in whatever process, the vibe acquires an onanistic quality, and you become deprived.

- Also, I understand that this is touching the boundaries of superstition and witchcraft, but I think there are such real esoteric processes taking place that are not superstitious.

- It also puzzles me why "photographers" here are so pragmatic, utilitarian, and cynical about these things. Because their customers care about this (entanglement, real vs. fake, analog vs. digital, etc.) while they do not. Maybe they should work as engineers, not artists. These people have become some kind of photo-engineers, they talk like photometrists, sensitometrists, ink engineers, etc. I recognize this attitude coming from an engineering background myself. Photographers should be artists, and artists often care about the materials and mediums used and not just transmission of information. I think digital technology numbed people down so much that they no longer see the differences or importance of these concepts. Its kind of like a digital musician who laughs at a classic guitar player and makes fun of anyone who's emotional about music...

 

[GregY]

"Photographers should be artists, and artists often care about the materials and mediums used and not just transmission of information. I think digital technology numbed people down so much that they no longer see the differences or importance of these concepts. Its kind of like a digital musician who laughs at a classic guitar player and makes fun of anyone who's emotional about music..."

Thank you. Very articulately put.

 

[Pieter12]

"Photographers should be artists, and artists often care about the materials and mediums used and not just transmission of information. I think digital technology numbed people down so much that they no longer see the differences or importance of these concepts. Its kind of like a digital musician who laughs at a classic guitar player and makes fun of anyone who's emotional about music..."

Thank you. Very articulately put.

An artist can use any medium or technique that suits them. Many contemporary artists use materials and techniques that were not available to previous generations. That does not make their work any less valid. Although I use both film and digital means and print in the darkroom and with an inkjet printer, I consider myself a photographer. Those who insist on nit-picking, purist definitions are simply playing an elitist game, trying to cut out those who may not have the resources or skills to play the game their way. Photography should be about image-making.

 

[MattKing]

Photographers should be artists

I usually try to avoid saying that people "should" be anything.
I have a copy of my Dad's old business card in my wallet. I moved it from his wallet after he died decades after he retired. You can see it here:

I would argue that the image on that card is just as much a photographic print as anything that may be created for "artistic" purposes.
In the case of the card, it is printed optically actually on a type of colour photographic paper similar to the prints we got from the lab that we sent our films to to be developed and printed. Mundane and incredibly utilitarian, but every bit a photographic print.

 

[kfed1984]

An artist can use any medium or technique that suits them. Many contemporary artists use materials and techniques that were not available to previous generations. That does not make their work any less valid. Although I use both film and digital means and print in the darkroom and with an inkjet printer, I consider myself a photographer. Those who insist on nit-picking, purist definitions are simply playing an elitist game, trying to cut out those who may not have the resources or skills to play the game their way. Photography should be about image-making.

Definitely my argument is not about invalidating ink-jet prints or their artistic merit. My main idea is that only true photographic prints should be called photographic, while an ink-jet print should be called something else.

This is mainly because I feel we need to protect true analog photography and designate a special status to photographic prints to protect the film and photographic paper industry.

 

[kfed1984]

I usually try to avoid saying that people "should" be anything.
I have a copy of my Dad's old business card in my wallet. I moved it from his wallet after he died decades after he retired. You can see it here:

Well we have books on photographs. I'm looking through a book now by Saul Leiter. Even though it contains replicas of the original photographs, they are not photographs as they were made by a mass printing method. Looking with a lens I can see a matrix of little color dots. If we call anything that resembles a photograph a photograph, we run into trouble I think.

Above I made an argument about etchings vs. engravings, vs. an ink-jet print that looks like them. We differentiate between all of them strongly, even though all are made with ink. But with photography we don't differentiate. That's a mistake I feel. Film is quite special. Just knowing that this is a real photograph and not an inkjetograph makes you look at it differently. In the Art Gallery of Ontario print center, I only looked at photographic prints. I like peering into the prints, large format contact prints especially. I don't nearly feel the same about inkjetographs.

I think people are really trying to defend ink-jet because of selfish reasons. But inkjet will always be around, I will not miss it. Film I will miss a lot, if it is gone.

 

[kfed1984]

Those who insist on nit-picking, purist definitions are simply playing an elitist game, trying to cut out those who may not have the resources or skills to play the game their way. Photography should be about image-making.

Speaking of resources to make photographs. As I understand printing a digital image on a C-type printer, chromogenic paper, may be more economical than inkjet. I think this is the reason why we still have C-type printers. This is more for large scale prints.

 

[MattKing]

You aren't the only person here who argues that the meaning of "photograph" is limited to a narrowly defined, historic one. But I'm quite confident that ever since photographic images started appearing on media different then what is often now referred to as a "silver gelatin" print, the word "photograph" has expanded to include those alternates.
I would suggest that it is more useful to highlight the advantages inherent to each of the various media, than to try to restrict the definition of the word to one of them.

 

[warden]

Definitely my argument is not about invalidating ink-jet prints or their artistic merit. My main idea is that only true photographic prints should be called photographic, while an ink-jet print should be called something else.

This is mainly because I feel we need to protect true analog photography and designate a special status to photographic prints to protect the film and photographic paper industry.

I disagree with both of your paragraphs but so what?

You might want to do some searching around Photrio. Some time back a participant wanted to develop a rating system of sorts to make sure people knew the type of print they were holding and how it was made, or something like that. It was a code of some sort, that might appeal to you and you could start using it.

I don't think the film and photographic paper industry needs me protecting it, tbh. They're doing well on their own.

 

[kfed1984]

You aren't the only person here who argues that the meaning of "photograph" is limited to a narrowly defined, historic one. But I'm quite confident that ever since photographic images started appearing on media different then what is often now referred to as a "silver gelatin" print, the word "photograph" has expanded to include those alternates.
I would suggest that it is more useful to highlight the advantages inherent to each of the various media, than to try to restrict the definition of the word to one of them.

Maybe. I think the whole discussion started in the previous thread where somebody mentioned that an ink-jet "pigment print" conflicts with the color carbon print. The color carbon being a true pigment print, whereas ink-jet pigment apparently does not use real pigments.

Pigment print should be called inkjet pigment print.

 

[faberryman]

Isn't this the essence of an analog vs. digital discussion which is not permitted on Photrio?

 

[Pieter12]

Film I will miss a lot, if it is gone.

I don't give a rat's ass if film disappears. What I care about is making images. Damn the materials.

 

[koraks]

If we call anything that resembles a photograph a photograph, we run into trouble I think.

In most parlance, not really, IMO. For the vast majority of contexts, calling the reproductions in a book 'photographs' works absolutely fine.

It may be different for very specific purposes, such as museum collections or the art trade. In such contexts, technical details can be relevant - whether or not justified.

So context matters. Attempts to settle this issue universally are doomed to fail, and ultimately, that's a very good thing, too. It keeps human communication still somewhat efficient.

I think people are really trying to defend ink-jet because of selfish reasons.

You reckon it's all that different for anything else people defend? I don't think so. People attached to darkroom printing 'defend' silver gelatin for 'selfish' reasons just as well. The question is of course what interests people have for advocating a certain position. Whether or not those interests are 'selfish' is actually not all that relevant.

This is mainly because I feel we need to protect true analog photography and designate a special status to photographic prints to protect the film and photographic paper industry.

'Protecting' these industries is done by demand. If there's no demand, it doesn't make sense to protect them. Society has rather efficient ways of culling things that are unnecessary.
That leaves the possibility that something is necessary. If you fear that it is, but that it's not recognized as such, then it makes sense to advocate it. This generally works best by building a credible argument of why it's valuable or even necessary for society or humanity.

I could summarize my points above, and probably several others I could make in respons to your long posts, that I sense a certain degree of dogma - that you appear to feel that the value of analog photography, film and analog printing is somehow axiomatic. I don't think it is. I challenge you to make explicit the still hidden reasons why these things are so valuable. That would actually make an interesting effort, and it would prove @faberryman wrong in that this is not an analog vs. digital debate, unless it remains stuck on dogma. If you want this to work, you'll have to put in the effort to get it past that shallowness.

 

[kfed1984]

I think

Isn't this the essence of an analog vs. digital discussion which is not permitted on Photrio?

no we're talking about definitions, not so much which is superior

 

[faberryman]

I think


no we're talking about definitions, not so much which is superior

That is only the pretense, which makes the discussion disingenuous.

 

[Don_ih]

I certainly don't think that looking at a book of Bresson's photos and receiving information about them is the same thing as holding his "real" print. I looked at a few of his prints here at Art Gallery of Ontario, in the print center, even though their quality was ok for silver gelatin. Certainly the value of an entire book of his photos is not close to that of his single print, and viewing them is not the same.

That is what I was calling romanticism. These feeling are not enough to justify the distinctions you are making. You are predefining digital techniques in a diminutive way, associating them with poor reproductions and artistic forgeries. But the fact is real photography is taking place all over the world that does not come even remotely close to a single silver molecule. These are not reproductions but are the actual output of people working at photography - a lot of them making money from it, also. Appeal to as many authorities as you wish, the ultimate vindication is reality. And the real world has almost entirely moved on not only from film but also photographic prints of any kind.

Isn't this the essence of an analog vs. digital discussion which is not permitted on Photrio?

Yes, that's exactly what it is. The entire monologues assumes digital techniques are inferior to tradition ones, due to a lack of authenticity.

 

[kfed1984]

I could summarize my points above, and probably several others I could make in respons to your long posts, that I sense a certain degree of dogma - that you appear to feel that the value of analog photography, film and analog printing is somehow axiomatic. I don't think it is. I challenge you to make explicit the still hidden reasons why these things are so valuable. That would actually make an interesting effort, and it would prove

Well if we go strictly technical, for me its the little inkjet dots that bother me to be honest. I like peering into prints, contact prints. This is one of those points for me. Yes you could argue that I am defending my own dark-room side, but I've also tried digital printing, and I feel that it is quite empty and lacks personal value. Like selling sand at the beach...and the little ink dots...So I picked a side based on experience rather than what I grew up with.

This is a difficult subject. So I used other printing methods as analogies. For example engraving vs. etching vs. an inkjet print. How is it that we differentiate these so much? It does not create any issues if one defends one over the other. They are all ink-based prints. I think it's a matter of precedent and which party establishes it early enough. Analog photography kind of lost it.

I tried going a little deeper, suggesting the idea of quantum entanglement. Although few people will find value in that, but if reading Penrose books, they may find it relevant.

 

[kfed1984]

Yes, that's exactly what it is. The entire monologues assumes digital techniques are inferior to tradition ones, due to a lack of authenticity.

lack of authenticity for sure.

 

[kfed1984]

I think we are allowed analog vs digital discussions here, as long as we don't cross-post in the wrong category.

 

[MattKing]

lack of authenticity for sure.

Authentic to what, though?

 

[Don_ih]

its the little inkjet dots that bother me

So, you would have a problem with an autochrome?

wikipedia

 

[MattKing]

I think we are allowed analog vs digital discussions here, as long as we don't cross-post in the wrong category.

Not really - it is the "vs." that is the problem. We discourage "digital is better than analog" or vice versa that we discourage.
Comparative discussion has its place when the subject of a thread warrants it.

 

[kfed1984]

I could summarize my points above, and probably several others I could make in respons to your long posts, that I sense a certain degree of dogma - that you appear to feel that the value of analog photography, film and analog printing is somehow axiomatic. I don't think it is.

Just curious why are you so heavily invested in analog? Custom enlarger and all. Can you explain the reason? Not a challenge, I just wonder how you would put it.