Sorry but viewers don't care about the time your spent on it or how difficult it was to capture and produce. Either the picture works for them or it doesn't.
My interest also gets caught by the qualities of the print.
Viewing a print involves viewing a "thing". And how that thing looks is important as well.
Yes, that's why I said when viewed initially. Then we look closer and enjoy the other aspects of the photo. But that's similar to oils. I love getting close to VanGogh thick brush strokes that are hard to realize looking at a photo of his actual work.
Many people care a lot about such things.
Have you ever seen a really good platinum/palladium or carbon transfer print?
Have you never seen a really good traditional darkroom ("silver gelatin") print?
Do you have no appreciation for careful adjustments of image tone and colour on a print?
Many people care a lot about such things.
Have you ever seen a really good platinum/palladium or carbon transfer print?
Have you never seen a really good traditional darkroom ("silver gelatin") print?
Do you have no appreciation for careful adjustments of image tone and colour on a print?
If the process impacts the picture quality and makes it more appealing to the viewer's emotions, than yes. I agree. But 95% of people don't check the process first any more than they look into the kitchen to see how the chef prepared the meal. All that counts is that it's presented nicely and tastes good.
I'm comfortable being part of the 5% - it is a pretty big group, and they tend to care a lot.If the process impacts the picture quality and makes it more appealing to the viewer's emotions, than yes. I agree. But 95% of people don't check the process first any more than they look into the kitchen to see how the chef prepared the meal. All that counts is that it's presented nicely and tastes good.
I appreciate the effort that goes into a good print. But what I appreciate more is a good image. A perfect print that has taken hours in the darkroom is still of little interest if the image isn't engaging.
I have seen many excellent inkjet prints that entail hours of careful work--as much as a conventional print. Have you never seen a masterful piezograph print?
Yes, that's why I said when viewed initially. Then we look closer and enjoy the other aspects of the photo. But that's similar to oils. I love getting close to VanGogh thick brush strokes that are hard to realize looking at a photo of his actual work.
I appreciate the effort that goes into a good print. But what I appreciate more is a good image. A perfect print that has taken hours in the darkroom is still of little interest if the image isn't engaging.
I have seen many excellent inkjet prints that entail hours of careful work--as much as a conventional print. Have you never seen a masterful piezograph print?
I've seen a print turn into a photograph and then back into a print.
The circumstance was at Point Light Gallery in Sydney when I was admiring a 8X10 black and white print of a lighthouse in Rockport, Maine. The picture was centred on a mount board on a workbench. It exhibited a fine run of tones although I thought it a trifle dark. I picked it up and to my amazement the picture slid right off the mount board onto the bench.
What I had encountered was a positive photograph on film base that just happened to be lying on a mount board. I put the photograph back on the mount board before the owner noticed
thus turning it back into a print again, I suppose.
Why did I see it as a print? Answer: Because I saw it as photographic emulsion on paper. That's apparently all there is to the deep historical division between photographs and prints going back to the 19th century.
If it's on paper it's a print. On anything else it's a photograph. In truth I reckon they are all photographs and a paper substrate under the picture should not "demote" a photograph to a print.
And don't ask me what a camera-original paper negative is. Print? Photograph? Either, neither, or both? Anyone?
Well you can have it all now and print digital images in the darkroom.
Post your landscape photos here
Not exactly sure what you are asking, but I’ll give it a shot. The image breaks down into two parts: the ground and sky. Most of the work had been to find the right balance between the two. My first inclination on most images is to go toward the dramatic. With time I will walk it back a little...www.photrio.com
Sorry but viewers don't care about the time your spent on it or how difficult it was to capture and produce. Either the picture works for them or it doesn't.
Not a print. A photo and an image.What if you mount a positive, original 4x5 chrome film shot on a white lighted background in a frame on the wall? Is that a print, photo, image, etc?
I completely understand. Basquiat spent less time working the canvas than Renoir, but each viewer will react in their own way. I was further allowing for an argument I had seen in the past where people suppose it takes a lot longer to get a really nice silver gelatin print that a really nice inkjet or whatever. That is not necessarily true. Me personally; I'd rather spend the time in the chemicals than at the computer. It's pure personal preference, not a devaluation of one vs the other.
Unfortunately (or fortunately) I don't have a darkroom to get lost in. So my methods are limited. But I've found that other methods can be very creative and enjoyable as well. My wife limits my wall space for prints.So I:m forced to digitize and post on YouTube, Flickr or make slide shows for presenting on my 75" 4K TV. Creating videos is very creative and fun as well. I;ve also done a zine. I can still do prints digitally and send to relatives who have more wall space.
Alright, but that one doesn't work for me, and I doubt it's universal. At least it's not in the way you explained it in the opening post, as a way we would supposedly experience meaning. Here's an example that debunks it:My best answer is entanglement, described earlier.
There are objective qualities to printing processes that constitute real, observable differences. They virtually always constitute a tradeoff between various characteristics. As such, I've never been able to discern a tendency of the balance tipping in favor of analog prints. If there were, I couldn't explain the inkjet (sorry, 'giclee') prints on countless museum and gallery walls, or in private collections, nor the countless square miles of digitally exposed c-prints churned out on a weekly basis by computer-dominated industrial labs.I also love how my chromogenic prints came out on the cheapest Fuji paper from medium format, in terms or resolution, my inkjet was so so. For black and white I can made better resolution than inkjet. Materiality you can call it. The only thing I need to work on are the blacks, which don't seem black enough on silver-gelatin.
If it's on paper it's a print. On anything else it's a photograph.
This strikes me as yet another one of those metaphysical debates without a universal answer. Talk of entanglement and the like strikes me as hokum. However I see where the OP is coming from trying to rationalize their feelings. I personally value photographic objects more highly the closer they are to the hands of the artist. I do not mind a well made inkjet or laser/led printed c-prints, but tend to respect an expertly made traditional print more. Gate keeping of terminology is a futile endeavor based on past observations of how words have changed. Being specific about the technical aspects of the work is probably the only way around this, not making up alternative words we wish others would use instead. That may mean we need to place important qualifiers on our work if you think the audience cares about such things. My limited experience is other photographers care much more about how a print was made compared to the general public, but some non photographers still value the hand made over the machine made so it's useful to include some process information if it may elevate the work in their eyes.
If you get rid of the TV you’ll free up wall space for some prints!
If you get rid of the TV you’ll free up wall space for some prints!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?