What is a photographic print

[kfed1984]

I was thinking more about Jeff Wall.
For Example, "After Invisible Man by Ralph Ellison - the Prologue"

View attachment 349304

Did he compose the set-design for this image or came across this somewhere? I can't even tell what this scene is about. But looks awesome.

 

[Pieter12]

Did he compose the set-design for this image or came across this somewhere? I can't even tell what this scene is about. But looks awesome.

Jeff Wall creates the scenes he photographs. That is a major part of his art. He calls them "near documentaries."

Jeff Wall | Gagosian

Learn about the work and career of artist Jeff Wall. Artworks, biography, exhibitions, editorial content, news, museum exhibitions, press, and more.

gagosian.com

 

[Pieter12]

not sure why ink-jetters become so offended by an oppressed analog minority

Very telling.

 

[faberryman]

Very telling.

I don't know why people can't just say they prefer film photography without referring to digital processes and digital prints as masturbatory.

 

[kfed1984]

Very telling.

There was an element of humor in that statement, in the context of the woke times we're living in. I am definitely not oppressed.

 

[L Gebhardt]

Well if the analog print is made by an individual then it adds more to the personality of the image, entanglement as I like to call it. Buyers appreciate this and I think this has merit. Certain photographers in the past teamed up with certain printers, their combination added value to the print.

I contend that's all in our heads. Without the knowledge of how a print was made you would be left to judge just the image and the physical object. In a double blind test I wouldn't expect anyone to pick the correct one more often than chance. It's your knowledge of how it was made that alters you perception of its worth. I have Ansel Adams special editions printed by Alan Ross from the original negatives. They are lovely. I would trade them in a heartbeat for an original printed by the artist even if I couldn't tell the difference because of that knowledge. But if you swapped them without my knowledge I'm sure the original wouldn't seem any more artistic to me as I walked by it.

Yes inkjet has it's own merits, but I feel it has taken a lot away from c-print and silver gelatin, by saying that it does the same thing, and does it better with better archival properties, etc. Hence me reacting strongly to all this, when I feel that analog has more artistic merit.

That's like saying a platinum print's more archival nature takes away from a silver print's merit. They are just different. I tend to like traditional air dried glossy fiber prints more than most other forms, but I still admire a well make print of any type.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Very glad to know I'm not alone, not sure why ink-jetters become so offended by an oppressed analog minority. One can always make a hybrid c-print for not much. Technically digital C-print may also have an advantage with deeper blacks, if processed properly. That's what I heard. But to me the silver-gelatins or hand-made c-prints have so much aura to them, that it motivates me to go to galleries and thinking of buying others' prints. It gets me excited about photography, digital not so much, unless we print it on something interesting.

This whole thread just seems like another analog vs digital argument again focusing on prints.

 

[warden]

not sure why ink-jetters become so offended by an oppressed analog minority.

Maybe because they are photographers and not thrilled with being called “ink-jetters”.

 

[kfed1984]

This whole thread just seems like another analog vs digital argument again focusing on prints.

yeah maybe so...

 

[jeffreyg]

Just to weigh in. I use both film and digital. Photograph with 4x5, 2 1/4, point and shoot, pinhole and DSLR. enlarge both with duplicating film and “ink”. Print silver-gelatin, platinum/palladium and Epson Ultrachrome inks. I decided to get a totally unbiased opinion so I ran by a variety of images by my seven year old grandson. He felt they were all “pictures “ and either liked the subject or not or it didn’t matter. My guess is that most observers of images fall into that category.

 

[Don_ih]

Essentially, the only reason to choose one over the other is to satisfy yourself, because no one else cares.

 

[kfed1984]

Just to weigh in. I use both film and digital. Photograph with 4x5, 2 1/4, point and shoot, pinhole and DSLR. enlarge both with duplicating film and “ink”. Print silver-gelatin, platinum/palladium and Epson Ultrachrome inks. I decided to get a totally unbiased opinion so I ran by a variety of images by my seven year old grandson. He felt they were all “pictures “ and either liked the subject or not or it didn’t matter. My guess is that most observers of images fall into that category.

Yeah, but try the same with etchings/engravings. Appearance to the public is not the best way to judge quality of a print in my opinion.

 

[kfed1984]

For some reason with photography we bring up things like "It's all in the eyes of the viewer" "let the viewer decide.." etc. etc. with other methods we don't do this. Japanese woodcut is that, lithograph, etching is something else, pencil drawing is something else, etc. We should also put more emphasis on photographic processes, differentiate them more. The boundary between a c-print, ink-jet, silver-gelatin appears to have blurred out, in favor of ink-jet. That's what irritates me. Although other more archaic methods stand out more, like tintypes, cyanotypes, etc.

 

[MattKing]

Did he compose the set-design for this image or came across this somewhere? I can't even tell what this scene is about. But looks awesome.

If you read "Invisible Man" by Ralph Ellison, you will understand what inspired Jeff Wall when he constructed the photo.
This book:

Wall describes his photography in ways that make it clear he works more like a movie director who constructs his images than someone who finds them.

The original is owned by the Museum of Modern Art, is a transparency sized at 5 ft. 8 1/2 in. × 8 ft. 2 3/4 in. (174 × 250.8 cm) and includes its own light box. It is work from 1999-2000, so may or may not be Cibachrome/Ilfochrome. The source material would most likely be one or more 8"x10" film transparencies.

 

[kfed1984]

People I talked to have this attitude where they treat ink-jet like a more efficient way of doing the same thing and getting the same result as chromogenic. It's not the same thing, and even the result isn't the same. That's why all the talk about it being just ink on paper, information, etc. to blur the boundary. Yes I understand the artistic effort in creating a set design for you photo, that's art, and very few actually do this. I'm more about the medium.

A lot of the art in Saul Leiter's photos stems from the Kodachrome look, not just composition. If you remove the Kodachrome look, you basically have very little of Saul Leiter left. Saul Leiter becomes far less interesting.

 

[Don_ih]

I'm more about the medium.

Most people are interested in the content. Very few even know there is a difference between the various method of making a print.
Frankly, there's no reason to think they're incorrect.

 

[Pieter12]

For some reason with photography we bring up things like "It's all in the eyes of the viewer" "let the viewer decide.." etc. etc. with other methods we don't do this. Japanese woodcut is that, lithograph, etching is something else, pencil drawing is something else, etc. We should also put more emphasis on photographic processes, differentiate them more. The boundary between a c-print, ink-jet, silver-gelatin appears to have blurred out, in favor of ink-jet. That's what irritates me. Although other more archaic methods stand out more, like tintypes, cyanotypes, etc.

But the intrinsic and artistic value of an etching or a woodcut has little to do with the process. Ultimately it is the image that determines that. Is a print made in a limited edition any better than unlimited? Only to a collector. Ansel Adams and his printers made several different versions of some of his more popular images. According to your theory of “entanglement” they are all the same. I have preferences based on the final image. But on the other hand, there are many other photographer’s works I would rather own and display, “entangled” be damned.

 

[warden]

A lot of the art in Saul Leiter's photos stems from the Kodachrome look, not just composition. If you remove the Kodachrome look, you basically have very little of Saul Leiter left. Saul Leiter becomes far less interesting.

That is 100% bullshit.

 

[kfed1984]

But the intrinsic and artistic value of an etching or a woodcut has little to do with the process.

I'm more about the medium here in this thread, and what it offers to artistic expression. No the medium matters for a print, not just idea. We discussed this. Give me an inkjet print of a vector graphic in the style of a woodcut with original ideas, or give me a woodcut of the same. Different things.

The last time I was at the Art Gallery of Ontario print center, apparently they had a print from Fred Herzog. I though it was one of those chromogenic prints made with internegatives from Kodachrome. Turned out it was just a scan and an inkjet. May it be damned. I didn't spend a minute on that abomination.

 

[kfed1984]

That is 100% bullshit.

Can't be 100% bullshit, has to have some truth to it.

 

[warden]

Can't be 100% bullshit, has to have some truth

It can be, and is.

 

[kfed1984]

If you read "Invisible Man" by Ralph Ellison, you will understand what inspired Jeff Wall when he constructed the photo.
The original is owned by the Museum of Modern Art, is a transparency sized at 5 ft. 8 1/2 in. × 8 ft. 2 3/4 in. (174 × 250.8 cm) and includes its own light box. It is work from 1999-2000, so may or may not be Cibachrome/Ilfochrome. The source material would most likely be one or more 8"x10" film transparencies.

Not really familiar with how Cibachrome worked, but I love the look of it, the muted colors.

It's interesting how a transparency image compares to a paper print. With a paper print you can get as dark as you like as long as your ink is dark enough. A 99.9% darkness shadow will probably look twice as dark as 99.8%, and you can keep getting darker. But the highlights are only as bright as your paper base.

With transparencies apparently the highlights can be made a lot brighter, and maybe that's what gives it that look.

 

[Pieter12]

though it was one of those chromogenic prints made with internegatives from Kodachrome. Turned out it was just a scan and an inkjet. May it be damned. I didn't spend a minute on that abomination.

So if had been a chromogenic print, you would have been delighted? Superficial. How do you feel about platinum prints made from digital (inkjet!!!) negatives? Can you tell the difference? Or do you need to read a label?

 

[kfed1984]

So if had been a chromogenic print, you would have been delighted? Superficial. How do you feel about platinum prints made from digital (inkjet!!!) negatives? Can you tell the difference? Or do you need to read a label?

Platinum from inkjet negatives to me are less preferable that those made with digitally exposed negatives, which are not half-tone, and no dot matrix. However, it being a light-exposed platinum print, still makes it photographically interesting to me. Also considering that you're actually making the print manually, applying the sensitizer solution with a brush, placing the ink-jet negative, exposing it, etc. I'm all for it.

 

[GregY]

kfed, One thing that hasn't been touched on... As a BW silver gelatin printer, I take opportunities to see other examples of the craft. I'm always looking at great prints and seeing what i can glean from them to advance my printing. I lose that aspect entirely with digital prints.