What is a photographic print

[MattKing]

Well if we go strictly technical, for me its the little inkjet dots that bother me

I still really like the big dots of ink that make up the old style newspaper photographs.
I totally support an appreciation for a particular procedure or technique or medium.
And I understand how the characteristics of such influence and inform the photographs and photographic presentations that are created as a result.
But I'm hesitant to limit the use of what are quite flexible, commonly used and understood words to just some particular examples of procedure, technique or medium.

 

[kfed1984]

So, you would have a problem with an autochrome?

Autochrome grain is quite large, not the best grain in my opinion. But knowing that it came from starch makes it kinda interesting. I also prefer engravings over etchings, better line quality.

I don't know how to say it, but manual prints have a different/personal value. We care about the process in this case. I will value a contact print way more than digital ink jet any time. Not even sure how to explain. Too many reductionists here. The arguments are very Darwinian.

 

[kfed1984]

That is what I was calling romanticism.

I'm very much in support of romanticizing things, its very much my style. I had nothing against romanticizing of things, it was ChatGPT's interpretation of what I said. Yes, I am definitely romanticizing film. I don't want to admit or confess to it, I want to declare it.

Photography and romanticizing are very much related. Somehow a lot of photographers here turned into pragmatic, utilitarian....technicians.

The whole essence of fine art photography is very much rooted in art and had its roots in painting, by definition. So these things should have value to you, unless you are just in the business of making passport photos and documenting stuff. In which case you should definitely go digital, without a question.

 

[kfed1984]

feel like I need a drink....

 

[faberryman]

feel like I need a drink....

Before you have that drink, could you clarify which of your posts were generated by ChatGPT?

 

[GregY]

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.

Yes it should be about image making. & as you know there's lots more nit picking on forums...than discussion of image making Pieter.

 

[Pieter12]

The whole essence of fine art photography is very much rooted in art and had its roots in painting, by definition. So these things should have value to you

Fine art photography represents an infinitesimal percentage of photography. And much of fine art photography is digital today. In the not so recent past, photographs reproduced in books were photographed with process cameras. Today, they are scanned digitally. Have they lost some emotional value or authenticity along the way? Or is any reproduction treasonous by definition?

Etchings, engravings and lithographs became popular as a way to make multiples that would be more available to the public. I don't see anyone claiming they are not art.

 

[kfed1984]

Before you have that drink, could you clarify which of your posts were generated by ChatGPT?

this one - click on the link to see it:

What is a photographic print

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...

www.photrio.com

and this one - clink on the link to see it:

Call it what it is

My point in the original post was that I admired a high-price, prestigious gallery for calling an inkjet print just that, not "giclee" (an invented term to make inkjet prints sound less mundane), or "archival pigment," a term that might apply to any number of graphic arts prints such as...

www.photrio.com

in the last one, GPT put the term "romanticizing"

in both cases I made it clear that this is a GPT interpretation of my previous post
(moderator's note - click on the links to see the posts being referenced)

 

[faberryman]

I thought post #1 and post #3 were candidates too, in that the ideas and vocabulary were repetitive, both contained references to Sir Roger Penrose, and both contained judgments that digital prints/processes were onanistic (masturbatory), which struck me as odd.

 

[kfed1984]

Fine art photography represents an infinitesimal percentage of photography. And much of fine art photography is digital today. In the not so recent past, photographs reproduced in books were photographed with process cameras. Today, they are scanned digitally. Have they lost some emotional value or authenticity along the way? Or is any reproduction treasonous by definition?

Etchings, engravings and lithographs became popular as a way to make multiples that would be more available to the public. I don't see anyone claiming they are not art.

I didn't say ink-jet is not an art, just much less so than analog

 

[kfed1984]

I thought post #1 and post #3 were candidates too, in that the ideas and vocabulary were repetitive, both contained references to Sir Roger Penrose, and both contained judgments that digital prints/processes were onanistic (masturbatory), which struck me as odd.

These are original, reposts from different places in the previous thread. Onanistic? Yes. I don't want to say the M-word, as that is rude. The word onanistic is used to convey the essence of the M-word without saying/declaring it.

 

[Pieter12]

this one:

What is a photographic print

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...

www.photrio.com

and this one:

Call it what it is

My point in the original post was that I admired a high-price, prestigious gallery for calling an inkjet print just that, not "giclee" (an invented term to make inkjet prints sound less mundane), or "archival pigment," a term that might apply to any number of graphic arts prints such as...

www.photrio.com

in the last one, GPT put the term "romanticizing"

in both cases I made it clear that this is a GPT interpretation of my previous post

The second example is not even your post. And GPT had nothing to do with it. Why would you think that?

 

[koraks]

Just curious why are you so heavily invested in analog?

For the most part, for reasons unrelated to your tenet about prints. I could make an eloquent case revolving around materiality - and if I were to make a suggestion to you as to building your argument, I think this would be the direction of offer.

But at the same time, I find my inkjet prints, mediocre as they are in an absolute sense, objectively better than any of my analog prints. Moreover, I also acknowledge that if I were to really develop myself as an artistic photographer (for which I frankly lack the talent or the discipline), then a digital workflow would be the vastly superior platform to make that happen.

Indeed, what ties me personally to analog is the pleasure I derive from playing with materials, and analog photography warrants more degrees of freedom to get your hands dirty. There's only so much you can muck about with an inkjet printer (I've got the pigment stains all over the place to prove it, too) or with "baryta" inkjet paper and a roller cutter. While in the analog domain, there's all kinds of chemistry, there's the possibility of home made emulsions, a host of processes to play with...

And none of those degrees of freedom make me a better photographer, make my prints more impactful or help me get the job done in the few cases when someone actually wants me to deliver.

So I'm afraid the answer will really have to come from you. That's why I pressed the point.

 

[kfed1984]

The second example is not even your post. And GPT had nothing to do with it. Why would you think that?

No they are both my posts, if you scroll up in the second post you will see. I think faberryman wanted to be sure that what I said was mine and not generated.

 

[kfed1984]

So I'm afraid the answer will really have to come from you. That's why I pressed the point.

My best answer is entanglement, described earlier. 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.

 

[Pieter12]

I didn't say ink-jet is not an art, just much less so than analog

Many fine art photographers pride themselves on making negatives that do not require any manipulation or special techniques to print. Are they less art? On the other hand, some (HCB comes to mind) were not very concerned or capable with darkroom technique and relied on a third party to produce their prints. Are they less art? I am trying to understand why you think an analog print has somehow more value as art than other printing process. Photons?

Just because analog is an older technique does not inherently make it more valuable (both monetarily and emotionally) as art. We should all be making Daguerrotypes and salt prints.

 

[Pieter12]

No they are both my posts, if you scroll up in the second post you will see. I think faberryman wanted to be sure that what I said was mine and not generated.

Really? This is what was posted in #33:

 

[kfed1984]

Really? This is what was posted in #33:
View attachment 349169

I think you have to click on the link that will take you to the post, the image above is not the post.

Right click on the link and select open in a new tab, it will take you to the post.

The image in the link is simply the first post in the thread or one of the main posts in the thread.

Moderator's note: this is correct. The site software does slightly weird things when referencing one Photrio post within another.

 

[MTGseattle]

I haven't made a print of any type in about 10 years. I've procrastinated setting up a darkroom, and I've resisted the urge to invest in any equipment to make a strong foray into hybrid/digital workflow.

I've seen some amazing prints made outside the darkroom. Are they "photographic?" That's all semantics and to me is somewhat irrelevant. Was there light and/or a lens involved at some point? If I say an optic of some sort is required what then happens with a pinhole and direct positive?

My few sessions trying to get some negatives scanned so I can do something working towards a print have been long and frustrating. I simply dislike sitting at the computer (as I sit here typing this). I will try and hold onto an analogue "wet" darkroom process as long as I can simply because I enjoy it and I have myself deluded into thinking it gives me much more control than whatever electronic wizardry is happening in the other workflow.

Where things will really get hashed out is in the museum space in another century or so where the "archival" nature of things will truly be shown and historians, etc. can resume the argument.

 

[kfed1984]

I simply dislike sitting at the computer (as I sit here typing this). I will try and hold onto an analogue "wet" darkroom process as long as I can simply because I enjoy it and I have myself deluded into thinking it gives me much more control than whatever electronic wizardry is happening in the other workflow.

Why do you enjoy it? I think the making of a hand-made print adds a lot of personal value to it, but I cannot explain it. I don't understand why people dismiss this idea. I was planning to buy a silver-gelatin print from Ansel Adams studio, made by his disciple, for $300. Never got around to it though. I got irritated somewhat by the comments people made in other threads about this, so I didn't get to it. It fascinates me that the print was made using A. Adam's negative by his student. I find it very very interesting and quite entangled. I feel like I am obtaining some kind value from this. Their gallery also sells ink-jet prints for half the price, in which I have ZERO interest. How can I explain this? Try to explain this. My best attempt was entanglement...

 

[GregY]

Why do you enjoy it? I think the making of a hand-made print adds a lot of personal value to it, but I cannot explain it. I don't understand why people dismiss this idea. I was planning to buy a silver-gelatin print from Ansel Adams studio, made by his disciple, for $300. Never got around to it though. I got irritated somewhat by the comments people made in other threads about this, so I didn't get to it. It fascinates me that the print was made using A. Adam's negative by his student. I find it very very interesting and quite entangled. I feel like I am obtaining some kind value from this. Their gallery also sells ink-jet prints for half the price, in which I have ZERO interest. How can I explain this? Try to explain this. My best attempt was entanglement...

I'm of the same mind.... I got a darkroom print of this image from Jay Dusard, in trade for an LF lens.

 

[kfed1984]

I'm of the same mind.... I got a darkroom print of this image from Jay Dusard, in trade for an LF lens.

awesome! how big is this? do you have slightly better resolution?

 

[MTGseattle]

You can pigeon-hole it as romanticizing the process I guess. Unrolling your freshly processed film and seeing that you have some decently exposed negatives. Getting your print time and contrast dialed in is maybe the "slump" in the process. Watching the image come through in the tray. Taking it into the light and seeing that you are on the right track. The smell of Dektol (or your preferred chemistry) The odd quality of safelight light. I enjoy all of it. To people who have never seen it or done it, it seems somewhat mystical. There is nothing mystical about working at a computer.

We can throw aside the argument of time spent. Both workflows entail a lot of time to get a truly great print. To make 10 of them to me is easier in theory outside the darkroom.

Somehow though in my mind I associate a higher value on true darkroom time vs computer time. Is that in any way valid? probably not, but that's my irrational viewpoint. Due to that, I would also expect to pay more for a wet silver gelatin print than for a pigment print of the same size/image.

 

[Don_ih]

I had nothing against romanticizing of things, it was ChatGPT's interpretation of what I said.

I didn't read the ChatGPT posts.

Anyway, romantic notions have their place and they do add to valuation. However, your arguments make a departure and strive to claim that because these processes are valued, those processes should not be. That's a logical no-no.

Your arguments are based upon an assumption of your conclusion - that digital methods are inferior and are not even photography. That's begging the question, plain and simple.

I'm not a reductionist at all. I value film and enlarging and other traditional printmaking methods - including block printing and screen printing. I prefer all those over digital. But my preference is personal and says nothing about the digital methods in themselves. Digital photos and digital prints are just as much photography as film photos and silver-gelatin prints.

 

[GregY]

awesome! how big is this? do you have slightly better resolution?

The print is 11"x14". It is the cover photo of his book "The North American Cowboy: A Portrait".....
I just grabbed that one off the net.

The North American Cowboy: A Portrait by Jay Dusard

From 1981 to 1983, Jay Dusard traveled throughout western North America, riding with working cowboys, vaqueros and buckaroos, photographing them with his 8x10 view camera

www.lensculture.com

It's a sunny Alberta afternoon and it's framed under glass, so i can't get an image without reflections, but it's a beautiful print, made by Jay himself. (Being only slightly bigger than the 8x10 negative, the detail is exquisite.)