When a perfect print isn't "Perfect"

Ian Grant · Jun 2, 2006

Following Roger Hicks posts about "Work Prints" I'll add a further dilemma as an exhibiting photographer.

That perfect print may not actually fit into an exhibition (or portfolio) set as it is. From experience I've found that as an exhibition comes together it becomes apparent that some of those perfect prints need subtle re-interpretation to make the whole set gel as an entity, as opposed to being a disparate collection of good images.

So sometimes key images which have been corner-posts in the evolution of the exhibition need tweaking usually it's really only subtle changes in density and contrast (tonality), and also as I only work with warm-tone papers image colour is very important..

So a perfect print may not actually be good enough ! purely in the context of an exhibition set or portfolio. However it's still an excellent print, and perfect for sale outside of a set.

Food for thought

Ian

Claire Senft · Jun 2, 2006

Depends on how you define perfect. As far as I am concerned perfect means beyond absolutely any improvement of any kind whatsoever. For me this leaves only a variety of conditions of suitabilty to serve a given function because there is not now nor will there ever to any perfection created by man.

firecracker · Jun 3, 2006

Ian Grant said:
So a perfect print may not actually be good enough ! purely in the context of an exhibition set or portfolio. However it's still an excellent print, and perfect for sale outside of a set.

If you would want to represent yourself as whoever you are, this whole process would become pretty critical. It's a living experience.

However, if you're printing for someone else, that's up to the person and his/her order and request. You thoughts could only be an essence to the work.

Roger Hicks · Jun 3, 2006

Dear Ian,

Yes, that is vexing, isn't it? I've noticed it most on a rather less refined scale, with prints that don't match in tone (different dev, paper, reaction to toner...). They're 'perfect' (beyond improvement) on their own, but don't match and therefore aren't perfect.

Fortunately most of our work is for publication not exhibition...

Cheers,

Roger

df cardwell · Jun 3, 2006

I've come to think of an exhibition as an evening with friends, a recital, a cohesive group of pictures that work together as a small play, or a good meal.

It's more fun to print the images together; I'm unhappy pulling pictures out of 'stock' for a show. But I have more of a theatrical background than typically 'fine art'.

But mine isn't a formula for ongoing success, it's hard to package this sort of thing. But for me, an exhibit ( funny how this translates badly to french ) is pretty personal.

d

Joe Lipka · Jun 3, 2006

How about the converse? When putting together an exhibition with a specific theme, there are those that need to be included that are not completely perfect but none the less fill a specific need for the exhibition. They might be the "hammock" photograph that provides the transition between two key images.

The image that gets better because it is in the "right place" for your exhibit.

dphphoto · Jun 3, 2006

Paul Caponigro prints on every paper imaginable, and often doesn't seem to care if the prints in an exhibition all "match."
Nevertheless, this is a point well taken. I'm more concerned with image content, and sometimes I have a print which doesn't fit with much of anything else I have just in terms of the image. I'll figure out a way to use it anyway. Dean

Claire Senft · Jun 3, 2006

Speaking for myself if I was showing photos and I was satisified with each print on on individual basis, I could care less about the diffferences between paper and prints appearance. If I wanted to produce a cohesive body of work on a particular project I would consider which film and developer and paper and toner bests suits the way I feel about the job. I would then do the whole shooting match with those materials and that process.

But I would also say that If I thought the best choice for a given negative a subject was a warm tone paper toned in Brown toner and for another negative of a different subject it was a cold toned paper and GP 1 toner was what I liked than that would be how I would print it..

It is also quite possible that reprinting those negatives at a future time and being in a different state of mind I might feel a change would be best.

However, since I do not exhibit prints and like to make new photos it is unlikely that I would revisit the past.

Donald Miller · Jun 3, 2006

I really could care less if each print in a show is matching. If the images individually express what I want for that image then that is the important thing.

The show is, in my opinion, an expression of my views and of my vision. These prints cover a period of time that is approaching thirty years. It is highly unlikely that these would match. In fact it is an expression of experiences, insights, and awarenesses that I have experienced and in many cases transcended.

blansky · Jun 3, 2006

Perfection is boring.

Michael

Claire Senft · Jun 3, 2006

Are you assuming that perfection is boring or have you so concluded thru being exposed to it?

Do you consider yourself boring?

blansky · Jun 3, 2006

The closer one comes to "perfection", the less interesting it is.

Human beings exist in chaos, thrive in chaos and grow through chaos. In this chaotic existance we attempt to make "order". In that attempt, we strive for complete order or "perfection".

Unfortunately as we move closer and closer to that complete order, the more boring we and it become.

But in reality, perfection is not really order at all, it is actually chaos.

But then what is reality?

Michael

removed account4 · Jun 3, 2006

is anything perfect ?

blansky · Jun 3, 2006

jnanian said:
is anything perfect ?

Just her.

MIchael

Claire Senft · Jun 3, 2006

Should we prefer the Interesting Hitler to the boring Mother Theresa?

Or is that since Mother theresa Is less chaotic that she is the more imperfect and we should consider her the more interesting?

blansky · Jun 3, 2006

Claire Senft said:
Should we prefer the Interesting Hitler to the boring Mother Theresa?

Or is that since Mother theresa Is less chaotic that she is the more imperfect and we should consider her the more interesting?

People (except for Angelina) aren't/can't be perfect.

Hitler wasn't interesting, he was insane. Mother Theresa gave her life to a cause, namely, encouraging people to barter their free will in order to be comforted by her.

Both were chaotic like the rest of us, and since neither approached perfection, were not boring.

MIchael

Claire Senft · Jun 3, 2006

Michael, Do you think between the questions I have asked and the responses you have given we have all that is necessary for a nice thick baloney sandwhich?

blansky · Jun 3, 2006

Possibly a banquet.

Michael

fhovie · Jun 4, 2006

Perfection is the stress placed on me for work that is for someone else. I understand and appreciate the allowance - and possibly the need - for imperfection. When it is unexpectedly wonderfully flawed. I think that is the difference between art and manufacturing. Manufactured images are common and expected - kind of like tract homes. Art is like a great stop light that forces involvement and contemplation. Like how focus shifted to something other than what you thought the main point was and gave the image a whole new meaning. The new meaning being wholly more interesting than the original.

Michel Hardy-Vallée · Jun 4, 2006

blansky said:
Perfection is boring.

Michael

I agreee with that, especially the big blank space (blanksky?) below. People who brag about how superlative their work is are usually making unengaging picture that don't generate much response besides a big blank void.

Like that.

When a perfect print isn't "Perfect"

Membership Council

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency