Jump to content

The Print, the desired end state?


andym911

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Just been thinking a bit about the 'photographic' part of my life.

 

What I see more and more is that I am thinking more often about the final print when I take a photograph.

The number of prints I produce and frame is increasing as I develop my skills/knowledge etc.

 

I tried to see actually how many images I take actually ake it to the final state of a hung and framed print.It is about 1 out of 500, very roughly.

 

In my house or in friends houses there are approximately 25 prints hanging.

 

I am beginning to appreciate much more the final print and am discovering that the real satisfaction and fulfillment I feel in photography and is when a particular image is framed and hung and can be shared.

 

This is a big change for me, as earlier I was happy to view images on my monitor (film or digital), but lately this has no real joy factor.

 

So would be interested if others do/feel the same or is the monitor the final end state for you?

 

best regards

 

andy

  • Like 9
Link to post
Share on other sites

For most of the history of photography, the print has indeed been the desired end state because it was the only end state.

The development of color reversal film changed that a little, offering projection for viewing but since most communication was by printed media, printed photographs were a necessity.

Your journey from viewing your images on your monitor to actual prints is the reverse of history and shows your age or at least your involvement in photography. Indeed, today most of the desired end state is indeed the computer monitor which is why DX formats and others exist because the monitor cannot show the resolution as a fine print. Also most communication is now by the Internet and much commercial traffic is by eBay where the quality required is minimal to display a photograph.

For me the print has always been the desired end state. I have only one print hanging in my house. It's in B&W and of a math Professor contemplating a chess position in a chess match. It's run in two newspaper of the day and hangs in his daughters house in 16x20 analog print produced by myself from a Tri-X 35mm negative. My print is 30x40" made by Playboy Studios when they did the photography in Chicago.-Dick

Link to post
Share on other sites

For most of the history of photography, the print has indeed been the desired end state because it was the only end state.

The development of color reversal film changed that a little, offering projection for viewing but since most communication was by printed media, printed photographs were a necessity.

 

No so. Except for the years between Niepce and Daguerre, the print has never been the only end state of photography (a daguerrotype is its own end state, not a print). The concept of slide and projector goes back to the 17th century, and people began to make photographic slides pretty much as soon as it was possible to print a positive image onto glass. The first colour photograph was projected (not printed or hand-coloured) in 1861.

 

Even the first commercial colour reversal process dates from 1903 - closer to Daguerre and Fox Talbot than to us. Kodachrome and Agfachrome were late starters!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Andy, interesting and timely thread.

 

It comes down to whether you are going to hang your image on a wall or post it on somebody's "wall"...

 

It seems to me that there is an increasing tendency to shoot for the "wall" - ie Facebook and the like - than for more "traditional" methods of display. I would wager that an overwhelming percentage of today's photography output - particularly amateur but also professional - is "consumed" via a non colour-corrected browser on a non-colour corrected screen. The "convenience store" that is the internet has turned us all into grazers, gourmands rather than gourmets.

 

The tendency now is to use cameraphones held zombie-mode (copyright Nicole) at arms length and machine gun (copyright me) our way through our lives, posting up the best 40 or 50 shots per day; shots of eyeball-numbing mundanity and parochialism for the most part. Quantity has taken on a quality all of its own. Printing? Framing? Wall mounting? Why bother?

 

I went into a print and framing shop a few months ago, with three shots on a disc. The bored chap behind the counter ran me through the options for sizing, mounting etc. He then took my disc and loaded up the images. He sat bolt upright and said "Well, it's nice to meet a photographer, occasionally." and the entire tone of the conversation changed. He bemoaned the fact that he was constantly having to explain to phone-toting wishful thinkers that he couldn't even get a decent 6"x4" print out of the fuzzy, poorly exposed, shaky small files that they had.

 

The shop has shut now. There is no demand for their services - why would there be when you can upload and tag your mates for free?

 

The Phacebook Fotographer is real, and is among us. :(

 

Regards,

 

Bill

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Glad to hear of a person who appreciates the print, Andy.

 

An aside - I know photographers, now largey retired (National Geo, and another who has three Pulitzers) who have only one photographic print on a wall in their whole house, and it is not theirs. In their case, they became saturated with images and constant production.

 

To the Print! Thanks for the nudge.

Edited by pico
Link to post
Share on other sites

andy

 

i understand what you're going through. i'm pretty happy with the quality of photos on screen (pretty good Eizo monitor, Huey Pantone correction), with slideshows for acrobat reader etc.

 

unfortunately, the same photos in commercially prepared photobooks from various suppliers, and larger prints, posters etc for the wall are not as vibrant/appealing/full range/contrasty etc.

 

i know this can be expected, reflective vs. transmitted light, but haven't yet taken the time to study and redo the files when 'print' is the desired end medium.

 

greetings from hamburg

 

rick

Link to post
Share on other sites

Add me to the printers. My own, by Hp 9180 inkjet.

There are many excellent papers out there. Currently I am using Tecco, a German company but I don't know how widely they are available. My favourite right now is their Baryt which gives a beautiful silver sheen.

It is being able to do all this digitally that has rekindled my interest. Previously, I just did not have enough time to set aside for anything except occasional dark room work.

 

My pleasure is increased when I give a print as a present, where I have cut the Matte (Pasepartout) and framed it. People seem genuinely pleased. That, for me, is a big return.

It has surprised me that tehre are not more discussions about printing and PP as, for me, after PP, this is where all the work is done.

Link to post
Share on other sites

[...]

unfortunately, the same photos in commercially prepared photobooks from various suppliers, and larger prints, posters etc for the wall are not as vibrant/appealing/full range/contrasty etc. [...]

 

Certainly, an illuminated image (monitor) is going to have greater vibrancy than most prints, especially color images, but that has always been a challenge to the print. Not much has changed in that regard. It is one factor that is considered when making a photograph to print.

 

For B&W, Agfa once made a great series of papers (all graded) called Brovira which was particularly reflective to blue so that it had an illusion of depth even under most gallery lighting (incandescent). It was wonderful stuff. Today, however, when I scan prints made on that paper it's a bit of a challenge to get a true black.

Edited by pico
Link to post
Share on other sites

I, too, feel the print is the completion of a process starting with seeing a potential image in front of you.

I have other people's prints on my walls, as well as a few old B&Ws I did in the '80s. My collection of prints in boxes amuses my wife.. "Why don't you do something with them?"

 

There's always transparency film for projection, much better than digital projection through the current (office) projectors. (I can't afford the Leica one, but I've seen what it can do, and it's a vast improvement)

 

My B&W darkroom is ready for use anytime, I dev my own monochrome and E6 film. Printing needs a good few hours of free time, so I've been neglecting the printing.

 

John

Link to post
Share on other sites

You can often tell the Printers from the Web-ers on the Internet itself. I see images on the Forum that are too over-saturated & over-sharpened to be printed successfully (too many out-of-gamut colors & sharpening artifacts). And I can identify images by Forum members who are working the other way around, keeping tones & sharpness within the constraints of a darkroom or inkjet print.

 

But aren't we printers are already a small minority? I used to send prints to a young family member who finally asked me to stop – she'd much prefer to see them on her monitor.

 

I suppose galleries, collectors, & museums will always want fine-art prints, & a few will appear on the walls of homes. But for most people, prints will be like LPs, newspapers, & bound books. (What were those, Grandpa?)

 

Furthermore I believe there's less agreement within the print community about what one's prints should look like. I personally hold to old-fashioned standards of the darkroom era: a print should (still) look like a gelatin-silver or Type C print in terms of sharpness, tonal range, etc.; the Zone Systems sets the parameters of BW; & any visible signs of Photoshopping are embarrassments. But my nephew, a mixed-media artist, certainly doesn't think this way!

 

Kirk

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

99% of my photos are travel-related, and I prefer the travelogue effect of a series of photos. Back in the day I shot slides almost exclusively, and displayed them projected in slide shows. That meant setting up the projector and screen, which limited the viewing opportunities (to the relief of friends and family, I'm sure :D). Now however I put the images on DVD, we have a 65" LCD home theater setup, so it's simple to pop in a DVD any time. I'd say that's the main end-use of my photos today. If I print, it's an occasional 11x14 (or 13x19 at most). I'm almost out of the wall space my wife agrees can be designated for photo display. ("I don't want the house looking like a photo gallery!") so I have to take another photo down if I put up a new one.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It would not come to my mind to hang a print at home let alone in exhibitions.

I am too conscious of my artistic weaknesses and i don't have much time either.

Anyhow i happen to print pics for relatives and of course for clients from time to time but they prefer getting them by email in most cases and my favorite printers are definitely monitors.

Link to post
Share on other sites

LCT, you shouldn't judge the success of a medium by your perceived individual ability. Surely you recognise that a well printed print has far more impact that a low resolution Jpeg viewed on a monitor?

 

If we are going to judge the success of a medium we should look at the best.

Link to post
Share on other sites

...Surely you recognise that a well printed print has far more impact that a low resolution Jpeg viewed on a monitor?...

Honestly no. I don't care to impact others personally but it's just me. Now to get some impact you will need some viewers and you will have many more of them on flickr.com than in any exhibition. Let alone on your walls. :D:cool:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...