The Print, the desired end state?

[wparsonsgisnet]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Interesting question.

 

I commented, following the printing of "Many Eyes" that altho I spent months with the images on my computer screen, I saw the images and things in the images that I had missed when the book was printed. Clearly, the 2 kinds of images are signally different.

 

However, the reason I am now buying a 3880 is because of the damage to my 2400 from not using it. I have commented elsewhere that in my photog/video business, I get more calls for video because [my reasoning] most people think they can take a picture (they just point their phone at something and send the result all over the web).but they know they can't do video.

 

In short, a great deal of my photog ends up only on a computer (or phone-style device) screen.

 

The great fear is that, after we extrapolate the end of film for 35mm cameras, still cameras may not be far behind.

 

And I do agree that prints are really it. Never mind the camera that is the computer, sw updates, inventory control, expendibles (batteries, for example), and so on. That what makes this so much fun!

[lct]

LCT, I have seen your work in print and, trust me, you are doing yourself a disservice....

Your book is very nice Bill, sincerely, but i prefer a good Apple monitor. Reminds me of my Kodachromes and the time i spent to view them through the great Colorplan.

[budrichard]

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!

 

Read my Post, "For most of history". I don't believe archaic processes is what we were addressing.

But thanks for the History Lesson, I think?-Dick

[andym911]

Andy then there is print in the form of a book.......... now that is seriously

a bridge too far, maybe in the next life:)

 

but a very inspiring 'end state'.

 

andy

[sanyasi]

+1 for the print. The batch in LR, selections from the batch on my little website, one or two from the batch printed. I look at the prints and apologize for the web site (just not the quality of a print).

[shootinglulu]

I am mastering printing with my new Epson 3880 at the moment, i find it so exciting and very important to the whole photographer experience, vital really. With the help of forum members i am narrowing down my favourite papers and loving that experience too. I've printed some great colour shots on photo rag baryta, i just love that, the pictures are just so much more satisfying to look at than on a screen or even on cheaper smaller format papers. I am still working on getting a satisfying b+w print but will be experimenting with matt and gloss harman papers, i LOVE it..thanks to the help i have had here.

[tobey bilek]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The print is the desired end state. An image in a computer is incomplete.

 

I can no longer make really nice prints from digital. Ink jet are , well bad. And I am talking even the samples Epson send me touting their new printers. I am forced to deal with a third party contractor for a real photopaper print, Ritz or my pro lab. This does not please me in the least.

 

Yesterday was thinking of going back to film I can print. No soft proof, no profiles, no dried ink, just an enlarger, chemical and paper and no lights. Life was simple. If you did not like it, you made it over at little cost.

 

Anyone want 20 Nikkor lenses and 4 digi slr bodies?

[erl]

I have reached the stage where I don't trust the screen (calibrated etc.) to give me the true worth of my images. My test is "will it print straight to A2". I have (sort of) standardized on that size print. Either it gets printed that size or usually not at all.

 

I have a large Edwardian house with ample (but not enough) wall space. I am always being restricted by 'she who must be obeyed.' Currently I have 30 prints hanging at home, generously matted and framed. I change them periodically as I tire of them or I shoot something that excites me more.

 

I probably have a similar number hanging in friends homes and I don't know how many I have sold.

 

I wish I had the convenient facility to print larger as I Believe 'big' is revealing, in every way. It also tests your imaging quality and sharpens your skills. Sort of 'self editing' from one POV.

 

The satisfaction of making and presenting a big print is hard to equal IMO.

[erl]

The print is the desired end state. An image in a computer is incomplete.

 

I can no longer make really nice prints from digital. Ink jet are , well bad. And I am talking even the samples Epson send me touting their new printers. I am forced to deal with a third party contractor for a real photopaper print, Ritz or my pro lab. This does not please me in the least.

 

Yesterday was thinking of going back to film I can print. No soft proof, no profiles, no dried ink, just an enlarger, chemical and paper and no lights. Life was simple. If you did not like it, you made it over at little cost.

 

Anyone want 20 Nikkor lenses and 4 digi slr bodies?

 

Tobey, based only on what you have just posted you seem to be blaming your tools rather than 'the craftsman' for what you perceive as dissatisfaction. Forgive me, I don't know your work and therefore am not critical of it. What I do know is that the gear you are unhappy with is capable of producing excellent work in skilled hands.

 

It took me (is still taking me!) many years to 'master' ink jet printing, just as it did take me a lifetime (still is!) to to be a better than competent darkroom printer. My digital prints are different from my darkroom prints. Both have their own character and foibles. Both can be excellent, dependent on my skill in driving them. I think is is so for everyone. Give the digital the time and research you probably gave to the darkroom. Both are a long path to travel. The journey is pretty good, if painful, by the way.

[LuxBob]

The print is the desired end state. An image in a computer is incomplete.

 

I can no longer make really nice prints from digital. ....

 

Yesterday was thinking of going back to film I can print. No soft proof, no profiles, no dried ink, just an enlarger, chemical and paper and no lights. Life was simple. If you did not like it, you made it over at little cost.

 

Anyone want 20 Nikkor lenses and 4 digi slr bodies?

 

It is not a question of one being right and the other wrong. My experience of inkjet is that it is a part of the process, each of which requires care and attention, add in some knowledge and experience then it begins to get better. In that it is no different from the darkroom approach.

It would be interesting for someone experienced in both techniques to shoot a roll and at the same time record the same images on a digital camera. That same person should then take each through its own process.

[lct]

The print is the desired end state. An image in a computer is incomplete...

Just for the pleasure of feeding the discussion.

The image in my computer is *my* image. Print in only an *interpretation* of it.

And i feel it often difficult to get a close result on paper actually.

Took this one a couple of years ago and i liked the light in it, don't ask me why. I couldn't achieve the same results with my printer so i asked a couple of labs to print it for me. The result was even worst than my job. Only a fine art lab has been able do it to my liking, at a cost needless to say. All that for a single pic like this. Not my cup of tea definitely. YMMV.

 

[LuxBob]

Just for the pleasure of feeding the discussion.

..... I couldn't achieve the same results with my printer ...

I too find it hard to get the same as I see on screen. Sometimes that is frustrating other times not. When I do get the same as I see on screen though I am not necessarily more satisfied. The print is more subtle or, if that is too strong a word, it is different. The paper makes a difference and when, as at the moment, I am printing some photoes to inkjet Baryta I get something that the screen cannot get.

Also I cannot give a screen to anybody but a picture, if people like it, will be placed somewhere that they can see it, galnce as they go by, perhaps even contemplate sometimes. It is a different experience with a screen.

Previously there was no internmediate screen step, one went straight to the print and so these type of discussions and judgements just did not take place.

I would also put it the other way around - why cannot the screen display this picture like my print?

[christer]

I thought the end state was an exhibition with lots of people attending, (almost) all admiring the work.

[giordano]

why cannot the screen display this picture like my print?

 

Is that question technical, philosophical or rhetorical?

[stunsworth]

After two days in Perpignan looking at hundreds of 20x16 prints I've come to the conclusion that on screen presentation comes a very poor second.

 

A couple of names I hadn't heard of, William Albert Alland had a 50 year retrospective. I assume he used Kodachrome, the printed photographs were outstanding. Beautiful tones.

 

Cedric Gerbehaye, fantastic b&w photographs taken on the Congo.

 

I'm sure they'd look great on a screen, but the impact of their prints was extremely strong.

 

There were many more photographers I could mention - and probably will once I get home.

[tom0511]

For me the print is just one of several "goals":

 

1) I do not only enjoy the result of photography but also the process of taking the image. So taking the image itself is one of the reasons I photograph (as stupid as it sounds)

 

2) A big print of a good image is of course a great thing. I spent a lot of money for my Epson 7900 because I thought I spent so much money on cameras and lenses so I need to be able to print in a good quality. I have final prints at my place and enjoy them.

 

3) I also like photography as a medium to tell my friends about vacation, experiences etc. and to share my life with friends. For this a computer and screen is great. I regulary e-mail my friends 3 or 5 or 10 images if I have been out for an adventure, or for a nice vacation trip or if something funny or intersting happened in my life.

Also if I take images of other people/friends I often share those with them. They like it and I like it that they like it. I refulary also give prints to them when I have a good image where they are in the image.

A nice guy in a hotel-who is somewhat frustrated being far away from home- he has fun with my little daughter (2 years old). I take an image where they both have a happy look in the face. Next day I bring him a print and he seems to really happy about this little memory. Makes us somewhat friends for a moment. Little moments where you meet people and even you dont know each other well and even you know you will not meet in the future you feel close.

 

 

4) For vacation images I also like to see and present them projected with a beamer-very much like a slide projection in earlier times. The big size makes it a different impression and experience

 

So, yes, a nice big print is satisfaction for me, but just one way and goal of my photography

[tom0511]

Forgot...I believe a good print is great but most important thing IMO is to share images.

 

An image burried on a harddrive and never seen again is a very poor image IMO.

[tdavis]

FYI - recently added to the LeicaWiki: Printing Media & Equipment

Tim

[eleskin]

Since I strive to exhibit my work in a formal way, yes, the print for me is the final destination. In a way, this is a great thing in that my trusty M8 is still running strong since I bought it in 2007 and my 17"x22" prints from my Epson 3800 are stunning to me when I compare what I went through when developing film and shooting with my M6 and M4-2. Here, megapixels are not as important because pixel peeping is not as critical in 17"x22" printing.

 

Even my low light shots are incredible at ISO 640, despite all the negative comments about the M8 and lousy high ISO performance. Now I have to admit I use the f1.0 Noctilux and f1.2 35mm Nokton which helps alot in low light. I also use selective noise reduction an out of focus areas and deep shadows (out of focus areas with the Noctilux are really easy for noise reduction in that the Noct by its nature is not like a Summicron in sharpness -although i do consider it a sharp lens for f1.0 and for the price I paid.

 

The M9 for me does offer better files, but in the print, may not be as critical, so the M8 still has great value. The thing I like about the M9 however is the full frame. When using 50mm Lenses, this is a really good thing to work with. The M8 is a little tight for me, so having full frame would be great for a more comfortable shooting distance to the subject being photographed.

 

Oh by the way, I bough a 24" IMAC last year, and this has been the best display I have ever used for printing purposes. The color is dead on with my printer!!!

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[topoxforddoc]

You just can't beat a well made exhibition sized print mounted and framed, seen in good light. Wet prints (silver or Ciba) are generally in a different league to inkjet/giclees. Maybe it's just a psychological thing, as people prefer tangible things such as prints as opposed to ethereal/abstract ones such as projected/displayed images. It's the same as vinyl LPs versus MP3 files.

 

For B&W film images, well printed (Ok that can be hard) silver prints are different and IMHO better than a digital print form a scan. For colour, there has never been anything better than a hand print Cibachrome - unbelieveable.

 

My tuppence worth.