Web presentation of platinum print [Archive] - Large Format Photography Forum

Tyler Boley

12-Aug-2013, 18:52

He Pete.. remember I discussed this briefly the other day for how to present my ink color in my images on the web? Now may be the perfect opportunity to take it to the next step for a handcoated process with some digital steps.. Can you mail me a 21 step chart printed entirely with your process beginning to end? I'll make a qtr profile from it and off we go.. if you already have the ability to do that there.. here's the way to go. For anyone interested actually.

create a 21 step (more if you like) neg using your entire calibrated workflow, one of Roy's that come with qtr are obviously perfect.. if you don't want to waste time and materials just stick it on the edge of an image neg you are going to print anyway... be sure to do any adjustments to it you'd normally do to an image for a linearized neg to print workflow.
Make the pt/pd print. Measure and create a qtr profile.. while you are at it make an RGB qtr profile too... that might be the one you need. Simply drag your measurement file to one utility then the other. Once done, open one of your image files.. if it's a grayscale ASSIGN your new qtr profile, if it's a desaturated RGB file (which lightroom users will probably have) ASSIGN the RGB version of the profile. You'll see your pt/pd hue pop into place. For web, now convert to sRGB and all is good. If you want to maintain the softer blacks of you prints, use Relative Colormeteric here and don't check black point compensation. If you want to maintain the lovely look of both your paper base hue, and your softer blacks, and also the slow subtle overall gradation, use Absolute Colormetric for this conversion.

The beauty of this method is that it's created from the real LAB values in your process, not a simulation with curves or whatever, or the inacuracies and problems of copy photography. All of the B&W work on my site is presented this way.
Anyway, Pete, if you don't do this kind of work there, just send me one, I've been wanting to do this for a long time. Was good to see you up here, your work is gorgeous, as before..
Tyler

Vaughn

12-Aug-2013, 18:55

My ethical guidelines...it does not matter how one does it as long as the representation looks as close as one can get it to the original.

Platinum prints and other images in paper are not quite as sharp as those on paper, such as silver gelatin and carbon (everything else being equal). So scanning a neg can lead to a sharper representation than the platinum (or cyanotype, etc) print itself, so I would hold back on the sharpening, for example.

Removing scanning or re-photographic artifacts is cool, but increasing the contrast (local and/or over-all), cropping, burning, and dodging to 'better' the original print would be a bit dodgy.

Anything that would make a viewer go "The image on the screen looks better than the original" is what one should avoid.

Only once have I sent in a neg scan of an image I have had not yet printed...and only because I knew I could make a print to match or exceed the neg scan (35 years of printing should be good for something!LOL!). But I would consider that borderline acceptable, and for shame if one could not print the negative to match image from the scan!!!

paulr

12-Aug-2013, 20:07

Anything that would make a viewer go "The image on the screen looks better than the original" is what one should avoid.

Or consider it an invitation to go back and make a better print.

Pete Suttner

12-Aug-2013, 20:08

Tyler - you're the culprit! I've been racking my brain, searching the net, trying to figure out the basis of that conversation. I'm getting senile. You bet I want to work this one through! It answers my question of how best to represent my analog print in digital form. Witness your beautiful prints on your web site / real image.

Thanks for all the other input too! I needed some confidence on my short term gallery presentation.

More conversation is still welcome.

Cletus

13-Aug-2013, 05:05

Well, I will defer to Sandy, Peter and some of the other (much) more experienced pt/pd printers here, but I had the same issue of how to get a pt/pd print to retain some little semblance of its real self in digitized form. Ultimately, I just scan my orignal prints in a (reflective) scanner in RGB color mode and then tweak tone curves, color balance, etc., in Lightroom until they look somewhat decent.

I think as soon as you accept the fact that you can never truly recreate the original in digital form, especially with regard to the texture of Arches Platine or similar papers, you'll find that you can come up with a reasonable approximation of your print. As long as you keep everything in RGB mode, you can pretty much play with your sliders and whatever and come up with something close to the original print "color". If you convert to monochrome at any point, I don't think you can pull it off.

Drew Wiley

13-Aug-2013, 08:30

I'm seriously considering pulling all images from my own website. All the web is in this respect is an electronic business card. Nothing nuanced comes across, nor any real impression of quality - just nominal subject matter. But with respect to web review becoming customary for galleries, jurors, etc., it's largely a mentality of "Get lost; I don't have the time to look at your prints". I'd scratch those kinds of people off your list instantly. They might be visually illiterate anyway. Yet it's always been a matter of connections anyway. Getting your foot in the door has always required patience and a little luck knowing the right people. The web has made it just harder, because there's a mountain of "fine art" dime-a-dozen photographers out there. And frankly, a lot of galleries don't give a damn about either quality or permanence. .. they just want a business as a hobby; and relatively few succeed at it in the long run.

Merg Ross

13-Aug-2013, 09:02

But with respect to web review becoming customary for galleries, jurors, etc., it's largely a mentality of "Get lost; I don't have the time to look at your prints". I'd scratch those kinds of people off your list instantly. They might be visually illiterate anyway. Yet it's always been a matter of connections anyway. Getting your foot in the door has always required patience and a little luck knowing the right people.

Drew, in many cases the web has replaced slides as a method of review by galleries, museums, etc. The web gives a truer representation of one's work than slide presentations ever did. Of course, getting a foot in the door and connecting with the right people has always been the best method of showing work. Back in the day, the "right people" were more accessible.

paulr

13-Aug-2013, 09:09

Drew, I don't think those people—meaning just about everyone—are gonna cry about being scratched off your list.

Drew Wiley

13-Aug-2013, 09:21

Is there a mosquito in the room? ... ahh, now the Ignore function is back on again... But "back in the day" I didn't do slide submissions either, though once I set up
an agent in the East that way. Real prints are what did it every time. Not so concerned now, since if I get back into the game it's going to be my own gig, one way
or another.

Vaughn

13-Aug-2013, 09:31

Trying to show carbon prints in digital form is always disappointing -- no way to show the raised relief of the prints that can add so much depth to the image. The plus side (for showing carbons or platinum prints -- or any process, really) is that seeing reproductions of a print on the computer graphically shows if the image itself can stand on its own, and that it is not just carried by the beauty of the process.

Drew Wiley

13-Aug-2013, 10:01

One can get 3D TV now, Vaughn... you just have to learn how to properly juxtapose red and green images on the web, and then send out free colored glasses. As
if things weren't getting bad enough... now Frankencarbon! But if you really want to get complicated, study up on Vectographs - pre-Hologram 3D color prints.

Vaughn

13-Aug-2013, 10:08

Kimberly Anderson

13-Aug-2013, 14:15

Here's what I do.

100131

That file is straight out of the camera (D7000), converted from a RAW file in LR5.0.

If I stretch out the histogram a little bit I can get a little more punch out of the blacks like this.

100132

Clearly the look and feel of the image is entirely subjective and up to you, but I have found that scanning pt/pd prints, or any alt processes (save wet-plate Ambrotypes), leave me wanting something 'more'.

Good luck!

Jim collum

13-Aug-2013, 15:16

I've used an Eversmart Pro flatbed, and have had excellent results (you can never get the real 'feel'.. but it gets me close...)

paulr

13-Aug-2013, 16:05

Trying to show carbon prints in digital form is always disappointing -- no way to show the raised relief of the prints that can add so much depth to the image.

Oil painters and sculptors show their work online all the time. There may be some frustration that you can perfectly capture something 3-D in 2-D, but I don't think they lose too much sleep over it. Ultimately you have to trust viewers to know there are differences between physical objects and screen images.

And while I've seen many photographs that were better in real life than on screen (and a few that were worse), I've rarely seen a great photograph that couldn't be appreciated on screen. Forget great—I've rarely seen an interesting photograph that wasn't interesting on screen. Maybe somewhere there's an image who's importance is so precarious it can only be transmited via the surface texture of the paper. I sure haven't seen it.

Drew Wiley

13-Aug-2013, 16:15

The clincher for me was my habitual disappointment with Rembrandt paintings in books. No matter how they polarize and light them, they never have magic. The web
only drags things down a few hundred notches more. You interact with the nominal subject - that's all. Seeing his self-portrait in person was a revelation. The impasto, the shimmering gold buttons, which only look yellow in reproduction - gives one the correct impression of his genius as a painter. Thank goodness the web
didn't exist back then, or all the usual wise ass web surfers would just go around saying how easy it all is to mimic. In photography, quality printmaking separates the men from the boys.

Jim collum

13-Aug-2013, 16:38

I don't think they'd even know that Rembrandt existed. (or if they did. would eve care who he was... :) If the requirement was that you only see it in person to 'know' it, then we're talking an incredibly small percentage of people who would have experienced this throughout history. As it is, the vast majority of people have been able to appreciate that Rembrandt was a master, only by seeing the work in books

Without the internet.. would more than a hundred people would ever have seen your work? (most being friends and family). I'd say it's pretty important to figure out a way to get a sense of what your work is out there electronically, if you're interested in more than that many people seeing it. If the work on the net doesn't convey some of the magic of one's work, or worse.. is a bad representation of one's work.... then the general opinion of the world is going to be that the work sucks.

Not a requirement though.... many are quite happy to have their work known to only a few.

The clincher for me was my habitual disappointment with Rembrandt paintings in books. No matter how they polarize and light them, they never have magic. The web
only drags things down a few hundred notches more. You interact with the nominal subject - that's all. Seeing his self-portrait in person was a revelation. The impasto, the shimmering gold buttons, which only look yellow in reproduction - gives one the correct impression of his genius as a painter. Thank goodness the web
didn't exist back then, or all the usual wise ass web surfers would just go around saying how easy it all is to mimic. In photography, quality printmaking separates the men from the boys.

Drew Wiley

14-Aug-2013, 09:22

Seeing a web image is NOT seeing my work by a long long long shot! It's just hypothetically at best a catalog impression for picking subject matter once someone has already gained familiarity with the actual quality of my work, which can only be obtained by direct viewing (if I even bothered updating the thing, or added the other 98% of my specific prints to it). Image by itself means nothing - one can simply scan an original transparency to simulate that. A well tuned print is something else entirely. If it wasn't for distinct IRS business recommendations (just like a letterhead and business card in old days), I wouldn't even bother with a website. 100% of my print sales have come from people seeing the print live anyway. Web surfers have sent compliments from almost every country of the world, presumably because some of them are intelligent enough to understand a web image is only a vague fascimile, and something more serious exists in the real print form which these deliberately crude copies were made. ... just like we all understand that an halftone reproduction of a Rembrandt painting isn't the real deal either. It all obviously gets a little more complicated when encountering a younger generation which only understands electronic images. ... I remember when the
Westons had about the ugliest website I've ever seen, next to Kodak's. The idea back then was to be widely accessible, since lots of things ran slow. Now these have been cleaned up quite a bit, and high speed connections are routine. Frankly, it all an extremely low priority to me. I'm not in a technology horse race with
Industrial Light and Magic. I'm not selling web skills or services, and the dude who handles my site is extremely skilled and successful (he hosts quite a few Silicon
Valley clients), so can easily modernize things anytime I choose. But what's the point. I'm not trying to impress geeks. If one happens to be in the business of
selling electronic stocks images, or regards the web as their primary mode of visual communication, that's a whole different story. But do it to well and they'll just
pirate your image anyway, for some stupid screensaver or something. So yeah, for me personally... I much rather have a small dedicated audience of the real deal
than a large crowd who only get a crude approximation. But don't worry about Rembrandt ... he was famous long before either the web or color offset printing.
Back then real people took real time to look at real things if they had the opportunity. I traveled all the way to DC to look at real Rembrandt's in the Natl Gallery,
and it was worth more to me than owning all the published Rembrandt books in existence (not that he's my favorite painter by any means - I actually went there
to view Vermeer).

patrickjames

14-Aug-2013, 11:10

Pete,

The way I scan images (silver) that are not glossy is to make two scans, one rotated 180º, and combine the scans in Photoshop. This gets rid of most if not all of the reflections off of the surface depending on the paper. If you really want to go nuts you could combine four scans, each one 90º to the last, if your scanner is big enough. I also include a Gretag target too when I scan to make sure the colors come out right. I am obviously leaving out details, but you can contact me if you want.

There is the solution to your problem based on what you have available to you right now.

paulr

14-Aug-2013, 12:26

Seeing a web image is NOT seeing my work by a long long long shot!

That work must really be special.

I was predictably dismissive of the web at first. But it became clear that good web images get across most of what's important about an image. I spent decades as fine print junkie, and was lucky enough to live with easy access to the greatest hits of printmakers whose craft I admired—this wasn't about lack of exposure to the real deal.

On the web we don't get to admire certain tactile qualities, but realistically, display under glass often demolishes those as well. As does the dim light used for museum display of fugitive Victorian processes.

The are only few cases where I find web images can't substantially stand in for a prints. Those usually involve daguerrotypes or images (or installations) that depend on huge scale.

But ordinary silver or platinum prints? Please. If the web can't communicate what's important about the image, maybe it's because there isn't anything.

Drew Wiley

14-Aug-2013, 12:43

If a seventh grade marching school band tuba player can't do Bach, Bach must not have had anything to offer to begin with. If you can't correctly fit a kitchen cabinet with a chainsaw, it doesn't deserve to be installed to begin with. I don't get the logic.

Jim collum

14-Aug-2013, 13:07

Drew,

Are there any local galleries (local to the Bay area) that have any samples hanging (or in a drawer.. normally only a very small percentage would be hung and any given time). Live in Santa Cruz, and work in Cupertino.

jim

Drew Wiley

14-Aug-2013, 13:47

I dunno Jim. A bunch ended up in private collections down your way. Someone recently spotted a couple of Ciba prints still at Pebble Beach - don't know exactly
who bought those originally, but some of the clients were at the very top of anyone's A-list of photographers still alive. Doubt I'll do galleries again unless it's my own. Just too big a body of work and life is getting too short to play that game again. Will either do something big in a couple years with architectural partners, or very small on my own with min overhead, once I formally retire. Time will tell if I get my second wind or not, monetarily at least. I have bigger priorities, including making prints just for the love of it. Last of my shows were publicly funded, not commercial. Doubt the curator is still even alive. I shoot for the print itself, that is, with a specific print medium in mind, not generically or for electronic output. There are a lot of subtleties to it with respect to both detail and hue nuances that just don't come across on the web at all. So not much sense revising the site until I actually open the gallery. It's a low priority - and then I'm almost certain I'll remove all but a handful of images. It's like giving kobe beef to McDonald's - no matter what they do it still comes out like a greasy burger.

Merg Ross

14-Aug-2013, 14:04

Please. If the web can't communicate what's important about the image, maybe it's because there isn't anything.

I tend to agree with this statement. Really fine work can survive web presentation without excuses. Of course, held in one's hands or displayed on a wall, it may well exhibit attributes beyond the capability of the web. However, I have seen iconic images presented on the web that still maintain their power and magic, without knowing that the original was a contact print developed in Amidol, or whatever technical process was utilized.

Vaughn

14-Aug-2013, 15:09

paulr/Merg -- I understand your POV and agree with it to a certain extent, but for some (such as me) look at their work as a combination of vision and craft, where the print is the piece of art, not just the image and not just the process. (and I am not saying this is superior to any other approach to photography). The image is created to specifically match the look of a particular process. And if the look of the process can not be communicated by the reproduction on a computer screen or in a book, then something is lost and it is not good enough. But something is better than nothing, so I do post images on-line.

A Bach Quartet played on four kazoos may capture some of the mood of the piece, but a true understanding of the piece is difficult to achieve.

Jim collum

14-Aug-2013, 15:36

For me, the reproduction is part of the motivation to move me to see the actual piece. If someone described Van Gogh's Starry Night verbally.. it might be interesting for a moment. but that's it. Although not up to the magic of the actual painting.. looking at a reproduction conveys enough 'magic' to get me to buy a plane ticket to go see it. The same goes for photographs... I know someone who bought one of George Tice's large platinum prints, never having seen the actual print. They did know his work from books & having seen silver prints.. but had never seen one of his platinum.

No one's ever bought one of my prints because they've read about it . I have made sales entirely on web representation of work though. I'm the first to agree that web or book representation doesn't equal a print.. but it does get someone to look closer.

Merg Ross

14-Aug-2013, 15:38

And if the look of the process can not be communicated by the reproduction on a computer screen or in a book, then something is lost and it is not good enough. But something is better than nothing, so I do post images on-line.

Vaughn, I agree, something is lost, and in the case of special processes, even more so. This is the reason that I no longer offer prints for sale on my website, as doing so would not be a faithful representation of the product. However, from a compositional viewpoint, I think the web serves admirably, and my previous comment was more to that aspect of web presentation.

Drew Wiley

14-Aug-2013, 15:47

Merg - there must be some reason why not only myself but other well known color photo locals like Joe Holmes and Charlie Cramer rarely bother to update their site. Chris Burkett's highest priced image looks like utter crap on the web - there is simply no way to convey the sense of intricate light and detail in a big Ciba like that over the web. Stunning in real life, blaaah electronically. Much of my early work relied on very subtle nuances of depth perception and multiple reflections in the image which come across exactly zero on the web. I'm working on an image tonite where a single cc change of magenta changes the whole personality of the image - everything is high-key color detail with very subtle color. No way that will survive the web. Even with b&w, subtle split-toning basically has to be doctored to simulate for web presentation. My bigger concern is how the web is just dumbing down the visual literacy of the public, even art academia. I don't want my images whored around like that. They were intended are precisely nuanced prints to begin with, and I wouldn't want anyone else printing them. So though I will
keep a website as a personal contact convenience and for generalized info, you can be certain most images will be pulled from it. If nothing else, just think of it
as a revolt from the current trend of mediocrity.

Tyler Boley

14-Aug-2013, 15:54

I guess I don't understand the problem here. Isn't it just a given something is lost if the representation is not the actual piece? I have a lot of Caponigro books, and have also seen some original prints. There's nothing like the originals, the books aren't the same experience at all. But I love the books, and he seemed to have no problem with having his work represented in these books, and I'll bet as the maker of those prints, he was more aware of the differences than anybody. How about Gene Smith? A very particular printer who had to settle for consumer magazine reproduction.
I can appreciate someone ONLY showing their images through their original prints, but I guess I'd like to expand my audience a bit more than can be don't that way, therefore work hard at ways to make sure the representation is still pleasing to me as possible given the limitations of a monitor.
Tyler

Cletus

14-Aug-2013, 15:58

And while I've seen many photographs that were better in real life than on screen (and a few that were worse), I've rarely seen a great photograph that couldn't be appreciated on screen. Forget great—I've rarely seen an interesting photograph that wasn't interesting on screen. Maybe somewhere there's an image who's importance is so precarious it can only be transmited via the surface texture of the paper. I sure haven't seen it.

And,

I tend to agree with this statement. Really fine work can survive web presentation without excuses. Of course, held in one's hands or displayed on a wall, it may well exhibit attributes beyond the capability of the web. However, I have seen iconic images presented on the web that still maintain their power and magic, without knowing that the original was a contact print developed in Amidol, or whatever technical process was utilized.

Oh yeah, and,

That work must really be special.

I was predictably dismissive of the web at first. But it became clear that good web images get across most of what's important about an image. I spent decades as fine print junkie, and was lucky enough to live with easy access to the greatest hits of printmakers whose craft I admired—this wasn't about lack of exposure to the real deal.

On the web we don't get to admire certain tactile qualities, but realistically, display under glass often demolishes those as well. As does the dim light used for museum display of fugitive Victorian processes.

The are only few cases where I find web images can't substantially stand in for a prints. Those usually involve daguerrotypes or images (or installations) that depend on huge scale.

But ordinary silver or platinum prints? Please. If the web can't communicate what's important about the image, maybe it's because there isn't anything.

I know I shouldn't use the words of everyone else to emphasize my own point, but I certainly had to come to grips with the fact that it really is the content of the photograph that makes it good, great, or indifferent, and not the process. I mean, what could be more valuable than a photograph which is literally made in pure platinum? Not if the content isn't there. If the content is there and it is also a superb print made by a master of their process, then in my mind you have something of value which goes beyond either the content or the process alone.

I am fortunate enough to live near a gallery that's been representing "A-list photographers" since the 70's. Every couple years I bring in my latest box 'o prints and subject myself to an appraisal which, while sometimes difficult, is always valuable. Needless to say, I've yet to be invited to hang anything on their walls as a result of these appraisals. But that's not really the point. Because a lot of the prints from the newer (but established and selling) photographers are done in inkjet, last year I asked how much the process used to make the print actually contributed to its value.

The answer I got to this question wasn't at all what I wanted to hear and I'm not willing to accept the opinion of one gallerist, however well-known, that the process used to make the print makes no difference in the final sale price. That only the photograph itself and the photographer who's name is associated with it determines what the market might pay for a print. And even though that statement is in direct contradiction to the fact that in the same gallery a George Tice "Petit's Mobil Station" in platinum is priced higher then the same size print in silver gelatin, it's only because of the name of the artist that dictates this.

Or, the other way to say it might be....If it's a good photograph it's a good photograph, whether viewed on the web, in a book, in a frame on the wall or a little print held in your hand. What it might actually be worth in dollars is another question entirely and isn't dependent on whether or not it's displayed on a website.

Cletus

14-Aug-2013, 16:06

...and granted this discussion isn't necessarily about what a print is "worth in dollars", so much as whether it's possible to faithfully represent any facsimilie of a photograph without compromising it's value or beauty as a work of art.

Jim collum

14-Aug-2013, 16:10

But you're doing nothing to battle the trend of mediocrity. In essence, you're hiding them from all but a handful (hundred or so?) of people... and they may already share your aesthetic. While the masses may not know what a print looks like, they'll also never know your aesthetic. Since all that's seen are over saturated HDR images from Flickr, then that's what's known. 'nuance' isn't just limited to a physical print.. it's also a characteristic of the image itself. And that nuance may be what's needed for someone to stop and think.. hmmm. that's different.. and then start to look at more of your work (online). Eventually, they may look you up and try to see a print.

this:

"i have a platinum print that has very subtle shadow detail and a graphic composition for sale"

isn't going to get a second look.

this :

http://www.getdpi.com/gallery/files/1/2/aptus_010165-pt-2.jpg

is just going to annoy people

this (a scan of a platinum print) .. although not as 'nuanced' as the actual print (of which there can be variation between others in the same edition)

http://www.getdpi.com/gallery/files/1/2/aptus_010165-pt.jpg

has resulted in having sold a number of prints in this edition, and has people who have no idea who i am, interested in other prints.

Can someone download the larger image and print it? sure.. who cares.. they can't produce the actual print, which is what's for sale.
(if I were selling it as stock.. then the first, annoying jpg would probably be what's online.)

Vaughn

14-Aug-2013, 16:13

I will throw in the idea of scale, also. Some images 'work' only ( or work best) at a certain size/viewing distance. Thus the actual impact of the image can be lost when seen on the screen. I have gotten comments from people wishing the image on the screen was larger -- when the image on the screen is actually larger than the original print!
:D

4x5 and no larger (carbon print):

Drew Wiley

14-Aug-2013, 16:14

Technique makes ALL the difference. Just follow my analogy. How come Chez Panise up the street gets even presidents dining in there, but the same ingredients
given to a lesser chef wouldn't fetch ten bucks a plate? The problem is that most people nowadays think that fine ethnic cuisine is KFC and that a good steak is a
BIg Mac, simply because that's all they've ever tasted. It's all just cow" or chicken, isn't it? Of course content counts. But unless my own kid was in the band, I sure wouldn't bother attending a Handl concert played by the local Junior High.... But frankly, I remember back in the 60's when our own local country band was playing Purple Haze in the Moose Hall. The only memorable thing about Elmer and his electric guitar is just how horrible it all was. I don't think Jimi had to worry about competition. Same kind of instrument, same notes, totally different effect.

Drew Wiley

14-Aug-2013, 16:21

Jim - I get your point. By my product IS the print ... not a generic image of it. That's what I do. If I get the opportunity to make some of these public again - and
I'd like to , fine... If not, I will still have the pleasure of experiencing life, making them, doing something meaningful and quality.... which I hope to be doing again in about half an hour. Just posting a web image? Big deal. Some people actually enjoy making fine cuisine too. Not everyone has an aspiration to flip a Big Mac on
their spare time.

Tyler Boley

14-Aug-2013, 16:53

this is not unique, my product is the print as well-
http://tylerboley.com/whats-a-blog-without-a-rant-prints-v-1-0/
but I think that I choose to also represent my work on line falls short of contributing to the downfall of everything good in existence.

Tyler

Pete Suttner

14-Aug-2013, 17:29

Photography is a funny medium. I just tossed "The Family of Man" on the car seat to return to the library. I think any one of the images in that book have a life of their own, and communicate something far beyond the medium from which the were produced including a dog eared, stained, abused library book.

On the other hand sometimes the medium is the message. Silver, platinum, inkjet - all tactile, artifact, something to hold in your hand or look at on the wall. Hopefully the care and level of craftsmanship that were used to create the object in the first place would be used to re-represent in other media forms as well.

Drew Wiley

15-Aug-2013, 09:19

Some images are more amenable to different forms or scales of reproduction than others. But about 60% of mine just don't look like anything except in the real print.
The print itself might be stunning to look at, but over something like the web nobody would even recognize what it is - there's no readily identifiable "subject" that
fits anyone's stereotypes of what a photograph should be. It's all about nuances. A millimeter difference in the cropping, of a second different in exposure, or one or
two CC's difference in color balance - It's not a tactility issue like a pt/pd image on rag paper - but about what the image is intended to do in the first place. And
that's the whole point! I'm trying to get people to look at things they would utterly take for granted otherwise.... yeah, I guess I've got my share of picture booky
color landscapes and bold black and white subject, but what really matters to me are those images that grow on people over time, where they wonder why the
hell I even took them in the first place, but get enticed by them anyway. It's a totally different game than the "gotcha" mentality.

paulr

15-Aug-2013, 12:21

[QUOTE=Vaughn;1056344A Bach Quartet played on four kazoos may capture some of the mood of the piece, but a true understanding of the piece is difficult to achieve.[/QUOTE]

I don't think that analogy points to what we're talking about. How about a well recorded MP3 of the Bach piece? You can get everything you need from that, unless you really need the aural illusion that you're actually sitting in a concert hall. Some people do insist on that. Which is fine, but they're deluded if they think their audio obsession is about music. It's like thinking obsession with fine bookbinding and typography and rare editions is about literature.

Drew Wiley

15-Aug-2013, 12:32

Jim collum

15-Aug-2013, 12:40

What about the dining analogy, Paul.... Some people seem to be willing to part with a lot of money for the services of a good chef and fresh ingredients.... Are you
implying that it would be the same thing factory mfg, frozen, mass-distributed, and then microwaved?

that's equating a well processed & prepared image for web display (or print reproduction) as being the similar in quality to 'factory mfg, frozen, mass-distributed & microwaved'. I don't believe that's the case.. maybe a 300pixel jpg quality 4 might be in that realm. I think paul's closer with his comparison to a well recorded MP3. And with that comparison.. are only live performances by a band or orchestra 'good enough'. If you were a musician, would you consider performing live the only way to convey your musical 'message'?

Drew Wiley

15-Aug-2013, 13:00

Jim - for me it's more like the Russian saying about listening to a symphony with earmuffs on (I won't repeat the rest of the context)... quite a bit just doesn't get thru. Just think of how impoverished our heritage would be if our knowledge of art history were based on the web. Let's be thankful that it's one invention which
DaVinci didn't have a premonition of! ... obviously it's good for certain things in our modern world, and maybe for cataloging commodity information. But as a photographic tool, it's about as useful as double-bit axe and spiked ball would be to a cabinet or violin maker.... you can perceive that it came from a tree, but not
much else. ... but I'm not stating this as a philosophical posture or as an abstract argument.... it would just be a waste of time to put things on the web that are
inherently capable of being communicated that way. More static than music. I don't care if it's eight million pixels, it still is not the same visual experience ... what
ya gonna do, click around enlarging thirty different sections of a 30X40 print and them try to reassemble them in your imagination... Or post them on one of those
garish digital big displays like outdoor advertisers now do? The web was inherently designed to be limited in color capability and detail capacity, and even if it were
hypothetically equal to the quantitative content, the qualitative content is an entirely different subject. ... So in short, it's more like a kazoo with half the teeth
missing than a real orchestra kazoo.

Drew Wiley

15-Aug-2013, 14:03

But per your personal example, Jim... you're picking out a black and white image with a conspicuous graphic element that comes across on the screen. That's part
of the problem... One has to selectively delete a major part of one's work which doesn't do that... where the dominant theme requires a lot of elements than are not going to translate into a secondary of tertiary medium (I say, tertiary, because I'm assuming the print has to be digi copied somewhow inbetween). I'm working on a print like that right now... It comes alive due to the interaction of very subtle and tiny element of color, sometimes only a mm across on a 20x24 print ... the subtle modulation of the colors is downright intense, but would look utterly bland on the web, meaningless really. Not everything relevant in a photograph is necessarily blatant. And a lot of my work bucks stereotypes of either the cutesy Bambi nature crowd or the effete snobbery mentality of art academia (for those of you old enough to remember that colorful phrase!). Missing a tiny blade of grass a tiny hint of color somewhere loses the whole image. Nowadays the web is just
a big whorehouse anyway... anything and everything goes there.

Vaughn

15-Aug-2013, 14:07

...How about a well recorded MP3 of the Bach piece?

Have MP3's reach the quality level of records yet?

It's like thinking obsession with fine bookbinding and typography and rare editions is about literature.

Interesting, hand-made books can be art pieces -- and something can be lost when mass-producing them.. And heaven have mercy on the editor who 'corrects' the work of e.e.cummings!

paulr

15-Aug-2013, 14:50

Have MP3's reach the quality level of records yet?

Plenty of blind tests say so, but it doesn't matter. You don't need a perfect illusion to hear the music. My composer friend enjoys listening to my (pretty decent) stereo, but at home listens to the thing he got used in college. He says, "if I can hear the notes and rhythms, it's all good." Made it clear to me that loving audio isn't the same as loving music.

Interesting, hand-made books can be art pieces

Sure they can. I've designed books, so I'm happy to agree. But admiring a book object isn't the same as admiring literature. All the hundreds of editions of Macbeth, from hand-scribed to paperback to e-book, have been Macbeth. The medium influences the message but should not be confused with it.

I'm waiting for someone to point out that you can't make this same argument for sculpture, or for a theatrical production, or any number of other art forms. Hidden in that protest would be an interesting (but maybe not new) thesis about the nature of photography.

Jim collum

15-Aug-2013, 15:16

By now it's pretty clear that you will be working the way you do, and probably won't post any quality images to the web... which is fully within your right. You could have work that changes how people feel about photography/art.. but no one will know (Just as I'm pretty sure that there were peers of Rembrandt who painted, possibly surpassing his work, who have been lost in history).

I have just browsed through both Christopher Burkett's and Charlie Cramer's site.. and from the jpgs they have posted, I know what kind of work they produce, I can see 'quality' in their work... both from their compositions and use of color. I don't see the individual leaves on the trees.. but then.. that shouldn't be *all* that defines an image (If so, then having it hung on a wall in a gallery isn't an adequate presentation either.. viewing a 40x50" print at a distance to see the entire image, you won't see the stems on the leaves until you got close enough). I see enough of their work that I'd be motivated to see actual prints.

I live under the delusion that more than friends and family may want to be customers or just see my work. (frankly .. friends and family don't make very good customers.. most expect prints :) .. ) . The Galleries and Museums that I have spoken with, all feel they can determine quality of work based on web presentation.. at least enough to produce interest enough for them to ask for prints.

In order to do this, I've had to learn how to properly process, both size and quality, to best display my work online. For my platinum prints, i've found that using a high end flatbed scanner has been a good way of doing this .. scanning the final print. I usually scan a step wedge to help with contrast and color balance.

(as an observation on the audio level of 'nuance'. I had a friend who's dad owned a couple hundred thousand $ worth of analog stereo gear. Tubes imported from Russia, massive isolation stands. He insisted he could hear the difference in music by placing a dime size magnet on the top of a speaker, and moving it around. He said he could discern if it was moved an inch. Of course, he never did a blind test of it.. and there was only one place in his house where he'd allow music to be listened from (a chair in his 'room')). I'm sure he'd of considered the live performance as 'McDonald quality')

Drew Wiley

15-Aug-2013, 15:20

The philosophical argument is one thing, and perhaps deserves the talents of some wordsmith, the practical reality something else. Only about 5% of my color images come across on the web, mostly the 5% I least want to represent my intentions - and these come across poorly, even if I upped the JPEG's to current standards. Maybe in black and white the percentage is hypothetically higher, if this were worth my time at all. Right now I'm working with three different gloss levels of color paper, because which image fits which gloss can itself make a giant different in what is or in not being communicated. Scale in very important. Some images need to be small to feel right, some large - it's isn't like differentiating a Weston Pepper #1 restrike from Pepper #2 - a known visual and commercial commodity. Now I'm not implying that the web cannot be a legitimate artistic vehicle of its own, even will all its foibles - it's just not my chosen medium!

Drew Wiley

15-Aug-2013, 16:02

Jim - as far as museums and galleries now demanding web submissions ... I just regard this as so much, "don't bother us, we already have enough to do" mentality.
Plus they want something edgy anyway... might as well be the Byzantine era or dark ages as the web gradually erodes both visual literacy and tactile skill sets.
I've had my share of curators and museum people at my dinner table, and know how well they can poke fun at their own profession. It's been awhile... but what they're really thinking can be quite a bit different than what their paid day job tells them to say and write. All a game. Get funding, get more funding. Do whatever
stunt is necessary to get funding. ... Funny, but today the SF paper had about a five page spread about the Palace of Fine Arts hosting the Art Academy graduating
class exhibition, and some writer made a deal about how one student actually had the creative genius to discover a 35mm film camera in his grandpa's attic, figure
out how to make it work with real film, and then have the boldness to submit a film photograph to the exhibition! Then he garbled on what an amazing landscape
the silly snapshot was (I'm mean, it might have been a real Costco RA4 print, and not even inkjet!), and then reproduced it in color in the newspaper, which might
possibly be the only form of reproduction actually worse than the web ...

paulr

15-Aug-2013, 17:22

I couldn't be more excited about digital submissions. And I say this as someone who has a lot to gain from the print submission process—I'm proud of my prints. And I live in a city that gives me access, by public transportation, to many institutions that I want to show work to. More than what exists in any other one place.

But making appointments and hauling boxes around is tedious. Without multiple portfolios, you have to show to one person at a time. Leaving original prints after signing liability waivers gives me the creeps. And there are other institutions all over the world that I want to show work to. I'd have access to some of these by spending thousands every year to attend portfolio review events, but not everyone attends those.

I think the democracy of digital submissions is amazing. It means if you can afford to make a photograph you can afford to show it to anyone, even halfway around the world. Photographers in China and India and Peru can send work to the Tate or MoMA or the Biblioteque Nationale. They might never have been able to in a previous era.

And the web means people can discover the work on their own. Most of the shows I've been in in the past year resulted from people approaching me. Organizations I didn't know about sent an email. How awesome.

The old-time alternative was sending orignal prints—and money—to enter a jurried show or contest. I did that exactly once. The rejection letter came back with a dented print.

The real issue is that I make work so people can see it. The web lets a lot of people see it—people I wouldn't have even thought to show it to. Thousands of times more people than before.

Jim collum

15-Aug-2013, 19:23

+1 (many times over)

I couldn't be more excited about digital submissions. And I say this as someone who has a lot to gain from the print submission process—I'm proud of my prints. And I live in a city that gives me access, by public transportation, to many institutions that I want to show work to. More than what exists in any other one place.

But making appointments and hauling boxes around is tedious. Without multiple portfolios, you have to show to one person at a time. Leaving original prints after signing liability waivers gives me the creeps. And there are other institutions all over the world that I want to show work to. I'd have access to some of these by spending thousands every year to attend portfolio review events, but not everyone attends those.

I think the democracy of digital submissions is amazing. It means if you can afford to make a photograph you can afford to show it to anyone, even halfway around the world. Photographers in China and India and Peru can send work to the Tate or MoMA or the Biblioteque Nationale. They might never have been able to in a previous era.

And the web means people can discover the work on their own. Most of the shows I've been in in the past year resulted from people approaching me. Organizations I didn't know about sent an email. How awesome.

The old-time alternative was sending orignal prints—and money—to enter a jurried show or contest. I did that exactly once. The rejection letter came back with a dented print.

The real issue is that I make work so people can see it. The web lets a lot of people see it—people I wouldn't have even thought to show it to. Thousands of times more people than before.

Drew Wiley

16-Aug-2013, 08:37

The game has never changed, Paul.... It's still about who you know. Always has been. What are the odds of the hundred dozen wannabees getting a curator to take
their work seriously.... .00000000003%? The lottery has better odds than that. And how on earth can anyone sort out cell phone quality from the real deal?
When I was younger and ambitious, I did haul a portfolio box around, and oddly, it was mostly me rejecting the venue more often than them telling me to get lost.
I always wanted to see how they handled things in the back room first. Real prints, real impact, then and there. ... but to change gears, did anyone happen to see
the Charlie Rose interview of Ellsion last nite? It was extremely interesting to me for a couple reasons. Ellison reiterated in unequivocal terms how the whole consumer end of software and electronics is totally geared to rapid fashion changeover and obsolescence. The other interesting thing it that they were sitting in Port Orford cedar furniture made by my former art agent (Ellsion's entire mansion is Port Orford cedar. I merely supplied the tools and finishes, but do keep in contact with many of the crew who built that place, some of whom were transferred to the current racing catamaran facilities. My friend has retired, having bounced between being a curator himself, a commercial agent, and an excellent wood craftsman. He is currently writing a book on traditional Chinese architecture after working alongside the maint crew in the Forbidden City in Beijing).

Jim collum

16-Aug-2013, 08:53

i've seen it happen. Photo Lucida portfolio review I watched a couple photographers with portfolios get gallery representation (established Galleries.. not the show-a-print-in-a -frame-shop gallery.). They've since become very successful. The single gallery I have representation in was obtained through an email with jpgs... followed by a request for prints. ... And though I have representation in one of the top Photography galleries in the US (ok.. that was as lucky as a lottery win)... and know a lot of those represented in the other's, I haven't been able to get a second look from any other gallery. As far as sorting out.. the curator asks the questions about the work when the images catch their eye.

As far as 'cell phone quality goes' , I've seen some excellent prints done with cell phone images (nothing larger than 6" though)... and in established galleries as well.

I'd recommend the Portfolio Reviews as one of the best ways of getting work noticed. (there are probably 3 or 4 reviews to take seriously.)

Drew Wiley

16-Aug-2013, 09:08

Too old for that starving artist game now, Jim. Want my own gig. But there are much more important priorities in life than an art career. I got offered some very
solid gigs in commercial photog over the years too... had too much family responsibility here, and I'd never be happy in the East anyway. Can't worry about it. I
have about a 50/50 chance of things working out right around the time I formally retire, but life is full of unexpected things, so at least the one thing nobody can
take away is the experience of seeing things and printing them, the full experience. Very very little of our work will likely seem relevant to future generations. Maybe
the old shots of what an actual rainforest looked like, or ice in the arctic, or big cats outside a zoo.

paulr

16-Aug-2013, 11:13

The game has never changed, Paul.... It's still about who you know.

Huh. That's interesting. The shows and publications and collections I've gotten into over the last several years had nothing to do with who I know. Occasionally I didn't even know of these people. I have work in a show right now, curated by a great non-profit called Artbridge. I'd never heard of them. They found my work on facebook, of all places.

Anne Tucker, possibly the most respected curator in the country right now, routinely finds new artists at Fotofest. She's also been known to buy work for the MFA Houston collection from unknown people on ebay.

That said we would all probably do better if we knew more of the right people. That seems to be true in every walk of life, doesn't it?

paulr

16-Aug-2013, 11:21

I'd recommend the Portfolio Reviews as one of the best ways of getting work noticed. (there are probably 3 or 4 reviews to take seriously.)

Agree 100%. I didn't mean to be dismissive of these. They may be the most effective way to get people's attention now. But they are expensive, and it's not practical for everyone to go every year. I would like to attend one again soon ... it's always a balancing act between cost and then number of people on the reviewers list I'd be excited to see.

Drew Wiley

16-Aug-2013, 12:10

So much hypothetical posturing. Whatever works, works. And unless you're extremely lucky in both timing and content, it can take years in the pipeline to actually
get a significant public show hung, even when they're genuinely interested in what you do. Been there, done that, had my 15 sec of fame. Big deal. Customs change over time too... seems like a common strategy nowadays to get noticed it to put out an expensive book, and someone times it with your own fifteen seconds of fame (after spending three years of work and 75 grand of your own money betting on that book). ... All I want to do at this point is sell about one real good print a month and I'll double my retirement income, and someone will have something they prize on a wall. And the web is worthless for that in my experience (doesn't mean I won't use it in an educational or informational sense, however). If somebody does come along and offers me another public venue, fine, or wants to fund a book. But I have my own strategy, and it's obviously not intended as a generic prescription for how someone else prefers to do it. ... But I would like to
see Paul do a book, regardless of whether he dislikes me or not. I'd buy it.

paulr

16-Aug-2013, 14:02

So much hypothetical posturing.

All I did was tell you my recent experience. And the habits of some curators who go out of their way to find talented unknowns.

And unless you're extremely lucky in both timing and content, it can take years in the pipeline to actually get a significant public show hung, even when they're genuinely interested in what you do.

I don't doubt that at all. I think there's a huge luck element in having creative success. Sometimes it's a matter of being lucky enough to be born in the right decade (or century). The people I see with the biggest success do work for their own reasons—it just happens to resonate with the culture at that moment. That's a great confluence of talent and luck.

(after spending three years of work and 75 grand of your own money betting on that book). ...

There are a lot of ways to do books on the cheap now. The print-on-demand industry can do fantastic quality now. For color, better than what I've seen in offset. So far I've only seen OK black and white results, but that could change. The price per book is very high. But it costs nothing to create the project. I've made a couple of these books as presents for friends and family, and to use as small portfolios. They can be great for this. Some people actually use it as a self publishing platform (not so interesting to me, but that could change).

All I want to do at this point is sell about one real good print a month and I'll double my retirement income, and someone will have something they prize on a wall. And the web is worthless for that in my experience (doesn't mean I won't use it in an educational or informational sense, however).

How about using it the way we used to use portfolio slides? Email a link to the people you want to show work. At the very worst, it's a harmless waste of two minutes.

I'm flattered that you'd buy my book. I actually have one on Blurb, made as a present for friends last xmas. Sadly it's overpriced, as dictated by the print-on-demand model (I haven't marked up the cost ... profits go to blurb).

Drew Wiley

16-Aug-2013, 15:47

There is another option besides on-demand books, the high-priced limited edition of inkjets you print yourself, then have pro bound. The quality falls somewhere between very good offset repro and true photo prints. Ctein has done a beautiful series of his own work this way (not dye transfer prints, but "fascimile" inkjets),
sells them around $800 per volume, and does market them thru the web. He's established a connection with an excellent SF bookbinder. And a customer of mine
recently did a lovely coffee-table book of a major Frank Lloyd Wright restoration they did, superbly photographed and inkjet printed by himself, but professionally assembled, titled, bound, etc. ... the kind of Portfolio you want when you're soliciting multimillion-dollar high-profile remodels (I used to do them for these guys in
real Ciba prints from my own arch shots). Without getting overtly nosey, Paul, what would might suit your personal predilection and skill working with industrial shots might be something like this. The web informs me that you have an instinctive reaction to complex compositions, so are already on first base ... you have
the digital skills to quickly get to second... tweaking the push/pull of color balance in the shots and the misc other technical tweaks... wouldn't need to be a lot
of images, but it would make a helluva better business card than just a web presence, and perhaps command a decent buck too.

paulr

17-Aug-2013, 12:15

Yeah, I actually planned an artist book years ago. It's what got me into piezography printing in the first place. I found the ink prints surpassed the original silver prints in many cases, so I wouldn't go along with the idea that there was any quality compromise.

I eventually abandoned the project for a couple of reasons. This was before the invention of glossy inkjet printing. The hahnemuhle paper I liked had a fragile surface. Ink rubbed off on facing pages. I came up with a scheme for hand-varnishing the matte finish prints, which made them durable and gave a deep gloss. These were just about the most beautiful b+w prints I've ever made, but the varnishing was so hard to do consistently that each book would have taken about a month of solid labor to print.

The other problem was the cost of binding. It was several hundred dollars per book. In the end, I would have had to sell the books for over $500 each just to break even. There was a small chance I could guilt my parents into buying one, but that would be the end of the edition.