Does Storing images digitally.....

[Mark_3632]

The subject line would not allow the whole question

Does digital storage of images cause the public to not see the evolution of an artists printing style? DOes it cause stagnation.

Here is my opinion and experience.

I was looking at some of the images I worked on a couple of years ago. They were stored on a disk I apparently forgot to label. (I was wondering where they went because I was asked for a print) I looked at the final saved images along side the raw scan. I have to say that they do not represent how I see those same images now.

I also happen to be printing some negs on POP that I did last year. I have printed one of those negs 4 times for different people and kept a copy of each printing for myself. When compared to each other there is a difference. I could see that, even in this short a time, my printing style had changed. It was interesting to see. I kept really good notes and thought I did things the same but obviously not.

This got me thinking. When a person compares AA prints of the same subject they show an evolution in printing style. This is the case with all analog printers, I would assume. This is not the case with those images that are stored digitally and the print button is hit each time a print is to be mad. The printing is taken from the hand of the artist and given to a machine. Are we giving up evolution for ease.

Evolution of subject is not what I am thinking about. I am thinking about the evolution of printing styles.

[Bill_1856]

Evolution of printing styles is just one facet of craftmanship. It's better not seen at all. Most of us could have our work done much better if we weren't too poor/lazy/egotistical (pick one) to have it done by a master printer. The signifcance of St. Ansel's evolution is because he was probably the greatest LF printer of the last century.

[Brian Vuillemenot]

Why not just re-scan/re-work a print in Photoshop later on in the evolution of your printing style? Just because you can simply hit "print" and get an exact copy doesn't mean that you can't re-work the photograph. That's a common misconception in the whole analog vs. digital debate.

[Ralph Barker]

There are, I think, several factors that change the look of a print over time:

1. evolution of skill,

2. evolution of style (or, subject interpretation), along with

3. evolution of available technology, not to mention the mastery thereof.

All of these apply to both analog and digital production of the print. Personally, I've noticed more evolution in my scanning skills than evolution of vision or printing style in the darkroom.

[John_4185]

My modest two-bits (x0) worth , and taking the liberty of drifting from the central posit - if a person looks to his digital images often enough, he forsakes the print and eventually moves to perceive the work largely in terms of digital output. If that is where you want to go, then that's just fine, but don't look back. In my humble experience, there is something about the enlarger and working with the hands that creates something you might forget is possible. Really, I've a very difficult negative that when made 'perfect' with all the digital tools, is still not as good (imho) as the flawed handwork. When I find the time (or get off my butt), I will post visual evidence.

There is a difference, and it may be important, but a person won't know it unless he does the darkroom work. Digital perfection does not make the photograph.

[Brian Ellis]

"When a person compares AA prints of the same subject they show an evolution in printing style. This is the case with all analog printers, I would assume. This is not the case with those images that are stored digitally and the print button is hit each time a print is mad."

You apparently haven't printed digitally. Simply storing a disc digitally doesn't mean it can never be changed. Even if it's stored on a read-only disc it can easily be moved to a new file and modified from there. And if it's stored on an external hard drive it can be changed directly from the hard drive. If somebody chooses to simply hit the print button every time a new print is made rather than considering other possible ways of printing it that's a problem with the person, not the medium.

[Brian Ellis]

"if a person looks to his digital images often enough, he forsakes the print and eventually moves to perceive the work largely in terms of digital output"

Could you elaborate on this, I don't understand it. How does one perceive digital images as digital output and forsake the print? When I'm printing digitally I can only look at images in one of two ways, on the monitor and on the paper. Either way, I'm seeing an image, I'm not seeing pixels or bits. In fact by the time I'm able to see my images at all they're analog output, not digital.

[John_4185]

Brian Ellis (quoting jj) "if a person looks to his digital images often enough, he forsakes the print and eventually moves to perceive the work largely in terms of digital output"
Could you elaborate on this, I don't understand it.

Thanks for asking, Brian. What I am trying to convey is that a perfectly (dodged, burned, bleached...) photo done digitally is not the same as the manual wetwork version; that the hand shows in the later, and it is something one has to see, to make himself, to appreciate - or NOT (as I am fond to type). Evidence of the hand is not a bad thing. Sure, it is true that we can mimic the 'hand' in a digital rendition, for example trying the same with crude dodge-n-burn in Photoshop, but it is rarely the same at all. Perhaps a fine eye will see the difference - if it is experienced in manual wet work. That's where I live, and believe me, please, that I am an expert digital Photoshop worker on the day-job. That's all.

Thanks for reading this. I will stand on the statement for now. It has been a long day.

[Brian Ellis]

Thanks for the clarification, I think I kind of see what you're getting at.

[Mark_3632]

hmm..

Not intended as A vs. D just a comparison. Not sure where you got the AvD thingy from.

Brian, You would be wrong in your assumption. I do quite abit of digital printing. In fact, until I am able to make enough money to send my color work to a wet darkroom I will be using computer imaging on all of my color work. Plus it is really easy to do.

Of course you can rework an image, I am not stupid, the point was would most people? Or do they hit the print button? No hassell in tweaking, no set up, no worry just let the computer do it all.

[Guy Tal]

In digital printing you can maintain the same evolutionary approach. Anyone who thinks they can take a scan and push a couple of buttons to make a great or even good print has probably never tried it.
Professional digital imaging software like Photoshop allow you to keep the original scan as a background layer and apply any adjustments in separate layers so the original is kept intact (much like your neg would be). Most digital printers I know (myself included) consistently tweak these adjustments and/or replace them every so often as our skills evolve and we learn of better ways to achieve certain effects. In this sense the process/evolution are not different from what any darkroom printer is doing by repeatedly revisiting a neg. In fact it allows much more careful and controlled tracking of every aspect of the print by keeping intact the exact history of changes you applied to an image so you don't have to rely on old prints, memory, or scribbled notes to remember what you did. You can even attach notes (text and/or voice recordings) to various layers in case you want to keep record of why you made a certain decision.
I'm sure if those who go out of their way to defame the digital process spent half as much time learning the tools, as any skillful craftsman would, they'll realize much of the prejudice is not based in reality. These tools do allow you to create junk, like any others, but they also allow unprecedented and precise control over every aspect of the process - much more so than any analog process does.

Guy
Scenic Wild Photography (http://www.scenicwild.com)

[Mark_3632]

You state that you sell open editions. Do you go back and tweak each image before you print one or do you do it once and then store it. If someone wants to buy an image is that image then just called up and printed.

Yes Guy it is that easy after the work has been done once. The work is hard and yes there is a lot of control in Computer Imaging but as JJ has said there is not the hand of the artist in every print. In computer imaging you only have to do the work once. There is no evolution. Yes a person can choose to rework an image but they do not have too. In the wet darkroom there is no choice but to rework every image every time it is printed. There will always be those subtle differences between prints in a wet darkroom,

I am not bashing the process just wondering if storing images and simply printing them off a computer file when another is wanted does not make us lazy.

By the way I love the image on your opeing page, as well as the old bison. As they say, good shootin Tex.

[Wayne]

You cant store an image digitally.

[John_4185]

Wayne You cant store an image digitally

Can't download beer either. Kinda makes your day a complete ruin, eh?

[Guy Tal]

Mark,

This is of course a personal preference but I disagree with you on a couple of points:
1) The work is never "done". I don't have a single image that I feel is as good as it's ever going to be. To say that you get the work done once is like saying Ansel Adams got it "right" with the first version of Moonrise, and it was easy from there. You can revisit and change and tweak an image for decades and it will never be "done", whether in a darkroom or in Photoshop.
2) The "hand of the artist" argument doesn't sit well with me. To me photography is about the eye of the artist, not the hand. The hands just apply the relatively-simple mechanics to make it happen. If you wanted an art that represents the artist's skillful hands - you should look to painting. Photography is distinct in that much of the process between visualization and printing is pretty much scripted and relies on mechanics, optics, and chemistry far more than on skillful hands. I will also argue that master digital printers do a lot of work manually (painting masks, dodging/burning, spotting, etc.) - very much the same as anyone printing in a chemical process.

Just my personal opinion, of course. To me they are all tools to help put my vision on paper. What happens inbetween is hardly important (to me).

Guy
Scenic Wild Photography (http://www.scenicwild.com)

[John_4185]

As the one who brought up the 'hands' thing, I'll add that Guy's philosophy is perfectly rational, and there is more than one rationale, and possibly few subjects that are most appropriate to what I was trying to describe, compared to the photographs that Guy shows and sells.

Pictures will have to show what I mean. Hopefully, they will be forthcoming. Until then, I'll be quiet on this subject.

[steve_782]

"I looked at the final saved images along side the raw scan. I have to say that they do not represent how I see those same images now. "

Then, if you made prints of them now, wouldn't you rework the image to fit your new way of seeing it? Why would you accept how the image looked just because it was stored digitally?

"This is not the case with those images that are stored digitally and the print button is hit each time a print is to be mad. The printing is taken from the hand of the artist and given to a machine. Are we giving up evolution for ease. "

No, YOU'RE giving up evolution for ease. Please don't assign laziness to everyone. If I make a another print of a saved digital file, I always make a proof first, and then decide whether that's really the way I want it to look or not; and do I want to change the image. That's why I save: the scan, the layered PSD file, and a TIFF of the last PSD. I often go back to the layered PSD and make changes. In some cases I've deleted everything but the background layer and started over with the image.

"I am thinking about the evolution of printing styles. "

Exactly what is a "printing style"? I'm afraid, I don't know what that means. You may have an interpretation of an image that changes, but how is that a style? How is this NOT applicable to working digitally? If your vision of the image has changed, then don't you change the work to get the final print you're after - whether it's done in a wet darkroom or digitally?

In my humble experience, there is something about the enlarger and working with the hands that creates something you might forget is possible. Really, I've a very difficult negative that when made 'perfect' with all the digital tools, is still not as good (imho) as the flawed handwork. When I find the time (or get off my butt), I will post visual evidence.

That's some hyperbole. Just what is that "something"? I've worked in darkrooms for nearly 40 years producing fine art and commercial prints - I've never experienced this undefined "something." Could you elaborate? Because I'm just not buying into it.

"...that the hand shows in the later, and it is something one has to see, to make himself, to appreciate - or NOT (as I am fond to type). Evidence of the hand is not a bad thing.

Only if the handwork is meant to be part of the print (like Joel Witkin's work) - otherwise it's just poor printing skills.

"Digital perfection does not make the photograph.

Correct - just as visible handwork doesn't make a photograph a better image.

"...there is not the hand of the artist in every print. "

If there IS the hand of the artist in every print - then you need more practice, unless you're purposely making artistic marks on the print as part of the final finished work. This is truly one of the most pretentious statements that I see made about wet darkroom work in a lame attempt to make it more valuable, and the prints somehow more important than a digital print.

Just how much variance do you allow between prints? Ten percent? Twenty percent? Fifty percent? If you can't make match prints, then you need to either control the images on film better, or become more skilled in the darkroom (including learning how to mask images for easier printing).

"There will always be those subtle differences between prints in a wet darkroom...

And that makes them better how? If you can't make match prints against a proof - then you need more practice, or your standards aren't high enough, or you're not willing to waste enough paper until you get a match print. If you have differences that can be seen between prints, then you don't print very well or are willing to write off differences as being "artistic."

[Wayne]

And that makes them better how?

Its the difference between hand-made craft and manufacturing.

[John_4185]

steve Please don't assign laziness to everyone.

In the same spirit please assure me that your use of the word "you" is not to me, but the collective "you". I don't want to get into a bragging thing, but I was recuited many years ago by the premier custom midwest B&W printer. I am a good printer. My work is intentional.

Your accusation of hyperbole is a good point of departure. Shall we go there, or will you simply admit that you like digital printing - that's your point and stick to it.

Differences can be intentional. A good craftsperson or artist knows when to transcend the rigorous metrics, to make a statement to the medium, in this case projected B&W printing.

[Mark_3632]

Steve-Chill out. You seem to be imagining an attack against digital that does not exist.

I define print evolution as the change in the artists final vision of the printed image. For example. AA went through a period of time when he printed very dark. Another period of time he did very little burning and dodging and another when it seemed almost heavy handed to me. This is an evolution of styles. Maybe evolution was not the best word but calling it periods in their artisitic visions seemed wrong as well. I mena like an artists Blue Period. A rank amateur can match a print. I was once paid to do fine printing so I know what I am talking about as much as you do.

What you seem to miss is that I never once said one was better, just different. Nor did I say everyone would be lazy. It was a simple question. I know people who sell their computer images and when they need another they load the file and they hit print. In the name of haste, on occasion I have done the same. have yet to meet a digital printer who did not do it once or twice. When I had a darkroom I was not able to do the whole haste thing. I was forced, by the nature of the process to go through the entire process. It is the nature of the two games and one of a million little differences that set them apart from one another.

By the way that was a very creative job of piecing together a collage of different posts from different people without ascribing credit. Made it sound like John and I were the same person.

[steve_782]

"I am a good printer. My work is intentional. "

In that case, you do need to do the work in a wet darkroom so that the hand work becomes part of the final print.

I do some work that includes a B&W mask over the transparency. I color the mask using tiny brushes and retouching dyes so that the handstrokes and color are printed into the final print. I developed the technique because I was printing on Ilfochrome glossy material, and I could not make the strokes on the final image without ruining the surface of the print. I have printed the work on an inkjet printer, but I still like the Ilfochromes better as the dichotomy between the altered image (obvious hand strokes) and the pristine, glossy surface enhances the effect.

Believe me, I understand hand work as being an important part of the image. Prior to the work with the masks/transparencies, I hand colored photos using a little known system (now unavailable) using liquid dyes put into a powdered carrier that were then set on the image using steam. This gave a wide range of effects as the dyes were totally transparent, and could be made to give extremely vivid colors down to soft, subtle tints. The colors could be made to show brush strokes or become totally flat by carefully blotting the image using a wadded facial tissue to even out the dye and merge the brush strokes.

"You seem to be imagining an attack against digital that does not exist. "

On the contrary, I'm merely responding to someone who's assigning generalities to a certain type of photographic printing, and apparently expecting people to concur with the generalities.

"Shall we go there, or will you simply admit that you like digital printing - that's your point and stick to it.

We can go there anytime you want. However, I would still like answers to the questions I posed earlier as part of the hyperbole comment. When you can give a clear answer to what the "something" might be that is missing from digital printing - then we can go anywhere you want. I'm trying to understand this, as apparently, I missed this for the past 40 years. I always like to learn new things.

As for liking digital printing - only because it involves ink on paper. I've tried to satisfactorily translate photographic images into ink on paper since 1978, and have never been satisfied until the high-end inkjet printers became available.

To that end I pursued hand lithography in the early 1980's to the point that I was accepted into the master printer program at Tamarind Institute. Like you, not to "get into that bragging thing," but only to make the point that I've pursued ink printing far outside of digital inkjet printing; and I DON'T use inkjet printing because it's easier. I use it because it gives me the means to reach an aesthetic end that I cannot do any other way.

I only work in color at this point, and often with multiple photographs within a single image. This can include "hand work" done in Corel Painter - which is, if anything, more difficult to work with than traditional painting materials as you don't have the tactile feedback (in the form of friction and bristle feel) between the brush tip and the surface.

[i]"By the way that was a very creative job of piecing together a collage of different posts from different people without ascribing credit. Made it sound like John and I were the same person.[i/]

I'm merely responding to points made in this thread. Who said them is not germain to the points I'm trying to make as the quotes are really universal in nature. If you feel somehow slighted, well I can't help that, to quote someone with a deep philisophical bent, "chill out" no one is attacking you personally.

[John_4185]

mark (to Steve) By the way that was a very creative job of piecing together a collage of different posts from different people without ascribing credit. Made it sound like John and I were the same person.

It is another case of Digital Manipulation, where the the object before the fact is unimportant; all that counts are the results.

A happy thought. Not.

[Mark_3632]

Okay, Steve does not belive it makes anyone lazy. At least that is what I got out his.....um.... passionate? ..... tirade?..... response? As for his reasons I have not a clue.

John-sometimes it is about the final product and other times the final product is not at all worth the process it took to make it.

[John_4185]

mark John-sometimes it is about the final product and other times the final product is not at all worth the process it took to make it.

Situation normal. Sounds like everyday life to me.

If only total time and difficulty of effort made the picture, then people like our own Struan would would own the market for his pictures taken from Everest. Talk about not wanting "to go there", whew!