Why we need to see real photos and not reproductions

[eric mac]

An added tradition to my biannual Las Vegas trip is a visit to the Belagio casino to see the Ansel Adams exhibit at the museum there. I am still amazed by the wonderful work he has done and seeing it "live" is a real treat. Like any exhibit you have to exit through the gift shop. I opened a book and quickly compared what I had just seen to the book reproductions. Needless to say I was completely blown away in the difference between the book and the originals.

As a longtime beginner, I've always wondered how a well done print looks compared to the book print. I guess I found my answer. This was a real eye opening experience for me. If you get chance make sure to see any exhibit that you can.

Eric

Only two more points at the craps table and I might have been able to buy one those Adams prints.

[Eric James]

I enjoyed this quote from Bill_1856 in the forum's thread: "It's always about the light"

I've only seen AA prints at the gallery in YOS. They were beautiful, but they didn't "glow" as you and others have described. I'm anxious to see the real thing in better light!


My print of Ansel Adams "Moonrise" was exhibited in his last commercial show at the Witkin Gallery (1975?) along with the announcement that from this time he would only be filling standing orders and not accepting new ones. I was in love with this glorious print, and knew that it was buy it now or never, but Jesus, it was $750! They had to call American Express to get my card approved for that enormous purchase.
Several months later the print came. It was dull. It was printed much too dark. It was a terrible disappointment. How could I have wasted nearly a thousand dollars (including framing and shipping)?
A panic call to Witkin gave me the good news and the bad news. The good news was that they would take it back and refund my money (less shipping). The bad news was that Moonrise prints were now selling for $2000, and if I wanted a replacement that I'd have to pony up the difference, and there was a two year wait. I gulped hard and said, "Never mind."
For some months the print hung gloomily on my wall -- a constant reminder to be more careful with my money. Then as the sun moved north, on one day just before sunset, a few rays fell directly on the print and it was transformed into the dazzling, glowing image of that incredibly peaceful, almost living scene. I could almost feel St. Ansel's excitement as he puts his car into the ditch and frantically assembles his 8x10 then almost loses the shot as the sun disappears!
That print now hangs in my dining room, with its own spotlight above it. It's not quite like seeing it in the direct rays of the setting sun, but it is definitely transformed from a grunge into Adam's greatest masterpiece.

[tim atherton]

aren't all photographs reproductions... :)

[Frank R]

I saw the AA exhibit that is currently at the Detroit Institute of Arts. A lot of his early works in 5x7. I think it was the lighting in the exhibit space, or the age of the original prints, but none were that remarkable. I was a little disappointed. Only two that were really big and impressive; "Moonrise" was one of them.

Later in the gift shop I saw a few posters of the same original prints I just saw. I have to admit, and this might sound like heresy, but the posters looked better than the originals. I think it was the lighting that made the difference and maybe the whiter paper added some contrast.

My conclusion: print big and light them well.

[JW Dewdney]

It's las vegas! You'd really expect they'd have inkjet AA prints at the bellagio!

Place is bloody horrendous!! Kind of fascinating. But horrendous nonetheless! gag.

[Bill_1856]

In a misguided effort to preserve prints from "light damage," many museums are showing them under such poor lighting conditions that it makes seeing them virtually worthless.
A few years ago I made a special trip to Chicago just to visit an Edward Weston show at the AIC. It was hung in the basement, with such poor lighting that to enjoy the prints one would have to buy the accompanying book to see them.
Shame on these curators. What does it matter if these prints last hundreds of years, if one can never see them under optimum conditions?

[Michael Alpert]

Eric,

A reproduction of an original print is composed on tiny dots of ink. It's a different species, which can have its own worthwhile qualities. If the reproduction honors the original, it has fulfilled its purpose. Given the different materials involved, you cannot expect more. With that said, I think photographic books are wonderful in the same sense that CDs are wonderful even though they are but a shadow of a concert-hall experience.

Changing subject, I disagree with Wilhelm's remarks about museum lighting. Many of Weston's prints are dark, but one can still see them quite well even under restricted lighting. Usually it is the owner of the prints that sets the lighting level, not the curators. In any case, I think the Art Institute of Chicago has an outstanding photographic department. And it does matter that people who live in the future have access to Weston's prints. To think otherwise is, to use polite language, wrong-headed.

[paulr]

I think this is true when you're comparing a great "original" print to an average reproduction. But I've seen many examples of the opposite, too. Especially with the work of photographers who did not concern themselves much with printing. Walker Evans comes to mind ... he rarely printed his own work, so it was done by god-knows-who. Some of his vintage prints are wonderful, but many might as well be newspaper clippings. Modern book printing technology, however, can make all the images look pretty great.

In fact, some of the best prints I've ever seen are book reproductions. Multiplate processes like the ones devised by Richard Benson rival any metal-based printing process I've seen. My Benson-printed Paul Strand book makes much of what I see on museum walls look thin and dimensionless in comparison. This book is about fifteen years old ... it was my first revelation that the future of photographic printomg could be ink. I didn't know what forms it might take, but it's obviously happening now.

[paulr]

In a misguided effort to preserve prints from "light damage," many museums are showing them under such poor lighting conditions that it makes seeing them virtually worthless.

i can't judge if it's misguided without knowing the curators' priorities. their job includes the stewardship of the collection for future generations as well as entertaining print connoisseurs. with certain kids of prints and the current state of conservation technology, they might be making the best compromise they know how.

At MoMa, the galleries of the permanent collection are under wildly different light levels. Some rooms are as bright as you could want them to be; others feel like a candle-lit vigil. I can only assume it's for a good reason.

[Bruce Schultz]

I too saw the Adams exhibit at Bellagio, and I came away with a new perspective. I had only seen a few of his prints here and there previously. Upon seeing this show, I was surprised at some of the things he accepted. I thought everything in his pictures would be tack sharp, with creamy, grainless skies. For example, the 35mm picture of Georgia O'Keefe with the ranch manager was surprisingly grainy and not that sharp, but reproductions make it appear quite sharp. But he could look past that because Georgia's wry expression was irresistible.
I've tossed several pictures because some little detail wasn't quite sharp enough. But seeing that exhibit has helped me get past some of that nitpickiness.
When I bought an 8x10 enlarger, I thought anything I shot had to be good enough for a16x20, but I've gone back to using some of those negatives I've rejected to make quite nice 8x10 contact prints, and I can live with that.

[John Kasaian]

Lighting may or may not be appropriate to the best display, but what impresses me is the physical link between Adams (or Weston, or Atget, or whiomever) than an original print conveys----the original work of an artist done with his own hands, first seen with his own eyes as he intended. Thats beautiful!

[Michael Graves]

aren't all photographs reproductions... :)

true. But a reproduction of a reproduction is a poorer reproduction than a reproduction of the real thing.

Did that come out right?

[tim atherton]

In fact, some of the best prints I've ever seen are book reproductions. Multiplate processes like the ones devised by Richard Benson rival any metal-based printing process I've seen. My Benson-printed Paul Strand book makes much of what I see on museum walls look thin and dimensionless in comparison. This book is about fifteen years old ... it was my first revelation that the future of photographic printomg could be ink. I didn't know what forms it might take, but it's obviously happening now.

I'd second that - some of the Benson/Friedlander books are superb and certainly stand in their own right. I think it was of the Factory Valleys book that Friedlander said the book prints looked much better than the silver prints. The two recent books Apples & Olives and Cherry Blossom Time in Japan are quite exquisite (and incredibly tactile).

When comparing the best books to the best prints (as opposed to the best prints and mediocre books), sometimes the books pull ahead and certainly they are often equal but different

[Jim Noel]

One point that I believe is being overlooked hereis the difference in papers of the 1930's and today.

The early papers had no brighteners in the emulsion and thus did not appear as white as modern papers. Also, at that time photographers were just beginning to move from Pictorialism to Modernism. Look carefully at some original pictorial prints and youwill usually find diminished highlights when compared with modern prints.

Some of the older, softer prints may not hit one in the eye with contrast, but they have a beauty about them which is undeniable. They are just different.

Last night while perusing the Maggie Weston prints to be auctioned by Sotheby's later this week I saw an early Adams that,as the moderator on the video stated, few would pick as an Ansel Adams image. It is a small, warm informal portrait of a young boy. No bright whites in it.

[Mark Sawyer]

Digital technology has been very much an equalizer in press reproductions of photographs. I've seen originals of a few photographs published in Lenswork, and while they varied in print quality, the Lenswork reproductions put them on very much the same level; a truly wonderful print looked "very good", and an "acceptable" print looked "very good". Especially when reducing the image size, a good image-editor at the press can do wonders with an otherwise-average print, though with a really well-crafted silver print, one can only minimize the loss...

On a related note, I'm always amused at some photo textbooks which illustrate a set of prints made at different contrast levels, but, as often as not, whoever was preparing the images at the press corrected the contrasts so they all look about the same...

[Brian Vuillemenot]

Originally Posted by Bill_1856
My print of Ansel Adams "Moonrise" was exhibited in his last commercial show at the Witkin Gallery (1975?) along with the announcement that from this time he would only be filling standing orders and not accepting new ones. I was in love with this glorious print, and knew that it was buy it now or never, but Jesus, it was $750! They had to call American Express to get my card approved for that enormous purchase.
Several months later the print came. It was dull. It was printed much too dark. It was a terrible disappointment. How could I have wasted nearly a thousand dollars (including framing and shipping)?
A panic call to Witkin gave me the good news and the bad news. The good news was that they would take it back and refund my money (less shipping). The bad news was that Moonrise prints were now selling for $2000, and if I wanted a replacement that I'd have to pony up the difference, and there was a two year wait. I gulped hard and said, "Never mind."
For some months the print hung gloomily on my wall -- a constant reminder to be more careful with my money. Then as the sun moved north, on one day just before sunset, a few rays fell directly on the print and it was transformed into the dazzling, glowing image of that incredibly peaceful, almost living scene. I could almost feel St. Ansel's excitement as he puts his car into the ditch and frantically assembles his 8x10 then almost loses the shot as the sun disappears!
That print now hangs in my dining room, with its own spotlight above it. It's not quite like seeing it in the direct rays of the setting sun, but it is definitely transformed from a grunge into Adam's greatest masterpiece.

I have a 75 cent 5X7 postcard of "Moonrise" that I purchased in the AA Gallery hanging above my cubicle at work. Perhaps it's not quite the same experience as seeing the full size print, but it looks pretty friggin' good to me! :)

[paulr]

Some of the older, softer prints may not hit one in the eye with contrast, but they have a beauty about them which is undeniable. They are just different.

I personally think Ansel's best prints (and best work overall) are his much softer, more subtle stuff from the mid-30s to the mid-40s. Much of it warm-toned, and without the bombast of his later prints.

The style that became his signature look ... the melodramatic contrasts ... never convinced me. I always thought his highlights were too thin, and looked more like photo paper than like light. A comparison with Strand's prints of bright and glowing subjects can be a real revelation. Strand accomplished with subtle relationships of tone what Ansel attempted to do with contrast.

Interestingly, todays best monochrome inkjet methods do a better job with subtle tonal relationships than they do with dramatic contrast (multiplate offset printing can do either style convincingly).

[tim atherton]

The early papers had no brighteners in the emulsion and thus did not appear as white as modern papers. Also, at that time photographers were just beginning to move from Pictorialism to Modernism. Look carefully at some original pictorial prints and youwill usually find diminished highlights when compared with modern prints.

Some of the older, softer prints may not hit one in the eye with contrast, but they have a beauty about them which is undeniable. They are just different.


Of course as the OBA's deteriorate over the next few years in the more modern papers they might start to look like the old prints....

[paul stimac]

(multiplate offset printing can do either style convincingly).

- what does multiplate offset mean? a duotone or cmyk? all are on different plates - is this not multiplate or is the multiplate you're refering to a unique process?

By the way, if you are ever in Elko off I-80 in northeast Nevada, go to the museum. They have a permanent collection of both Edward Weston and Ansel Adams shown with lots of light.

[Bill_1856]

Remember the Paul Strand story about one of his prints being reproduced for that book? When he complained that the reproduction looked flat and soft compared with his original print, it turned out that he had them mixed up, and it was the original print that he was dissing as inferior. (Of course that was after his cataract surgery, so who knows what he actually could see. Maybe he just wanted to be contrairy, which was apparently par for Strand.)

[paulr]

- what does multiplate offset mean? a duotone or cmyk? all are on different plates - is this not multiplate or is the multiplate you're refering to a unique process?

For example, the book I mentioned uses four quadtone plates, a tint, and two varnishes. So the background of the image is tinted to match the paper base Strand used, and the varnished finish of the image varied in gloss from one to the next.

By the way, this book came out in the 80s or 90s, so it couldn't have been the one Strand complained about (cataracts or not!)

[Bill_1856]

For example, the book I mentioned uses four quadtone plates, a tint, and two varnishes. So the background of the image is tinted to match the paper base Strand used, and the varnished finish of the image varied in gloss from one to the next.

By the way, this book came out in the 80s or 90s, so it couldn't have been the one Strand complained about (cataracts or not!)

I hate it when I pontificate off the top of my head, am too lazy to check the reference, get called out on it, and then either discover that I can't find the reference, or even worse, that I screwed up and my memories were totally from outter space. That seem to have occured here.
I think the story was from Richard Benson, but have to admit that I can't find any trace of it. Sorry.

[John Voss]

The regrettably, and long since departed Edward Carter Gallery in NYC championed AA's prints and displayed as many as possible while reserving space for their current exhibitions. They were illuminated with what seemed to be 'high intensity' lights.....and were absoflippinlutely incredible! They were a revelation in tonal scale and richness...and from what I could discern, very much beholden to that particular kind of lighting.

I can't even begin to remember how many years ago it was (I have so far chosen not to contribute to the 'how old are we' thread) that I saw a major exhibition of EW's work at the Met. I was tremendously disappointed in it's lack of 'life' and luminosity. Perhaps it was the Met's choice of lighting, or perhaps the dullness of the prints themselves (I know...heresy...so sue me), but they were exceptionally unimpressive as prints...but, extraordinary as images.

[paulr]

I hate it when I pontificate off the top of my head, am too lazy to check the reference ...

there could well have been an earlier strand book done by benson ... he was strand's assistant for a while and the only person strand ever trusted to print for him (all the orgeval garden work was originally printed by him.) and he's been working on his ink printing methods for a long time!

[fred arnold]

FWIW, I had the privilege of helping to hang the Edward Weston exhibit at Drew University 20 years ago, and so was able to spend time with the prints before we got onto the walls. We used to run a fairly bright gallery (track lighting, white walls, very controlled), and I was rather impressed with the actual Westons, especially the landscapes. Dark, but open shadows, and very fine and delicate transitions between greys. Some of his earlier work, with short tonal scales, I would agree about being less impressive from a purely technical standpoint, but the photographs themselves were all impressive. Another important lesson from that show was that nothing was larger than 8x10, and many were contact prints from a 3x4 graphic. They were still beautiful.

Regrettably, that gallery disappeared about 10 years or so ago because career counseling or some such wanted the space, and the then emeritus philosophy professor who had shepherded the photo club and gallery couldn't hold them off any longer. Thankfully Copeland fought them off long enough that we were able to host shows by many majors (Halsman, Caponigro senior, etc), and allow students to actually spend time with the original prints, as well as (when possible) meet the artists behind them.

[Maris Rusis]

Photographs are not actually prints.
Prints are not actually photographs.
Photographs are not actually reproductions.
All true photographs are actually originals because they have to be made photographically; light strikes sensitive surface, picture forming marks result, etc....you know the drill.

The loose usage of words like photograph, print, reproduction, original make it difficult to discuss the importance of original photographs. As the philosopher Wittgenstein asserted, if you do not have proper words you cannot articulate meaningful concepts and if you cannot articulate those concepts you cannot even think them!

When I made a long journey in 1989 to the vaults of the National Gallery of Australia to see original Ansel Adams photographs (the Museum Set) I was unsure of dedicating my life to the study and practice of photography. After I saw those photographs I made the committment. Why?

It was not the subject matter, tones, sharpness, or compositions even though those values were magnificent. It was the dust spots, spotting, and knifing on the photographic surfaces. I realized that Ansel got the same dust, same crud, same flaws that I had been battling and he handled it about as well as I could. It was ok for me to go ahead because I did not have to match myself against a god; just another guy (ok, supremely talented) with a will to work hard.

Only inspection of those original photographs could have yielded that revelation.

[Merg Ross]

It is important to remember that Edward Weston viewed his prints by skylight and west window light after his house and darkroom were built at Wildcat Hill. This would be from the Guggenheim period until he stopped printing in 1948. I spent many days viewing his prints under those conditions at his home prior to his death. I, as others, have been disappointed with exhibitions of his prints in galleries and museums which have failed to provide the lighting for which the prints were intended. I am aware of the reasons, most importantly preservation, but the prints really sing when illuminated properly.

[Andy Eads]

I can't put my hands on the exact book (The Print?) but I recall Adams saying that he printed an entire show too dark once. He became acutely aware of the importance of the print and viewing illumination being tuned to each other. I visited an E. Weston exhibit in Portland OR a few years back and the lighting was barely adequate. The reproductions in the books were also a pale comparison. One very interesting aspect of his work, one which requires the ability to closely examine the prints are the stories within the stories. He made a photo of a dead tree which looks to be isolated in a desert location. Looking closely at the print, you can make out a lakeside vacation community on the horizon line. No reproduction I have ever seen captures that nuance.

[Jerry Flynn]

As to the remark about AA's Georgia O'Keefe print not being tack sharp: it was a grab shot made with a 35mm camera. I have seen 16X20's of this image that looked pretty good for a 35mm negative enlarged to that size. (Also consider that it was a 1930's vintage film - probably grainier thatn current emulsions).

[Robert Hughes]

Photographs are not actually prints.
Prints are not actually photographs.
Photographs are not actually reproductions.
All true photographs are actually originals because they have to be made photographically; light strikes sensitive surface, picture forming marks result, etc....you know the drill.

.

So what is a Lightjet print?
http://www.cymbolic.com/products/lightjet5000.html

[Maris Rusis]

Light jet print? A photograph of a laser emitter modulated by the contents of an electronic file, I think. Is a Lambda "print" the same thing?