What is more important to you...image or print?

[Vaughn]

I believe there is not correct answer to this...just different personal approaches to photography.

I am 50/50. The image is very important...it is hard to beat wandering around in the redwoods, for example, discovering the forms light creates and learning to reconize when all the elements come together in a distillation of the moment that I can then capture onto my film.

I have been involved with photo education for many years -- as an assistant to Friends of Photography Workshops in the 80's and now being in charge of the teaching darkroom at a university (I am in the middle of teaching photo to a group of twelve 14 to 17 year olds, also). So sharing, and hopefully educating, the viewers of my photographs about what I experienced and learned when taking the photo is important to me.

So the print in equally important as the image to me as it is the qualities of the print that will help convey what lies behind the image. Contrast, print color (or tone), the way compostion and the way light values are arranged to lead the viewer's eyes within the image, et al are to me equally important as the subject, or image.

So what percentage would you apply to your importance between image/print?

Vaughn

[Ken Lee]

Q: How do you describe a schizophrenic Zen Buddhist?

A: A man who is at two with the universe.

[Vaughn]

Q: How do you describe a schizophrenic Zen Buddhist?

A: A man who is at two with the universe.

That may be true, but it is also said that a sign of intelligence is the ability to be able to hold two conflicting ideas in one's head at one time.

vaughn

[John Kasaian]

It depends! ;)

[cyrus]

That may be true, but it is also said that a sign of intelligence is the ability to be able to hold two conflicting ideas in one's head at one time.

vaughn

No it hasn't. Yes it has.

[Alan Davenport]

My prints are images...

[domenico Foschi]

That's an interesting question that I need to answer for myself.
According to my personal experience it is a continuum.
The shooting stage is extremely important to me because it opens me to a different view of the world, it enlightens me, excites me and gives me a sense of release.
The darkroom stage is the one where if I do the job right then I complete that vision.
The shooting stage if it wasn't for the weight, it would be much more fun than the printing stage.
But in the printing stage, when I nail a print, then I have that quite time with myself as if I had won a war aginst my worst enemy.
Darkroom sessions at Foschi's can be particularly ferocious:)

[Mark Sawyer]

The image, which is a fairly shallow *and* narrow way to define it, is most important. It is the concept, and in terms of conception, the seed. Without it, there would be no print.

But the print must do it justice.

There isn't any conflict, unless one comes up short. Either one...

Though, in all honesty...

as a large format photographer...

maybe it's the negative that's most important...

or...

maybe...

it's the photographer who's most important...

Or the viewer...

[Gordon Moat]

The true sign of intelligence is knowing the right answer when shown it.

[Vaughn]

My prints are images...

Semantically, I do not agree with you. Saying they are the same thing reminds me of the way people will look at a photo of their dad and say "That's Dad!", when it really is a picture of their dad. A print represents an image and this representation is placed in some manner onto a support of some kind (paper, cloth, glass, etc). An image, by my very unofficial definition, is a concept which is represented by a negative, positive, a print, or in some electronic form.

But at the same time, considering Domenico's "According to my personal experience it is a continuum" perhaps one could consider the image and print as being one, just different places along a continuum.

I can see others taking a very different approach to these definitions, and be just as logical and correct as I think I am.

There is a lot of gray areas, too...a mounted transparency created by a camera for example. The transparency is a physical thing, so it is not an image, yet is not really a print.

Many photographers create images, yet never create a print -- their images are only represented in electronic form...they never leave the computer(s). I am trying to think of an example of a photographer that creates prints, but never images, but I can not think of one now.

[Greg Lockrey]

Prints. If the image isn't worthy enough, I won't spend any more money on it to make it a print. When the print is worthy by not being thrown into the trash, I'll call it "my image". :p

[Bill_1856]

Q: How do you describe a schizophrenic Zen Buddhist?

A: A man who is at two with the universe.

LOL, Ken. (It's probably not original, but it is funny, and I'll get some good millage out of it.)

[Bill_1856]

I have tens of thousands of images made over the last 55 years. Most are in the form of Kodachrome slides (stored in Kodak Carosel trays). They are just "shadows on the wall" but many are important to me. Some have been arranged in slide-shows, with music, fading between mulitple projectors, etc. These are just as important as prints as the final medium.
OTOH, I love my fine prints which can be matted and framed and hung on my wall to enjoy.
Digital photography, where the final result may be either captured and presented on the computer screen, or printed by pressing a botton, almost makes your question irrevelant, particularly since they may be displayed in a digital frame, just like a framed print.
And it all costs money -- lots of it!

[Nick_3536]

Semantically, I do not agree with you. Saying they are the same thing reminds me of the way people will look at a photo of their dad and say "That's Dad!", when it really is a picture of their dad. A print represents an image and this representation is placed in some manner onto a support of some kind (paper, cloth, glass, etc). An image, by my very unofficial definition, is a concept which is represented by a negative, positive, a print, or in some electronic form.
.

You mean the image in a persons head? I'm good at those :p Or do you mean the "image" in the real world? Unless you're a documentary I'm not sure how much the real world matters. If you take a model and put a baby in her arms the concept is mother with baby. If the goal was a print then the concept is a print of a mother and baby. The model and the baby were no different then the negative. Just steps to the print.

[Bruce Watson]

So what percentage would you apply to your importance between image/print?

This is surprisingly easy for me. I put about 80% of my creative effort into finding and capturing the image.

Why? Because without a compelling image, well captured, I've got nothing to print. And to illustrate the point, most of my processed film, like everyone else here, goes to the trash can. Few make it to the printmaking stage.

Once I have the image on film, the interpretation of that film to make a final print is fairly straight forward, for me anyway. If the film doesn't support the vision I had at image capture time, I seldom bother trying to make a print from it. I'm not one to go through heroics to "save" an image. But I will go through heroics to capture it in the first place.

I guess what I'm saying is, garbage in, garbage out.

[Brian K]

A poor print of a great image might still hold much merit, a great print of a poor image is still a poor image. That said I think it is important to create the best possible images and print them as best you can. I have learned that sometimes one loses sight of the bigger picture while chasing that last 2 percent of print perfection.

[Donald Qualls]

I am trying to think of an example of a photographer that creates prints, but never images, but I can not think of one now.

Find your favorite master printer, who's so busy printing other people's images he never has time to go out and make his own...

[Ken Lee]

Which is more important: the Chicken or the Egg ?

[domenico Foschi]

Which is more important: the Chicken or the Egg ?

We always take the rooster out of the equation....

[Greg Lockrey]

A poor print of a great image might still hold much merit, a great print of a poor image is still a poor image. That said I think it is important to create the best possible images and print them as best you can. I have learned that sometimes one loses sight of the bigger picture while chasing that last 2 percent of print perfection.

Just the opposite for me. A great print of a poor image makes me look closer at the image to understand why it was made. A good image that is excecuted poorly wouldn't get a second look.

[Greg Lockrey]

We always take the rooster out of the equation....

They have a way around that now, Domenico.

[domenico Foschi]

They have a way around that now, Domenico.

Mhmm, yes they do, don't they....

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

I don't think you can separate the two. A photographic work of art should be the joining of both craft and the photographers aesthetic vision. In other words the whole should be greater than the sum of its parts. When I have people tell me "You know, you have made that place in the photograph look better than what it really is" then I consider the photograph successfull. If the viewer focuses only on one part, either the craft or the content, then you have missed the mark on one side and failed to join both.

[Marko]

An image is a representation of one particular slice of reality formed in photographer's head right before releasing the shutter.

A print is just one of many available methods of sharing the image with other people.

[Gordon Moat]

. . . . . . . I am trying to think of an example of a photographer that creates prints, but never images, but I can not think of one now.

That's easy: Polaroids. In fact, I think it can be a good training/learning experience to wander around with a Polaroid camera, and carefully choose what to shoot. It is sort of a way to practice for shooting 4x5. My old 250 Automatic works well for this.

Of course, with a Polaroid it is only a print, unless you manipulate it. I guess that limits the craft aspect.
:cool:

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)

[Hugo Zhang]

My answer: Images printed, just like words written.

The Zen monk in me is saying that one should just enjoy the whole creative process of taking pictures with LF gears and don't even try to leave any traces after the shutter is clicked. Another part of me is arguing that iamges have to be printed and words have to be written if they really mean anything. It is just inconceivable to talk about and learn from guys like Weston and Adams without their PRINTED IMAGES or Homer, Shakesapeare, Proust and Flaubert without their WRITTEN WORDS. Those printed images and written words define them as we know who they are.

[Peter Lewin]

If I'm interpreting the question correctly, the image takes priority, and my reason for coming to this conclusion is my typical editing process: from my contact sheets, I select those images worth 8x10 work prints (defined as a straight 8x10 print, no manipulation, at my "standard" print time & f-stop, so essentially an enlarged contact). From the work prints I select those images worth "real prints", meaning all the manipulation and grade controls I feel are needed to make a good print. And of course a bunch of those prints end up in the trash, since it is an iterative process. But since the entire process consists of winnowing down images until the final print stage, I would say its the image which is most important.

[Alan Davenport]

My prints are images...
Semantically, I do not agree with you. <SNIP!> An image, by my very unofficial definition, is a concept which is represented by a negative, positive, a print, or in some electronic form. [Emphasis added]

So you really do agree with me... :)

Obviously, like any other semantic argument, we could volley this back and forth until we drop from exhaustion or are banned from the forum.

When I previsualize a final image before releasing the shutter (something that invariably produces better images, at least in my experience,) I try to visualize the final image, not a waypoint during processing. For me, the final image is the one that I intend to display to persons other than myself, and that visualized image is on paper; a print. Everything between the original subject and the final print, are simply stages of the process. The print is the image.

[Brian K]

Just the opposite for me. A great print of a poor image makes me look closer at the image to understand why it was made. A good image that is excecuted poorly wouldn't get a second look.

A poor image is still a poor image, all a great print can do is make for a good print of a poor image. However a great image poorly printed just means that the photographer may need to go back to it when their printing skills are better, or given time understand how to print that image better or have a great printer print it for them. You have options as long as the image itself has merit. What's the expression," Garbage in, garbage out"?

[Ken Lee]

The knower, the knowledge, and the known are 3 terms that we use out of convenience.

Has anyone ever been able to isolate one of them, independent of the other two ?

[David_Senesac]

For me given my unique landscape style, the image and print cannot be separated in the way you seem to be discussing. Most today are more concerned with the end process print thus are quick to use post processing tools to enhance aesthetic shortcomings of an image on film to something creative resulting in their most aesthetic vision. Thus the end print, except for its graphic form, may bear little resemblance to the original film. Many others start using highly saturated films and or filters with a capture on film that is only true to the graphic character of a scene. For them like the DSLR folks below, the film image may merely be a sequence in the image creation pipeline.

Likewise those using DSLR system rarely start from a normal calibrated point, so even their raw captures tend to not reflect the actual scenes experienced but rather the individual settings of myriad abstract software functions for each capture. Thus when they post process their image files, they only have their memories of the experience to guide them even if they had an interest in better image fidelity. Thus the overwhelming numbers of those who likely have little interest in using the image file as anything more than a sequence in a creative process with an end intent of but a ballpark representation to the experienced visual event.

My body of work is one of relative good fidelity to landscapes experienced so the film is my reference guide to the way I process a scanned file and then have it printed. Due to the luminance non-linearities of film, even ones with highest color fidelity like EPN-100 or Provia 100F, one will in post processing need to dim the highlights and boost the shadows of luminance in order to better produce the actual experience exposed for mid tones. However even with those shortcomings, the film itself if properly exposed, represents my best permanent record of what I experienced. And a credible record I might show those who view my prints, as to the reliability of that fidelity. ...David

[Ed K.]

As one who currently cannot make many all analog prints, creates work that gets printed on a printing press, and well, uses both film and a computer....and one who definitely appreciates the works of other photographers -

In some kind of printing contest, judged by critics - the print often seems to be the whole deal. A great print certainly does a lot for a pretty abysmal photograph.

But for many of the most famous of photographs, especially in photojournalism - the photo itself, its moment, its story trumps it all - and it takes no critic or other expert to recognize it.

Personally, the whole thing, from beginning to end is what matters. As a human being, the image has to move me first - from there, if the print is marvelous, then it just keeps removing barriers between me and the image.

It's rare to find photographers that can make great prints and great photographic content in the same period of their life or at all. Sure - they exist.

Sad to say, I had to pass up an opportunity to see more of our own Vaughn's work recently, however when I saw just three of his silver prints, made in an area I had just explored a bit, I could immediately appreciate their fine qualities as photographs, with or without a great print. Yet, then, the prints were immaculate and modest - nothing over the top, nothing less than as good as it gets. The first look, the photo, got my mind and attention. The rest of it made me appreciate the photos all the more. And the whole package, with nobody standing there bragging about it - well, it just knocked my socks off, and really gave me some respect for the discipline and skill, patience and persistence of the man I just met. But the appreciation was a photographer's appreciation when it came to the fine qualities of the prints. The basic human being responded first to the photograph...the image as immediately before its capture / right at its capture.

While the topic can be approached and ended with different conclusions, I agree with Vaughn that it's all important - and I can personally vouch for Vaughn putting his time and energy into his values with success.

[Vaughn]

So you really do agree with me... :)

Actually, Alan, I haven't found anything anyone has written that I disagree with (semantic disagreements are mere technicalities). Some see the world a little differently than I do, but that is just another technicality. What Ed wrote is outright embarassessing, but I won't disagree with that either;) .

Several have been able to simplify the question. A productive thread so far!

Vaughn

[Brian Ellis]

Just use the correct word, which is "photograph," and forget "image." Use of the word "image" as a substitute for "photograph" became popular around the 1970s, when for the first time photographs began selling for serious money and dealers, collectors, , etc. thought the term "photograph" wasn't sufficiently artsy. So the pretentious term "image" instead of "photograph" came into use as a means of elevating the status of the lowly "photograph." Kind of like using the fake word "giclee" for an ink jet print. I try to avoid using the word "image" for my photographs, I prefer to call them what they are - photographs. I use the word "print" only when talking about that particular form of photograph and distinguishing it from other forms of photographs. But print, slide, whatever, all are simply "photographs."

[Vaughn]

I am using "image" to mean the same as "concept"..."image" as something that is not concrete -- image/imagine/imagination sort of thing. One can hold a photograph (or print) in one's hand, but an image is held in one's brain. Nowhere near similar to the inkjet/spurt(giclee) idea.

But I do agree that the words image and photograph have been used interchangably, which is a bit sloppy.

Vaughn

[Ken Lee]

"One can hold a photograph (or print) in one's hand, but an image is held in one's brain."

When you hold the photo in your hand, where is experience of the holding of the photograph in your hand ?

[Marko]

One can hold a photograph (or print) in one's hand, but an image is held in one's brain.

If a photograph is displayed on the screen, I would imagine it would be pretty hard to hold it in one's hand. :)

Great definition of an image, though. Photography is only one of many methods for recording the image. Now, a print is then just one of several methods for sharing a photograph with other brains.

[Vaughn]

"One can hold a photograph (or print) in one's hand, but an image is held in one's brain."

When you hold the photo in your hand, where is experience of the holding of the photograph in your hand ?

There you go again...getting all "Be Here Now" and Zen on me...;) Everything is in our minds...we just have to find our way to the Mind...

Marko -- can a photograph be on a screen? Or is it just a representation of a photograph that is on the screen? Can an image presented on a screen be considered a photograph -- or is there a better term? (I'd like to use the term "digital image", but that sure messes with my previous definiton of "image"...what a hole I've dug for myself!LOL!) Perhaps it is a "digital construct"?

Semantics, again -- probably no correct answers to the above...just different opinions and ways of approaching things. Personally, I see digital "photography" as better described as digital art...and leave the word photography to the older processes. It just seems to me that calling it digital "photography" limits the potential of the digital media. Here is a brand new art media and it is getting tied down semantically with the old! But we are in the transitionary period...we'll see how things shake out!

[Brian Vuillemenot]

Personally, the whole thing, from beginning to end is what matters. As a human being, the image has to move me first - from there, if the print is marvelous, then it just keeps removing barriers between me and the image.

Well said, my bearded friend- it's the whole process, from beginning to end, and then back again, full circle, that matters. As many a cheesy '80s rock song has opined, "Life's a journey, not a destination..."

My personal favorite images that I have created all had a story to how I arrived at them- not all in the vein of "I hiked 10 miles up the side of a mountain in a freezing blizzard at 2 am carrying 70 pounds of equipment to capture the image which I perfectly previsualized at the same site 7 years previously" or similar BS some use to substantiate their work. Rather, when I view the final print of one of my few good images, the emotions and wonder I experienced when I first saw the subject and it's photographic possibilities flood back to me, and I re-enjoy that moment in my mind. Some of these photographic experiences involved arduos physical and/or mental tasks, while others were as effortless as breathing, but reliving the act of creation in my mind is something I never get tired of and really what keeps me going during my long droughts without a decent photograph.


Sad to say, I had to pass up an opportunity to see more of our own Vaughn's work recently, however when I saw just three of his silver prints, made in an area I had just explored a bit, I could immediately appreciate their fine qualities as photographs, with or without a great print. Yet, then, the prints were immaculate and modest - nothing over the top, nothing less than as good as it gets. The first look, the photo, got my mind and attention. The rest of it made me appreciate the photos all the more. And the whole package, with nobody standing there bragging about it - well, it just knocked my socks off, and really gave me some respect for the discipline and skill, patience and persistence of the man I just met. But the appreciation was a photographer's appreciation when it came to the fine qualities of the prints. The basic human being responded first to the photograph...the image as immediately before its capture / right at its capture.


As someone who has had the privilege of seeing Vaughn's prints upclose, I can also vouch for their technical excellence and understated artistic beauty.

[Marko]

Marko -- can a photograph be on a screen? Or is it just a representation of a photograph that is on the screen? Can an image presented on a screen be considered a photograph -- or is there a better term? (I'd like to use the term "digital image", but that sure messes with my previous definiton of "image"...what a hole I've dug for myself!LOL!) Perhaps it is a "digital construct"?


Vaughn,

it's all about semantics, I guess... we agree about the definition of an image, but I think your definition of a photograph is more political than factual, if you don't mind me saying so.

A photograph - Writing With Light - could be any image captured - OK, I hear you, let me rephrase that - recorded by using any medium sensitive to light capable of holding the recorded information. If it applies to both daguerreotype and film, I don't see why it shouldn't apply to a digital sensor as well. They all record the same image, using the same method - a light-tight box with light sensitive medium on one end and a lens on the other. The only thing different is the technology.

How this photograph is then presented is whole another issue. But my point is that the image has already become a photograph by the time it comes to presentation.

So, yes, an image presented on screen is as much a photograph as is the same image printed on silver bromide paper, on an inkjet, in a book, in a magazine or displayed on a screen. Some day in the future it may even be projected as a hologram and will still remain a photograph, as long as it was recorded using light.

[Chuck P.]

I think they hold equal value. To me, the image is what I'm after and it is the quality of the print that makes or breaks it's presentation as a fine photograph. I have to be satisfied with the print quality ultimately, or it won't matter what the image is.

Chuck

[Vaughn]

Marko, consider this...

If I take a photo of one of my kids, can I point to the photo and truthfully say that what I am pointing at is my kid -- or is it far more accurate to say what I am pointing to is not my kid, but a representation of my kid?

So a picture of a photograph in a book is not the print created by the photographer, but a representation of the print. The picture in the book is of course a print (after all, books are printed), but it is a generation removed from the original print of the artist.

So you have made me rethink here and hopefully I have gained some insight. This is my latest thought...yes, one can have a photograph on a computer screen...but not a print. The photograph on the screen does not even have to be a representation of a print -- no print may have ever existed. So those who never make prints, but create photographs for digital displays would be 100% image makers and 0% printmaker (which still equals 100% photographer).

This is way too much fun:p

vaughn

[Vaughn]

Brian, I will agree. Like Domenico suggested, for me it is a continium between image and print (perhaps a circular continium as you seem to suggest?). 50/50 between image and print, but with no disernable mental borders between the two.

vaughn

[Marko]

If I take a photo of one of my kids, can I point to the photo and truthfully say that what I am pointing at is my kid -- or is it far more accurate to say what I am pointing to is not my kid, but a representation of my kid?

So a picture of a photograph in a book is not the print created by the photographer, but a representation of the print. The picture in the book is of course a print (after all, books are printed), but it is a generation removed from the original print of the artist.

Actually, no, the photograph in a book is neither a picture of a photograph nor a picture of a print, it is a presentation of a photograph, just like a print of a photograph is another, albeit different presentation.

Many would say, and I would agree, that in most cases it is a superior presentation to that in a book, but both are still just presentations of the same thing - a photograph. Neither of them is the original, since both of them were created only after the photograph was made and each can be produced in quantity, which defies the concept of an original.


So you have made me rethink here and hopefully I have gained some insight. This is my latest thought...yes, one can have a photograph on a computer screen...but not a print. The photograph on the screen does not even have to be a representation of a print -- no print may have ever existed. So those who never make prints, but create photographs for digital displays would be 100&#37; image makers and 0% printmaker (which still equals 100% photographer).

This is way too much fun:p

vaughn

Sounds very reasonable to me. We are all gaining insight here, and yes, being able to have an intelligent and reasonable discussion about controversial topic is fun, indeed.

Great thread :)

[Vaughn]

Marko: "Actually, no, the photograph in a book is neither a picture of a photograph nor a picture of a print, it is a presentation of a photograph, just like a print of a photograph is another, albeit different presentation."

I think I can wrap my mind around what you are saying, but we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. LOL! The is a subtle difference between presentation and representation in our meanings, that I can feel, but not quite pin down. Part of it is that I think you see creation of the recording (onto the negative, digital sensors, etc) is the photographic element and the presentation of this recording would be the printing element (at least in the case when the end result is a print). Whereas I see the mental act of recording as the image-making element, and the negative and the resulting print is the printing element...which the end result is a photograph (in print form).

Different verbal paths leading to the same place (eventually).

Thanks! vaughn

[Marko]

Vaughn,

Let me first say that I appreciate very much the manner in which you have carried this discussion and that I indeed do not mind if we end up disagreeing over the final conclusion. It still does not mean that either of us would be ultimately wrong, but that we simply have differing perceptions of the same thing.

That being said, yes, I think you got my perspective right - Content is King. Everything else is just there for support.

[JoeV]

A mass-distributed image, such as an Ansel Adams of 'Half Dome', on a store-bought calendar, is a printed reproduction of a highly manipulated darkroom silver print. Adams final 'output' was the silver print; and until the silver print was completed to his satisfaction, the image didn't yet exist, except previsualized in his mind. Another example is 'Moonrise Over Hernandez, NM'; the negative, or a 'straight print' of the negative, would be so different from what we know as the 'Moonrise' image as to be an entirely different image. So, for this application - silver darkroom prints from film negatives - the print IS the image, since the final crafting involves manipulating the printing process so as to come close to realizing the theoretical image previsualized prior to exposure.

This is a core principle of the Zone System and its variants: the final print represents a close faxsimile of the artist's internal, mentally previsualized image.

For the 'newer' photographic technologies, this may or may not be the case; for images combined from multiple sources (scanned negatives, other digital sources) into a finished electronic image file, the image could just as easily remain in the virtual domain, unless it was expressly the artists intention that the finished image be a print. Many digital artists tailor their workflow for a particular printer/ink/paper combination, similar to what silver darkroom workers would have done, again reinforcing the notion that the print is the image. Although many will also create thumbnail or other electronic versions, but these have been manipulated explicitly so as to look like their primary print output medium. If a client asks for an example of the finished artwork, an electronic image manipulated to look like the finished print will suffice - again reinforcing the idea that for those whose intention of final output format be the print, its qualities define what the image should and will be.

[Marko]

Many digital artists tailor their workflow...

What exactly is a digital artist?

[zoneVIII]

imho content is king for journalism photography or such human interest, for fine art photos i think that beside the content the print is the performance

[paulr]

A poor print of a great image might still hold much merit, a great print of a poor image is still a poor image.

I'd go even further and say that a great print of a poor image is embarassing.

There's an old saying that "you can't polish a turd" ... which is directly contradicted by some of my student work, which was printed luxuriously but said nothing.

On the other hand, many great images hold up no matter how shodily printed. I prefer the good prints of Walker Evans to the bad ones (there are plenty of both), but even the bad ones are instantly obviously great photographs.

[Miguel Coquis]

Perhaps there are other questions to consider,
there is extended literature about "photography",
through time dimension many have written about their experiences from different points of view and from different individual contexts.
Visualisation can be one of the pivot-ideas.
Image or print ?
It is one whole process.

[Tajmul12345]

Mark sawyer I agree with you.

[DrTang]

content: 70 percent

technique: 30 percent



a crappy print of a meaningful. important, or insightful subject is far better than a brilliant print of a brick..say

to me anyway

[Drew Wiley]

Hmmm ... ancient thread. But imagine the corollary .... Which is worse - being tone death or having
your vocal chords removed? If you don't have any vision, why bother. But even if you hypothetically
have it, what use is it if you can't communicate it? Takes both.

[Vaughn]

Strange reading words of 6 years ago!

I am still of the mind of Ken's Zen -- in my work, both are equally important and are actually just parts of the whole process of creation.

[mdm]

I think for me the process is more important than the result. Like a fisherman, I dont care if I dont catch a fish. But one day hope to have a fish tank, or a freezer full of fish.

[wentbackward]

The finalisation of one's painstaking efforts is what matters to me, it doesn't have to be a print, but the job must be done, it must be complete and have been completed to the best of one's ability, for only then does the fruit's of labour taste sweetest.

For me that is a completely finished print, hanging on the wall. I can't stop until I've hammered in the hook, or at least strung the finished product, boxed it and delivered it.

[bobwysiwyg]

I think for me the process is more important than the result. Like a fisherman, I dont care if I dont catch a fish. But one day hope to have a fish tank, or a freezer full of fish.

+1. That's also why I like fly fishing. My brother-in-law is a worm dunker. Can't stand just sitting in a boat all day waiting for something to happen.

[Brian C. Miller]

"Clothes make the man. Naked men have little or no influence in society." -- Mark Twain (Samuel Clemens)

Which is more important? The clothing or the man?

Can the image exist without the print? Can the print have meaning with no image? The strong image surpasses poor "execution," with photography being what it is. Compare the image of Kennedy's assassination on the Zapruder film vs Oswald's assassination vs Nguyen Ngoc Loan executing Nguyen Van Lem on the street. Would any of those moments have been more poignant if photographed using an 8x10? Two of the images are what might be termed as low quality. Now, let's imagine that all of the images were photographed with an 8x10, in perfect sharpness. A lousy print is made. How lousy does that print have to be before the images lose their impact? The print would have to be pretty degraded before the impact of those particular images is lost or ineffective.

To a certain point, the image and the print are two sides of the same coin, and the coin is not complete without both sides. (Nobody uses Mobius coins!) Of course some coins are more valuable than others. But the image must stand out for it to have impact. Flower - flower - flower - flower - flower (etc.), eyes glaze over, even if the images are really good. The same thing happens with other photographs. Impact happens when there is resonnance with the viewer and the image is out of place, e.g., flower - flower - flower - execution - flower. Then the viewer misses a step. "Execution? Wait, what?" Many songs have a structure of A-A-B-A. The familiar pattern is interrupted, and then returned to the familiar. The print, and image, must stand out from the background level, one way or another. Amidst a sea of crappily printed flowers, the well-printed flower will be different. Amidst a sea of well-printed flowers in black and white, the burning flower in color will stand out.

[Drew Wiley]

The hunt is important as the kill. It's part of the experience, part of the motive to get out there and enjoy life. But if the
image is all you're after, simply enjoy it on the groundglass and move on. No need to waste a piece of film.

[Vaughn]

Not only are both important to me, the printing process influences the seeing and the creation of the image, and the image influences the print.

[paulr]

I used to care about stuff like images and prints. Now I only care about the one important thing: the histogram. I'll be exhibiting my latest much-anticipated histograms soon and you're all invited to the opening.

[Heroique]

Six years later – 5,000 views – more than 60 responses – here’s the vote tally so far:

Print: 2
Image: 3
Equal: 1

Seems that all the deep thinking & philosophy (“It’s the process that matters,” “You can’t separate the two,” etc.) have kept simple answers to a minimum, and the thread very interesting. :D

[N Dhananjay]

If we looked at a favourite painting, would you feel comfortable dissecting the quality of the painting into component parts of the subject and composition/execution?

Craft without art is drudgery. Art without craft is laziness and posturing.

Cheers, DJ

[Vaughn]

I used to care about stuff like images and prints. Now I only care about the one important thing: the histogram. I'll be exhibiting my latest much-anticipated histograms soon and you're all invited to the opening.

I thought only women could have histograms...or am I thinking of something else?

[Drew Wiley]

A histogram is a telegraph message collected by a historian for posterity.

[cjbecker]

Even though I don't want to think it, I'm more about the image. I find the exploring to be one of the best parts of photography. Taking images for me is a way to break through my social barrier. It works the same as alcohol for me but in a lesser extent. It allows me to not worry about what I'm doing and saying and simply be myself. Because of that I sometimes use photography to be my artificial purpose. Giving me a reason to be in a situation then just being there and being awkward and now knowing what to do.

I find that i will shoot rolls that i never end up doing anything with because it allows me to be in situations that I enjoy but would never be in them with out the excuse of the camera.

It gives me a purpose.

But Printing those images can bring back those feelings. You can go back and look at prints from older times and instantly have that feeling about where you were where, what feelings you had, what thoughts were going through your head. It gives you a very surreal feeling. A feeling that will always come back to you when you look at the images.

The more and more I go back and look at images the more and more I like the prints.

[Jody_S]

I think the problem is that in 2013, the choices are image/print vs. image/web version. Many of us have far more exposure on the web with our low-res images than we will ever have with 'proper' prints. So much so that whatever prints we now make are influenced by our web images, rather than vice-versa.

[Brian C. Miller]

Well, a big problem with viewing big images is where to store the data. For instance, Zoomify or krpano will take a big image and break it into chunks that can be quickly loaded and viewed. However, those images take a lot of space. They aren't something that can be quickly uploaded, and you'll be paying for the hosting of that image. What happens is that the original image is broken down into many tiles and many sizes, which are stored on the server. So not only are there tiles for the original image, there are tiles for the intermediate zoom sizes, too.

So, yeah, you can put up an image where the viewer can take in all of the detail, but the trade-off is a lot of hosting space is needed. That means that you can only store a few high-quality images, where someone can "sniff the print." And then there's always the problem of image color space and all that, and which browsers recognize what.

[evan clarke]

Jesus...do you want to see an image or a photograph??

[ROL]

Jesus...do you want to see an image or a photograph??

Guess, given those choices, I'd rather see Jesus...and stop addressing me in that manner!

[evan clarke]

Guess, given those choices, I'd rather see Jesus...and stop addressing me in that manner!

Cute..image is a nice buzzword from digital crap..I like real photographs..

[Vaughn]

Cute..image is a nice buzzword from digital crap..I like real photographs..

I disagree. but that's cool. To me an image does not physically exist until fashioned into the physical, such as a photograph. The concept of a latent image has been around far longer than digital photography. And it goes back to the first English translations of the Ten Commandments (craven images and all that). But I do agree with you (I think) that a digital 'capture' is just an image -- until it is printed...where it becomes a photograph. And an image on a computer screen is not a photograph. But I will accept its use by others to foster communication.

[ROL]

I disagree...

Vaughn disagrees that I'm cute :(. I guess... I'm crushed?!?

[Vaughn]

Some like cute, some like bears, I like my women with hairy legs.

Its all cool...:cool:

[Kevin J. Kolosky]

Isn't the whole idea of photography about the thing being photographed. I saw this thing today. I wish you could have been there and seen it with me. But since you weren't I made a photograph of it so you could at least have some idea what it looked like.

Its about the thing, whatever it is.

[Vaughn]

Isn't the whole idea of photography about the thing being photographed. I saw this thing today. I wish you could have been there and seen it with me. But since you weren't I made a photograph of it so you could at least have some idea what it looked like.

Its about the thing, whatever it is.

No, that is not why I make photographs, but it is a valid reason for others to make them. The act of photographing is my attempt to better understand the place and the light I see. The print is an attempt to give others a hint of what I experienced and how I saw the light of a place. And not so much about the thing at all.

[Heroique]

Six years later – 5,000 views – more than 60 responses – here’s the vote tally so far:

Print: 2
Image: 3
Equal: 1

Updated tally!

Print: 4
Image: 4
Equal: 1

This is going down to the wire.

[kub]

Many photographers create images, yet never create a print -- their images are only represented in electronic form...they never leave the computer(s). I am trying to think of an example of a photographer that creates prints, but never images, but I can not think of one now.

How about hardcore documentary? extreme examples like polaroids of car wrecks insurnace uses, or bodily injuries photos at coroners office, etc?

As for the entire question, I like to think of it as a continuum. Unfortunately, this continuum breaks often due to my delinquency:(

[Brian C. Miller]

(I consider the "image" to be what exists in front of the camera before it is photographed. Afterwards, I think of it as a latent print. So what follows is hair-splitting on a level with suemono-giri.)

Since all instant prints (Instax, Polaroid, New55) create a discarded intermediary negative, they are not "print only." The negative can be recovered and used.

Only E-6 film is "print only." When the film is developed, the final result appears. There is no intermediate step. The E-6 film will either be viewed directly or by projection.

The print is the final product in the continuum of photography, and a brilliant print never makes up for a banal image. Unless you are Eggleston, et. al.

[Peter Lewin]

I will disappoint Heroique by also not giving a straight answer. I think the process used in making the print has a significant impact on the answer. Almost any of the "alt processes" increase the value of the print relative to the image: cyanotype, salt prints, wet plate - in these cases the process contributes so much to the appearance of the final print that, IMHO, they make the print more important than the image. Granted, the printing (or I the case of wet plate, the photographic process) cannot make up for a truly poor image, but the alternative printing mode can turn an average image into something special.

Again, IMHO, silver printing is a mid-point between alt process and ink jet prints. I think that the craftsmanship in a well done silver print does throw some extra weight on the print versus the image. As a darkroom printer, I will not make a silver print of an image which I feel is merely ordinary, but by the time I have the finished print dry mounted and up on my wall, it is at least of equal value to the image by itself. Probably since it is the final step in the entire process, I might even say the print is of higher value.

However, since I only use ink jet prints as work prints, to decide which images/negatives are worth taking into the darkroom, for those images which I post to this forum without making prints, or which I stop working with at the work print stage, in those cases the image is most important.

So ultimately I am waffling, by saying that in some ways the print becomes the more important, depending on how much time and effort goes into making the print.

[Peter Lewin]

Well, I still enjoy the thoughts generated by this thread, although to most I think the thread has died of old age and the weight of 9 pages of posts...

The last two days I have been printing and organizing a number of images that will be mounted as diptyches, and four which will be a grid. I guess for these the Bechers were my role model. The individual images are "ok" but I think they gain strength by being presented as comparisons of "types" (again, that is Becher-ism at work!). So in this case, I think the print (or more precisely, the collection of images mounted as a unit) is more important than the individual images.

I found an entry by Brooks Jensen in his "Lenswork Daily" blog (?) which speaks directly to this issue, so I have cut-and-pasted it:
"I've said for some time now that our generation of photographers has a different challenge than the previous generations. When Ansel Adams and his generation created a wonderful photograph that was well-composed and especially when it was exquisitely printed, that accomplishment alone was worthy of applause. It was so incredibly difficult to create a stunningly beautiful print — especially a large one — that it was a rare accomplishment worthy of praise. Today, with all the technological advancements of the last 70 years at our command, it's simply not that difficult to make a stunningly beautiful print. It's not rare, it's not remarkable, and it's not even much of an accomplishment. (As a long-term darkroom worker, it pains me to admit this, but it's just so obviously true, at least from my perspective as a publisher.)

The challenge for our generation of photographers is one of — to use a somewhat crude phrase — packaging our work for consumption. That is to say, non-photographic components like sequencing, text, titles, layout and design, graphic extras, and the all important King Content are the great challenges of our generation. We still have to make stunning prints with full command of our materials, the light, and all the photographic variables that still comprise the wonderful image. But, we have to progress beyond that — at least if we want to rise above the cacophony of mere technological accomplishment. Seeing the relationships between images and the possibilities for more inventive presentations is a field of study that is well worth our time."

[photobymike]

The print is performance of your craft.... image is digital static and gets lost in cyberspace

[Steve Smith]

The true sign of intelligence is knowing the right answer when shown it.

One of my college lecturers stated that the true sign of intelligence is knowing where to look for the answers rather than knowing it yourself.


Steve.

[Drew Wiley]

Let me paraphrase Peter's quote of Brooks Jensen: "because everyone now has the ability to pick up a two dollar greasy hamburger at a drive-up window, there's no need for anyone to learn how to cook anymore; it's all about branding and superficial marketing. Quality doesn't matter. That's for old fogies of the past. " I'd like to see that jackass make a stunningly beautiful print, if it's all that easy.

[Peter Lewin]

Let me paraphrase Peter's quote of Brooks Jensen: "because everyone now has the ability to pick up a two dollar greasy hamburger at a drive-up window, there's no need for anyone to learn how to cook anymore; it's all about branding and superficial marketing. Quality doesn't matter. That's for old fogies of the past. " I'd like to see that jackass make a stunningly beautiful print, if it's all that easy.
Of course I read Brooks Jensen's piece quite differently. My paraphrase would be: "The technology of modern digital cameras, Photoshop, and ink-jet printing has removed many of the technical hurdles that photographers and darkroom printers had to face in the past. You can see this anywhere on the internet: many more very good images on many sites, the death of stock photography as a source of income swamped by the myriad of amateur images available for peanuts. To stand out in this new environment, an image or print must be different, must be somehow new, must involve more sequencing or story telling or some other aspect to make it unique."

That was why the first of my two posts dealt with alternative printing techniques, and my second with groupings or sequencing of images. While, IMHO, excellent work is still rare, "very good" work has become abundant. In other discussions, as a group we on the forum have stressed how for many (most?) of us the reward is "the journey," the process of photography, often just the joy of being outside looking for images, or the tactile enjoyment of working with view cameras. Few have valued their own images equally highly. I think most of us (certainly me) post "good" or "very good" work, usually of streams flowing around rocks, weathered barns, occasionally people (a fair percentage of whom are models), or still life. I love looking at the work, and much of it inspires me to work harder at my own images, but little really stands out on its own, and I think that is Brooks's point. (And perhaps Brooks's point is slightly watered down for us, since as view camera users with film in our holders, we face more technical hurdles than 99% of the [digital] photography world.)

[Drew Wiley]

My take on things has been just the opposite. The ease of technology has proliferated mediocrity, to a large degree because the web itself, as the lowest common denominator of quality, comprises the new "norm". And I suspect it takes just as much
work to make a really good digital print as a darkroom one - at least, those friend of mine who have a reputation for the highest quality work have related that fact to me, previously being darkroom types themselves. But I do balk at the trend
among critics which implies, to use another analogy, "we no longer need great classic novels. That's already been done. What
we need is something profoundly new, but poorly written."

[John Kasaian]

this is sort of like asking what is more important, the mother or the child?

[Vaughn]

this is sort of like asking what is more important, the mother or the child?

With all due respect, that is stretching it a bit, IMO.

[Chuck P.]

Today, with all the technological advancements of the last 70 years at our command, it's simply not that difficult to make a stunningly beautiful print.


What materials/equipment was required then to make a stunningly beautiful print versus today-------------

THEN:
large format camera with lens, film, developer, enlarger-with lens, paper, paper developer, toner, etc...


TODAY:
large format camera with lens, film, developer, enlarger-with lens, paper, paper developer, toner, etc...


But perhaps this is too simpistic a view.

[sun of sand]

I still believe this to be an extremely easy question to answer
It has been asked many times here and elsewhere

I'm also sure that the people who say the print is most important are only trying to fool themselves and everyone else into believing they are somehow more sophisticated than those who believe that the negative is ONLY "the score"
..and many will say it just like that

If the imge or the negative isn't the most important part of thgo make a beautiful print f a crappy photo and try telling yourself that
yes
YES
THIS is what it is all about


Ansel also said something about an expert being able to decide which negative/capture/image/composition would make the best print
which means that not just any capture of a given subject is the best one

Even in basketball
just because you make a shot and score two points doesn't mean it was the best shot to take
You may win the game and sell your print and be happy with yourself
but you may have sold a beautiful print of a composition that can be bettered which eally just makes your beautiful print 2nd rate






and
If someone REALLY TRULY had a picture of Jesus or GOD
would ANYONE
anyone?
be sitting around saying

oh, that's just a "representation" of him
mother teresa would've punched your teeth out ..she ws a jerk afterall



and a digital "print" that never leaves the computer is the same as a print that sits on the wall collecting dust
If I stick my monitor up on the wall it's the same exact thing
something to look at

nothing else matters except to collectors

[sun of sand]

No, that is not why I make photographs, but it is a valid reason for others to make them. The act of photographing is my attempt to better understand the place and the light I see. The print is an attempt to give others a hint of what I experienced and how I saw the light of a place. And not so much about the thing at all.


Doesn't that mean that it's a personal journal?
personal journals are not meant to be viewed by others
the fact that you show them I believe is you wanting others to experience what you have ..or agree with you that those experiences are unforgettable



or should be made so