Re: What is a photographer?
you could convence yourself that inkjet printing takes just as much knowlege as does the darkroom printing ... For me photography is a print you can hang on the wall and no one says that looks like a magazine or a postcard.. they just look
Re: What is a photographer?
Hi Scott,
What you are going through at the moment is a phase of development and trying to find the boundaries of your creativity, both in shots as in prints.
And that comes with a lot of feelings of insecurity.
I have been photographing for the past 40 odd years and have seen the diferent phases with my self.
I started with 35mm and wanted more, so I bought a Mamiya TLR and still wanted more so I got my self a Rolleiflex SL66 that has a new friend now: a RB67.
For the past 20 odd years I have been shooting 4x5 inch with a Sinar P2.
Had my own darkroom for B&W, made my own prints.
Then I moved to Brazil en had to go digital for the time being: no prints, just CDRom for my clients, the architects.
Digital gave me new insperation, a desire to do more with B&W and the SL66 and RB.
We sometimes need a diversion of our choosen path to gain new strengh.
A photographer needs tools, camera's, and is allways looking for better solutions for better pic's. Nothing is so horrid as to be stuck in one place without a view to something diferent to explore.
Get the Epson 3800 if you can afford it, it will be a new step into your own development.
Peter
Re: What is a photographer?
Cost of an "archival quality printer?" There are many factors that go into making an "archival" (whatever that means) print. Of course the first problem is making photographs worth archiving, which not many people do except for family and historical type things. But apart from that, while the inks used are relevant, so too is the paper you use and the method of display or storage. If you go to www.wilhelm-research.com you can find a lot of information about the results of his testing different combinations of inks and papers. But 200 years isn't unusual for many different combinations and I would think 200 years should be enough for anybody. I certainly wish my parent's color prints from the '60s and '70s had that kind of life, most of them have faded and discolored very badly despite being stored well.
I mention this only because it may be that your existing printer is capable of making "archival" prints. The 3800 is an excellent printer (it's my current printer) but IIRC there are other less expensive Epson printers that use the same inks.
As for your main question, I've haven't used a lab to make a print since my days as a family snapshooter. To me the printing process, whether darkroom or digital, is at least as important a part of the creative process as making the in-camera image. So I'd encourage you to learn how to print yourself. There are lots of different Photoshop books out there. For color I happen to like the ones Scott Kelby and the late Bruce Frazer have written. It isn't all that difficult to get started though for me the learning curve to get beyond the basics and use Photoshop to its full advantage (for my work) has been pretty steep. Much of what you learn there will be equally applicable to black and white but there are also books devoted exclusively to b&w printing. Attending a workshop is another good way to learn or to advance. I spent a week with George deWolfe when I first started printing black and white digitally and that was invaluable.
Buying another printer could be the result of GAS but I've found that sometimes another camera or lens or whatever is just what I need to get jump-started after a fallow period so I wouldn't worry too much about why you want the printer, if you want it and can afford it just get it.
Re: What is a photographer?
Printing is a part of photography and although I have done 'wet' prints and love traditional methods I think that I would be more likely to stick with an inkjet printer.
"Archival" is one of those buzzwords that can get one into a lot of trouble. I'm definitely interested in pigment based prints not dye based prints due to their stability even if they don't have the 'punch' that a dye based print can have. The other thing that is really important to me is the ability to do black and white without a color cast.
Since this is taking a "'technique" turn I'm starting a thread over in the Digital Hardware section to deal with printer choice. I would still like to hear other thoughts on my original post here.
Scott
Re: What is a photographer?
... just a bit smelly strange looking and usually fat older guy who spends hundreds or thousands of bucks for and old crap he at the end feels ashamed of, so he often hides under a blanket when there are people around. If he finally decides to takes a photo - it takes him at least 30 minutes and another several days to weeks to print it - and at the and it will be often only B&W ... Oh! that is a LF photographer description, sorry ... :p
Up to now I am just a bit smelly and strange - the rest will come with time. I hope I did not offend anybody here around, but I just got inspired by some comments of our dear member Frank ... :)
Re: What is a photographer?
What is a photograph? It is the thing that was struck by light that consequently bears the marks that form the picture. Everything else is an image of one kind or another.
The difference between "photographs" and "pictures that resemble photographs" is like the difference between "being" and "seeming".
Re: What is a photographer?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Maris Rusis
The difference between "photographs" and "pictures that resemble photographs" is like the difference between "being" and "seeming".
I wish I had worded the title a little bit differently, something more like: How would you define a photographer? or What is the definition of a photographer?
I really like the point made by Maris and I would like to point out that a snapshooter could be considered a photographer as long as they make prints. But I think everyone here is past that and understands that we don't 'take' photographs as much as we 'make' photographs. There is a really interesting geographical feature near here called cantilevered rock where a large slab of rock has swung out of the mountainside horizontally and just hangs there since one end of it is still trapped in the mountain. I haven't come up with a decent way to photograph it. A coworker looked at me bewildered when I explained the problem and he said 'why don't you just point your camera at it and take a picture?"
Ansel Adams was considering the final print even before he exposed the film. No print, what's the point of exposing the film? Sure technology is different now and we can look at images on a computer screen but that's a different experience than looking at a print of any size. I think my mind is made up to take the plunge and get the printer and learn how to make photographs :)
Scott
Re: What is a photographer?
Quote:
I would like to point out that a snapshooter could be considered a photographer as long as they make prints.
So, if someone only shot slide film, they aren't a photographer?:confused:
Re: What is a photographer?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
John T
So, if someone only shot slide film, they aren't a photographer?:confused:
John,
No, slide film definitely counts. I only shot slide film for years with my old Nikon FM2n when I first started out. I loved it and didn't have many prints made, but to show my work to others I had to lug my light box and loupe around. Some the those slides did make it into publications which was great but I want to be able to do more with my images. I do some digit@# SLR work and love 4x5 slides but I can't hang them up on a wall. Black and white negative film must (well-not necessarily) be converted to a positive image...
I guess my point is that for me at my present stage as a photographer I would like to learn to make my own prints for my own enjoyment and possibly at some point in the future begin to sell some of my prints. Other photographers can and should define for themselves what it means to them to be a photographer.
I brought up the importance of prints done by early photographers (Ansel and other pioneers of photography) since that was the only way available to them to show their work to others. That was the limit of the technology at the time. Now we can do slides (as you like), projected slideshows, computer and television based image shows, pdfs, multimedia shows, put images on iPods etc. My point is that the technology for viewing images has evolved and it is up to the individual photographer to choose his or her preferred method and/or methods for their work to be viewed.
Scott