Discussion - scan of ???

[jp]

If I print it and scan it, my description would say so. I'm all for honest photo descriptions. If it doesn't say how it was printed, it hasn't been printed.

As a practical matter, the majority of photos never make it to paper because there are not enough hours in the day. I'd rather shoot more and print less, and scanning negatives lets me do that. I print a few and scan many. Wish it were different, but not to the extent of giving up a job or family.

[Corran]

I think Ansel mentions somewhere in his book that he has multiple prints of the same image that have different feels - perhaps darker/lighter. Not to mention prints from Alan Ross from his negatives for example. Also, I know Eric and I have some prints that vary in toning techniques, and therefore color.

It's hard to peg a "definitive" print when it comes to displaying online. I have oftentimes changed my mind and printed things differently from the scan I mocked up. And that's what scans are for me.

Recently I have had some folks asking to see prints online. Like, ready to sell prints. It's hard because of the aforementioned variations, and also because even a scanned print doesn't look like the print, especially in light of the variations in monitors, lighting, etc.

Certainly it is best to see a print on the wall! Of course these days it is possible and common for galleries to have TVs to display video work. What about a photo scan on a TV on the wall of a gallery? What does that mean to the idea of a finished photograph? Just something to think about.

[Tin Can]

All here think about IRL presentation.

All I know is I am more comforted by an actual print of any kind over a digital screen event which is eventually turned off even in my home. Most of my life I have watched ‘TV’, no sound which includes computers, listened to music and read books. All at the same time. Prints on the wall complete my immersion.

I bet Wet Prints revive with our youth and their recent film discovery.

Remember the Hot Rod revival X 3 at least.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

Scanning is not much different than printing except your medium is the computer. And, almost every technique used in PS or other programs is based on actual dark room techniques. To me, it is just another version of the art of photography. I wouldn't give up the film for anything, the developing, etc Printing from a high end printer will give an image that is very impressive. Printing old school will do the same. Each will have its inherent qualities, good and bad.

I guess, in the end it is up to the artist/professional to determine what he/she likes in an image and how to proceed from conception/capture method to final product, print, digital, digital print etc.

[Mark Sawyer]

...almost every technique used in PS or other programs is based on actual dark room techniques.

Note to self: check enlarger timer for "undo" button...

[Corran]

The undo button is actually located in the paper safe

[Mark Sawyer]

The undo button is actually located in the paper safe

My photo paper is never safe...

[esearing]

Corran, this was not aimed at you or anyone in particular. Just something that has been brewing in my mind.

I am not requesting for images to be judged/commented on based on personal workflow or stopping point. And though this topic may have been discussed before it appears that few have heeded the call.
All I am asking is that you inform the viewer about what they are seeing. Galleries will have a little card stating whether the print is silver or pigment or other process.

We are all at different phases of our photography journey and have different budgets that drive our workflows. If you have ever actually chemically toned an image you will realize the sepia setting in photoshop has little in common with various/variable sepia toners. To manipulate color on an electronic image is trying to achieve an aesthetic for that format and should be noted. Digital HDR work is often noted since it has a wider range of tonality and details than might be "normal" for a given scene.

And just as important - tell your story about the image. Be inspiring!

[jim10219]

I’m a bit younger than most of you, so I may have a different take on it. For me, if the picture posted online doesn’t say what it is, I assume it’s a digital capture. Since this site deals primarily in film, anything unlabeled here I assume to be a digital scan of the negative, in which case all of the tools available in software are fair game. You can, after all, with a good inkjet printer and a calibrated setup make a pretty good representation of what you see on screen. I don’t view digital inkjet as any less of a printing method than any wet print process.

That being said, I also tend to appreciate a really nice wet print more than really nice inkjet due to the increased level of difficulty and cost. However, a good print of a good photo is a good print no matter how it was made. And a bad print of a bad photo is still a bad print, no matter how it was made. And with the increased power available from using a computer, I expect more from a digital print.

Photoshop requires its own set of skills. So do scanning and printing. It can take decades to master all of that. I received a bachelors in graphic design ten years ago and have been using Photoshop daily for several years longer and still have a lot to learn about that program. I’m a professional “Photoshopper” who’s pretty damn good, but I’m far from an expert and don’t know many peers who would qualify as one (in my mind).

It’s kind of like the difference between a gum and a silver gelatin print. I don’t expect the same results from each process. And to me, selecting the process with witch to make the final representation of the photo is part of what a good artist does. Some photos are best left on a screen. Some are best printed with an inkjet. Some are best printed in silver. Some are best printed in cyanotype, tricolor gum, lumen print, Polaroid transfer, or maybe even some new experimental process. What makes a work of art effective is the artists ability to convey their ideas through their chosen medium. A good print should be more than a showcase of the artist’s technical mastery of process, just like a good song should be more than a bunch of lightning quick scales.

So I have no problem with unlabeled photos being posted. However, if you want them to be credited as something other than a digital scan manipulated in PS, then it would be wise to label it as such. Websites are, after all, a purely digital medium, and anything posted here is a digital image captured and manipulated in some way (and letting your scanner’s software alone dictate how the image looks doesn’t make you a purist, it makes you lazy).

[williaty]

I am not sure how one draws any meaningful semantic difference between the vast manipulations available in the darkroom and the vast manipulations available in Photoshop. Just take a look at what Jerry Uelsmann was doing in the darkoom long before people starting worrying about digital capture and Photoshop somehow betraying photography. In that context, I have no idea why there's a benefit to labeling display images here "I did the creative work in the darkroom" vs "I did the creative work in the computer".