handmade digital prints

[adrian tyler]

just a little comment, with no intention of starting any trouble. i have worked quite a bit doing traditional b/w prints, even up to the piont of making acetate "dodging" masks for some difficult negatives, and have spent a lot of time getting what i was looking for traditionally. however i have just finished producing a series of colour prints digitally and never have i spent so much time on each negative (scan) to get it the way i want it. the results are very satisfying and my point is that these digital prints are ironically far more "handmade" than any traditional process that i have used.

[Jack Flesher]

Yes that's true -- and don't get me wrong, I am a huge proponent of digital imaging -- but once you've "handmade" the initial version, you can print as many identical copies as you want

[adrian tyler]

in my humble experience once i've decided how a neg should be printed "traditionally" it's much simpler producing the edition, not automatic, but not far off it, -3 here +5 there, ho hum...

[David Luttmann]

You got that right Adrian. The other thing that a lot of people overlook when discussing the "handmade" issue is that each digital print can be different as well. Just because one uses a computer, doesn't mean they need to work on the image once, save it, and print many. We can do (& I do quite often) start from scratch on the RAW image each time to see if I come up with a different version that I prefer.....exactly like people in the darkroom starting from scratch with each print. I think this arguement was used to try and show that somehow digital printing was less artistic.....which of course is nonsense.

Regards,

[darr]

Brooks Jensen is selling different digital versions and calling them "Editions":

"While I don't limit my prints, I do know that a clear and precise provenance is important to some people and may have historical importance long after I am gone. All of my prints now specify the date of their production, the source (negative or digital file), the precise number of copies I made that day, and which is the number of this print. Like the book publishing business, I identify the first printing session as "First Edition," the second printing session (should there be one) as "Second Edition," and so forth. A typical First Edition will be three to five copies, sometimes as few as two, on rare occasions as many as thirty. Usually, I will make more editions as I discover new interpretations of the negative or file. Contrary to the contemporary zeitgeist, therefore, the later editions are the ones I would generally consider the more valuable because I perceive them to be the more mature interpretation of the image. Having said that, additional editions may also be a result of demand." Brooks Jensen

[tim atherton]

Yes that's true -- and don't get me wrong, I am a huge proponent of digital imaging -- but once you've "handmade" the initial version, you can print as many identical copies as you want

of course, as has been pointed put on here many times before, if you can't produce numerous close to identical copies in the darkroom, then you darkroom skills just aren't good enough. One of the unique major differences photography brought to art was its mechanically reproducible nature

[adrian tyler]

so what do you define "history" or "traditional" - fox talbots' prints evolved as his experiments evolved, a couple of generations ago? then nearer brandt comes to mind changing the way he printed his work quite distinctly, even halowed ansels' prints are different from the beginning to the end of his career, some of you guys even know him...

[paulr]

"of course, as has been pointed put on here many times before, if you can't produce numerous close to identical copies in the darkroom, then you darkroom skills just aren't good enough."

mine definitely aren't good enough, by this standard. between the paper that i use, which changes from batch to batch, and the toners, which change over time and which depend on chemical reactions no one can seem to explain to me, there's just no way to duplicate a previous effort.

this is one of the big reasons my silver prints are printed in such small editions. maximum ten, sometimes as little as 2 or 3. big pain in the a$$, and it forces the price up. in fact, i sell them at what's probably much more than market value, if i sell them at all, because there are so few of them.

digital makes my life easier in this regard. like the original poster, i sometimes spend a ridiculous amount of time getting the image right. but i love being able to print whatever edition size i want. and this also means not having to print the whole edition at once (like i did with silver). it can be done on demand, and save me the expense of this paper that costs three times what i paid for silver paper!

"One of the unique major differences photography brought to art was its mechanically reproducible nature"

i feel that this has always been the promise of photography ... but in the world of black and white printing, the reality has often fallen short of it. digital tools bring a wonderful balance ... the quality of custom, hand printing, and the consistency of machine printing.

[matthew blais]

You all make good points, but I ask, where is the enjoyment factor?

Is it really there?

Just curious.

[Andrew O'Neill]

I can't see how every digital print in an edition can be different. You push a button and out pops a print.
I do agree that all the work is done in the computer (I know, I teach graphic design and digital photography). It's like traditional photography, but backwards. The computer is the darkroom and your printer is the camera taking the picture...or in this case, "giving" it.