Why we need to see real photos and not reproductions

[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.)