Page 1 of 9 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 89

Thread: LensWork: repro superior to original print

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    626

    LensWork: repro superior to original print

    First of all, I believe Brooks browses this forum and reads a few forums here and there, so if he reads this congratulations on another great issue. I have to say Beth Moon's portfolio was striking; specifically the Bristlecone Pine image on page 55 -- that was most definitely my favorite. I also enjoyed Robert Waddingham's Ethiopia portfolio.

    Anyway, as I sat in my office this morning with a freshly brewed cup of coffee, I was reading my favorite part of his magazine, the Editor's Comments titled: The Real Revolution in Photography. In this column, Brooks asserts that "the photographer's handmade photographic print may no longer be the sole pinnacle of quality." And that it is "at risk to be dethroned."

    Reading on he points out an example where using the technology he has to print LensWork, he did a test print of Wynn Bullock's "Child in Forest, 1951" and said that his printing of that photograph through his printer was superior to the original photograph.

    Very interesting and perhaps almost shocking claims that absolutely do hold ramifcations for everyone inside of the fine art photography world. Has anyone else read this coulmn? What are your thoughts on it?

  2. #2
    Kirk Gittings's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Albuquerque, Nuevo Mexico
    Posts
    9,864

    Re: Latest issue of LensWork...

    I think whether his print is superior to Wynn's would be for Wynn to determine not Brook. It seems rather presumptuous. He should try that with a living photographer.

    Having said that there are images that I can print better in ink than I could in silver.
    Thanks,
    Kirk

    at age 73:
    "The woods are lovely, dark and deep,
    But I have promises to keep,
    And miles to go before I sleep,
    And miles to go before I sleep"

  3. #3
    Louie Powell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Saratoga Springs, NY
    Posts
    865

    Re: Latest issue of LensWork...

    Quote Originally Posted by FocusMag View Post
    he did a test print of Wynn Bullock's "Child in Forest, 1951" and said that his printing of that photograph through his printer was superior to the original photograph.

    That's purely an opinion.

    AFAIK, there is no OBJECTIVE standard that allows one to determine that one print is "superior" to another.

  4. #4
    reellis67's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    172

    Re: Latest issue of LensWork...

    I strongly agree with Kirk and Louie on this matter - 'Superior' is certainly in the eye of the beholder. Further, I personally have never seen *anything* that was 'superior' to all else for all people all of the time, nor have I ever met anyone who could tell me more authoritatively how I feel about something than myself. Brooks is certainly entitled to his opinion on the matter, but for me, the bottom line on the issue of which print is 'superior' resides with the artist and no other.

    - R

  5. #5
    MIke Sherck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Elkhart, IN
    Posts
    1,312

    Re: Latest issue of LensWork...

    Although I haven't received my copy yet (surrounded by 65,000 people and the post office still acts as though we're out in the boonies!) I myself have never heard of a generally accepted standard of print quality. Mr. Brooks thinks this print is better than that one -- nothing unusual about that: my darkroom wastebasket is full of prints which, in my opinion, didn't make the grade.

    It's nice to have one's opinions: that's what makes the world go 'round. Even nicer to have a way to distribute one's opinions around: that's how one gets to be a pundit, I think. But it's too much work to start my own magazine, so I guess I'll just smile ruefully and see of there are any pretty pictures in the following pages...

    Mike
    Politically, aerodynamically, and fashionably incorrect.

  6. #6
    Founder QT Luong's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1997
    Location
    San Jose, CA
    Posts
    2,337

    Re: Latest issue of LensWork...

    Ansel Adams thought that his latter prints were superior to his early prints (I assume, since he chose to print that way), but John Szarkowski thinks differently.

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Gig Harbor, WA
    Posts
    451

    Re: LensWork: repro superior to original print

    I read the article, and I think you need to read the whole article to get the context of what Brook is saying. He makes some caveats about this statement, both with the technology and with the final print, meaning it is a relative judgment, relative to the photographer and their print and to owner of the print. He was suggesting that prints with the best print technology today equals or exceeds the traditional darkroom prints. Viewing the prints is personal, something he recognizes, and suggests as this goes down the road, people may begin to question which is better, and prefer a new print than an old one. He was raising the observation, and I think it's worth the discussion.

    And personally I think it's one of the best LensWork issues in some time for both the articles and portfolios. LensWork keeps showing it's not about equipment, but the photographer. It's seen in the range of equipment each of the photographers uses to capture and produce their images. To me, it simply blows the rest of the magazines off the magazine racks. Ok, I'm biased, but aren't we all?
    --Scott--

    Scott M. Knowles, MS-Geography
    scott@wsrphoto.com

    "All things merge into one, and a river flows through it."
    - Norman MacLean

  8. #8
    Jim Ewins
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    388

    Re: LensWork: repro superior to original print

    If the image turned you on - everything else is superfluous.

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    626

    Re: LensWork: repro superior to original print

    Quote Originally Posted by Scott Knowles View Post
    I read the article, and I think you need to read the whole article to get the context of what Brook is saying. He makes some caveats about this statement, both with the technology and with the final print, meaning it is a relative judgment, relative to the photographer and their print and to owner of the print. He was suggesting that prints with the best print technology today equals or exceeds the traditional darkroom prints. Viewing the prints is personal, something he recognizes, and suggests as this goes down the road, people may begin to question which is better, and prefer a new print than an old one. He was raising the observation, and I think it's worth the discussion.

    And personally I think it's one of the best LensWork issues in some time for both the articles and portfolios. LensWork keeps showing it's not about equipment, but the photographer. It's seen in the range of equipment each of the photographers uses to capture and produce their images. To me, it simply blows the rest of the magazines off the magazine racks. Ok, I'm biased, but aren't we all?
    The technology used to print LW is incredible. As far as reproduction is concerned, I have entered myself in a little bit of friendly competition... trying each issue to get closer and closer to his. One day I'll be on the same level, hopefully, but by that time, he may have new technology that blows the current technology out of the water. The technology they use, 20-microdot stochastic screen, is probably the best in North America. It's also the most expensive. The printer who does that work should be given a medal. I've spoken to him once or twice... very nice guy. Knew his stuff, was very sharp. Gave me a price that was well worth the printing of FOCUS back then... just couldn't afford it. Still can't... however Brooks can afford to pay the printing bill without any advertising is something short of a phenomenon.

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Pasadena, CA
    Posts
    883

    Re: LensWork: repro superior to original print

    I had some issues with that latest editorial. I was going to post something about it but am still digesting it. However, to say that a reproduction is better than the original implies that something exists in the reproduction that doesn't exist in the original, and that doesn't make any sense to me. Sure, maybe you can get deeper blacks and whatever else, but I can't imagine anyone saying that about other art forms, such as painting or even music ("...the cymbals on this CD sound better than real life!")

    Are we taking digi-tality and technology to its extremes by saying that the repro is better than the real life experience?

    To say that reproduction technology is superb these days is one thing, but to assert that it looks better than the real thing, the original thing, as created and viewed and painstakingly worked on by the artist in his chosen medium and materials, is quite another.

Similar Threads

  1. DOF question
    By Joe_1422 in forum Style & Technique
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 23-Jan-2012, 16:43
  2. large digital print solutions
    By giancatarina in forum Digital Hardware
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 22-Oct-2001, 15:34
  3. Is B&W Print Contrast Affected By....
    By Andre Noble in forum Darkroom: Film, Processing & Printing
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 12-Oct-2001, 01:58
  4. print and film washers
    By Jacque Staskon in forum Darkroom: Film, Processing & Printing
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 1-Jul-2000, 13:21
  5. Diffraction and Lens Flare
    By Paul Mongillo in forum Lenses & Lens Accessories
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 12-Mar-2000, 13:57

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •