The Value of a Fine Print?

[willwilson]

I must admit I'm pretty tired of the standard digital vs traditional debate. I find the conversation typically centers around print quality. Which process produces the largest range of tone, most permanent image, deepest black, brightest white, most detail, sharpness, etc. Personally I find that both traditional and digital processes can produce excellent images.

There is one aspect of this debate that I don't often see discussed. I find it to be one of the most striking differences between the two methods. Traditional wet darkroom prints are unique hand crafted one of a kind works, typically created from exposure to print by the artist. The traditional photographer may strive for consistency from print to print, but in the end each print is a one of a kind creation. A digital print does not have this unique quality. The same digital file can be used to print a cheap poster or make a fine inkjet print on Ilford Galerie Gold Fibre Silk, you can even email it to a printer and receive a "fine art print" in the mail.

Does the uniqueness of a traditional print and the process itself add substantial value to the work, or do you find that the quality and content of the image overides the method of creation? Is the medium an image is created in only a means used to deliver a photographer/artist's vision?

I am struggling with this topic in relation to my own work, especially considering some of the recent advances in digital and printing technology. Your thoughts would be appreciated.

-=Will

[Donald Miller]

You are going to find the answers falling into two camps...depending in large part on what the respondant believes...not any of the answers will be objective. Collectors of photographic art will be divided too.

[darr]

http://www.jmcolberg.com/weblog/2008...es_the_me.html

This pretty much sums up for me how I feel about this whole argument.

Darr

[Daniel Grenier]

....Does the uniqueness of a traditional print and the process itself add substantial value to the work, or do you find that the quality and content of the image overides the method of creation?
-=Will

My small-ish photograph collection is worth over $10,000, I guess. All are either silver or platinum prints made by the photographer from LF cameras/film. These are the basic criteria I go from when considering buying. Call me crazy but I want the printer of the art I buy to be a human - not a machine (i.e. Epson, HP). And that human must be the artist himself/herself.

So yes, to me the hand crafted b&w print merits my hard earned money. I refuse to spend a dime on something that`s spit out of a machine. Hand-made, yes. Machine-made, no.

OTOH, I can (and do) appreciate a good eye - whether digital or traditional - when I look at magazines, web sites, books, etc. but I do not wish to partake with my cash for work not meeting my basic "standards".

[mrladewig]

If the craftsman has printed the print with the same time, same paper, same developing... Then the only differences in the prints will be in the coatings and imperfections of the paper. This is the part of photography that I consider the craft rather than the art. I don't mean that in a derogatory way by any means, but truly mean it with great respect towards those who have developed this skill.

I'm not really clear on how this differs from digital, where the same could be said about choosing the same paper for each print and using the correct profile and it just coming down to paper imperfections that create the uniqueness of an image. Granted, with digital I could have multiple printers running the same image simultaneously, where a single person in a darkroom can only realistically make one print at a time. But there are practical constraints to quantity in both methods and artificial constraints can also be applied to both methods of printing.

Granted, preparing an image in photoshop for printing is not the same thing as testing and printing in the traditional darkroom, but I would hope that a printer (of the human sort) would strive for consistency once the right formula has been determined.

[John Brady]

So yes, to me the hand crafted b&w print merits my hard earned money. I refuse to spend a dime on something that`s spit out of a machine. Hand-made, yes. Machine-made, no.

Isn't the camera a machine too?

No one can argue with where you are willing to spend your money and it is fine to have the criteria you have set for yourself, but I think the whole machine argument is a slippery slope.

Unless you are in the darkroom with the artist how do you know who made the wet print, the artist or the darkroom assistant?

I would tend to be more in Darr's camp on this one. I appreciate all photography when it is done well.

jb
www.timeandlight.com

[Merg Ross]

Does the uniqueness of a traditional print and the process itself add substantial value to the work, or do you find that the quality and content of the image overides the method of creation? Is the medium an image is created in only a means used to deliver a photographer/artist's vision?



-=Will[/QUOTE]

This is a question that only you can answer. What value do you place on your work?

[Toyon]

To me, the difference is that the silver print is an actual product of the interaction of light and chemistry, fixed within a matrix. Whereas, regardless of the relative esthetic merits of a machine (inkjet, sublimation etc.) prints, the process that creates the print is unrelated to the interaction of light and chemistry. The inkjet is a virtual representation of the interaction of light and sensors on the camera sensor, whereas a silver print is the direct artifact of the photographic process itself.

[gevalia]

I thought I had an opinion on this subject but now I have flip-flopped twice already today. So I'll just keep reading all of yours.

[Adam Kavalunas]

Toyon, I print using a LightJet printer, well not me actually, but prints are "spat" out of LightJet printer or machine if you will. It prints on true photo sensitive papers by using lasers, and then processed with RA-4 chemistry. This is certainly an interaction on the paper with light and chemistry, is it not?

Adam