The Value of a Fine Print?

[Patrik Roseen]

I am coming back to Art vs Craft.
In both the analog and digital process one needs both.

Yet there is something else I feel missing in this discussion - chaos, random, by chance,...

Is it not interesting to see that many artists after years of education both in artistic vision and craft, 'suddenly' apply their own method of craft, another way of seeing, and in many cases explore the facets of what the specific material they are working with is capable of so that they can use the full potential of it to their liking.

Now this is where chaos, random, by chance...comes in. I have experimented with my own different techniques to produce my prints in the wet darkroom. And much of it is the result of chance, i.e. I look at the image and there is something there which I had not planned for, yet it pleases me. So I try to understand how it happened and to see if I can achieve it again. And so I develop the skill for this particular effect.
But, the more I learn, the more I try to control the effect, try to position it in the image, with the right density...sometimes with a poor result until I realize I have to let go of the control.
Many painters paint in seconds 1, 2, 3 finished...for the same reason. They do not want to be in control of the creative process. If they think too much the art becomes a product of the brain rather than the soul.

I think many people who buy art do it also for the story behind it. Especially if you had the chance to visit the artist in person in his/her studio. The background story becomes part of the image and the value.

To me the digital workflow is too much trying to take control and leaving very little opening to random and chance. But then again I am not an expert in the digital darkroom.
Please excuse my ignorance, I do not know the digital workflow enough to understand if there is any 'by chance' or 'chaos' involved in the process. Can someone please explain?

[Brian Ellis]

I find it ironic that people here seem to think of a print made in a darkroom as having been "hand made," when for so many years one of the big knocks on photography as an art form was that photographs were made by machines and so couldn't be true "art." Now for some reason a print that came from a camera (machine) and that was printed by use of an enlarger (machine) and other mechanical equipment is somehow considered to be "hand-made."

[Oren Grad]

What Brian said.

For those who argue that value arises from the possibility of random variation in the output from one print to another, what happens when someone writes a Photoshop plug-in with a random number generator that introduces variations in the printed output from a digital file?

[Martin D.]

What Brian said.

For those who argue that value arises from the possibility of random variation in the output from one print to another, what happens when someone writes a Photoshop plug-in with a random number generator that introduces variations in the printed output from a digital file?

No need to write. The Gaussian noise filter is pre-installed.

[domenico Foschi]

I used to be bias toward digital, but my position has changed.

However, for what is concerned the final stage, namely the print, Inkjet has one major problem, which is metamerism, where different colors shifts at the exposure with differrent light sources. This is a major problem especially for me that I use a lot of sepia tones which seem to be more vulnerable to this effect creating unwanted greens and magentas.
A silver print also change its color at different light sources but at a constant rate throughout the scale of tonalities allowing the brain to adjust to the situation.
As long as this problem and a few others won't be solved I will still prefer a silver print to an inkjet.

[Lenny Eiger]

A lot of fine comments. I'll add a thought or two.

First of all, printing with inkjet is like playing the guitar - it's easy for beginners. There are a lot of levels to professionalism, and lots of extra levels for the mad scientists out there. For instance, there is making a b&w print with color inks. No serious b&w printer would do this. The next level up is to dedicate a printer to use only b&w inks and try that. You might have to learn how to use a RIP, you will find out all sorts of info you never wanted to learn about crossovers and the like. You might have to learn how to linearize. You will certainly need to learn about the different qualities of paper. I am one of those mad scientists out there who has actually mixed up his own b&w inks. It isn't for the impatient, I can tell you that... I am now reformulating my own mixture based upon Jon Cone's Piezotones. (BTW, I don't have any metamerism.) This stuff is hard.

Second, repeatability is a joke. When you are dealing at the top level of printing, one can never assume that you can repeat a print. Perhaps one right after the other. But tomorrow is another day. It might be a different temperature, different humidity, etc. and those things affect the absorption rate of the paper. If I did a print for someone a month ago and they ask for another, I make a test print to see where things are. They never match exactly. The good news is that I usually have all the adjustment layers set to modify different areas of the print and making the modifications is easy - most of the time. Same as having a sheet of paper to remind you how you made that print in the darkroom.

Third, with all this technology, it isn't printing devices that make a good print, it's humans. One either has a rich sensibility or one doesn't. I'm a big fan of history and have studied the styles of a lot of different printers. I know what a gravure print looks like (they are amazing), I made platinum prints for Avedon, and I own a few albumens, etc. It's important to know what's possible to be able to stretch the medium to its best. This is true of any medium.

Years ago, when the cameras first came out it was "any monkey with a camera" can do xyz. Now it's any monkey with a computer and an Epson printer. It wasn't true then and it isn't true now. There are good (and great) photographers and there are those who simply document what things look like, and have nothing to say. There are people who print to see what the image looks like and there are those who print with every fiber of their being.

Lenny

[PViapiano]

A lot of fine comments. I'll add a thought or two.

First of all, printing with inkjet is like playing the guitar - it's easy for beginners. There are a lot of levels to professionalism, and lots of extra levels for the mad scientists out there. For instance, there is making a b&w print with color inks. No serious b&w printer would do this. The next level up is to dedicate a printer to use only b&w inks and try that. You might have to learn how to use a RIP, you will find out all sorts of info you never wanted to learn about crossovers and the like. You might have to learn how to linearize. You will certainly need to learn about the different qualities of paper. I am one of those mad scientists out there who has actually mixed up his own b&w inks. It isn't for the impatient, I can tell you that... I am now reformulating my own mixture based upon Jon Cone's Piezotones. (BTW, I don't have any metamerism.) This stuff is hard.

Second, repeatability is a joke. When you are dealing at the top level of printing, one can never assume that you can repeat a print. Perhaps one right after the other. But tomorrow is another day. It might be a different temperature, different humidity, etc. and those things affect the absorption rate of the paper. If I did a print for someone a month ago and they ask for another, I make a test print to see where things are. They never match exactly. The good news is that I usually have all the adjustment layers set to modify different areas of the print and making the modifications is easy - most of the time. Same as having a sheet of paper to remind you how you made that print in the darkroom.

Third, with all this technology, it isn't printing devices that make a good print, it's humans. One either has a rich sensibility or one doesn't. I'm a big fan of history and have studied the styles of a lot of different printers. I know what a gravure print looks like (they are amazing), I made platinum prints for Avedon, and I own a few albumens, etc. It's important to know what's possible to be able to stretch the medium to its best. This is true of any medium.

Years ago, when the cameras first came out it was "any monkey with a camera" can do xyz. Now it's any monkey with a computer and an Epson printer. It wasn't true then and it isn't true now. There are good (and great) photographers and there are those who simply document what things look like, and have nothing to say. There are people who print to see what the image looks like and there are those who print with every fiber of their being.

Lenny

Great, great, great post!

"It's not about the bike...." - Lance Armstrong

[willwilson]

First of all, printing with inkjet is like playing the guitar - it's easy for beginners. There are a lot of levels to professionalism, and lots of extra levels for the mad scientists out there.

I might say - printing with inkjet or in the darkroom is like playing the guitar - it's easy for beginners.

I remember teaching my sister how to make a silver print of a snapshot she took in about 10 minutes. I would say, however, the divide between making a snapshot type silver print and a finely crafted silver print is larger than with digital methods. You can make a pretty nice looking 13x19 on a $300 Epson with a new Digital Rebel right out of the box in auto mode just by reading the manual. For me, this fact is what undermines the value the public and the art community to some extent places on a digital print.

There are people who print to see what the image looks like and there are those who print with every fiber of their being.

Perfect, very well said.

[Lenny Eiger]

I might say - printing with inkjet or in the darkroom is like playing the guitar - it's easy for beginners.

I agree wholeheartedly. However, you seem to contradict this in your next statement.

I remember teaching my sister how to make a silver print of a snapshot she took in about 10 minutes. I would say, however, the divide between making a snapshot type silver print and a finely crafted silver print is larger than with digital methods. You can make a pretty nice looking 13x19 on a $300 Epson with a new Digital Rebel right out of the box in auto mode just by reading the manual. For me, this fact is what undermines the value the public and the art community to some extent places on a digital print.

Pretty nice? How is that different from your sister's effort? I am not particularly interested in "pretty nice" (altho I do take pictures of my family as well, just like everyone else, that I print out on inxexpensive paper, etc.)

I AM interested in museum quality prints - and those are hard to do, no matter what you use. Black and White is always harder, of course...

Lenny

[Annie M.]

If Picasso wanted something all he had to do was draw a line around it...

The value resides in the artist... the medium is secondary.