wet darkroom vs. inkjet

[Lenny Eiger]

I strongly disagree. In fact quite the reverse. The workmanship and skill invovled in making a wet print will set it apart from the billions and billions of prints that soon any kid with a cellphone and a Photoshop app will be able to produce.

Cyrus, I don't think you are correct, for two reasons. The first is that progress happens, whether we like it or not. Ask anyone who was in typography in the 80's. Hot type is gone, as we knew it. Its highly unfortunate in my opinion, but its true. The good part, of course, is that publishing is available to mere mortals, instead of being controlled solely by large corporations. But there are only a few practitioners of this art left.

In addition, skills in photographic printing are seriously down. Most people I talk to can't tell the difference between two prints where subtle changes are made. I don't mean to disparage anyone here, there are still excellent printers. I think this comes from a lack of studying the history of our art, and having the opportunity to look at the work of historic master printers. And the focus on Ansel Adams type printing, which may be great, but is only one style.

That said, your thought about the workmanship and skill is also incorrect. Just because I can make a print from my cellphone doesn't make it a great print. Any great print I have made comes from my years in the darkroom, working the process. Now I work the process with a computer, make a print, study it, make changes, etc. There is nothing automatic about it. It takes just as much skill, and good eyes, to make a great print in any form of printing.

OTOH, the glut of photography that occurs out there is very troubling. Everyone in this country, at least, has a camera, or more than one. They are all taking snapshots, which are fine for memories and such, but this will change photography in ways that I don't think I will be happy about. Facebook uses the word photo for all the snapshots of anything. How will we distinguish what we do from the onslaught of all this photo-stuff when the education system is so lacking..

Lenny

[cyrus]

Thank you for your thoughtful response Lenny.

Cyrus, I don't think you are correct, for two reasons. The first is that progress happens, whether we like it or not. Ask anyone who was in typography in the 80's. Hot type is gone, as we knew it. Its highly unfortunate in my opinion, but its true. The good part, of course, is that publishing is available to mere mortals, instead of being controlled solely by large corporations. But there are only a few practitioners of this art left.

Interesting you should say that because as I'm looking into printing wedding invitations, we're considering a place that makes them the "old fashioned" way! But apart from publishing lets take other comparisons: sculpture, or painting, or etching. All of these can be replaced easily by computer/digital -- and yet they're in no danger (actually as an oil painter I do admit that some of the oil based colors are running short but still oil painting is far from a dying art.)

In addition, skills in photographic printing are seriously down. Most people I talk to can't tell the difference between two prints where subtle changes are made. I don't mean to disparage anyone here, there are still excellent printers. I think this comes from a lack of studying the history of our art, and having the opportunity to look at the work of historic master printers. And the focus on Ansel Adams type printing, which may be great, but is only one style.

Well naturally as the number of practioners of the art is reduced then so is the sum skill-set but this isn't inevitable. People can learn. Our society has ways of recording and passing down knowledge, and of rediscovering what was forgotten. We can all look at older prints by poeple other than AA and learn from them.

That said, your thought about the workmanship and skill is also incorrect. Just because I can make a print from my cellphone doesn't make it a great print. Any great print I have made comes from my years in the darkroom, working the process. Now I work the process with a computer, make a print, study it, make changes, etc. There is nothing automatic about it. It takes just as much skill, and good eyes, to make a great print in any form of printing.

I absolutely agree that it takes skill to make a good digital print ... right now a lot, and soon a lot less. You can't escape the technological onslaught which makes it ever easier to make a good print, coupled with the "rush to the bottom" in expectations and standards of what constitutes a good photo (as you've alluded to.)

In short, due to the ubiquity of digital, the sum total of "art" photography will increase, doubtless, while the standards will decrease. A lot of truly gifted artists will be able to produce work using the cheaper/more convenient digital route, which I applaud, but the total amout of crap will also increase. Regardless, the fraction of analogue photography will however not disappear -- it will be a reduced but more defined, more exclusive and sought-after, niche. In the meantime, like I said, digital photogs risk deliberately making themselves small fish in an ever enlargening pond. If in 30 years I had to compete in the market as an artists, I would not want to compete head to head with a billion other people who are using my technology and medium. I'd want to be in a more limited arena.

[cyrus]

Incidentally I should point out that while Duchamp et al were claiming that the "craft" of art was merely a commodity, they were reacting to industrialization where labor/craft consisted of unskilled work on mass production lines. That's not the same sort of "commodity" labor involved in creating art, however. The skill involved is not a commodity as was the work of a guy who twists screws all day long on a mass production line. The skill of a fine art painter or sculpture - or darkroom printer -- is not fungible.

[Paul Kierstead]

... since digital will become so ubiquitous that, like I said, any 12-year old can produce gallery quality prints.

A 12-year old has always been able to produce gallery quality prints, it is just a matter of hiring a high quality printer.

Craft can be bought, artistic vision cannot.

Once upon a time (and quite a long time ago), craft was sufficiently rare as to make it alone enough, but now you have to have more. This has been true since well before digital was involved in the process.

[Lenny Eiger]

-- is not fungible.

I had to look that up. Thanks for a new word. :-)

Lenny

[cyrus]

A 12-year old has always been able to produce gallery quality prints, it is just a matter of hiring a high quality printer.

Craft can be bought, artistic vision cannot.

Once upon a time (and quite a long time ago), craft was sufficiently rare as to make it alone enough, but now you have to have more. This has been true since well before digital was involved in the process.

I think we all agree that a GOOD photographer requires vision etc -- regardless of whether they work in digital or analog.

[Paul Kierstead]

Yes, exactly. So even if what you propose -- that digital printing will require no craft in the future -- it will still not allow joe blow onto the wall; he still doesn't have vision. The ability to easily get a great print will not change who gets hung up in galleries.

[Drew Wiley]

Paul - you can only get so far unless craft and vision are essentially married, regardless of the medium. Either one must work very very closely with a master technicain who uncannily understands your own vision, or you must do it yourself, which is a lot more realistic. Absolutely no technology ever devised will be able to automate things on its own. That's why the folks doing the best digital printing already did excellent darkroom printing themselves. And breaking the rules is one
of the first rules one must learn.

[Toyon]

Never forget that a darkroom print is an actual photograph - the visual manifestation of a chemical response to light (in this case - the actual light projected through a negative). An inkjet print is an interpretation of light that has been transformed into digital data and then reinterpreted as a series of ink blots. The darkroom print is an actual thing, the inkjet print is a recreation.

[Kirk Gittings]

digital printing will require no craft in the future

I heard this about "machine" analogue prints in the 80's.

It depends on whether you think that a great print is an accurate rendering of a file and the file an accurate rendering of a scene. I have no doubt that soft proofing, gamut etc. will improve in inkjet, BUT that is a far cry from an expressive print, which requires an understanding of the materials, skill and creative print making, now and in the future.

I have to laugh at the people who say printing digitally is easy. I am a very good silver printer-aside from my own exhibit record I was commissioned twice by the Smithsonian to print images from the Civil Rights Movement. But I spend far more time making a digital print than I ever did making the hardest and best of my silver prints. Easy? What a joke. This will not change as the media matures, because I will just always want more and more out of the prints and work just as hard to reach my vision.