If the negative is the score and the print the performance....

[Darin Boville]

...why then do people think they are the best printers of their own negatives?

Why isn't having expert printers making prints the standard?

(Just finishing the first part of printing a big project and waiting for the prints to finish...)

--Darin

[Leigh]

Why isn't having expert printers making prints the standard?
For the same reason you don't have expert photographers making the negatives.

Would you load your camera, then hand it to someone else to shoot the roll, yet claim the shots to be yours?

- Leigh

[Darin Boville]

For the same reason you don't have expert photographers making the negatives.

Would you load your camera, then hand it to someone else to shoot the roll, yet claim the shots to be yours?

- Leigh

I don't understand your interpretation of the analogy. I assume a composer create the score. By analogy, the photographer creates the negative (score).

Why would someone else create the negative? Why wouldn't the composer create the score?

--Darin

[Darin Boville]

(Whatever, Leigh.)

For those actually interested in the topic here, I just came across a closely related article. After I posted the above I went over to the online photographer and followed Mike's WSJ link to:

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303978304579473381260992254?mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052702303978304579473381260992254.html

And there in the first sentence is Ansel's analogy. Weird, huh? The article looks at the analogy from the perspective of considering how it may or may not apply to posthumous work, such as that by Vivian Maier and Gary Winograd. But wrapped all up in the "others printing" question.

--Darin

[Darin Boville]

And then, reading more of Woodward's work, we come across this article in the Atlantic, 2003, where he talks about a "Benjamin Walter" (!) who was making new prints from Man Ray's negatives. Accusations of forgery.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2003/06/too-much-of-a-good-thing/302751/

Related to the question here, Woodward asks:

"If someone makes a contemporary print from the original negative and then falsely sells that print as vintage, is this thing a "forgery"? Or should it be called something else—something less damning?"

Perhaps that term should be "performance"? :)

--Darin

[Doremus Scudder]

Yes. And Adams was a professional musician, so the analogy makes sense in that context.

You're not. ...

- Leigh

I'll chime in here, since I am a professional musician (20 year career as an opera singer, attended UofO, UT and the Vienna Academy, DMA in vocal pedagogy and musicology and I teach at a conservatory in Vienna, Austria - enough credentials...) and feel that I can speak, at least somewhat, authoritatively to the subject.

Adams' analogy makes a point in the sense that there are a number of different ways to interpret a negative, just as there are many ways to interpret a musical score.

The issue is, who do you want to do the interpreting? This is where Adams' analogy becomes somewhat more complex. I'll elaborate a bit on it.

In the past, say, in the 18th century, it was unheard of for people to make a business of interpreting other people's scores. Bach, Handel, Haydn, and Mozart would have hardly entrusted their works to others to conduct if they had had the choice. Sure, there were times back then when works were performed/transcribed/pirated by others, but the norm was: the composer performs or conducts the work.

That is still the case with most art photographs. The photographer knows his intent and usually feels the need to interpret the negative him/herself.

With the advent of our "museum" concert culture that features mostly works of dead people, an interpreter is necessary. Oftentimes, the composers intention goes lost. Every "interpreter" believes they have an insight in to the intent of the composer, but with the myriad interpretations out there, who can say anymore what the composer really wanted.

The photographic analogy to this would be others printing the negatives of Adams, Strand, Weston(s), Brady, etc., etc. Something that happens rather regularly. But, without an Adams/Strand/Weston print as a guide, the printer is on his own. That's usually not the case, but it is with music before the age of recording. This is one reason why musical interpretation has become so important.

More modern composers, not skilled in handling an orchestra or playing the instruments they compose for (starting notably with Berlioz, who could play nothing) are also relegated to relying on others to perform their works. That said, I don't know of that many performances of works by living composers that weren't either directly overseen by the composer, had the composer as consultant, or had another, recent and definitive interpretation of the work overseen by the composer as a model. John Williams conducts his own film scores, Bernstein conducted his own works when living, Adams, Blacher, von Einem, Corigliano Penderecki, etc., etc. all conduct(ed)/oversee(saw) the performances of their own work when they could.

Still, there is a photographic equivalent to that as well. Bob Carnie prints a lot of work for other photographers. Robert Mapplethorpe had his work printed by others. There are more lots more, especially in the area of color printing.

So, in answer to the original question: I think I am the best printer of my negatives for two reasons. I know better than anyone else what I want from my photographs. Second, I print well enough to realize my vision; in other words, I can perform my scores satisfyingly, and sometimes virtuosically, enough to make another performer superfluous. For those that don't print well, and don't want to learn, by all means, seek out a good printer.

And boys; please no more fighting in the back seat!

Best,

Doremus

[Leigh]

So, in answer to the original question: I think I am the best printer of my negatives for two reasons. I know better than anyone else what I want from my photographs.
To my mind, that is the critical factor.

While an expert printer may be able to produce a "better" print (by his standards) than the photographer, it may not be the "best" presentation of the image as envisioned by the photographer.

When I print a "good" scene, I try to remember why I thought it was good when I shot it.
Then I try to transfer that mental image to the print.


Adams' analogy makes a point in the sense that there are a number of different ways to interpret a negative, just as there are many ways to interpret a musical score.
I have a photo of Adams seated in front of two very different prints of Moonrise, Hernandez.

He commented that his vision of the scene and the impact of the print changed over time.

- Leigh

[Leigh]

"If someone makes a contemporary print from the original negative and then falsely sells that print as vintage, is this thing a "forgery"? Or should it be called something else—something less damning?"
If the printer clearly identifies the print as his own work, I don't see any problem.

On the other hand, if the printer states or suggests that the print is original, there is certainly fraudulent intent.

- Leigh

[Mark Barendt]

Darin I don't think the premise you suggest in this thread is Adams' premise, it's more Henri Cartier-Bresson's.

IMO the premise as used by Adams was used to help people understand that creating a negative was part of a whole that included printing, a perfect negative is not the goal.

In my mind it isn't that I can make the best print from my negative, it is that I am the only one that can make "my print" from "my negative".

[Michael Graves]

You can lean either way on this. W. Eugene Smith farmed his printing out. I attended a talk by him when I was in college in the early seventies and he told us that himself. I doubt if many people consider his less of an artist for that. Prints of his images still bring thousands of dollars. In later life, Ansel turned over printing of his negatives to trusted assistants. While the prints by assistants don't bring as much as one printed by the man, they are still well beyond my ability to afford. And they are still amazing works of art. Is it the printer that gets the credit? If you suck at printing, let somebody else do it. If you suck at creating an image, take up pottery.

[John Kasaian]

If the negative is the score and the print the performance, I'd like the directions to the snack bar :rolleyes:

[Eric Biggerstaff]

None of Ansel's assistants ever placed light to paper for any of his portfolio prints or prints sold to collectors, museums, etc. Alan, and other before him, printed the special edition prints only and of course Alan continues that to this day. I believe Rondal Partridge was the first of his assistants to do the special edition prints.

Many famous photographers did not print their own images, Cartier-Bresson believed his job ended once the neg was made. As has been mentioned Maplethorpe used an outside person to print as did Avedon and many others. Not sure if Irving Penn did but it would not surprise me.

That said, my feeling is that the print is what tells the story and it is up to me as the printer to make the choices needed to make that voice be heard. So, I cannot imagine letting someone else decide that for me.

[bob carnie]

I have printed for others from Day One leaving Fanshawe College in 1976.
I have found a few things out over this time as how to survive on printing alone ( $$$ do not come easy but I have to admit that now I am so happy I stuck it out ).

I hope the following does not come across self serving but here is a bunch of things I believe in and may be of interest to this discussion.

A decent Printer

- is to be like a Camelion- which means it is up to me to change my tone(pun) to match the photographer , and never force my print on them.
I always talk extensively with the photographer and do test printing sessions to establish a print style, ( I have found that there is over 50 styles that I work in and each photographer
may fit into one or two of these styles. It is our job to establish that style, this could include process, paper, toner, contrast , density , colour and so on.
- Always do two or three variations and give that to the photographer, as if you are printing for yourself- I am talking silver gelatin here.
- Be open to constructive critisism, and learn from that, you need a very thick skin .
- You will never make the perfect print , so do not obsess over this.
- The more times you have to print a certain negative the better the print could become, specifically with difficult lighting conditions.
- If you and the photographer do not agree then its time to split company.
- I have never printed photographers work that has been printed by others or even the photographer themselves ( some exceptions)
- Matching prints by others is just copy work and for me I would rather have my teeth pulled out than do this, without novacain btw.
-Some clients are price shopping from printer to printer and I usually do not work with these photographers as I see no loyalty with this.
- I love to work with clients on long term projects and get to know them and their work over years. ( I get most of the satisfaction from this)
- I would never let someone else make solarizations of my personal work, but would be very open to other printers using their talents on my non solarization work.. who would not want a Todd Gangler make a print for you.
- When in a printing session always group the negatives so they are similar and little changes from negative to negative, ( do not let the photographer dictate the order, its like a kid in the Candy Shop and you basically
go from their favourite to next and the session really slows down and you do not get any thing done.
- I make books Large Artist Sketch, that include a picture of all my work and that of others who I am printing large editions for. The notes I put on each page is , edition printed, was it a difficult print, how did I figure out
how to make the print. I do not record time apeture and such , but rather I write a plan on how I worked through the problem.
- Stand up for yourself when presenting prints, you may be in front of someone having a really bad day and you could become the target
-Never show prints in bad lighting, this is the kiss of death.
- Never argue, state your position and let it go from there, if after much testing the client still does not like your work , its time to move on.
- always try to support your work and go to the openings , no matter who it is. ( first shows are very difficult to attend but if you do not have the cohonies to be present then maybe printing for others is not for you.
-$$$ is always a hard topic, you must make sure you are paid for your work, never drop your price for volumne shows , in fact I charge more as its tougher to make a consistent body of work , which takes
more paper and time.
-$$ remember the kid in the Candy Store, if the Visa card does not match the desires then you can be on the losing end of this, unless you totally prepare your client for the costs involved over a long period of time.
-Presentation is king and $$$ are needed to fill this , so make sure Framing Quality is covered to show the work you are doing.

I have created monsters who want to be top notch , but after time life gets in the way , I have seen many potentially great photographers see life get in the way, and it saddens me sometimes but now as I get older
I try to keep them as friends and do not push them anymore to reach beyond their means, or vision.

Also for the younger printers here, Remember that over the last half century , hundreds of million slides, negatives have been exposed but never seen. so there is potential in reaching back and printing all this work.

[Jim Jones]

. . . So, in answer to the original question: I think I am the best printer of my negatives for two reasons. I know better than anyone else what I want from my photographs. Second, I print well enough to realize my vision; in other words, I can perform my scores satisfyingly, and sometimes virtuosically, enough to make another performer superfluous. . . .

True, but another printer with fine technique, more sophistication, and greater insight may well produce prints from my negatives that better show my intent than my own printing. As Doremus points out, this was very true in music. The master printer's personal interpretation of my negatives may also exceed my vision. This also is true in music. It is good to know as far as possible the original artist's intent, and also to appreciate how well it can be interpretated.

[Oren Grad]

...why then do people think they are the best printers of their own negatives?

Not everyone thinks that.

And independently of that, sometimes people are the best printers of their own negatives, and sometimes they're not.


Why isn't having expert printers making prints the standard?

Why does there need to be a "standard" for this? As long as the photographer is around, it's up to him as to whether his purposes are best served by making his own prints, collaborating closely with a printer, or just handing off to a printer.

[Peter Lewin]

This thread is an excellent catalyst for provoking thoughts about our own photography and printing. First, to state the obvious, photography and printing are separable skills. An individual may have a "good eye" for capturing images, or may be technically proficient at making prints; the two do not necessarily go together. As an example, I think I have decent image making skills, but am a very poor digital printer; therefore if my goal was a digital print, I would have to work with someone whose Photoshop skills exceed my own. On the other hand, I am a decent darkroom printer, and to use Doremus's words, "I print well enough to realize my vision." Therefore there is no definitive answer to the initial question of "who is the best printer" for their own images.

Second, the issue of "visualization" comes up in a number of posts. Again I have to use myself as an example. I make images that resonate for me, but I don't always have a "vision" of the final print when I trip the shutter. Perhaps Ansel always pre-visualized his photographs, I can merely say that (a) I'm no Ansel Adams, and (b) for me the process is not so easy to define, since "what resonates" is sometimes subconscious, or driven by subject as much as by a vision of the final product. Therefore when I print, I'm working for something that "looks good to me." There may be other interpretations that I would enjoy as much, if I had pushed the print in that direction, but once again, the process is not that mechanical, in some way the print takes me "where it wants to go." The point I am making (badly, I'm afraid) is that I might find a print made by someone else as, or more, satisfying, it may simply be that I didn't print the image in that way.

Lastly, for many (most?) of us, photography is a craft that we do for enjoyment; the majority of us are neither professional photographers nor professional printers. For that audience, making the final print is simply part of a process which we do "for fun." I like printing, and I get some ego satisfaction when others compliment me on a finished print. Whether it is the "best possible" print made from my negative is almost a non-issue; it is merely the best print that I can make, or more accurately, the best print I could make at that particular time.

[ROL]

Wow, Bob – Printer's Manifesto or just venting? ;)

(FWInotW, I'd have to sign above the shooter if I printed for someone else! :D)

[bob carnie]

Maybe a bit of both,

Wow, Bob – Printer's Manifesto or just venting? ;)

(FWInotW, I'd have to sign above the shooter if I printed for someone else! :D)

[Drew Wiley]

If the negative is the blunder, is the print the abomination? Ansel coined his phrase by being schooled in Classical music. He was lucky that hip-hop wasn't invented
yet.

[Lenny Eiger]

Much good has been said. I will add that a professional printer can point out things that an amateur may not see. Of course, so can a photo historian, and any other photographer that loves quality printing (not all do). The thing I see is that many people lack access to great printing. Some live in a rural area with no museums or galleries, others haven't had an interest. The name Ansel comes up all the time, regardless of the fact that he represents only one style of photographic printing. In the interest of developing one's own style one ought to look at a variety of styles, understand the salient parts of each, and decide for themselves.

It's very hard to produce something you don't understand. Until you train your eyes to see the subtleties, its hard to print them. They key is educating one's self, and continual study and growth. There are lots of people on this list who have gone thru the process and know exactly what they are after. For the less experienced, it can be helpful to get a print done by a professional, just to see what's possible.

Those that know exactly what they want also hire pros when they don't feel they have the time, or don't want to mess about with it, for whatever reason. It takes quite a bit to get a printer setup stable, whether it be in the darkroom, or tuning one's inkjet for b&w printing. There is a lot of learning to do.

As a professional printer, the hardest thing is to print in a different style for each person that prints with you. One has to listen to what they are saying, and listen to the style deep beneath the words.

Lenny

[Michael Alpert]

Photographers perform when they show work in a gallery or publish images in a book, brochure, periodical, or online. Everything else is composition. Film processing, proofing, final printing--it's all done in private and it's all composition. The musical analogy says almost nothing while seeming to say something (no one knows exactly what).

The question about master printers is a separate one. Many photographers are really terrible printers. For reasons that I will never understand, many photographers cannot even approximate what is needed for a given negative. They need a printer to help them--or a teacher to help them. Other photographers who are good printers cannot manage very large prints. They need master printers to realize such prints. I am sure there are many other circumstances where hiring a master printer is an excellent idea.

[Bill Burk]

For me, a photographer who prints his/her own work is like a singer-songwriter. The photographer who does the work but is not so talented as to be sought by museums, is like the singer at a local festival... when you look at the prints, for a moment, that can be the most beautiful art you see.

[ROL]

Photographers perform when they show work in a gallery or publish images in a book, brochure, periodical, or online. Everything else is composition. Film processing, proofing, final printing--it's all done in private and it's all composition. The musical analogy says almost nothing while seeming to say something (no one knows exactly what).

If you mean to say most photographers, you may be right. Right enough about the mostly technical aspects of photography, but if your intention was to indicate photography in general, or photography as it should be or photographers in general, I couldn't disagree more. I have no idea whether you print your own work or are any good at it, but I take strong exception to that broadside. In fact, you're dead wrong. Performance may be based on composition, but it is not composition. It is expression.

Making a fully expressed finished or fine art print that matches expectation or visualization is a performance. Whether the performance itself is seen by others is immaterial. One is still performing. I used to explain the process to the unwashed as a dance with light under the enlarger. I didn't think of that description myself. It was ascribed to me many, many years ago by those who observed me making prints – somewhat to my embarrassment at the time. I am physically exhausted, and increasingly injured as I age, after a session of making murals in the darkroom.

The properly realized fine art print can itself dance under balanced spot lighting, or lie languid under fluorescent ceiling light, or sing at the nexus of concept, great light, composition, tonality and contrast. The printer breathes life into the print given the matrix of the negative. The print's the thing.

I don't know what "photographers" are selling if they're not making their own prints (...and I don't mean machine printed) – I suppose images. The fine art print is fully realized performance of a physical manifestation of an image by a photographer. Frankly, I can't imagine showing work I hadn't printed. No one yet has ever even asked me for a fine art negative or image. Maybe I'm from another era, where people took pride in their work. I only wish I knew which era that was.

The musical analogy fits well enough for me, but then I make my own pictures. Sure, there are many grays of perception between the black and white extremes of any literal concept, as expressed in various posts. Then again, maybe that's also what Adams intended.

[neil poulsen]

Photographers probably think that printing a negative themselves offers the best chance of producing a photo that's true to their original intent, when they exposed the negative. (They're probably right.) Even in music, where eventually someone different from the composer must conduct the music if it's to live on, there's something sacred about trying to remain true to the composer's original intent. So, perhaps there's a rational reason for photographers to believe that they themselves are best fit to print their own work.

Perhaps for this reason, Adams sought to remind us that a negative can be interpreted in different ways. Do we really need to remain true to that original intent? Moonrise may be a good example. It can be argued that Adam's original intent was to print the sky lighter than that in more recent versions. But by printing the sky much darker, I believe, and I think that Adams believed, the print became better.

Of course, it was still Adams printing his own negative. But who's to say that, for a given negative, someone other than the photographer might not do a better job?

[ROL]

All of what you said seems to perfectly address the Adams' maxim, Neal. In fact, that was part and parcel of the setting up the Center for Creative Photography, for the study and interpretation of his negatives after his passing.

[Drew Wiley]

There are a handful of hired guns in the printmaking business who manage to work for a limited clientele who they communicate we;; with, and can somehow read
their minds and somehow come up with prints to their liking. This has long been the case with difficult color processes like dye transfer, quad carbron, and carbro, which take a lot of time and skill. But I'm personally one of those person who neither wants to print other people's shots, nor would want someone else to print mine.
Getting the correct composition and exposure on a piece of film is just the start of a very involved creative process, which can be very personal and at times
subconscious. I admire Brett Weston for burning his negatives so nobody else could mess with them.

[Kevin J. Kolosky]

I would much rather own a poor print of a good image than a good print of a poor image. And I would much rather own a poor print of a good image made by someone other than the person who made the negative than not own the print at all.

[Drew Wiley]

There are people who specialize in collecting poor prints. Then they archive them where they belong - in the landfill ! A poor print of a "good image" is not a good
image - the good image doesn't exist yet, not if you have to fill in with your imagination what is allegedly good about it. But then, I'm the type who would rather not hear a Handl symphony at all than hear it performed by a junior high marching band tuba player.

[Kevin J. Kolosky]

I disagree, but then I can only speak for myself, as can anyone else about subjective criteria. For me a good image sparks a feeling regardless of whether it is printed poorly or not. I have seen hundreds of very poorly printed images on this site (by some who claim to be very good photographers) that I would like to have on my walls in my home.

Certainly I can make a determination that the print is too flat or has too much contrast, or that there is not enough detail here or there, or that the lines are converging on a building where they shouldn't be. But if I like the subject of the photograph and it excites me in some way all of that other stuff can be excused.

Another poster here spoke of seeing some of Ansel's different prints of his Moonrise photo. I was once at a gallery in downtown Santa Fe where they had a progression of 4 of those Moonrise Prints. They were not for sale at the time. One could certainly have made subjective comments about each one of them. Nevertheless, I would have loved to have any one of them, not because they were made by Ansel Adams or printed by him, but because I had just been down the road to Hernandez and stood on the place where the photograph had been made and I thought it was interesting how the place had changed.

[Drew Wiley]

So what's good if it looks bad?

[Drew Wiley]

... or another analogy. ... "It's a great restaurant, except the chef doesn't know how to cook".

[Kevin J. Kolosky]

He may not know how to cook something you like to eat, but that doesn't mean he can't cook something I like to eat, regardless of how it looks. I admit that I prefer to eat things that look good, but I'd rather eat than starve.

[John Olsen]

The printer is an artist too. That means his or her vision affects the way your print comes out. As a photographer you know how the final image must look and you try to convey that to your printer. I had a master printer-lady in Albuquerque who could take a telephone description and make my print exactly the way I meant. It must have been some kind of a Vulcan mind-meld. I also had a master printer in Japan who did a beautiful job, but everything came out looking like a platinum/palladium print, because that was his specialty. Now Kubo-san is more of a master printer than I will ever be, but it was my responsibility to reprint those images to be the way I meant them (for better or worse).

[Doug Howk]

There is a video and book, both titled "Silver Footprint", about the master printer Robin Bell. His printings are varied in technique to match the photographer's vision, yet all are outstanding prints.
There are some choices in the photography process where you may wish to exercise your creativity. For street photographers, its probably the "capture"[replace with your favorite term]. For them, the printing can be done by others such as Robin Bell. For some, including myself, creativity is in the darkroom. If I can capture the information needed onto the negative, I can then exercise my creativity and craftsmanship while making the print. One might say that Ansel was a complete photographer since he exercised his creativity in all aspects of the process.

[ROL]

One might say that Ansel was a complete photographer since he exercised his creativity in all aspects of the process.

One might also distill that sentiment into AA's own words, nothing worse than a sharp picture of a fuzzy concept.

[ROL]

There are people who specialize in collecting poor prints. Then they archive them where they belong - in the landfill ! A poor print of a "good image" is not a good
image - the good image doesn't exist yet, not if you have to fill in with your imagination what is allegedly good about it.

I archive all my 'poor' prints by tearing them into shreds and storing them in the landfill for posterior. (BTW, my wife cannot stand to watch this process.)

[Maris Rusis]

Ansel used an imperfect analogy borrowed from his background as a musician. The blunt truth is more like this:

"The negative is the subject matter and the "print" is actually THE photograph."

As a way of organising the mind on the subject of photographs of photographs of photographs...., I use the terms primary, secondary, tertiary, ....

The processed camera negative is the primary photograph of the real-world subject matter in front of the camera.

This negative then in turn becomes subject matter for the process of re-photographing it using paper-backed photographic emulsion.

The paper-backed photograph that results is commonly called a "print" but in truth it really is a genuine photograph. Furthermore it is a primary photograph of the camera negative and, reaching further back, it is a secondary photograph of the original real-world scene.

If one were to re-photograph the print (sic) onto film to produce a copy negative then that negative would be a tertiary photograph of the original real-world scene; and so on.

I reckon by eliminating music analogies and eliminating "print" talk from successive stages of photographic production one gets a much clearer view of what is really going on.

[ROL]

Wow, Maris. That is no half baked treatise. It truly seems fully baked! Kind of like looking in a mirror, reflecting a mirror, reflecting a mirror… to get to the truth of one's being. Far out man. Thanks for the clarification, though I may need to get fully baked to properly comprehend it! ;)

[Kirk Gittings]

Jeez AA's statement is about as simple and clear as one can get. You guys have a lot of free time on your hands?

[ROL]

Jeez AA's statement is about as simple and clear as one can get. You guys have a lot of free time on your hands?

Found out!:eek: ...Mr. 8,137 posts, pot calling the kettle black.:D

[Kirk Gittings]

Its called being a monitor for 4 years......:)

[Robert Langham]

The negative may be the score and the print the performance but someone else besides the actual photographer is probably at a disadvantage playing another's score because the photographer actually saw the scene that inspired the score. The original perception, reaction, emotions, et of the photographer to the subject matter is a relationship that is hard to equal or better. It would be fascinating to see what someone else might draw out of your negative, but they are late to the game and at a disadvantage when an experienced photographer is at work I would think.

115190

[jbenedict]

Hey, fellas, what do you say we knock off all this thinkin' and philosophyin' and pour ourselves a beer?

[Darin Boville]

The negative may be the score and the print the performance but someone else besides the actual photographer is probably at a disadvantage playing another's score because the photographer actually saw the scene that inspired the score. The original perception, reaction, emotions, et of the photographer to the subject matter is a relationship that is hard to equal or better. It would be fascinating to see what someone else might draw out of your negative, but they are late to the game and at a disadvantage when an experienced photographer is at work I would think.

115190

The opposite possibility is interesting, too. Perhaps the original photographer, when he or she looks at their own image "accidentally" includes in their own reaction to that image stuff that isn't really in that image--how comfortable the air temperature, how tired they were, what was going on in their lives. But none of that "on the screen" so to speak. Another photographer, reacting to just what is in the image and not to all that other stuff, might have a purer view of that photograph...

--Darin

[Kirk Gittings]

A purer view of that photograph but not a better sense of the experience of actually being there at that time interacting with the landscape. In my case I am far more interested in getting the feel of a place rather than just an accurate representation of what it looked like.

[Sal Santamaura]

...One might say that Ansel was a complete photographer since he exercised his creativity in all aspects of the process...


One might also distill that sentiment into AA's own words, nothing worse than a sharp picture of a fuzzy concept.Going from Doug's statement into Ansel's words that you quoted isn't distillation, it's a total non sequitur.

[sun of sand]

"Oftentimes, the composers intention goes lost. Every "interpreter" believes they have an insight in to the intent of the composer, but with the myriad interpretations out there, who can say anymore what the composer really wanted."



OH SHIT

[sun of sand]

help people understand that creating a negative was part of a whole that included printing, a perfect negative is not the goal.



A golf swing that gets the ball deep into the fairway and onto the green is a good one
it can be ugly but still good
an ugly swing is more likely to produce errant shots so you at the very least need to perfect your ugly swing
..into a perfect ugly one.

a photographer who does not care about the negative beyond "barely good enough" is really just being lazy





My question
if a songwriter writes the lyrics and has another talented singer perform them
why is it nobody knows who these songwriters are?
Shouldn't they be nearly as famous?
Even legendary singer/performers have written lyrics to beloved songs that they can not themselves perform for various reasons
yet who knows that they actually wrote the song? not many at all.


If you don't perform the song nobody -on the whole- gives a crap
seems strange

[jb7]

What hasn't been mentioned here yet is the obvious extension to the analogy.
It's easy to imagine the score and the performance- I think it was ROL who mentioned the dance that described the act of printing, itself analogous to the antics of the conductor driving all the instruments at his disposal. It describes a live involvement in a moment in time that can never be exactly replicated twice, even if the nuances of different performances may be very difficult to differentiate.

The question is, does the analogy still hold true in the age of synthesizers? Digital music has been performed live since the sixties, and can be as exciting as any other form of music, to those who are willing to listen and not pander to their innate prejudices.

Can the analogy be extended to ask- If the negative is the score, and the print the performance, is an inkjet print the recording? Can it be described as a Unit?

[neil poulsen]

One might also distill that sentiment into AA's own words, nothing worse than a sharp picture of a fuzzy concept.

By the same token, nothing interferes more with a great concept than a lousy execution.

[Darin Boville]

A purer view of that photograph but not a better sense of the experience of actually being there at that time interacting with the landscape. In my case I am far more interested in getting the feel of a place rather than just an accurate representation of what it looked like.

That's what I'm trying to say--by a "purer view of the photograph" I'm trying to say that another person might see the photograph--not the scene--with all the whatever you put into it...but not with all the other stuff that you feel when you see the photograph but which you did not actually get into the photograph. By not seeing the original scene or being these at the time, all the other photographer has to react to is what is in the photograph, both what is depicted and how it is depicted.

Just pointing out that the photographer my "see" more than is actually in the photograph because they are inadvertently remembering things associated with the shooting of the photograph, things that weren't captured in the image. It' all mixed up.

Something worth thinking about.

--Darin

[Mark Barendt]

In my case I am far more interested in getting the feel of a place rather than just an accurate representation of what it looked like.

I actually find that I rarely want a truly "accurate" representation of any scene.

My photography is not about trying to present an unbiased account of what was there or what happened, that's not my roll; I'm not doing this as a reporter, I'm doing this to tell stories. For example I've worked weddings where there was obvious tension in the room, but even with that tension hanging there it was still my job to show a happy crowd and couple.

My photographic intent is nearly always to manipulate or encourage the viewer into an "ahhh", "eww", "giggle", "tear", or "wow". My intent is to create an idealized, sanitized, surprising, expanded, or simplified version of a memory or myth or dream. Whether I succeed at this or not, is a completely different matter. ;)

I do find that getting composition, lighting, timing, exposure, and focus right at the time of the shot are my most important tools. I find that when I get these five right it actually gets pretty hard to make a "bad" print from the resulting negative. A whole range of interpretations seems to become very workable. If I miss one or more of those five things, making a good print becomes a real chore, if even possible.

[invisibleflash]

For the same reason you don't have expert photographers making the negatives.

Would you load your camera, then hand it to someone else to shoot the roll, yet claim the shots to be yours?

- Leigh

With me it is $. I'd love to have someone else do my work. I'm years behind even looking at my photos.Although this is digital work. film work only a few months behind cause I'm not doing much film anymore.

[Jim Jones]

The intent of the photographer is more important than image quality in Facebook selfies, but galleries may demand better printing than the photographer has the time or ability to produce. To return to AA's analogy, many have tried to complete Schubert's Unfinished Symphony. If any have succeeded, we at last know why Schubert didn't bother to finish it himself.

[Michael Alpert]

Jeez AA's statement is about as simple and clear as one can get. . . .

Kirk, It is obvious that AA was giving himself license to interpret his own negatives in various ways. That is clear and simple. But the statement is also a misapplied metaphor. And, more importantly, it says nothing about aesthetic quality. That's what is being debated (or at least hinted at) in this thread. I feel that Adams's formula unintentionally gives license to less accomplished photographs to engage in self-deception under the rubric of "performance." As a teacher, I am sure you have seen this problem many times (I assume that you are not one of those teachers who sees every misdirection as "experiment" or "performance"). In any case, I feel that "performance" is best defined as a public event (like a musical performance) where an artist interacts with an audience. Gallery exhibits and book publications are two situations where photographer-artists perform.

[Mark Barendt]

The intent of the photographer is more important than image quality in Facebook selfies, but galleries may demand better printing than the photographer has the time or ability to produce. To return to AA's analogy, many have tried to complete Schubert's Unfinished Symphony. If any have succeeded, we at last know why Schubert didn't bother to finish it himself.

I think it must be remembered though that we are not talking about music, printing isn't nearly as complex or as demanding a skill. IMO most anyone with the will and the interest to print well can get quite respectable results that a gallery would be happy with in pretty short order.

I'm not saying that a newby could print any negative throw in front of him nicely by the end of tomorrow, but we aren't playing live at the Met either. If it takes us a month to figure out how to print a certain negative so what, once we know we can knock out 10 or a 100 at will.

[Lenny Eiger]

Mark, I would disagree with you.

First of all, if a printmaker approaches printmaking as an artist, then there is certainly a lot of skill they can develop over time. Printing can be as simple or as complex as you want it to be. For some it isn't part of their aesthetic. For me, it definitely is. To suggest anyone past a beginner could make the prints I make for my work, is simply not true. So much so as to be offensive, or to be ignorant of what the possibilities are. Printmaking is definitely an art.

Second, galleria owners (and museum curators) are no judge of anything. On occasion you find someone with some sense about things, and its great. Most of them are not artists, and its unfortunate they are in the positions they are in, with respect to what gets shown, who is "good" or "bad" at this, etc. They are second only to the philosophers, who should be lined up and disposed with. Photography is in ruins as a result of their efforts in the past 30-40 years.

Third, I know the quote is from AA, but we ought to stop talking only about his work. We should take a break. I have nothing against him or his style, but there are other photographers. It is essential, if you are going to learn to print well, I think its imperative that you look at other photographers work besides AA. He was great in his style, but there are a lot of other styles to look at. My own aesthetic journeys took me back to the 19th Century, looking at the prints of Frederick Evans, Cameron and Sutcliffe. I moved up to the PhotoSecession, and was amazed to find brilliant work by a lot of different photographers, from Stieglitz and Clarence White to Alvin Langdon Coburn, Demachy, Karl Struss, Baron deMeyer and others, too numerous to mention. This was an incredibly rich time, and there were a lot of great printmakers.

By focusing only on AA, we miss out on the discussions of some of these people, who deserve to be remembered. I think its important that if one wants to call one's self "educated", that one should look at the work of more than one other photographer... While naiveté can be novel and fresh, it is the educated photograph that has more depth and meaning. It's why many of us choose a large format camera, to slow down and actually consider what we are photographing, in a hundred different contexts. It is my view that education is the only way to succeed.

Lenny

[Mark Barendt]

Larry the point I'm making is that Silver Gelatin prints can be well exposed, the contrast nicely adjusted, they can be clean and clear of dust, in sharp focus, properly developed and fixed; all-in-all made very presentable by simply being careful, asking for a little advice when stumped, and practicing a bit; I'm not suggesting that they can become an artist with the print medium in a month.

I don't disagree that a lifetime could be spent improving and exploring the art of printmaking and all it's possibilities.

What successful Gallery owners/operators are generally good at is understanding their markets, that's their job. They know when something is good enough, when a product has reached a level of quality that their markets will buy. They also understand that while print quality, framing, matting, et al is important and is not to be ignored; interesting content trumps great paper.

I do tend to agree with you about Ansel getting too much attention too.

[Sal Santamaura]

Larry the point I'm making...Who's Larry? :D

[Mark Barendt]

Who's Larry? :D

Ahh, technology is a wondrous thing.

My apologies to Lenny.

[Merg Ross]

Mark, I would disagree with you.

First of all, if a printmaker approaches printmaking as an artist, then there is certainly a lot of skill they can develop over time. Printing can be as simple or as complex as you want it to be. For some it isn't part of their aesthetic. For me, it definitely is. To suggest anyone past a beginner could make the prints I make for my work, is simply not true. So much so as to be offensive, or to be ignorant of what the possibilities are. Printmaking is definitely an art.

Second, galleria owners (and museum curators) are no judge of anything. On occasion you find someone with some sense about things, and its great. Most of them are not artists, and its unfortunate they are in the positions they are in, with respect to what gets shown, who is "good" or "bad" at this, etc. They are second only to the philosophers, who should be lined up and disposed with. Photography is in ruins as a result of their efforts in the past 30-40 years.

Lenny

Lenny, much truth to your words.

[Bill Burk]

...My own aesthetic journeys took me back to the 19th Century, looking at the prints of Frederick Evans, Cameron and Sutcliffe. I moved up to the PhotoSecession, and was amazed to find brilliant work by a lot of different photographers, from Stieglitz and Clarence White to Alvin Langdon Coburn, Demachy, Karl Struss, Baron deMeyer and others, too numerous to mention. This was an incredibly rich time, and there were a lot of great printmakers...

Sounds like a good "reading" list ...

Are (many/most of) the "great printmakers" also photographers, or were they printmakers who provided printing services to photographers?

[Lenny Eiger]

Mark, no worries...

Bill, it's an interesting question. I think there is every flavor. I also think that there were plenty of photographers who had to make a living in some way other than selling their artwork. A lot of people chose something related, like working in one way or another for other photographers. However, there are also people that had enough money to keep going and printing happened to be a serious interest. I think the latter group is smaller, however.

There is something wonderful and enticing about old world craftsmanship, wherever one finds it...

Lenny

[ROL]

Jeez AA's statement is about as simple and clear as one can get. You guys have a lot of free time on your hands?
Found out!:eek: ...Mr. 8,137 posts, pot calling the kettle black.:D

Its called being a monitor for 4 years...…:)*

Precisely. Made my point. How much did you get paid for that? :rolleyes:**












* A triple! (quote) – I believe that may be a record.

** Oh yeah, thanks for your service and all that, but I'm going to be very disappointed if the response isn't, "Not enough!!!")

[David_Senesac]

The thread is obviously about black & white negative film to print and responses are from that perspective. With B&W the whole process from film development to printing is often performed by the individual photographer so from that perspective is much more a performance than with my limited involvement in process.

I never shoot or print B&W with all my work from color transparency film from outdoor landscape and nature work. For that process I don't even scan my own film for any serious prints even though I own an old Epson 2450 and Epson 2880. Instead will get a pricy drum scan from a commercial service not only because the detail captured is superior but the dynamic luminance and especially the color fidelity is much better. Color fidelity that usually cannot effectively be corrected later in post processing. Then printing in color is an even more obvious choice for this person to send media out to professionals as there is a list of variables in the process that will otherwise need to be carefully controlled in order to have any hope of consistent output. Yes it is possible for inviduals and small businesses in the era to produce consistent output with various pricy X-Rite gear and calibrated whatever equipment but I have no interest as someone that has a hi tech career I make a living from to get in that deeply into the processing end of print outputs. In other words I'll leave my artistic contributions to capturing photographs and the rest that would require considerable effort and time to those who know how and have the equipment to do it best.

[Heroique]

What's the music metaphor with transparencies?

Especially if you use an overhead projector.

Maybe the landscape is the score – the transparency is the performance.

If the landscape is, say, the Grand Canyon, the score is the first movement of Beethoven's 9th – and if the transparency is Velvia-50, the performance is Herbert Von Karajan. Astia would be Klemperer, of course.

Or, if the landscape is Mount Rushmore, the score is the national anthem. And if the transparency is Fuji-64T and you forgot the 85b filter, the performance is Jimi Hendrix.

[Lenny Eiger]

Heroique,
Many interesting partially related things have come up in this discussion. However, it appears that everyone has their own way of working, and the metaphor simply holds true for some people, and not for others.
Lenny

[Drew Wiley]

Regardless ... it's always informative to see just how much better a "photographer" becomes once they begin to print for themselves. It goes hand in hand, and it
would be hard to imagine a composer who didn't master at least the piano first. Otherwise... I hate any kind of music in the darkroom.