handmade digital prints

[adrian tyler]

just a little comment, with no intention of starting any trouble. i have worked quite a bit doing traditional b/w prints, even up to the piont of making acetate "dodging" masks for some difficult negatives, and have spent a lot of time getting what i was looking for traditionally. however i have just finished producing a series of colour prints digitally and never have i spent so much time on each negative (scan) to get it the way i want it. the results are very satisfying and my point is that these digital prints are ironically far more "handmade" than any traditional process that i have used.

[Jack Flesher]

Yes that's true -- and don't get me wrong, I am a huge proponent of digital imaging -- but once you've "handmade" the initial version, you can print as many identical copies as you want ;)

[adrian tyler]

in my humble experience once i've decided how a neg should be printed "traditionally" it's much simpler producing the edition, not automatic, but not far off it, -3 here +5 there, ho hum...

[David Luttmann]

You got that right Adrian. The other thing that a lot of people overlook when discussing the "handmade" issue is that each digital print can be different as well. Just because one uses a computer, doesn't mean they need to work on the image once, save it, and print many. We can do (& I do quite often) start from scratch on the RAW image each time to see if I come up with a different version that I prefer.....exactly like people in the darkroom starting from scratch with each print. I think this arguement was used to try and show that somehow digital printing was less artistic.....which of course is nonsense.

Regards,

[darr]

Brooks Jensen is selling different digital versions and calling them "Editions":

"While I don't limit my prints, I do know that a clear and precise provenance is important to some people and may have historical importance long after I am gone. All of my prints now specify the date of their production, the source (negative or digital file), the precise number of copies I made that day, and which is the number of this print. Like the book publishing business, I identify the first printing session as "First Edition," the second printing session (should there be one) as "Second Edition," and so forth. A typical First Edition will be three to five copies, sometimes as few as two, on rare occasions as many as thirty. Usually, I will make more editions as I discover new interpretations of the negative or file. Contrary to the contemporary zeitgeist, therefore, the later editions are the ones I would generally consider the more valuable because I perceive them to be the more mature interpretation of the image. Having said that, additional editions may also be a result of demand." Brooks Jensen

[tim atherton]

Yes that's true -- and don't get me wrong, I am a huge proponent of digital imaging -- but once you've "handmade" the initial version, you can print as many identical copies as you want ;)

of course, as has been pointed put on here many times before, if you can't produce numerous close to identical copies in the darkroom, then you darkroom skills just aren't good enough. One of the unique major differences photography brought to art was its mechanically reproducible nature

[adrian tyler]

so what do you define "history" or "traditional" - fox talbots' prints evolved as his experiments evolved, a couple of generations ago? then nearer brandt comes to mind changing the way he printed his work quite distinctly, even halowed ansels' prints are different from the beginning to the end of his career, some of you guys even know him...

[paulr]

"of course, as has been pointed put on here many times before, if you can't produce numerous close to identical copies in the darkroom, then you darkroom skills just aren't good enough."

mine definitely aren't good enough, by this standard. between the paper that i use, which changes from batch to batch, and the toners, which change over time and which depend on chemical reactions no one can seem to explain to me, there's just no way to duplicate a previous effort.

this is one of the big reasons my silver prints are printed in such small editions. maximum ten, sometimes as little as 2 or 3. big pain in the a$$, and it forces the price up. in fact, i sell them at what's probably much more than market value, if i sell them at all, because there are so few of them.

digital makes my life easier in this regard. like the original poster, i sometimes spend a ridiculous amount of time getting the image right. but i love being able to print whatever edition size i want. and this also means not having to print the whole edition at once (like i did with silver). it can be done on demand, and save me the expense of this paper that costs three times what i paid for silver paper!

"One of the unique major differences photography brought to art was its mechanically reproducible nature"

i feel that this has always been the promise of photography ... but in the world of black and white printing, the reality has often fallen short of it. digital tools bring a wonderful balance ... the quality of custom, hand printing, and the consistency of machine printing.

[matthew blais]

You all make good points, but I ask, where is the enjoyment factor?

Is it really there?

Just curious.

[Andrew O'Neill]

I can't see how every digital print in an edition can be different. You push a button and out pops a print.
I do agree that all the work is done in the computer (I know, I teach graphic design and digital photography). It's like traditional photography, but backwards. The computer is the darkroom and your printer is the camera taking the picture...or in this case, "giving" it.

[paulr]

"where is the enjoyment factor? Is it really there?"

Yeah, it is. So is the frustration factor. It's all more similar than I would have imagined.

I used to assume that working digital would feel sterile and would be an unrewarding experience, but that hasn't turned out to be the case. There are some differences, both good and bad: I miss the sense of alchemy, and of working with hundred year-old formulas. But I also enjoy the advantages: the more pleasant working conditions, the lack of toxicity, not fighting the clock as chemicals go bad, being able to hit 'save' and go eat a sandwich, taking a break at any time, never having to use spot tone, etc. etc.

And the most basic, most important challenge is the same as it ever was: deciding how best to express an image in physical form.

[Ron Stoecklein]

"You all make good points, but I ask, where is the enjoyment factor?
Is it really there?

Just curious."

Personally--I immensely enjoy sitting down watching my monitor and watching the image change as I use my "digital darkroom". If I only had my own drum scanner and Lightjet printer I'd enjoy it even more I think.

For now I have to do with an epson flatbed scanner and printer--but I believe at least for smaller prints --up to 13x19---the prints I turn out are better than prints I turned out in the last30 years before digital printing--maybe says something about the photographer--but none the less thats my thought on the subject.

[Keith Laban]

" the results are very satisfying and my point is that these digital prints are ironically far more "handmade" than any traditional process that i have used"

Agreed.

[darr]

I find I can control dodging and burning in the digital darkroom much better than I ever could under the traditional enlarger. I started out as a graphic artist and maybe that is why I prefer using PS. Just my 2 cents.

[adrian tyler]

i'm sorry, let's cut this hear, i'm off to shoot some polaroid!

[paulr]

"Computer prints are produced in a way that is not analogous to gelatin-silver prints. They can be appropriately compared to the way in which photographic illustrations are made for books; that is, both are ink-film prints produced with fine dots through the use of complex equipment."

that's possibly true, though i wonder what the significant differences are. i think of the work that someone like Richard Benson does when making the quadtone and tint and varnish separations for beautifully printed book. his hands aren't in contact with the final pages, but i think many aspects of the final product show evidence of his hands-on craftsmanship.

[adrian tyler]

richard benson is an artist, as was edward weston, it is really down to what your mental, social and emocional conditioning will allow you to appreciate.

[Paddy Quinn]

" I hope you find my analysis helpful."

well - it's a bit of a red herring. There is no real absolute dividing line as it appears you would like there to be.

For workers and artists coming from other traditions and practices many darkroom prints and processes are not exactly "handmade" by their criteria either. It's seen as a photo-mechanical process much more than a "hand-made" process.

I have an old friend who is a studio potter and artist with an international reputation. He is also a photographer (and the son and grandson of photographers). His apprenticepship as a potter was 10 years. He considers what he dsoes in the studio with clay to be hand-made. And although he makes equisite photographic prints, he doesn't see really the process as a "hand-made" one. In conversation about this he refers to it as "photo-mechanical". In your terms, he would regard what most processes use in the darkroom as using equipment and not tools and so they wouldn't fit your definition either. Possibly contact processes where the paper is hand coated and so on - but not the majority of darkroom and silver-gelatin work.

"Computer prints are produced in a way that is not analogous to gelatin-silver prints"

I would disagree. That aside, perhaps a much clearer analogy is the production of prints by many photograhphic artists who work in color.

The point that has already been made - for a good darkroom technician or craftsman, the ability to produce nearly identical prints is one thing that sets photography apart from most other art forms. And unless the photographer choses to print radically differently for each image, whenever I see a portfolio of images that make much of the "handmade-made" aspect of the work - where "each print is individual and unique" etc is often a selling point in an edition - the differences really are minimal and insiginificant

[paulr]

This is actually a discussion that's been going on for as long as photographers have wanted an equal footing with other artists. Much of pictorialism was rooted in photographers trying to prove that their work required as much skilled handiwork as oil paintings!

The whole debate sets up a curious conflict. On the one hand, one of photography's claims to uniqueness among art media is that it allows perfect multiples to be made mechanically. On the other hand, we have photographers going to great lengths (with their darkrooms or with their rhetoric) to prove that this isn't so. Yet these same photographers often boast about their techinical ability to make an edition of perfectly identical prints!

On another note: I believe that a lot of what gets considered hand work in printmaking is really quite separate from the printmaking. Especially with alternative processes. Much of the work that goes into platinum printing is the coating of the paper. But is this really part of printing? Most of the great platinum printers of the early 20th century went to the store and bought their paper, just like I do gelatin silver paper. They didn't start coating their own until the commercial products vanished (and most of them actually jumped ship and just went with the new product they COULD buy at the store). I think you can argue that coating the paper is a related but separate craft--you're manufacturing your printing materials. Of course this is hard. Making your own gelatin silver paper paper would be hard too ... but I've never had to do it because it's still at the store. Same with coated inkjet paper. So for me, printmaking has had nothing to to do with the labor intensive manufacturing of my own materials.

Similarly, I've been working on a difficult and labor-intensive process to hand varnish my inkjet prints. This is more hand work than I ever had to do on my silver prints. But I also think it's separate from the printmaking process itself. Related ... in that it influences the final look of the prints, and I need to compensate for the coating well ahead of applying it ... but it's still not really part of printmaking.

[Paddy Quinn]

"The amount of time you have spent altering what your camera recorded is beside the point; and, in fact, extensive time spent at a task might be more a reflection of a photographer's newness to the camera and to Photoshop than to anything else. (I'm not saying that this newness is the case in your situation.) I hope you find my analysis helpful."

I'd add that this is one of the earliest arguments made against photography in general - against it being a true art (one still made in some quarters today). That the focus of creative energy is in the secondary printing process and not into the initial taking of the photograph - not in the creation of the original matrix. Going back to your "hand-made" argument, many artists have said (and some still say) that photography lacks the true involvment of hand and eye that other arts require.

[Joe Smigiel]

"where is the enjoyment factor? Is it really there?"

Yeah, it is. So is the frustration factor. It's all more similar than I would have imagined.

I used to assume that working digital would feel sterile and would be an unrewarding experience, but that hasn't turned out to be the case.

And I'll just point out that to many of us dinosaurs, the digital workflow is sterile and unrewarding, is dissimilar to traditional processes, and thus lacks the enjoyment factor.

So, "to each their own" and enjoy what you do.

[Wayne]

these digital prints are ironically far more "handmade" than any traditional process that i have used.

ROFL...snap out of it man. Handmade means "not computer made", among a few other things.

[Paddy Quinn]

"Handmade means "not computer made", among a few other things."
I'd suggest it also means not machine made either - I certainly hope you don't use an enlarger - nasty mechanical things?

and heaven forbid that some of those nice "hand-made" wooden cameras are made using CNC maching - linked to a...gasp - computer

[David Luttmann]

LOL Wayne,

I'm trying to see just how your hands shaped the photons from the enlarger light source into the chemical image you see on paper. The hand made analog image is no more or less hand made than the one that someone spend time on the computer creating. You dodge & burn by moving paper to block or shape the light flow....I move a mouse to change the density. Both done by hand my friend.

This "hand-made" nonsense really is amusing when analog printers think the process is somehow art when done in a chemical tray, but not when done on computer. Sorry, but just as much work, and just as much skill go into either process. To think one process or the other somehow defines the term "art" or "hand-made," is simply to lack understanding of what is really involved in creating art.

[Wayne]

Hey Paddy and Dave-did I claim anything about making handmade prints myself? No I didnt, and I never have. In fact I've expressed my discomfort with the term in the past. So whats your problem(s)? Why arent you pouncing on Adrian, who did make that claim? Instead, we get Dave saying "You got that right Adrian". Thats a pretty hilarious display of pixel bias.

[Paddy Quinn]

Sorry Wayne - my misunderstanding. I didn't realise you were trolling.

If I'd have caught that I wouldn't have bothered with a serious answer

[David Luttmann]

What Paddy said......

[Steve J Murray]

I agree with adrian's original statement. I made darkroom prints for over 20 years, and I made some pretty nice prints. Nowadays I use scans or digital camera files and PS. I feel much more "connected" with the image now than I ever did in the darkroom. I can make more subtle adjustments and see the changes before wasting a sheet of expensive paper. I can really get the image to match my current "inner" vision of what I'd like it to look like. Often that inner image evolves as I work on it too, exploring the possibilities. I'm also now working with color, something I nevered ventured into in the darkroom days. To me all of this is a great artistic advantage, not something sterile and mechanical. I use both large format and digital cameras, depending on what I'm photographing. To me they are both just tools and I don't think about one being intrinsically "better" than the other.

[paulr]

"I feel much more "connected" with the image now than I ever did in the darkroom."

This is a good point. I think a lot of the sense of alchemy in the darkroom, and a lot of the challenge, comes from the fundamental 'disconnect' of certain parts of the process. What great darkroom workers do is overcome the disconnectedness ... they find a way to control the very indirect aspects of the process.

Some darkroom procedures are very direct ... like burning and dodging. I actually prefer simple darkroom burning and dodging to the equivalent steps in photoshop, because the darkroom tools are so quick and direct and intuitive. In photohop i'm always creating masks and applying adjustments to them. precise, but a lot of steps to do some pretty simple stuff sometimes.

Tonal controls are another story. In the darkroom, it's done by selecting materials, adjusting times, adjusting chemistry ... using experience and intuition--and often trial and error-- to try to predict the effect of changes. Very indirect. Very little obvious connection between procedure and the result. In photoshop tonal controls are very direct. Grab that curve and bend it! Instant feedback and irrefuteable logic. And a much faster source of education. Anyone who's struggled with understanding characteristic curves should spend a week playing with photoshop, even if they never plan to make a digital print in their lives. it will clarify a lot about analog printing.

These differences are not necesarilly good or bad ... it really depends on how you like working. the disconnectedness of tonal adjustment in the darkroom could be seen as a flaw, or as the fundamental, beautiful challenge. depends on who you ask.

[Wayne]

Really boys...it is a troll for me to scoff at a false statement? I can imagine how out of joint your noses would have been had it been I that said:

"I have no intention of starting any trouble. i have worked quite a bit doing digital prints, and have spent a lot of time getting what i was looking for traditionally. however i have just finished producing a series of colour prints traditionally and never have i spent so much time on each to get it the way i want it. the results are very satisfying and my point is that these traditional prints are far more "handmade" than any digital process that i have used."

I would have been accused of trolling. Ironic, huh?

[C.A]

Handmade digital prints, what a load of rubbish. It takes great skill to produce prints in a darkroom, hardly the same sitting there with a cup of tea while a few buttons are pressed. A traditional print has to be right first time, it isn't like you can save and delete mistakes. Just over a year ago I went to buy some Lith developer to produce some high contrast prints, when the sale person said you don't need to do that anymore you can get the same effect in Photoshop. At the end of the day a digital print is a digital print, isn't like you could do a platinum, lith or gold toned print on a computer.

[David Luttmann]

"Handmade digital prints, what a load of rubbish. It takes great skill to produce prints in a darkroom, hardly the same sitting there with a cup of tea while a few buttons are pressed."

What an ignorant statement. "Just press a few buttons..." If that is what you think working on digital output is, then you have a great deal to learn my friend.....and I would suggest you go learn it before you blather on with nonsense like that!

[Tom Westbrook]

> It takes great skill to produce prints in a darkroom, hardly the same sitting there with a cup of tea while a few buttons are pressed.

While I'm not a huge fan of digital printing (B&W still doesn't look that good to me), I have tried to produce as good prints as I can on the small digital printer I have, and can say it does require skill and knowledge to produce good work. You do have to push the correct buttons, after all.

[C.A]

David Luttmann, here he goes again defending digital, no wonder film is disappearing.

[David Luttmann]

C. Alex,

I'm not "defending digital." I'm challenging an ignorant statement.

But please, enlighten us. Obviously digital workshops put on by people like Charles Cramer and George Dewolfe must be unnecessary.....just tell us which button to press on the keyboard, C.Alex. When I set up layer masks to selectively adjust different areas on a scan for density, sharpness, tonality, and selective toning, I must be going through way too much work because you know which button to select on the keyboard to do it all in one step. Once again, share it with us C. Alex. Which buttons are they?

C.Alex, if all it were was "pressing a few buttons," then everybody would be turning out high quality B&W work from their computers. The fact that you try and justify such an ignorant statement by trying to change the topic to a "defense of digital," proves beyond a doubt that you do have a little bit to learn.

Maybe I'll go back to the darkroom....afterall, that's just waving a few dodging and burning tools around and chucking paper in a tray......isn't it?

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

C'mon Dave! This is exactly the reason why there is such antagonism sometimes between those who do digital work and those who do traditional work. I will use paddy's example, yes some parts in a Ferrari are made by CNC, but the car is still hand made. Not like a Chevrolet.

Pretending that an ink jet print is a "hand made" print is really just one more way to try and make believe and IMO and insult to the intelligence of those of us who read this forum.

If your prints are good, what do you care if they are hand made or machine made?

On a side note, if the LF forum wants to have less flame wars and is unable to provide a "soap box" then I say this kind of posts should not be allowed. Nothing is learned from them, and they are the kind of posts that spiral into a shit fest as this one seems to be going.

[David Luttmann]

Agreed Jorge,

However, stating that digital output is "just pushing a few buttons" and requires no skill is hardly accurate. You'll notice that it is normally film (and I am a film user as well by the way) users trying to suggest that getting good quality output from digital requires no skill and just requires the push of a button. I think most of us would agree that it takes a great deal of skill and effort in both conventional and digital printing to get good output. For C.Alex to suggest otherwise is truly the source of any antagonism here.

By the way, where have you been lately? I took a break away and went into the bush along the coast of Vancouver Island for some imaging. Horrible weather, but who needs to stay dry for 4 days?

[tim atherton]

"You press the button -- we do the rest" - 1888 - Kodak/George Eastman

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/eastman/gallery/images/01a.jpg

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

However, stating that digital output is "just pushing a few buttons" and requires no skill is hardly accurate.

Yes, the problem is that both camps start making generalizations and exaggerations out of a desire to win. As I posted in another forum, craft in the darkroom is different than craft in the computer. IMO the original "insult" as it were is the initial post pretending that ink jet prints are hand made.

First, who cares? Second, paddy in another thread accused me of giving explanations and pretending one of my prints was good just because it was "hard" to make, well, the same applies to post production work in a computer. Is the print hand made because someone sat in front of a computer 40 hours trying to control each and every pixel?.....Not IMO...yes, it might be difficult, but does not make it "hand made".

As to where I have been, I was told by the moderators that if I could not "behave" they would rather I do not participate in the forum, so I am limiting my participation here.

BTW, there is not such thing as bad weather for photography..... :-)

[David Luttmann]

Tim,

A warning next time please.....coffee thru the nose is genuinely unpleasant! ;-)

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Seems you just found Epson's new slogan Tim.....

[tim atherton]

:-)

[Tom Westbrook]

Jorge: if the LF forum wants to have less flame wars and is unable to provide a "soap box"

I'm working on the soap box thing. It will take a few weeks to pull off as the required mods to the site are fairly extensive. Stay tuned.