Photographer/Printer?

[Hugo Zhang]

I was talking to some photographers the other day and learned that quite a few photographers use other people to print their work for exhibitions. And these master printers have superb skills to bring out the best of their negatives.

I am a little bothered by the thought that I would sign my name on a print not made by me. At the same time, I would be delighted to see my work printed with such skill and mastery that I may never reach myself due to laziness, lack of time and experience. Of course, I have no problem to put "Printed by XXX" on the bottom of the print in that case.

I enjoy the LF process, using it as a way to discover the world around me and myself. I don't have a darkroom. I use a community college's facility nearby and have about 2-3 hours a week to spend in the darkroom during school years. Family obligations and other obsessions of my life have left me very little time to learn and become a better printer right now. I want to take more pictures with all those lenses I have and I have many unprinted negatives. One voice is saying: Just leave those negs alone till you have time. The other voice is saying: Let others print them.You can actually learn a lot from those masters.

I only shoot B&W and only contact print. I have no intention to sell my prints now. I know many of you probably are in the same shoes as I am. What are your thoughts?

Thanks.

[Robert Hughes]

Don't worry, in a couple years everybody will be signing their works "printed by Epson"...;)

[Pat Kearns]

Till you have time..... Time is fleeting, with personal obligations between family, work, education, and photography it is a balancing act. It is one faced by us all. I have the luxury of a dedicated darkroom at home but my time printing is balanced as well. I have periods when I don't walk into it for weeks. I don't claim to be a master printer but l seem to learn a little more everytime I print. I can't agree with your statement that if you left your printing up to a master printer you would learn more. I'm sure if John Sexton printed one of my negatives it would probably knock my socks off when I saw the finished product. He could tell me the steps involved but if I don't do the process then my knowledge is still lacking. You might not be able to print the negatives right now but they will be there waiting on you. I just printed a couple negatives I shot over 15 years ago. They patiently waited on me.

[Scott Knowles]

I'm not bothered by it, my only award winning print was done at a lab. Those folks are very good at printing, and I'll likely never get up to their quality, even with a good printer. And I haven't read the pro photographers who use professional printers deny it. Some compliment them by improving their work more than they could, and some do eventually get into the printing process (eg. Galen Rowell, Graham Nash) when they have the time. I only print my own now to learn and make photo cards and 8x10 prints. Everything else goes to the lab.

[Greg Lockrey]

I have to agree with you Hugo. In order to be called "photographer" I do feel that you have to be involved in every step of the process. I willingly let the artist and/or photographer be part of my process in making the print with my machinery and technology at my studio. I make the print but they can "supervise". Then I would say that he/she may sign this piece as their own. I know too many photographers that haven't a clue what that process is. It would be nice on a "printer" level to recieve some acknowledgement for doing the "grunt work" by having a "Prnted by" in the by line some where to give credit where credit is due.

[domenico Foschi]

This is the way I see it.
To me photography is a mean of self expression and I see that the only way for me to fully convey the feel to the image is by printing it myself.
If I wasn't printing my work I would miss many things among which is the perfectioning of my skills, getting to know the possibility of the raw material, missing on those wonderful happy accidents that are a God sent for every artist, understanding what it means to learn a discipline, and the FUN of having an idea, quickly replaced by the frustration to get to that visualization.

If I would ask to any Lab to print any of my Venice images the way I want them they would kick me out of the store and let me roll on the street.
I did go one time to the Master Printer Hugo is talking about.
This man has an incredible gift, his work is magical and he is renowned all over the world for it.
I needed a 20 x 24 of an image, since at the time I couldn't print in that size, and I gave him some directions on what I wanted.
Then I asked him to dodge a tiny cloud and he told he wouldn't do it.
I respected him for that and I let him do the job anyway since I had complete trust on his esthetics.
The print blew me away.
That print was the one that pushed one step up on my printing: the information was all there, why couldn't I do it as well?
As it often happens to my openings, most people are surprised that I print my own work, and in SIlver!! But then again, this is Los Angeles, where the quick fix thing has reached the apotheosis.
Many times people are almost apologetical when they say that their work is in digital output.
Please, don't misunderstanding me, I have nothing against digital, but if the artist who uses it does, then there is something very wrong in the equation, which I translate in dissatisfaction on their choices.

BUT, there is one thing that I will never agree upon: If I am a professional Fine Art photographer, and I choose not to print my work because of time or unwillingness to get into my darkroom because it is frustrating, then....
I wonder what happened if painters decided to stop painting because it takes a long time, or because it is frustrating.

[scott_6029]

This is a tough one....I mean there are some Eward Weston prints by Cole, I would love to own.....(but Ewards prints are more highly sought after on the whole and priced higher in general). I personally like it more or I guess you could say appreciate and even pay more when the artist is involved in the whole process. There is also the interpretation in the printing process...Maybe it's similar to an original vs. a serigraph? For me some of this actually comes down to price....

[Steven Barall]

I guess it all depends on what you're selling. I see great photos in books and magazines all the time and it doesn't bother me that the photographer didn't print the books and magazines. If you are in the business of selling artisinal prints then I guess you should print them yourself, mostly. As far as artisinal prints go, one of the things that you're selling is, I think, uniqueness and that has to be directly linked to the signature at the bottom.

Photography is a lot of different things to different people and it's all good.

[Dirk Rösler]

Do architects feel bad about someone else building the houses? I don't think so.

[domenico Foschi]

Do architects feel bad about someone else building the houses? I don't think so.

it isn't exactly the architect's job to build one of is/her projects. Is it?
Before digital would come into play it was implicit that someone who shoots B/W also prints it.

[Dirk Rösler]

Before digital would come into play it was implicit that someone who shoots B/W also prints it.

Ha ha, remind me in what rule book that is written please . :confused:

[Gordon Moat]

. . . . . .
Before digital would come into play it was implicit that someone who shoots B/W also prints it.

You mean like some of those guys at a place like Magnum Photos (http://www.magnumphotos.com) . . . perhaps a guy like Henri Cartier-Bresson (http://www.henricartierbresson.org)?
:cool:

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)

[domenico Foschi]

You mean like some of those guys at a place like Magnum Photos (http://www.magnumphotos.com) . . . perhaps a guy like Henri Cartier-Bresson (http://www.henricartierbresson.org)?
:cool:

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)

Gordon,
I am referring to fine art photography.
Photojournalism, obviously, is another matter.

[Gordon Moat]

Hello Domenico,

You might be surprised to glance through the photographers at Magnum, and find several fine art photographers. Take a further look at auctions in which the works of Cartier-Bresson, Dennis Stock, or several other Magnum alumni come up, and you will find high value sales of fine art prints from photographers that don't make their own prints.

There is one original in photography, which is the capture; either to a plate, or a frame of film. After that, everything is a reproduction, including prints. Printmaking didn't change that much with wide adoption of digital imaging, nor with easier access to inkjet printers. To consider otherwise ignores a great deal of history.

I don't mind at all if someone wants to be proud of being a fine printmaker. I think it becomes a problem when others try to define a particular aspect of art based upon some rules or guidelines. There are few rules in any art, and none that in some way cannot be broken, and broken to compelling effect; Jeff Koons is an obvious extreme example of this.

Art is not defined by following certain steps. If an individual wants to indicate certain steps to place a particular uniqueness upon their works, or to validate why they make certain choices, then that is more a form of marketing within art.

I would never bash on someone who chose acrylics over oils. There is not a hierarchy in living painters of those who use oils over those that use acrylics. Those that buy or collect paintings will have preferences, much like those that buy photographs might have preferences; using one method over another simply caters to an audience.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)

[Dirk Rösler]

Thinking about it a little more and after looking at Domenico's web site [well worth looking at BTW] is that the art world, especially the world of fine art photography is full of its own conventions and rules.

[Henry Ambrose]

IMO, there is lots to be learned from controlling and completing the entire process, to say nothing of the greater involvement gained. Obviously though, printing one's own work is not a requirement for making great photos. I do wonder what would happen if those who hand off the printing didn't - would their photos be different? Better or worse?

[Jim Jones]

Hugo -- Since you aren't selling your prints at the moment, having someone else print them is a moot point. Even when you sell, there are printing materials and equipment beyond practical use by most photographers. I print, mount, mat, frame, and sell everything myself only as a matter of economy in a small market. High volume sales would make farming out more and more of those tasks necessary. Many masters have assistants for printing and presenting their work. This commendable attitude makes their work available to more than the elite. As long as the customer is not deceived into believing that the master does every detail of the process, there's nothing wrong with it.

[Ole Tjugen]

Gordon,
I am referring to fine art photography.
Photojournalism, obviously, is another matter.

I believe Mapplethorpe's prints were made by someone else, too...

[Greg Lockrey]

I believe Mapplethorpe's prints were made by someone else, too...

I heard from a friend of mine who had worked with Irvin Penn many years ago that he had helpers set up the camera, he directed the poses and framing and decided when to push the cable release. Basically didn't touch the camera or the film. Just directed the operation.

[Maris Rusis]

Photographic prints aren't prints. They are actually photographs. The only fundamental difference between photographs on paper and photographs on film is what goes under the sensitive emulsion; paper or film.

Making photographs on paper involves more creative choices than photographs on film. As well as the usual choices about which subject (which negative, that is), what cropping, focussing, exposure, developing etc, one can choose different contrasts, different tonings, different shapes, sizes, surfaces and so on.

Just to check this "prints" versus "photographs" thing I recently taped a nice 8x10 negative to a bright window and photographed it, at 1:1 ratio, with my Tachihara 8x10. Sure, I put J&C Classic Polygrade in the holder. Subsequently I contacted that negative to the same brand of paper in the usual darkroom procedure. Later, looking at both positives (processed emulsion on paper base) I can't say one is a photograph, the one from the camera, and the other is a print, the one from the darkroom. I reckon they are both photographs.

At the risk of puncturing a few egos I think it is an ongoing scandal that people who do no more than camera use get called photographers. That title should be reserved only for those who make the actual photographs that they show as their own work.

[Dirk Rösler]

At the risk of puncturing a few egos I think it is an ongoing scandal that people who do no more than camera use get called photographers. That title should be reserved only for those who make the actual photographs that they show as their own work.

Yes, how dare they enter the privileged area that is reserved for Real Photographers®.

It appears that the only ego at risk of being punctured is your own.

[Gordon Moat]

Better get use to it Maris, because you are unlikely to change the current categorization of who is, or is not, a photographer. There are already enough art history texts, museums, auction houses, critics, and art writers who have already called numerous famous people photographers; and that is regardless of whether or not they did their own printing, nor if they even knew how to do their own printing.

Your test reminds me of an interview with Vera Lutter (http://www.bombsite.com/lutter/lutter.html) that I read recently. I suppose you might not consider her a photographer. Unfortunately I don't think your opinion, nor mine, would change nor affect her current status.

The only ego is those who attempt to elevate themselves above others by reasoning of the greater toil necessary to achieve and express their creative visions. Effort has never been a measure of artistic ability, though it can be an effective marketing tool for selling ones works of art.

Personally, I will stick to the categorization of artist who uses a camera, rather than photographer. I know how to produce my own prints; I've made my own platinum prints; I've done quite a bit of darkroom work producing silver prints; yet currently I choose to rarely produce my own prints. I am formally trained as a painter, and specialize in oil paintings; I've even made my own paints from raw materials; yet I don't feel that places me at any higher status in the world of oil painters; that I choose to use mostly oil paints out of the tube, and store bought brushes, are not aspects that I feel dimishes the end result. Though if you want to imagine your self at a higher status than others, go right ahead and enjoy that.
:cool:

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)

[CantikFotos]

The problem is what happens if your printer is making extra copies? :^) I seem to remember there being quite a stink about who exactly had printed all the Man Ray prints being sold on the market.

[domenico Foschi]

Better get use to it Maris, because you are unlikely to change the current categorization of who is, or is not, a photographer. There are already enough art history texts, museums, auction houses, critics, and art writers who have already called numerous famous people photographers; and that is regardless of whether or not they did their own printing, nor if they even knew how to do their own printing.

Your test reminds me of an interview with Vera Lutter (http://www.bombsite.com/lutter/lutter.html) that I read recently. I suppose you might not consider her a photographer. Unfortunately I don't think your opinion, nor mine, would change nor affect her current status.

The only ego is those who attempt to elevate themselves above others by reasoning of the greater toil necessary to achieve and express their creative visions. Effort has never been a measure of artistic ability, though it can be an effective marketing tool for selling ones works of art.

Personally, I will stick to the categorization of artist who uses a camera, rather than photographer. I know how to produce my own prints; I've made my own platinum prints; I've done quite a bit of darkroom work producing silver prints; yet currently I choose to rarely produce my own prints. I am formally trained as a painter, and specialize in oil paintings; I've even made my own paints from raw materials; yet I don't feel that places me at any higher status in the world of oil painters; that I choose to use mostly oil paints out of the tube, and store bought brushes, are not aspects that I feel dimishes the end result. Though if you want to imagine your self at a higher status than others, go right ahead and enjoy that.
:cool:

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)


Does a movie director get all the credits for making a movie?
Well, we know the answer to that already.
I see a finished print whose negative came from one person and the positive from another a collaboration.
I would never feel right to say that THAT particular photograph is completely my merit.
Also there is another matter to take into account.
As we know, there are many different kind of photography and for some of them I don't retain important that the photographer has actually printed the image.
For the kind of photography where the printing is a very important stage to convey the mood in the image, this is where I find the problem.
The mood should come from the photographer, not from someone who he/she has probably never met in his/her life.
If the photographer wants to sign the print, then he/she should print it, otherwise is ethically wrong.
Why do we make distinctions from an Edward Weston print and one printed by one of his sons?
According to what is being said here, Gordon, it shouldn't make any difference who printed it.
Why do we scorn Thomas Kinkade for hiring people to actually do paintings according to his style and for signing them?

Ole, Mapplethorpe?
He used to be one of my fvourites just until I found out that he wasn't printing his work in his biography by PAtricia Morrisroe, and I should have noticed considering the huge step of style he made in no time from his more raw and wonderful work. I consider Mattlethorpe a master in composition form and style and an artist of great courage, but I feel cheated since there is an enormous emphasis in the printing stage of his latest work and not thank to him.
Tom Baril, who was his printer is now one of the leading fine art photographers in the world.
When I see an artist photograph I need to feel his presence, it is about honesty.
It is my believe that until photographers will not understand their medium of choice as a complete discipline, photography will always be mistakenly compared as the ugly relative of painting

[C. D. Keth]

So apparently photography absolutely can't be a collaborative artform? The model has input, as does a stylist, as does the shooter, as does the person who does the post production. Why not the printer?

I may be more impressed by the photographer who does all of the above him or herself but I'm not going to condemn someone who recognizes his shortcomings and forges a collaboration to make it better.

[Gordon Moat]

Hello Domenico,

I tend to put a very real legal definition onto imaging to further clarify this. Whether is is Berne Conventions, Madrid Protocols, or simply US Copyright Laws, there are set definitions of what constitutes a collaborative work. This has a baring on commercial work, though I feel that these copyright laws apply to works of fine art, and the laws largely back me up in this. If you want to apply the concept of collaborative works with those that assist you, then you are in effect granting them copyright to those works. Be very careful that is what you intend.

Motion pictures are one type of collaborative work covered under copyright laws. However, the contracts for the various assistants and workers on set usually stipulate limitations upon any copyright claims. Basically the in writing documents meet the requirements to limit who has copyright of motion picture works. There are similar provisions that apply to compilations, some manuscripts and books, and sometimes audio recordings.

You want to give someone credit, that's great. I would stop short of defining assistance as collaborative, unless you want to open yourself up to legal challenges. Perhaps some other form of acknowledgement would suffice.

When I go to many galleries and museums, the main thing I know would be the title of a work, the name of the artist, and the medium of the work (oil on canvas, mixed media, encaustic, silver gelatin, chromogenic print, cibachrome, et al). Without reading a bio of the artist, an artist statement, or some review, or actually meeting the artist, I would have no way of knowing whether or not the artist printed their own work. The casual visitor or viewer of such works would know no more than I, only being given the limited information common in many galleries and museums.

So what that gallery and museum experience tells me, and those of you who are so adamant about pushing a hierarchy of printing prowess, is that you want people to read your bios or artist statements to know that you printed your own work. To me, the artist statement or bio is marketing. So to include a mention of printing your own work in your artist statement or bio is, in my opinion, a form of marketing.

I am not putting down those who print their own work. I understand that some collectors have a bias towards works printed by the artist. I reject that there is some necessary hierarchy. If you want to think less of what I do, by using someone to print my images (when I could do it myself), then you are entitled to your opinion.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)

[domenico Foschi]

"I tend to put a very real legal definition onto imaging to further clarify this. Whether is is Berne Conventions, Madrid Protocols, or simply US Copyright Laws, there are set definitions of what constitutes a collaborative work. This has a baring on commercial work, though I feel that these copyright laws apply to works of fine art, and the laws largely back me up in this. If you want to apply the concept of collaborative works with those that assist you, then you are in effect granting them copyright to those works. Be very careful that is what you intend."

Why should I be careful, I print my own work.

I am not having any inner conflict in this issue.


"So what that gallery and museum experience tells me, and those of you who are so adamant about pushing a hierarchy of printing prowess, is that you want people to read your bios or artist statements to know that you printed your own work. To me, the artist statement or bio is marketing. So to include a mention of printing your own work in your artist statement or bio is, in my opinion, a form of marketing."

Why do you say marketing?
Are you recognizing perhaps that a photograph printed by the same person who clicked the shutter might have more value to the eyes of the public?
Be very careful if that is what you intend?;)
But no, that is not what is important to me.
In my bios I merely state that I print my images by Gelatin silver print medium, period, without going off the tangent.
The Bio/artist statement in my site is the same I use in my shows, you can go see it if you want.
Gordon, I am not putting myself above you or somebody else who uses another person's printing skills, what I am saying is that there is an ethical problem here that cannot be ignored, if the photographer keeps this little secret, well...secret.
I believe the public deserves to know if the work they are looking at is entirely his/hers.
Arrivederci!

[domenico Foschi]

So apparently photography absolutely can't be a collaborative artform? The model has input, as does a stylist, as does the shooter, as does the person who does the post production. Why not the printer?

I may be more impressed by the photographer who does all of the above him or herself but I'm not going to condemn someone who recognizes his shortcomings and forges a collaboration to make it better.

True, Christopher, but don't you think the public who wants to buy your print deserves to know?

[Gordon Moat]

. . . . .
Gordon, I am not putting myself above you or somebody else who uses another person's printing skills, what I am saying is that there is an ethical problem here that cannot be ignored, if the photographer keeps this little secret, well...secret.
. . . . . . . . . . .

Perhaps my usage of english, or knowledge of english, is not that great. When I see things discussed in such a way, it seems to me to push towards creation of a hierarchy. Is that the intent?

I don't see a great moral issue with simply stating I was the person who captured the photograph, basically the photographer. When one of my images is printed in a magazine or publication, should I acknowledge the grapic designer or people in the print shop? Is that keeping a secret, or lying to the public? Is that morally wrong? Should I feel ashamed? I don't; I need to live within my own morals and standards. Furthermore, I am to not consider myself a photographer when one of my images goes into a publication, and not simply as a print hanging on a wall?

Should there be different rules for fine art works? If one of my paintings get used in an advertisement, then should I stop calling myself an artist or painter? Is there a greater caché or hierarchy to being an artist than there is working in a creative profession? Do only those who toil and suffer, or who take every step possible, deserve the title of artist? If yes to that last one, who defines the steps, how many need to be taken, or even what those steps should be?

When I do my works of oil on canvas, I put together my own canvases. However, I buy stretcher bars and canvas. I know painters who have nice woodworking gear and cut their own stretcher bars. Should they be at a greater hierarchy than I due to that practice? Perhaps some collectors will place more value in that extra step. If another painter only worked on store bought pre-stretched and gessoed canvases, should I consider myself at a greater hierarchy, or think those other painters were keeping a dirty little secret?

Rather than continue this back and forth that will not change either of our opinions, I would hope that someone posts a poll. Should the term photographer be reserved only for those who produce their own chemically developed prints? Or maybe someone can come up with a better question. At least then, I would know where I stand with this group.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)

[turtle]

Do architects feel bad about someone else building the houses? I don't think so.

Builders dont interpret the plans though. They build according to them precisely. I think the argument is that there is a lot of creativity in the printing and that fine art is not all about the 'subject' or 'composition' but the overall mood of the final print, which the printer has a lot to do with.

Personally I would not be happy having someone else doing my printing (heck, I dont like anyone else doing my framing), but can see why some people do. If you can form a great partnership where your print is communicated better by someone else than you yourself could do, then why not. There is no reason why a great photographer has to be a great printer! Although I understand where people are coming from I do not think the printer signing the print is appropriate. It ends up a mongrel, lacking in singular identity which I feel is important. hanging on the wall it has no need to be two things or a single thing from two people. It is what it is and this is better communicated by one signature I think.

I will never be able to afford to use a top printer so aspire to be one myself. Could be a while....

[Dirk Rösler]

OK, does a composer mind someone else playing her music then?

I think this whole discussion is pointless, unless you are trying to please a certain fine art photography audience and have something to loose by not satisfying that demand. The history of the medium only knows great photographs. The art market cares how and by whom they were made.

[Mr. Doyle]

I spent ten years as a black and white printer before I took up photography full time. I found that many photographers would never admit to not having printed the work themselves. What bothered me the most was that they would claim to have printed something I had spent half a day on to get right...
From my printing background I know that the best printers will almost always produce a better print in terms of quality but will often lack the feel and mood created by the photographers print. Afterall, a printer cannot know what a photographer is thinking..
For me I always produce the first print. If I need another print made and can't do it myself I will give the printer my version so they can match it..
Most people I have sold work to always like the idea of the print being made by the photographer.

[C. D. Keth]

True, Christopher, but don't you think the public who wants to buy your print deserves to know?

I have no problem with the public knowing something like that. Most photographers would tell a buyer the truth about it, I think.

[Mark Sampson]

Luckily photography is not a medieval craft guild with lots of restrictive rules. We can make it up as we go along. I print my own personal work, and I've printed most of my professional work for the better part of the last twenty years. But should someone else begin to print my personal work, it wouldn't matter to me, as long as I had approval over the final image.

[Bruce Watson]

BUT, there is one thing that I will never agree upon: If I am a professional Fine Art photographer, and I choose not to print my work because of time or unwillingness to get into my darkroom because it is frustrating, then....
I wonder what happened if painters decided to stop painting because it takes a long time, or because it is frustrating.

Well, what I remember from my art history is that few of the old masters actually painted the whole painting themselves. They would sketch out the painting then have their apprentices do just about everything but the faces and the hands. And the signature of course. ;)

And why not? It was done under the master's supervision, in his style. That's what that room full of apprentices was for -- the master was teaching them, and what better way to learn than by doing? And you do what needs to be done -- the local Don's commission of the portrait of his wife for example. This wasn't considered Art, the master usually wasn't thought of as an artist. He was a craftsman.

It is only we, looking back through the patina of time, that see it as art. Is it less art because the master didn't paint the whole thing?

[Bruce Watson]

it isn't exactly the architect's job to build one of is/her projects. Is it?
Before digital would come into play it was implicit that someone who shoots B/W also prints it.

There were a number of photographers who didn't print their own work. The most famous ones I can think of off the top of my (admittedly limited) head are Margaret Bourke-White and Richard Avedon.

[vann webb]

For ciba printing, I use a pro lab in town, JW Photolabs in Raleigh. I don't even consider printing in color. Tried it for a while and just could never get good enough at it to make it worthwhile. The paper and chemistry are expensive and I struggled with the color balancing.

For B&W, I do my own printing. I don't know how I would explain to a great printer what I really wanted, and I don't know any local printers who do this sort of thing. For me, the darkroom experience involves experimentation that I would have a hard time delegating out to someone else in B&W. (and I enjoy that part of the process anyway).

As a general principle though, I have no problem with the concept of jobbing out the printing to someone else, as long as you are getting what you want. That's the name of the game for me.

[Dick Hilker]

Does the expression, "printed by Epson" suggest that those who choose to print digitally are somehow creating a lesser image and that a major part of the credit belongs to the tool, rather than the person using it? Having made prints for many years in darkrooms and now on my (yes, Epson) printers, I feel I'm a fair judge of the differences and know that what I can do with digital printing far surpasses that which I was able to do in a darkroom. And, no, it isn't just pushing a few buttons and letting the electronics do the heavy lifting.

I'll quickly agree that it's more difficult to do really high quality printing in a darkroom than it is with a digital printer, but are we to judge the finished product by that disparity of difficulty or on its own merits as a work of art?

[Greg Lockrey]

Does the expression, "printed by Epson" suggest that those who choose to print digitally are somehow creating a lesser image and that a major part of the credit belongs to the tool, rather than the person using it? Having made prints for many years in darkrooms and now on my (yes, Epson) printers, I feel I'm a fair judge of the differences and know that what I can do with digital printing far surpasses that which I was able to do in a darkroom. And, no, it isn't just pushing a few buttons and letting the electronics do the heavy lifting.

I'll quickly agree that it's more difficult to do really high quality printing in a darkroom than it is with a digital printer, but are we to judge the finished product by that disparity of difficulty or on its own merits as a work of art?

Dittoes. Whether the printer uses a digital printing device or not makes little difference. He should know how to bring out the "best" from each negative and/or file. If the photographer chooses to use an outside printer, one that's not in his employ, then I feel he should give that printer credit for the collaberation. There was a relatively popular photographer in Charleston, SC back in the early 70's when I was stationed there that would sign his work and give the printer a "by line" on the bottom edge of the print. Many photographers would use this printer because of that association. Now if the photographer isn't any good, then maybe the printer wouldn't want to associate with him other than take in the work to pay the bills.:) In my case, I will offer a special rate for a print if I can put my studio name on the bottom edge or on a back of an "art card". I don't offer it to everyone either.