Darkroom vs Scanning

[jnantz]

Perhaps we hobbyist get lucky

The 2 actual real Print exchanges I organized was excellent in the 'sameness' of all submitted prints

I was the only one with the 100's of prints, spread out on big folding tables

I know mine were very exact as I made 8X10 contact prints in a very stable Contact Printer with new lamps and a timer

So many LF experts wax ecstatic online, some never post any useful image

I write this in anger, as this group misleads far too often

There is a song The Mamas & The Papas - California Dreamin' (Official HD Video)

I love that song!

Thanks TC, it's always the elephant in the room, and I couldn't agree with you more!

But unfortunately, this is the uncurated internet, we're supposed to believe everything we read, mediocre is TOPS! what's the fun in anything else?
I was once trash talked by someone who was a 4 month doing-it, self proclaimed expert. the ignore function works great!
John

[Michael R]

Everyone is different on the technical front. Some truly embrace the inherent slop in non-digital processes. Some pretend to. Some seek consistency, precision etc. The same applies to other artforms and their respective tools.

[Michael R]

You must be smarter than me is. Couldn’t follow except that all the leaves are brown, which makes sense. What experts?

Couldn’t make heads or tails of the Stieglitz bla bla either. Basically, it’s dead if he says so. Ok.

Thanks TC, it's always the elephant in the room, and I couldn't agree with you more!

But unfortunately, this is the uncurated internet, we're supposed to believe everything we read, mediocre is TOPS! what's the fun in anything else?
I was once trash talked by someone who was a 4 month doing-it, self proclaimed expert. the ignore function works great!
John

[jnantz]

You must be smarter than me is. Couldn’t follow except that all the leaves are brown, which makes sense. What experts?

Couldn’t make heads or tails of the Stieglitz bla bla either. Basically, it’s dead if he says so. Ok.

all I gotta say is yabba-dabba-do

[Alan Klein]

I get this. Years ago and after collecting photographs for many years, I decided I wanted to purchase my favorite Ansel Adams print in a 16x20 size. I went to three galleries in California only to find that each available print was different. Not better. Different. Shadows were darker or lighter, highlights were more defined or separated. As a photographer and darkroom printer for 20+ years, I could see it, others could see it but most could not. The interesting thing here is that the prints were priced differently based on those specific attributes. More control would have made my choice much easier!

Your experience raises an interesting point. You have to see the actual print you want to buy before buying it. If you order over the web, the version you get might not be to your liking.

[Merg Ross]

Merg that is perfect...thank you! (and a big "thank you" to Mr. Stieglitz!)

Most welcome John. Profound and simply stated by Stieglitz 100 years ago.

[bmikiten]

Funny side note - If I had just been shown one print, I would have purchased it. Having three available provided the opportunity to compare and contrast!

[Bernice Loui]

Goes back to many previous post regarding points and metrics of reference..

Unless the print maker and viewer/audience has or gains the awareness of what the definition of a "good (ala "fine)" print is, how it is created, what the image offers to their humanity and the human condition the "fine" print will be at it's very best of extremely limited value to those with limited to no appreciation or values to the "fine" print.

In today's world of digital data centric images, the majority of viewers and audiences are flooded by the sheer volume of these images. This often becomes the points of reference and metric applied to all images viewed by viewers and the broader audience..


Over the course of LFF, there have been countless exchanges of vigorous verbiage over projection and perception of these points of references and metrics..
Are there absolutes to these points of reference and metrics or are they completely subject to the emotional impulses (ego) of the image creator?


Bernice

I get this. Years ago and after collecting photographs for many years, I decided I wanted to purchase my favorite Ansel Adams print in a 16x20 size. I went to three galleries in California only to find that each available print was different. Not better. Different. Shadows were darker or lighter, highlights were more defined or separated. As a photographer and darkroom printer for 20+ years, I could see it, others could see it but most could not. The interesting thing here is that the prints were priced differently based on those specific attributes. More control would have made my choice much easier!

[SergeyT]

Part of the beauty of all-darkroom printing is that you CAN'T just crank out multiples like a xerox machine. At least a certain amount of loving hands-on is required for each print, and the fact that there can be slight differences one from another might very well make each special, yet in a slightly different way.

The favorite artist of yours just proven this as being not correct on more than one count. Thats an example: https://www.brooklynmuseum.org/openc...objects/103157

[SergeyT]

Funny side note - If I had just been shown one print, I would have purchased it. Having three available provided the opportunity to compare and contrast!

I have had the opportunity to see some of Ansel's prints up-close. While they were very beautiful from an artistic standpoint , to my eye, they were not quite "perfect" technically. It was obvious that even by applying all his famous craftsmanship there were compromises made. So what? There is much more to a great photograph than how it was made. And each photographer, viewer, owner, etc find their own reasons to like and appreciate or dislike certain photographs( or any other things in this world). There is nothing absolute or unconditional it seems...
At the end of the day it might not be as important how a print was made , as why.