Why we need to see real photos and not reproductions

[eric mac]

An added tradition to my biannual Las Vegas trip is a visit to the Belagio casino to see the Ansel Adams exhibit at the museum there. I am still amazed by the wonderful work he has done and seeing it "live" is a real treat. Like any exhibit you have to exit through the gift shop. I opened a book and quickly compared what I had just seen to the book reproductions. Needless to say I was completely blown away in the difference between the book and the originals.

As a longtime beginner, I've always wondered how a well done print looks compared to the book print. I guess I found my answer. This was a real eye opening experience for me. If you get chance make sure to see any exhibit that you can.

Eric

Only two more points at the craps table and I might have been able to buy one those Adams prints.

[Eric James]

I enjoyed this quote from Bill_1856 in the forum's thread: "It's always about the light"

I've only seen AA prints at the gallery in YOS. They were beautiful, but they didn't "glow" as you and others have described. I'm anxious to see the real thing in better light!

My print of Ansel Adams "Moonrise" was exhibited in his last commercial show at the Witkin Gallery (1975?) along with the announcement that from this time he would only be filling standing orders and not accepting new ones. I was in love with this glorious print, and knew that it was buy it now or never, but Jesus, it was $750! They had to call American Express to get my card approved for that enormous purchase.
Several months later the print came. It was dull. It was printed much too dark. It was a terrible disappointment. How could I have wasted nearly a thousand dollars (including framing and shipping)?
A panic call to Witkin gave me the good news and the bad news. The good news was that they would take it back and refund my money (less shipping). The bad news was that Moonrise prints were now selling for $2000, and if I wanted a replacement that I'd have to pony up the difference, and there was a two year wait. I gulped hard and said, "Never mind."
For some months the print hung gloomily on my wall -- a constant reminder to be more careful with my money. Then as the sun moved north, on one day just before sunset, a few rays fell directly on the print and it was transformed into the dazzling, glowing image of that incredibly peaceful, almost living scene. I could almost feel St. Ansel's excitement as he puts his car into the ditch and frantically assembles his 8x10 then almost loses the shot as the sun disappears!
That print now hangs in my dining room, with its own spotlight above it. It's not quite like seeing it in the direct rays of the setting sun, but it is definitely transformed from a grunge into Adam's greatest masterpiece.

[tim atherton]

aren't all photographs reproductions...

[Frank R]

I saw the AA exhibit that is currently at the Detroit Institute of Arts. A lot of his early works in 5x7. I think it was the lighting in the exhibit space, or the age of the original prints, but none were that remarkable. I was a little disappointed. Only two that were really big and impressive; "Moonrise" was one of them.

Later in the gift shop I saw a few posters of the same original prints I just saw. I have to admit, and this might sound like heresy, but the posters looked better than the originals. I think it was the lighting that made the difference and maybe the whiter paper added some contrast.

My conclusion: print big and light them well.

[JW Dewdney]

It's las vegas! You'd really expect they'd have inkjet AA prints at the bellagio!

Place is bloody horrendous!! Kind of fascinating. But horrendous nonetheless! gag.

[Bill_1856]

In a misguided effort to preserve prints from "light damage," many museums are showing them under such poor lighting conditions that it makes seeing them virtually worthless.
A few years ago I made a special trip to Chicago just to visit an Edward Weston show at the AIC. It was hung in the basement, with such poor lighting that to enjoy the prints one would have to buy the accompanying book to see them.
Shame on these curators. What does it matter if these prints last hundreds of years, if one can never see them under optimum conditions?

[Michael Alpert]

Eric,

A reproduction of an original print is composed on tiny dots of ink. It's a different species, which can have its own worthwhile qualities. If the reproduction honors the original, it has fulfilled its purpose. Given the different materials involved, you cannot expect more. With that said, I think photographic books are wonderful in the same sense that CDs are wonderful even though they are but a shadow of a concert-hall experience.

Changing subject, I disagree with Wilhelm's remarks about museum lighting. Many of Weston's prints are dark, but one can still see them quite well even under restricted lighting. Usually it is the owner of the prints that sets the lighting level, not the curators. In any case, I think the Art Institute of Chicago has an outstanding photographic department. And it does matter that people who live in the future have access to Weston's prints. To think otherwise is, to use polite language, wrong-headed.

[paulr]

I think this is true when you're comparing a great "original" print to an average reproduction. But I've seen many examples of the opposite, too. Especially with the work of photographers who did not concern themselves much with printing. Walker Evans comes to mind ... he rarely printed his own work, so it was done by god-knows-who. Some of his vintage prints are wonderful, but many might as well be newspaper clippings. Modern book printing technology, however, can make all the images look pretty great.

In fact, some of the best prints I've ever seen are book reproductions. Multiplate processes like the ones devised by Richard Benson rival any metal-based printing process I've seen. My Benson-printed Paul Strand book makes much of what I see on museum walls look thin and dimensionless in comparison. This book is about fifteen years old ... it was my first revelation that the future of photographic printomg could be ink. I didn't know what forms it might take, but it's obviously happening now.

[paulr]

In a misguided effort to preserve prints from "light damage," many museums are showing them under such poor lighting conditions that it makes seeing them virtually worthless.

i can't judge if it's misguided without knowing the curators' priorities. their job includes the stewardship of the collection for future generations as well as entertaining print connoisseurs. with certain kids of prints and the current state of conservation technology, they might be making the best compromise they know how.

At MoMa, the galleries of the permanent collection are under wildly different light levels. Some rooms are as bright as you could want them to be; others feel like a candle-lit vigil. I can only assume it's for a good reason.

[Bruce Schultz]

I too saw the Adams exhibit at Bellagio, and I came away with a new perspective. I had only seen a few of his prints here and there previously. Upon seeing this show, I was surprised at some of the things he accepted. I thought everything in his pictures would be tack sharp, with creamy, grainless skies. For example, the 35mm picture of Georgia O'Keefe with the ranch manager was surprisingly grainy and not that sharp, but reproductions make it appear quite sharp. But he could look past that because Georgia's wry expression was irresistible.
I've tossed several pictures because some little detail wasn't quite sharp enough. But seeing that exhibit has helped me get past some of that nitpickiness.
When I bought an 8x10 enlarger, I thought anything I shot had to be good enough for a16x20, but I've gone back to using some of those negatives I've rejected to make quite nice 8x10 contact prints, and I can live with that.