Photographer/Printer?

[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 .

[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 . . . perhaps a guy like Henri Cartier-Bresson?


Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio

[domenico Foschi]

You mean like some of those guys at a place like Magnum Photos . . . perhaps a guy like Henri Cartier-Bresson?


Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio

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

[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.