Is Photography "Prints on Paper?"

[Clay Turtle]

I think this is something of a straw man. People make photographs, and view photographs, for many different reasons and with many different purposes. Some of these reasons and purposes don't depend on the particulars of capture and presentation, while some of them do.

I went as far as looking at the linked page but didn't go any further. So I may be missing some perceptions that are guiding the thinking of others.
Prints on paper . . .

For me, prints behind museum glass add a dimension to photography displays can give, no matter what definition one uses, it does that for me.

I agree, I had reprinted a negative for the widow of a friend. His original is 16x20 my print(s) are 11x14. I was going to post them on the web but realized that the futility, I did a series of 5 prints, the first was pretty strait print which for all practical purpose equal to the original, each print is slightly different as I varied techniques to improve the look as I wasn't particularly satisfied with my results. They each are very close to the original & they each are individual prints but you would have to look long & hard at each side by side to see the difference.

In the pro world a digital work flow is standard, I recently sat at an editors desk with prints, and he was surprised on how sharp and vivid the prints were. It has become a monitor to monitor to cmyk press process!

PS . . . One may wonder if the advent of chemical photography sent similar shutters through out the painting community. After all one can photograph a painting & reproduce its image with film.

I considering a Photo as any form if non-printed or non-tangible. So it's a "Digital Photo" as opposed to a "Photographic Print".

Of course then one might point out that such reprints would not have the texture of the painting?
So what if you did stereo imaging to produce a computer overlay used to form a holographic (laser) image? You would then have an apparent texture of the painting as well as the image, imagine . . .
The local museum is (showing) exhibiting ancient Egyptian artifacts (art), I would be more than a little peeved if I went down to see them & found everyone standing around a pedestal viewing holographic images of artifacts . . .

[Clay Turtle]

Which is a long way around to say that yes, his digital photos are quality material but then so are 35mm. If you compare them to say 'Robert Skeoch' works with b&w 8x10 format then one readily makes the distinction of format & medium of display. While some photography may have merit for no other reason but historical aspects & therefore an article worthy of being in a museum & there are those that due to there artistic aspects qualify as museum pieces.

[Michael Alpert]

This idea came to me from another thread in the forum discussing photography book publishing. While the use of the web is becoming more accepted for many it is not clear how electronic publishing of images is viewed. More to my point, if a museum or gallery used high definition screens around the walls to display photographic images rather than using mounted prints should it still be considered a "Photo Gallery"?

If an image has a direct optical link to the world, it is a photograph. Traditionally photography has been defined as a form of printmaking. But printmaking has changed from works-on-paper to works-as-multiples (or as possible multiples), regardless of physical "support." Museums and galleries are sometimes stretching definitions a bit, but their image-based galleries are legitimately "photo galleries."

With that said, your post has additional impled questions. Is 72 lpi a good resolution for a photographic image? I don't think so. I am happy that a gallery that represents me will soon have a number of my images on the web. And a talented friend has offered to design a web-site for me. So I guess I am also accepting some forms of digital presentation. Still, I love well-made gelatin-silver black-and-white photographic prints on paper. In terms of basic image-quality, they are not out of date. As far as I am concerned, nothing else comes close.

[paulr]

Is 72 lpi a good resolution for a photographic image? I don't think so.

Wouldn't it depend on the image? For some images and artists' intents, big pixels or ink dots or other intrusions of image structure are appropriate. In some cases they might be essential.

Just as for others, nothing less than the silky smoothness of a a contact print will do.

[Michael Alpert]

Wouldn't it depend on the image? For some images and artists' intents, big pixels or ink dots or other intrusions of image structure are appropriate. In some cases they might be essential.

Just as for others, nothing less than the silky smoothness of a a contact print will do.

Paul,

Okay, of course, in the same way that some early twentieth-century photographers loved blurry prints. To make a virtue of necessity is what artists do. But artists whose images need "big pixels or ink dots or other intrusions" are exceptions. There is such a thing as photographic standards of quality. There's a history of the medium here; it's not a situation where each person independently creates the whole world. One can decide to ignore or even oppose those historical standards, but--for the present time at least--they still exist.

[jb7]

There is such a thing as photographic standards of quality. There's a history of the medium here; it's not a situation where each person independently creates the whole world. One can decide to ignore or even oppose those historical standards, but--for the present time at least--they still exist.

You may be choosing standards for yourself,
but some of the most beautiful portraits I've seen on this site recently, have been very selective in the areas presented as sharp-

Photography might be capable of presenting uniform detail over large areas of print,
but an inspired composition, regardless of overall sharpness,
will always trump a technically adept, but boring picture-

To say that photographs can only exist on print is to relegate yourself to a photographic backwater;
surely it can't be beyond anyone to appreciate great art wherever it presents itself?
And in whatever medium?

for me, it's whatever moves me, in whatever medium-
and if that includes areas which don't include high resolution,
well, so be it-

j

[paulr]

I think it's just a matter of recognizing the strengths and weaknesses and unique qualities of different media. Think about platinum prints, projected slides, polaroids, and huge color murals. They're each capable of different things. As such they each bring with them their own possible standards of quality. Photographers today can choose from between all these media ... and if they're good artists, they'll make good choices.

I'd say the same about an LCD screen hanging on a gallery wall. It has strengths, weaknesses, and many unique qualities. It will be appropriate for certain kinds of work. If it doesn't serve the work, then that's more a reflection on the artist's judgement than on the screen itself.

[Michael Alpert]

You may be choosing standards for yourself,
but some of the most beautiful portraits I've seen on this site recently, have been very selective in the areas presented as sharp-

Photography might be capable of presenting uniform detail over large areas of print,
but an inspired composition, regardless of overall sharpness,
will always trump a technically adept, but boring picture-

To say that photographs can only exist on print is to relegate yourself to a photographic backwater;
surely it can't be beyond anyone to appreciate great art wherever it presents itself?
And in whatever medium?

for me, it's whatever moves me, in whatever medium-
and if that includes areas which don't include high resolution,
well, so be it-

j

Joseph,

You did not understand what I posted. That's okay, but reread it.

[jb7]

Well, I did-
Maybe you're right-

j