Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,963   Posts: 1,523,231   Online: 840
      
Page 6 of 9 FirstFirst 123456789 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 84
  1. #51

    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Greenville, SC
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    4,813
    Images
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by mrcallow
    Sandy,

    I will surmise from your last post that what you are saying is that doing your own prints is a good thing, not a technical, creative or commercial barrier, but photographers of stature don't often do it (and that says what?).

    Seems pretty simple to me. The message appears to be that most color photographers, of stature or otherwise, don't find that the gain is worth the pain, i.e. that the advantage in interpretative control possible in printing one's own color prints either, 1) does not outweigh the inconvenience and time lost in doing so, or 2) does not produce a print that is perceived as either artistically or technically superior.

    Sandy

  2. #52
    Ed Sukach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Ipswich, Massachusetts, USA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    4,520
    Images
    26
    Quote Originally Posted by sanking
    Seems pretty simple to me. The message appears to be that most color photographers, of stature or otherwise, don't find that the gain is worth the pain, i.e. that the advantage in interpretative control possible in printing one's own color prints either, 1) does not outweight the inconvenience and time lost in doing so, or 2) does not produce a print that is perceived as either artistically or technically superior.
    True ... but what is the point? I'm sure that most "Black-and White photographers, of stature or otherwise" feel the same.

    I am not interested - and do not feel "out of it" - in the fact that I am not included in the category of "Most".

    I print color for the same reason I print black and white ... for the flexibility, and opportunity for expression.

    BTW - I disagree - at the risk of sounding conceited, In my opinion, my work is technically superior to what I see from commercial labs.
    Carpe erratum!!

    Ed Sukach, FFP.

  3. #53
    jd callow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Milan
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,002
    Images
    117
    Quote Originally Posted by sanking
    Seems pretty simple to me. The message appears to be that most color photographers, of stature or otherwise, don't find that the gain is worth the pain, i.e. that the advantage in interpretative control possible in printing one's own color prints either, 1) does not outweigh the inconvenience and time lost in doing so, or 2) does not produce a print that is perceived as either artistically or technically superior.

    Sandy
    I suspect you are correct that making your own c-prints is an inconvenience, can be costly and the market doesn't know the difference.


    It is a bit of a departure from your earlier comment, which I took exception to..
    Quote Originally Posted by sanking
    The time needed to master the skill requirements simply leave little or no time for the creative process of image making.
    I wondered how a person that can promote labour intensive activities such as creating digital neg's, alt printing and other process that have at heart the goal of a superior image could say that the effort required for colour printing interfered with the "the creative process of image making" and was not commercially viable.

    *

  4. #54
    Stan. L-B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    London & Friars Cliff Dorset UK
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    342
    Images
    1
    A slight change of tack but staying on course:

    An artist or craftsman, including photographers, that do not, perform each and every stage of an artistic production by his own hand is not fully in control, and therefore cannot be considered to have reached fulfilment or be truly competent. Commercial viability should never enter into the equation.

    Must now keep my head down below the parapet!
    'Determine on some course more than a wild exposure to each chance' The Bard.

  5. #55
    jd callow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Milan
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,002
    Images
    117
    that would be my point from a craft or artistic point of view.
    Last edited by mrcallow; 11-24-2004 at 01:36 PM. Click to view previous post history.

    *

  6. #56

    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Greenville, SC
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    4,813
    Images
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by mrcallow

    I wondered how a person that can promote labour intensive activities such as creating digital neg's, alt printing and other process that have at heart the goal of a superior image could say that the effort required for colour printing interfered with the "the creative process of image making" and was not commercially viable.

    Quite simply because I believe that the creation of hand-made prints with alternative processes such as carbon and Pt./Pd and carbon is more creative and interesting than pulling a sheet of paper out of a box from the factor, and that the uniqueness and permanence of the final product is worth the extra time one must spend to perfect their technique. From an artistic perspective I feel the same about color carbon prints, three-color gum prints, and other types of hand-made color prints.

    I don't feel the same about a C-print, whether it is made with wet processing by the artist or in a lab from a digital file. One can get a lot more control with inkjet prints, which are both more permanent, and to my eye at least, much more aesthetically pleasing than C-prints.


    Sandy

  7. #57
    Ed Sukach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Ipswich, Massachusetts, USA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    4,520
    Images
    26
    Quote Originally Posted by sanking
    I don't feel the same about a C-print, whether it is made with wet processing by the artist or in a lab from a digital file. One can get a lot more control with inkjet prints, which are both more permanent, and to my eye at least, much more aesthetically pleasing than C-prints.
    Inarguable. You are more than entitled to your "feeling" - I'd call that sacred ground. I don't feel that way, myself.

    A "C-Print" (RA-4) is possibly less malleable, more difficult to work ... but then again, oils are more easily worked than watercolors.

    I suppose one can make black-and-white scans and say that they are more easily printed and manipulated on "Ink-Jets" -- and more permanent ... (questionable in my mind - I always hear claims that the ink will last two hundred years... but nothing about the paper) but they are simply NOT the same. I won't attempt even come close to arguing about aesthetics... that ground is even MORE sacred.
    Carpe erratum!!

    Ed Sukach, FFP.

  8. #58
    jd callow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Milan
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,002
    Images
    117
    Sandy,
    You should do more c-prints. Some of my best work can only be done traditionally and the nuances of factory supplied out of the box materials can make monumental differences. The two images below are, in there highlight areas, too dense for anything shy of a drum scan each require 3 separate burns with separate filter packs and take on entirely different looks depending on whether they are printed on matte/glossy/flex or portrait or contrasty emulsions.

    The printing process takes about 2 min under the enlarger and 4 min dry to dry. Each time I do them I improve upon my prior efforts.

    I could have the negs drum scanned and locally correct density and colour, spot them, and print them to an inkjet. After 60 prints (2 hours worth of digital) I would net out with a savings in time, but the 60th print would be the same as the first. Whether an inkjet could provide the punch and verve that I get from a traditional c-print is another story.






    Of course they look far better in person than they do as scans.

    *

  9. #59

    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Greenville, SC
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    4,813
    Images
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by Ed Sukach
    I suppose one can make black-and-white scans and say that they are more easily printed and manipulated on "Ink-Jets" -- and more permanent ... (questionable in my mind - I always hear claims that the ink will last two hundred years... but nothing about the paper) but they are simply NOT the same. I won't attempt even come close to arguing about aesthetics... that ground is even MORE sacred.
    Granted, the claims made for the permanence of inkjet pigmented prints is based on accelerated aging testing, the validity of which can certainly be questioned. What can not be questioned, however, is that C-prints will fade. I made a lot of C-prints some two decades ago and every one of them, even the ones kept in dark storage, show some signs of fading. The ones that were displayed for a few years in subdued room lighthave faded terribly. The R prints that I made back then have also faded terribly. The only color prints that I made during that period that have not faded are Cibachromes.

    So in the face of the absolute certainity of the lack of permanence of C-prints I am willing to take a chance that color prints made with pigmented ink sets will be more permanent.

    And in any event, I much prefer the soft matte look of inkjet prints on water color papers than the surface of any C-print I have seen.

    Sandy

  10. #60
    Ed Sukach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Ipswich, Massachusetts, USA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    4,520
    Images
    26
    Quote Originally Posted by sanking
    What can not be questioned, however, is that C-prints will fade. I made a lot of C-prints some two decades ago and every one of them, even the ones kept in dark storage, show some signs of fading. ..
    So in the face of the absolute certainity of the lack of permanence of C-prints I am willing to take a chance that color prints made with pigmented ink sets will be more permanent.
    Well, to make this a fair comparison, have the prints made with pigmented inks twenty years ago faded more or less than the chemical color prints?
    Or will "C" -- I dislike that terminology ... RA-4 prints done today, with modern chemistry fade equally as quickly?

    I have EP-2 prints done in 1991 (?) that appear not to have faded, and LOTS of RA-4 (!994-5?) that are still bright ... although I really can't compare them to the way they were originally. I should have made density measurements (CMYK) back then, but I did not.
    Carpe erratum!!

    Ed Sukach, FFP.



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin