Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,549   Posts: 1,544,603   Online: 826
      
Page 3 of 10 FirstFirst 123456789 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 93
  1. #21
    cliveh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    3,317
    Images
    343
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Bertilsson View Post
    Yes, but in the book there is usually a level of interpretation in how the book should be printed, for example. It's not the 'real thing', even though for the most part it's the 'next best alternative'. Many of us cannot afford to buy expensive prints of our favorite artists, so we have to settle for a book.
    But, I really enjoy a print a lot more than I do a copy in a book.
    What do you mean by the real thing. My idea of the real thing would be the negative, or even the latent image.

    “The contemplation of things as they are, without error or confusion, without substitution or imposture, is in itself a nobler thing than a whole harvest of invention”

    Francis Bacon

  2. #22
    Thomas Bertilsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    14,289
    Images
    301
    Quote Originally Posted by cliveh View Post
    What do you mean by the real thing. My idea of the real thing would be the negative, or even the latent image.
    Is it difficult to appreciate that someone likes to view an original print more than some reproduction in a book, or worse yet, on the internet?
    "Often moments come looking for us". - Robert Frank

    "Make good art!" - Neil Gaiman

    "...the heart and mind are the true lens of the camera". - Yousuf Karsh

  3. #23
    MDR
    MDR is offline
    MDR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Austria
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,067
    The Internet or books often have a different surface characteristic than the print, if the image is meant to be seen in the digital domain or the wanted end product is a book reproduction or an inkjet print. Then the picture is better on the internet or in the book as it was the photographers original intention if on the other hand the photo was made to be seen as handprint in a gallery then the picture in the gallery is the better one. The photographers original intention is what should count. I personally prefer a good print hanging in gallery/museum to an internet picture.

    Dominik

  4. #24
    cliveh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    3,317
    Images
    343
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Bertilsson View Post
    Is it difficult to appreciate that someone likes to view an original print more than some reproduction in a book, or worse yet, on the internet?
    No it isn’t Thomas and I can understand how a hand crafted print particularly by the photographer is what a lot of people wish to see, particularly fellow darkroom workers. I suppose by value, I am talking about being precious about the print, and a lot depends on the type of picture we are looking at. A print can be crafted and produced in an infinite different ways, but only from the existing negative.

    “The contemplation of things as they are, without error or confusion, without substitution or imposture, is in itself a nobler thing than a whole harvest of invention”

    Francis Bacon

  5. #25
    Thomas Bertilsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    14,289
    Images
    301
    Quote Originally Posted by cliveh View Post
    No it isn’t Thomas and I can understand how a hand crafted print particularly by the photographer is what a lot of people wish to see, particularly fellow darkroom workers. I suppose by value, I am talking about being precious about the print, and a lot depends on the type of picture we are looking at. A print can be crafted and produced in an infinite different ways, but only from the existing negative.
    I'm not looking for an argument, but I don't agree with the 'latent image' being the purest representation of the artist's intent. It doesn't come alive until it's printed, so what's the point of worshipping the negative? It's an intermediary as a step to the destination of becoming something that is visible and comprehensible by the viewer. I mean, why do you feel it important enough to show prints here, in shows, and on your web site? Shouldn't you just let people look at your negatives? Or better yet, why not let them look with infrared light on an undeveloped piece of film with a latent image on it?

    Artists make choices when they print, and it's the culmination of all their decisions in framing the exposure, exposing the film, choice of processing, interpreting the negative, cropping and framing the print, and finally toning and choice of presentation. All those decisions matter to me, and one thing that is immensely important to me is scale. Imagine a Gursky print that's several feet across, represented by an 800x600 pixel jpeg on a web site, or an 8x6" reproduction in a book. While I don't like Gursky's work in general, I can appreciate the impact of scale, which is another intention the photographer has when they make their exposures.

    So, to me, and this is my opinion, I think the final print holds tremendous value for the viewing experience. It is an entirely different experience from looking in a book, on a computer screen or projection. Someone mentioned surface texture of a print; you mentioned photogravure - the relief of the print, which I think is an important aspect of making them in the first place, and it doesn't show in a book or on a computer screen.

    There are many reasons for me to enjoy the print as the ultimate form of expression.
    "Often moments come looking for us". - Robert Frank

    "Make good art!" - Neil Gaiman

    "...the heart and mind are the true lens of the camera". - Yousuf Karsh

  6. #26
    David Brown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    near Dallas, TX USA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    3,301
    Images
    6
    OK, Clive. For you, there is no added value to seeing an original print over a reproduction. I will accept that, and maybe some others will ...

    But you asked the question. Not everybody agrees, and when you ask this type of question, this is what happens.

    I think the whole discussion comes down to the fact that you do not consider a print to be anything but a "reproduction" of the negative, so there is no more value there than any other type of reproduction. Fair enough. But, as you can see, there is a variety of opinions.

  7. #27
    cliveh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    3,317
    Images
    343
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Bertilsson View Post
    I'm not looking for an argument, but I don't agree with the 'latent image' being the purest representation of the artist's intent. It doesn't come alive until it's printed, so what's the point of worshipping the negative? It's an intermediary as a step to the destination of becoming something that is visible and comprehensible by the viewer. I mean, why do you feel it important enough to show prints here, in shows, and on your web site? Shouldn't you just let people look at your negatives? Or better yet, why not let them look with infrared light on an undeveloped piece of film with a latent image on it?

    Artists make choices when they print, and it's the culmination of all their decisions in framing the exposure, exposing the film, choice of processing, interpreting the negative, cropping and framing the print, and finally toning and choice of presentation. All those decisions matter to me, and one thing that is immensely important to me is scale. Imagine a Gursky print that's several feet across, represented by an 800x600 pixel jpeg on a web site, or an 8x6" reproduction in a book. While I don't like Gursky's work in general, I can appreciate the impact of scale, which is another intention the photographer has when they make their exposures.

    So, to me, and this is my opinion, I think the final print holds tremendous value for the viewing experience. It is an entirely different experience from looking in a book, on a computer screen or projection. Someone mentioned surface texture of a print; you mentioned photogravure - the relief of the print, which I think is an important aspect of making them in the first place, and it doesn't show in a book or on a computer screen.

    There are many reasons for me to enjoy the print as the ultimate form of expression.
    Thomas, I agree that the final print holds tremendous value for the viewing experience for many people and in some cases even me. By final print, I assume you mean a silver or wet print.

    When Beethoven wrote one of his symphonies he may also/or not have conducted the orchestra to play it. This could be said to be unique, as it his original score and his interpretation of his score to performance. However, someone in the future may conduct a version of this symphony that most people consider better, but both versions come from the original score. This does not detract from the value of the writer’s original interpretation, but let us also remember that the original orchestrated by writer of the score, was also performed with the instruments and technology available at the time. Future technology may allow a better interpretation not available to Beethoven at the time.

    Does this help, as I also am not trying to start an argument, it is just my opinion.

    “The contemplation of things as they are, without error or confusion, without substitution or imposture, is in itself a nobler thing than a whole harvest of invention”

    Francis Bacon

  8. #28
    Vaughn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Humboldt Co.
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    4,649
    Images
    40
    My end "product" is a finished hand-made print...an art piece. Any other form of my work is only a reproduction. But since many people will never get to see one of my prints, reproductions are a way to share what my art is like.

    I try not to extend this bias to the work of others...mostly I am successful. I am equally an image maker and a print maker. To see only a reproduction of my work is to only see half of my art.

    Vaughn
    At least with LF landscape, a bad day of photography can still be a good day of exercise.

  9. #29

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    local
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    16,308
    Blog Entries
    5
    Images
    50
    Quote Originally Posted by cliveh View Post
    Thomas, I agree that the final print holds tremendous value for the viewing experience for many people and in some cases even me. By final print, I assume you mean a silver or wet print.

    When Beethoven wrote one of his symphonies he may also/or not have conducted the orchestra to play it. This could be said to be unique, as it his original score and his interpretation of his score to performance. However, someone in the future may conduct a version of this symphony that most people consider better, but both versions come from the original score. This does not detract from the value of the writer’s original interpretation, but let us also remember that the original orchestrated by writer of the score, was also performed with the instruments and technology available at the time. Future technology may allow a better interpretation not available to Beethoven at the time.

    Does this help, as I also am not trying to start an argument, it is just my opinion.

    the difference is that the score and the playing of the score are not the same as a photograph and a photoreproduction.
    your argument would make (more?) sense if it was the playing of beethoven's piece LIVE and a reproduction of it
    on tape, microcassett, reel to reel a wire recording of it &c.
    beethoven conducting his own symphony and someone else conducting it ( days, years or centuries later ) has to do with interpretation,
    like 2 different people making prints from the same negative ...

    reproduction ( not matter what the technology ) has nothing to do with interpretation + creation...
    silver magnets, trickle tanks sold
    artwork often times sold for charity
    PM me for details

  10. #30
    Thomas Bertilsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    14,289
    Images
    301
    Quote Originally Posted by cliveh View Post
    Thomas, I agree that the final print holds tremendous value for the viewing experience for many people and in some cases even me. By final print, I assume you mean a silver or wet print.

    When Beethoven wrote one of his symphonies he may also/or not have conducted the orchestra to play it. This could be said to be unique, as it his original score and his interpretation of his score to performance. However, someone in the future may conduct a version of this symphony that most people consider better, but both versions come from the original score. This does not detract from the value of the writer’s original interpretation, but let us also remember that the original orchestrated by writer of the score, was also performed with the instruments and technology available at the time. Future technology may allow a better interpretation not available to Beethoven at the time.

    Does this help, as I also am not trying to start an argument, it is just my opinion.
    When I view other people's prints, I am not judgmental with respect to what type of print it is. I enjoy inkjet prints, photogravures, silver gelatin prints, and RA4 prints with the same enthusiasm. For my own purposes, definitely a silver gelatin print, mostly because of how pure the process is; for me there is a very direct link between subject matter as I see it, and the final print with silver gelatin.

    Re: Composers - I don't think the comparison is fair. A negative should be compared to the sheet music in my opinion, and a print, which is an interpretation of the negative, should be compared to a musical interpretation of the sheet music. We cannot listen to something that Beethoven conducted, obviously, but luckily there are many talented conductors that can. While we can never know exactly what Beethoven's preferences were, other than historical records, at least we have the sheet music.
    With a photographic print, we're still in an age where prints made when the artists were still alive can be viewed, as a testament to their preference and decisions made while they printed them, and that is of tremendous value in my opinion. For example, I forget the name of that New York photographer whose negatives they found recently, documenting the city over decades. Finding those negatives holds tremendous value, but I think if they had found prints also, that would have been even more valuable. That would have been equal to knowing how Beethoven would prefer that his musical scores were performed.

    I agree that future technologies may take us places we haven't even imagined yet. I have no idea whether I will like it or not. Only time will tell. Opinions change and vary with experience, that's for sure. I'm only 40 years old, and have been through many changes already, and I'm curious to find what the future holds.
    "Often moments come looking for us". - Robert Frank

    "Make good art!" - Neil Gaiman

    "...the heart and mind are the true lens of the camera". - Yousuf Karsh

Page 3 of 10 FirstFirst 123456789 ... LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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