Switch to English Language Passer en langue franÁaise Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,291   Posts: 1,535,443   Online: 854
      
Page 6 of 10 FirstFirst 12345678910 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 93
  1. #51
    MaximusM3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    NY
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    756
    Images
    7
    Quote Originally Posted by cliveh View Post
    Maximus, donít take this the wrong way, as I value what you are saying. I am not saying that the image should be so good and strong, as to not warrant expert printing, as this should obviously be the next logical step. However, the time spent printing is not a reflection of image value. The time involved in making the print is of no significance to the value of the final print, if it be 10 seconds or several hours.
    Of course, Clive, maybe my words came across the wrong way. The "real" value is not in the time itself (although, from a business standpoint time is money). I used 3 hours, but it could be two minutes, or whatever it takes to achieve a great print and one that the artist (and potential buyers/viewers) can be satisfied with. Now, from a "perceived" value standpoint, this could be looked at differently. Let's say I have a very difficult negative, of a great image, that I really want to bring out in print. Such negative may require extended time and a few somersaults in the darkroom. That final print may have more emotional value to me because it required extra time and effort, and a great result giving a higher sense of accomplishment. Now, if I can transfer that same notion of value to a viewer (or again, maybe a potential buyer), I have achieved my goals, an even greater sense of satisfaction, and "real" tangible value.

    Max

  2. #52
    zsas's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    1,959
    Images
    74
    Clive what do you think of the Straight Print (2) vs the Fine Print (8) at the below?
    http://www.rangeoflightphotography.c...fine-art-print

    Do you really believe your quote below to be true after seeing the steps (ie time) involved to get from step 1 to step 8?

    Quote Originally Posted by cliveh View Post
    ...the time spent printing is not a reflection of image value. The time involved in making the print is of no significance to the value of the final print, if it be 10 seconds or several hours.
    Last edited by zsas; 02-28-2012 at 05:17 PM. Click to view previous post history. Reason: fix quote
    Andy

  3. #53
    blansky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Wine country in Northern California
    Posts
    5,029
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Bertilsson View Post
    I honestly don't understand the metaphor of the last sentence.
    Are you saying that we spend too much time worrying about the process of photography, and not enough time with the actual content?

    Not sure how that applies to everybody else, but to me the ultimate destination is a print, (i.e. looking 'through' the eye glasses). Others may or may not agree.
    So the value of the print is, to me, that the artist cared enough about the picture to print it and present it in a way that it represents the idea, emotion, and message the artist intended. This involves size, print values, toning, etc. A highly literal interpretation of the negative might be exactly how the photographer sees things, or there could be heavy manipulation involved. Either way, to see a print in the way the artist intended it, trumps all other ways of viewing the work, and truly the way to see through the eye glasses, as you put it. The way a picture is printed heavily supports the content, in my own opinion. At least that is how I try to express myself and choose to view the work of others.
    What I'm saying is that the medium is obviously important BUT not as important as the impact of the content.

    The OP asked about value. A beautiful negative and exquisite print with a mediocre subject is like a beautiful woman with no soul.

    So to me, VALUE is about impact and not pretty prints.

    The "lookiing through the glasses" is not the print, it's the subject.

    I think you're still talking about the 2 dimensional print and I'm talking about the transcendent subject matter.
    Last edited by blansky; 02-28-2012 at 05:36 PM. Click to view previous post history.
    I couldn't think of anything witty to say so I left this blank.

  4. #54
    Vaughn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Humboldt Co.
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    4,635
    Images
    40
    And then there is the middle ground.

    I craft a fine print from the negative I carefully created as the result of the seeing I did in the field (I mostly work in the landscape).

    But my prints are full-frame (no cropping) and with no dodging and no burning. I make my own materials (okay, I don't actually make the paper base, nor render the pigs/cows to make the gelatin, nor ground up the pigments, not grow/refine the sugar, nor make my own Ammonium dichromate from scratch -- and I buy the acetone).

    I adjust the print contrast thru the exposure and development of the negative and by adjusting the pigment concentration I add to the gelatin and the dichromate amount/concentration I use to sensitize the resulting carbon tissue. I determine print color by the pigments I choose to mix with the gelatin and sugar.

    So the music score and performance model does not fit exactly to the way I work. Instead I walk thru the landscape until I find the light that will convey my experience of the moment and then attempt to place that light via the negative onto paper in such a way that will express that experience to me and hopefully to others.

    So there is no score, there is no music, there is only the relationship with the light I experienced.

    Vaughn

    PS -- the time it takes to make a print? It can sometimes be measured in days.

    PS#2 -- For me, the image and print are just the two sides of the same coin.
    At least with LF landscape, a bad day of photography can still be a good day of exercise.

  5. #55
    Thomas Bertilsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    14,241
    Images
    296
    Quote Originally Posted by blansky View Post
    What I'm saying is that the medium is obviously important BUT not as important as the impact of the content.

    The OP asked about value. A beautiful negative and exquisite print with a mediocre subject is like a beautiful woman with no soul.

    So to me, VALUE is about impact and not pretty prints.

    The "lookiing through the glasses" is not the print, it's the subject.

    I think you're still talking about the 2 dimensional print and I'm talking about the transcendent subject matter.
    No. I don't think we understand each other. A print is enhanced by someone who prints very well. But of course you have to start with a good negative. One does not exclude the other.
    Neg = important
    Print = important
    Vision, content, subject matter = all is important. But, and this is my point, that good picture really comes alive in a great print. I really don't see how anybody could disagree. How does a great print of an already interesting picture detract from it? Could it?
    "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. #56

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Midlands, UK
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    919
    'Fine art' photography and the 'fine print' are two terms I've grown very tired of, relatively quickly. I like to think that's because my appreciation of photogaphy lies with the image - that thing that stays in our mind once our eyes have been averted - which many, many, many people here constantly skirt around in pursuit of nuance, which because of a tradition delusion, is linked to image value, but actually quickly forgotten by the viewer. What's left is a completely *unmemorable photograph with a memorable price tag.

    There's something inherently defeatist about the traditional 'fine art' photographer, almost a dissasociative personality disorder. They know full well their work, because of its label, has been restricted in its universalities and impact, but the label brings them comfort for their shortcomings, a tradition to blindly follow and a small audience. I'm offering some provocative outside thinking with that estimation, as I'm young enough to have broken the 'fine art' habit before it defined my photography and open minded enough to have a broader appreciation of photography as art. As much as I favor traditional materials, my value judgment isn't restricted to their use and my image making isn't restricted to the tradition of its use in representation (and presentation), which because of associated literature, has become blinkered. I want my work to have value outside of this cult of tradition and won't deny myself the possibility.*

    I think by adhering to an aesthetic that sells the work has only attained an illusion of value. That's 'fine art' photography and that's all that's being discussed here unfortunately.*
    *

  7. #57
    Bill Burk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    3,205
    Images
    46
    To illustrate the value of seeing a print in person, a print that does not come across on the web is...

    Edward Weston, William Edmonson, Sculptor, Nashville.

    http://www.artsconnected.org/resourc...ptor-nashville

    When I saw this print in person, I was drawn to the textures of the earth, toes, the drapery. These come across ok on the web. But his eyes are awry. It setup an odd tension that I felt and that made me remember this print. You can't see his eyes clearly in this depiction. In the print it feels like a hot dry day. The print does not feel dark like the online presentation.

  8. #58
    Bill Burk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    3,205
    Images
    46
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Bertilsson View Post
    Neg = important
    Print = important
    Vision, content, subject matter = all is important.
    If you have excellent vision, content, subject matter.

    Then Neg and Print do not need to be great. This is where you are Cliveh.

    When Neg and Print are great but vision, content and subject matter are lackluster.

    Then we all know this does not create value. We can only hope our prints do not fall in this category.

    Elevated quality in a variety of these areas makes interesting photography.

  9. #59
    Bill Burk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    3,205
    Images
    46
    Quote Originally Posted by Maris View Post
    If someone offered me a good quality, good condition, original Ansel Adams, say 16" X 20", characteristic of his mature style for a few grand I'd say sold! I'm interested in Ansel's mind, how he sees things, and the photographs are merely a device to make this possible. As for the photograph itself, it would be some distance down the track before I'd bother asking "what's it of"?
    Viewing a print produced by the artist...

    You can compare where you stand in relation. You can say to yourself... "I can do that!"... "I could do that if only I learn how to use Farmer's Reducer!"... "No wonder his Cibachromes look better than mine, he used 4x5 while I used 35mm"... "I could never do that so I will stand here in awe!"... "I could come close and that by itself would be an achievement!" You can see specific areas where you need to improve.

    This is where vintage work has exceeding value to me! I try to see something human, an error perhaps, in early work of a highly-regarded photographer. Not to put down or feel high and mighty, but to feel more in touch with the artist as a person. What were they like when they themselves were just learning?

    After viewing vintage prints I often feel this emotion: "Now maybe I can't take it as far as the mature artist did, but I can see that the young artist was a lot like me."

  10. #60
    Bill Burk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    3,205
    Images
    46
    Sorry to have hijacked this thread, but after a long run of Contrast Index discussion, this is real exciting.

    Cliveh, you have plenty of cred. I am the one who needs to put some prints on the line so you can get to know me.



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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