Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,692   Posts: 1,548,949   Online: 825
      
Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 55
  1. #31

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Omaha, Nebraska
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,512
    Images
    4
    Books are a poor representation of the original print. However, I believe the reproductions in books are better then what you can see on a wall in many cases due to how the presentation is designed. I guess I don't see the point in exhibiting photographs if the viewer cannot see the photograph in the way it was intended to be viewed. How can one gain an appreciation for the work in that way? I don't know if it is such a bad thing to be able to see a digital facsimile of the actual print. We would at least be able to see detail and tonality that the photographer intended the viewer to see but is often unviewable due to the lighting parameters.

    If one considers painting, then you do lose a tremendous amount in the translation to a digital print. For one thing brush strokes and how the pigment is applied (brush, knife etc) cannot be replicated and for most works that is a key element. But consider a digital print created right after Mark Rothko had completed each work. We would be able to see a much closer representation of the colors he used. That would be interesting considering the materials he used in his pigments are causing pretty rapid decay and fading of his works.

    I guess this is getting wildly off topic from the original post about digitizing the Evans prints. But I think we are going to see digital used more and more as a presentation technique that falls somewhere between book reproductions and the actual piece hanging in a gallery or museum.
    "Fundamentally I think we need to rediscover a non-ironic world"
    Robert Adams

  2. #32

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    234

    process=concept?

    Quote Originally Posted by per volquartz
    If re-inventing makes more people interested in art or creates new dialog about art in general it is good. If re-inventing is nothing more than a commerciel attempt to make a quick profit it should be rejected.

    It is so important that photography like any other art form be debated, discussed and thought about by as many people as possible.

    Some people still belive that photography is mainly about technoque and "tricks". In order to prevent such notion from spreading we all should concentrate on content - not technique (or "tricks") - digital or film based.
    Very often the very "tricks" that artists use are part of the concept of the art. Van Gogh's brushstrokes, are the equivelant of Winogrand's tilted horizons. You simply cannot say concentrate on content and ignore technique. Without technique (process) there is no art. It's all one. Nothing is causeless. Process causes content.
    Severian- Autarch of Urth

  3. #33

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    234

    Wingrand's process

    When Winogrand died didn't he have 10 or 12,000 rolls of film undeveloped?
    These photographs are forever lost to us as "Gary Winogrand Photographs" because the process was left incomplete. He never selected those that he would have considered content worthy. No one else can or could do Winogrand's editing.
    The last time I saw an EW print that was made by his son it was priced at , believe, $1200.00. What would an "original" print of #30 be worth if it was verifiably made by EW? Why? Possibly because the process of making the work was complete. EW had made it . Not CW or BW. Process is more than choosing dektol or amidol. There is no great inherent value in the content of #30 (formalism) . The value is in the process that was seen to the finish by the artist.

    Severian- Autarch of Urth

  4. #34
    MattKing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Delta, British Columbia, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    12,466
    Images
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by severian
    When Winogrand died didn't he have 10 or 12,000 rolls of film undeveloped?
    These photographs are forever lost to us as "Gary Winogrand Photographs" because the process was left incomplete. He never selected those that he would have considered content worthy. No one else can or could do Winogrand's editing.
    The last time I saw an EW print that was made by his son it was priced at , believe, $1200.00. What would an "original" print of #30 be worth if it was verifiably made by EW? Why? Possibly because the process of making the work was complete. EW had made it . Not CW or BW. Process is more than choosing dektol or amidol. There is no great inherent value in the content of #30 (formalism) . The value is in the process that was seen to the finish by the artist.

    Severian- Autarch of Urth
    It is certainly possible that an Edward Weston made print could turn out to be a less successful realization of his vision, than the $1,200.00 print made by one of his sons. While you might rather collect the Edward Weston print, you might rather have on your wall the print made by one of his sons.

    It is equally possible that the Edward Weston print would be far better.

    The involvement of someone other than the original photographer as printer adds an artistic sensability into the process - maybe for the better, or maybe for the worse - and the resulting print is a different artistic statement.

    I know that when I print one of my own photographs, it is not a rare experience to discover that what I end up emphasizing in the editing and printing process is different than the result I envisioned when I took the photograph. I would guess that is a phenomenon experienced by Edward Weston and Gerry Winogrand too.

    The printing process involves both craft and art. A print that is created using lower quality materials or techniques will be less successful. A print which is created by someone with poor artistic vision will also be less successful.

    I would rather see an inkjet reproduction prepared by a skilled and experienced printer who uses with care and artistic insight good quality digital materials and techniques, then a silver gelatin print prepared by a printer with poor technique and poor artistic vision.

    Of course, what I would prefer to see is a silver gelatin print prepared by a skilled and visionary printer. I believe that skillful use of analogue media gives the best results.

    If that (analogue) printer was either the original photographer, or working under the direction of the original photographer, then it is probably (but not necessarily) the case that the print will evidence a continuity of artistic vision, right from setup, through exposure and processing and printing.

    Certainly it is important to identify the fact that the process used for the reproductions can materially change the result, and cause that result to be radically inferior than the original.

    Going back to the original subject of the thread, I'd like to see original Walker Evans prints, but if I can't see them, I wouldn't mind seeing big Walker Evans inkjet prints, if they have been well prepared and presented. I can enjoy experiencing the images, and can mentally compensate for the means of reproduction.

    My (far less than $1,200.00) worth.

    Matt

  5. #35
    Dave Wooten's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Vegas/mysterious mohave co. az, Big Pine Key Fla.
    Shooter
    ULarge Format
    Posts
    2,715
    Images
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by MattKing
    .............Going back to the original subject of the thread, I'd like to see original Walker Evans prints, but if I can't see them, I wouldn't mind seeing big Walker Evans inkjet prints, if they have been well prepared and presented. I can enjoy experiencing the images, and can mentally compensate for the means of reproduction.

    My (far less than $1,200.00) worth.

    Matt
    Totally agree with Matt here...

  6. #36
    roteague's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Kaneohe, Hawaii
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    6,672
    Images
    18
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Wooten
    Totally agree with Matt here...
    I understand what Matt is trying to say ... however, I prefer not to encourage galleries to continue showing ink jet prints, so I would just leave.
    Robert M. Teague
    www.visionlandscapes.com
    www.apug.org/forums/portfolios.php?u=2235

    "A man who works with his hands is a laborer; a man who works with his hands and his brain is a craftsman; a man who works with his hands and his brain and his heart is an artist" -- Louis Nizer

  7. #37
    c6h6o3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    3,181
    Images
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by HerrBremerhaven
    We might imagine that if Walker Evans ever expected his images to become giant sized prints, perhaps his approach, methods, or set-up would have been different.

    There was an article about a now famous photographer from Africa and an exhibit not very long ago. Seems there were some issues about who had the true rights to make prints, and some family legal matters, but those were secondary issues. The original portraits were done using medium format and large format cameras. The exhibit at issue featured huge wall size prints, which if I recall correctly were actual photographic prints, not lithos, and I think prior to large inkjet ever being used for exhibits. The photographer, whose name escapes me at the moment, ran a portrait studio, and never did prints much larger than near 16" by 20". So to suddenly make huge prints was not true to how the photographer originally approached those images. My preference would be to size the original sizes, and I would enjoy that more than seeing giant prints.

    Ciao!

    Gordon Moat
    A G Studio
    [size=2]"The smallest modification of tonality affects structure. Some things have to be rather large, but elegance is the presentation of things in their minimum dimensions..."

    Frederick Sommer
    General Aesthetics, 1979[/size]

  8. #38

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    234

    EW ,CW, BW

    Quote Originally Posted by MattKing
    It is certainly possible that an Edward Weston made print could turn out to be a less successful realization of his vision, than the $1,200.00 print made by one of his sons. While you might rather collect the Edward Weston print, you might rather have on your wall the print made by one of his sons.

    It is equally possible that the Edward Weston print would be far better.

    The involvement of someone other than the original photographer as printer adds an artistic sensability into the process - maybe for the better, or maybe for the worse - and the resulting print is a different artistic statement.

    I know that when I print one of my own photographs, it is not a rare experience to discover that what I end up emphasizing in the editing and printing process is different than the result I envisioned when I took the photograph. I would guess that is a phenomenon experienced by Edward Weston and Gerry Winogrand too.

    The printing process involves both craft and art. A print that is created using lower quality materials or techniques will be less successful. A print which is created by someone with poor artistic vision will also be less successful.

    I would rather see an inkjet reproduction prepared by a skilled and experienced printer who uses with care and artistic insight good quality digital materials and techniques, then a silver gelatin print prepared by a printer with poor technique and poor artistic vision.

    Of course, what I would prefer to see is a silver gelatin print prepared by a skilled and visionary printer. I believe that skillful use of analogue media gives the best results.

    If that (analogue) printer was either the original photographer, or working under the direction of the original photographer, then it is probably (but not necessarily) the case that the print will evidence a continuity of artistic vision, right from setup, through exposure and processing and printing.

    Certainly it is important to identify the fact that the process used for the reproductions can materially change the result, and cause that result to be radically inferior than the original.

    Going back to the original subject of the thread, I'd like to see original Walker Evans prints, but if I can't see them, I wouldn't mind seeing big Walker Evans inkjet prints, if they have been well prepared and presented. I can enjoy experiencing the images, and can mentally compensate for the means of reproduction.

    My (far less than $1,200.00) worth.

    Matt
    Edward Weston's sons could not make a more successful realization of Edward Westons vision because they are not Edward Weston.

    Jack

  9. #39
    Rolleiflexible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York City
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,274
    Images
    31

    OP: Another perspective

    I started this thread. Obviously, I have a preference for the darkroom over the inkjet, otherwise I wouldn't be here. But I am surprised by the amount of anger directed at this exhibit in this thread, and even directed at the New York Times for reporting it. I thought the review was uncommonly thoughtful, both with respect to the exhibiton and the nature of photography generally.

    I disagree with much of what has been written here. As for the sanctity of Walker Evans's images, the importance of the medium and the size of the prints: You all are forgetting the circumstances of their creation. Evans was shooting for the Farm Services Administration and, for a summer, for Fortune Magazine (with James Agee). Evans did not even own the copyright to his photos. FSA could print them mural-size if they wanted. (And, indeed, Depression agencies like FSA and WPA often did make mural-sized public art.) As for the sanctity of silver gelatin, Evans shot with the expectation that the photographs would be printed in books or magazines, or presented in other mass media. Fortune and FSA weren't in the business of selling limited editions of silver gelatin prints.

    Evans shot his images with the expectation (or, at least, the hope) that his photographs would be widely seen, in whatever media his masters chose to present them. I, for one, think Evans would be tickled to have large-scale reproductions of his photographs of poor Southerners on view in the Manhattan lobby gallery of a Swiss bank. Doesn't such an exhibit reach exactly the audience he had hoped to reach in Fortune Magazine? (Which, by the way, rejected the series as inappropriate for its readership.)

    And, as bad as you all think inkjet prints are, can they be any worse than the tiny crappy versions reproduced in countless copies of Let Us New Praise Famous Men? As between those small blurry facsimiles and the large-scale inkjet prints now on display, which do you think Evans would have preferred as a medium for the public to encounter his work?

    Sanders McNew
    www.mcnew.net/portraits

  10. #40

    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Shooter
    ULarge Format
    Posts
    100
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparky
    That poor man! (walker evans) First, it was Sherrie Levine, and now this!!
    Knowing a fair amount about Walker Evans from reading four or five books about him and his work, I think he'd be absolutely thrilled that his work was still being exhibited in any manner, shape, or form. He was one of the least technically oriented photographers around, he didn't do his own printing for most of his career, and he sold all of his negatives that he owned late in life, which he had to realize was going to result in reprints of them by many different people in many different forms. If he didn't care about that with the negatives he owned, why would he care about these prints from negatives he didn't own?

    It's kind of funny how this NY Times article is viewed as being pro or con digital depending on the type of forum. Over in the Yahoo digital black and white print forum it's viewed as being anti-digital. Here it seems to be viewed as anti-traditional.

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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