Lenswork - Ouch!

[jd callow]

Well, sure. BUT:

If you are doing work for magazine reproduction, don't fool yourself about the "purity" of the print. Irving Penn didn't start with platinum prints, he built a fabulous body of work which reproduced well by the millions. The magazine page, the newspaper, the web page -- THESE ARE JUST AS REAL AS ANY OTHER PRINT. Penn found that many of his negatives could also be used to make fantastic art objects for display on rather expensive walls. But anyone who claims that photography is implictly "art" and that mass reproduction is somehow a lesser thing either doesn't know what they're talking about or they're blowing thickly pretentious smoke.

I made no claims about originals being pure, or that photography is implicitly art; or that reproductions can be neither and I most assuredly didn't bring mass production into the discussion. As a matter of fact why did you quote me? I had turned away from the word 'real' to address the objects themselves. A scan may be as real as a print or halftone or transparency and I have and can enjoy them all. Its not hard to determine which are of higher quality and quality generally makes for a more fulfilling experience.

I do agree that people who speak in absolutes tend to be wrong, pretentious and or full of themselves if not hot air.

[Rob_5419]

Brunner -

you still fail to understand.

No one is claiming that the history of photography's reproducibility has anything to do with the essence of photography.

Originally Posted by Rob_5419
I think you miss the point about photography: photography has a long history of reproduction. The more a photographer/printer tries to divorce photography from reproducibility, the more he unwittingly moves into the field of commerce and fine art pretensions.

The tongue in cheek reference over refusing to print the negative, so that it could be even more irreproducible than the limited fine art edition of 1 print.....

Subsequent posters clarify the issue more succinctly...

Back to tongue in cheek:

I do agree that people who speak in absolutes tend to be wrong, pretentious and or full of themselves if not hot air.

Is than an absolute? ;`)

[jd callow]

without exception, almost

[rjas]

or ink sprayed on paper isn't a photograph. A real print by a master photographer/printer is something entirely different to behold.

you can behold your master prints all you want, the fact of the matter is society a hundred years from now will remember the images that matter, no one will care in the least bit (except for self righteous analog photographers who care more about the medium than the content) what the hell it's printed on, inkjet paper, silver paper, cheapo magazine paper, toilet paper, etc. And don't even start with the archival battle - what are the chance of someone caring about any of our photographs which can last 200 years? I've got magazines from the 60's that still get the point across. Who cares, lets all get over ourselves.

Photographs are meant to be reproduced. If all we cared about was the intrinsic qualities of the first generation and one-off's why wouldn't we just take up painting? Or just stare at negatives all day? Screw the print, it's about content, not about type of paper you are using. As soon as you start concentrating on the aesthetic qualities of the printed material more than your vision you've totally lost the ball and as far as I'm concerned are spiralling towards the "only make one print and burn the negative" camp.

but I'm on the wrong forum to be discussing content....

disclaimer: I don't even own a digital camera, or a capable scanner, or a photo printer. I do have a darkroom though.

[rjas]

The reproducibility isn't the point. Not at all. If you speak of the essence or spirit of a photograph, then I understand what you are communicating, but articulating a perception between a web based image on an LCD screen, and a physical print (the photographers exact intention), as different experiences, is hardly a commercial or fine art pretention.

What is it about touching a print that makes you suddenly realize the photographers vision? Do you sit around rubbing the surface of the print to find the photographer's true meaning? .

[Ian Leake]

What is it about touching a print that makes you suddenly realize the photographers vision? Do you sit around rubbing the surface of the print to find the photographer's true meaning? Keep kidding yourself.

Reproductions are not inherently bad, but they are different. They have a different purpose and have different qualities. They tell us about the thing they reproduce. They are not the thing itself.

For example, I saw Paula Chamlee's Iceland portfolio recently. Her prints were intense and powerful: they really took my breath away. Looking at the scanned images on her website afterwards I felt none of the immediacy or emotion: I could remember it from when I saw the print, but the reproductions just didn't communicate her vision as effectively.

I have experienced this same thing many, many times with photographs, sculptures, paintings and architecture. The reproduction is just not the same as the original. It can't be, and pretending it is the same is denial of reality.

[Ian Leake]

Personally, I think most of this false conception is caused by "master printers" hiding behind medicore photographs when they give it some fancy name like "Double Bubble Gum Platinum Palladium Gelatin Diaspora" print or something fancy.

Yes, the process on it's own is just a tool. A fine print of a shallow image is an empty vessel regardless of the process used. But I'd rather see a fine print of a meaningful image than a crappy print of a meaningful image. (Afterthought: And I'd prefer to see a fine reproduction of a fine print of a meaningful image rather than a crappy reproduction of a meaningful image.) That's my preference, others may differ of course.

[clay]

Is it possible that her skill (or more likely, her interest) in producing a print far exceeds her skill in producing a web-ready jpeg image? These two presentation media have entirely different purposes in this example. The print is what is being sold, while the web image functions as a catalog entry, in effect. If the final presentation medium was only the web, I suspect a little more of that 'immediacy and emotion' could be injected into its presentation.

For example, I saw Paula Chamlee's Iceland portfolio recently. Her prints were intense and powerful: they really took my breath away. Looking at the scanned images on her website afterwards I felt none of the immediacy or emotion: I could remember it from when I saw the print, but the reproductions just didn't communicate her vision as effectively.

[Ian Leake]

Is it possible that her skill (or more likely, her interest) in producing a print far exceeds her skill in producing a web-ready jpeg image?

This is entirely possible.

These two presentation media have entirely different purposes in this example. The print is what is being sold, while the web image functions as a catalog entry, in effect. If the final presentation medium was only the web, I suspect a little more of that 'immediacy and emotion' could be injected into its presentation.

That's exactly my point. Reproductions usually have a different purpose - they tell us about the the thing rather than being the thing themselves. In this specific case the reproduction is online with a fine print being the original. In other cases the original could be a digital image shown online, with the print being a reproduction. One could possibly argue that in photojournalism the original is real life, while the photograph (in any medium) is a reproduction.

[billschwab]

Reproductions ... tell us about the the thing rather than being the thing themselves.

And how is it that photography, no matter how splendid, is not simply a poor reproduction of "real life"?

One could possibly argue that in photojournalism the original is real life, while the photograph (in any medium) is a reproduction.

Why would you argue this for only photojournalism?