Printing Art Photos
Scott Sorley
Hi,
I was wondering if anybody could post a quick rundown on the type of
printing used for contemporary photographic art.
I have only recently become interested in art photography and I have
noticed that most books, magazines and galleries refer to the editions
as printed on silver, platinum, albumen (I know about egg white) ...
This seems much more important in photographic art than other types of
photography and I am assuming (probably incorrectly) that typical art
gallery displays are more than home darkroom or minilab prints :))
I imagine for art photos to maintain value they also would require a
guarantee of life expectancy.
Any info would be appreciated.
Scott Sorley
sor...@usq.edu.au.NOSPAM
Don Minton
In my limited experience I have found that most "serious" galleries tend to
shy away from RC (Resin-Coated - that plasticy stuff you can
machine-process) prints in favor of Fiber-Based prints. Most of the times
I would submit my 'folio for review and get "nice pictures - but you need
to work on your print quality."
This is not usually the case with smaller non-profit group galleries or
co-op galleries, but the "fine art" places don't seem interested if it's
not printed "archival". i guess they want something they can sell to
collectors.
Granted, RC prints will tend to fade after a few years or decades, while
properly developed FB prints should last indefinitely. Of course, unless
you do all your own printing (& have access to a good darkroom) good
quality FB silver prints from a custom lab can run you two to several times
the cost of RC, and more for platinum or palladium. The learning curve
for printing FB can be very long and expensive as it is definitely more of
a craft. Today's RC papers are virtually fool-proof, and are very fast and
economical.
The above applies only to B&W, btw.
Scott Sorley <postm...@mail.connect.usq.edu.au> wrote in article
<338E12...@usq.edu.au>...
Jean-David Beyer
Don Minton wrote (in part):
> Granted, RC prints will tend to fade after a few years or decades, while
> properly developed FB prints should last indefinitely.
Who grants? I do not happen to like "the look" of RC prints, but they will
fade no faster than "properly developed FB prints" if they, too, are properly
developed, fixed, and washed.
--
Jean-David Beyer
Shrewsbury, New Jersey
Frederic Goudal
"Don Minton" <min...@mindspring.com> writes:
> In my limited experience I have found that most "serious" galleries tend to
> shy away from RC (Resin-Coated - that plasticy stuff you can
> machine-process) prints in favor of Fiber-Based prints. Most of the times
> I would submit my 'folio for review and get "nice pictures - but you need
> to work on your print quality."
> This is not usually the case with smaller non-profit group galleries or
> co-op galleries, but the "fine art" places don't seem interested if it's
> not printed "archival". i guess they want something they can sell to
> collectors.
If you want to sell a print, and sell something that won't last, you
can't sell it a "good" price. (good means a least covering the expenses),
>
> Granted, RC prints will tend to fade after a few years or decades, while
> properly developed FB prints should last indefinitely. Of course, unless
> you do all your own printing (& have access to a good darkroom) good
> quality FB silver prints from a custom lab can run you two to several times
> the cost of RC, and more for platinum or palladium. The learning curve
> for printing FB can be very long and expensive as it is definitely more of
> a craft.
I don't see where is the difference between RC and FB in the printing
process. Except drying. Except the time (longer to devellop, longer to
fix, looooooonger to wash).
f.g.
P.S. IMHO the different alternative process are for me the equivalent
of "Creative Filter" they seems to be used when ideas are not here.
--
Look at the things around you, the immediate world around you. If you are
alive, it will mean something to you, and if you care enough about
photography, and if you know how to use it, you will want to photograph that
meaningness. If you let other people's vision get between the world and your
own, you will achieve that extremely common and worthless thing, a pictorial
photograph.
Paul Strand "The Art Motive in Photography" the British Journal of Photography
1923, p 613
Frederic Goudal - gou...@enserb.u-bordeaux.fr - http://www.insat.com/~filh -
Beakman
Frederic Goudal (gou...@info.enserb.u-bordeaux.fr) wrote:
: P.S. IMHO the different alternative process are for me the equivalent
: of "Creative Filter" they seems to be used when ideas are not here.
Not much of a "humble opinion", Frederic. This has to be one of the most
ignorant comments I've ever read on Usenet.
disgusted,
David
--
______________________________________________________________________________
'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`
David Fokos Platinum/Palladium Photography
bea...@netcom.com
______________________________________________________________________________
'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`
Tom Ferguson
In article <uxiuzxo...@info.enserb.u-bordeaux.fr>, Frederic Goudal
<gou...@info.enserb.u-bordeaux.fr> wrote:
I note you quote one of my favorite photographers "Paul Strand" in you tag
line. Just before your ignorant statement about alternative proceses.
Odd, he did a lot of his printing in Platinum (probably the most commonly
practices alternative process today)!
>P.S. IMHO the different alternative process are for me the equivalent
>of "Creative Filter" they seems to be used when ideas are not here.
>
>
Frederic Goudal
In article <uxiuzxo...@info.enserb.u-bordeaux.fr>, Frederic Goudal
>P.S. IMHO the different alternative process are for me the equivalent
>of "Creative Filter" they seems to be used when ideas are not here.
Ok I wrote that. Ok people told me that I was a disgusting ignorant.
I'll have an hard time to justify a feeling.
The basis of this statement is that for me a good picture should stay
good printed on a newspaper, or a xerox copier.
If a picture has to be platinium printed to looks great, than the
greatness is in the platinium print, not the picture.
On the other hand, I have seen more techno freaks lost in their
chemical products, and forgetting to make pictures, than master of
picture creation doing heavy chemical manipulation.
The result is splendid prints of average picture. (Which is not
exactly the same as average print of a splendid picture).
I have seen lot of pictures whose only interest was the printing
process.
And if Strand did some platinium printing, the prints which makes him
famous are in fact "low" quality prints on books.
f.g.
P.S. I appreciate the quality of good printing, and if I had the money
I would make my prints on platinium. (Arghh I've said it all, I'm jsut
jalous....:) ) (second interpretation : I consider that some of my pictures
are good enough to deserve such a print, but for now I prefer putting
my time and mony on doing other pictures, which is more important).
Beakman
Frederic Goudal (gou...@info.enserb.u-bordeaux.fr) wrote:
: In article <uxiuzxo...@info.enserb.u-bordeaux.fr>, Frederic Goudal
: >P.S. IMHO the different alternative process are for me the equivalent
: >of "Creative Filter" they seems to be used when ideas are not here.
: Ok I wrote that. Ok people told me that I was a disgusting ignorant.
: I'll have an hard time to justify a feeling.
: The basis of this statement is that for me a good picture should stay
: good printed on a newspaper, or a xerox copier.
: If a picture has to be platinium printed to looks great, than the
: greatness is in the platinium print, not the picture.
O.K. I understand what you are saying, and perhaps having to write in
English led to some misunderstanding.
Yes I agree, there are some people who print in platinum or other
alt-processes just to be able to say so. On the other hand, if their
prints looks better when printed in platinum than when printed in silver,
then the choice of platinum seems appropriate to me.
: P.S. I appreciate the quality of good printing, and if I had the money
: I would make my prints on platinium. (Arghh I've said it all, I'm jsut
: jalous....:) ) (second interpretation : I consider that some of my pictures
: are good enough to deserve such a print, but for now I prefer putting
: my time and mony on doing other pictures, which is more important).
I don't think it's a matter of your prints being "good enough" to print
in platinum. Some people choose platinum for the qualities that the
platinum print offers -- they feel that these qualities work well with
their subject matter. If the subject is better rendered in silver, then
no matter how good the image is, silver is the appropriate medium. The
choice of medium should be based on image content, and not on some
ridiculous notion of which process is "better".
Quang-Tuan Luong
Frederic Goudal wrote:
> The basis of this statement is that for me a good picture should stay
> good printed on a newspaper, or a xerox copier.
>
> If a picture has to be platinium printed to looks great, than the
> greatness is in the platinium print, not the picture.
Yes, but what is this abstraction that you call "picture" ?
Is it the previsualisation ? One of the lessons of AA is that
the previsualization goes up to the print. The only thing that the
eye sees is the print (or a transparency). The process is part
of the equation.
On the other hand, I think it is correct that one of the goals
of alternative process people is to produce an image which
looks "different". In a recent issue of View Camera, a
carbon printer said that "if you go into Escalante Canyons, you
put your tripod in other photographer's tripod holes" and that
he wanted his photographs not to look the same as everyone's.
Tuan.
--
Quang-Tuan LUONG at SRI +1(415)859-5138 lu...@ai.sri.com
photographs in The Mountain Gallery at:
http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~qtluong/gallery/
Frederic Goudal
Quang-Tuan Luong <lu...@ai.sri.com> writes:
>
> Frederic Goudal wrote:
>
> > The basis of this statement is that for me a good picture should stay
> > good printed on a newspaper, or a xerox copier.
> >
> > If a picture has to be platinium printed to looks great, than the
> > greatness is in the platinium print, not the picture.
>
> Yes, but what is this abstraction that you call "picture" ?
> Is it the previsualisation ? One of the lessons of AA is that
> the previsualization goes up to the print. The only thing that the
> eye sees is the print (or a transparency). The process is part
> of the equation.
This is a damn good question. I will take an example. Let's imagin a
painting. Say Guernica by Picasso. The picture is what you have in
your mind under the name of Guernica by Picasso. Very few people have
indeed seen the original Painting. But a lot knows some reproduction
of the painting. And even if you don't have the original under the
eyes, you may judge the quality of the painter works.
If you really want to put all in equation, when you consider Guernica,
I have not seen the original, I have seen an "image" of the original,
because there is a glass to protect the painting, and I have not had
the direct vision of the painting.
What I call picture, is if you consider music what makes you recognise
the greatness (or the poor quality) of a piece of music, on a 2$
radio, on a 20.000$ equipment or in in a concert room. I have no
consistent definition. I could call it in french the "substentifique
moelle" (Thanks Rabelais) which means the very heart of the thing.
In my ideas the print are like the clothes of a (wo)man, they are just an
external look. What makes the quality of a (wo)man are not his(er) clothes,
even if a (wo)man with nice clothes looks better.
> On the other hand, I think it is correct that one of the goals
> of alternative process people is to produce an image which
> looks "different". In a recent issue of View Camera, a
> carbon printer said that "if you go into Escalante Canyons, you
> put your tripod in other photographer's tripod holes" and that
> he wanted his photographs not to look the same as everyone's.
I understand fully this point of view, as my last exhibition was about
a place which has been painted, photographed in all kind of way. But I
believe I did manage to find another point of view.
What makes an original picture is not the process. This man should go
elsewhere, or what he does is just a style exercise (which has its own
value), not an "original" work. His complain is a bit ridiculous, :
"Hey I went to the place where thousands of people did photographs, it
is sad that thousands of people did photograph it..."
f.g.
Beakman
Frederic Goudal (gou...@info.enserb.u-bordeaux.fr) wrote:
: In my ideas the print are like the clothes of a (wo)man, they are just an
: external look. What makes the quality of a (wo)man are not his(er) clothes,
: even if a (wo)man with nice clothes looks better.
So what if you are a fashion designer, and the clothes *are* your art? By
this I mean a photographer who has a very definite idea of what the final
print should be, and doesn't stop short after just conceptualizing an idea.
Guernica would *not* be the same if it had been rendered in pastels or in
watercolors, the selection of paint *was* important.
Since analogies are running rampant here, let me suggest that an
architect is an artist from whom the execution of the work is important.
In the conceptualization stage the architect says that the building
should have 8 rooms, and they should be this and that. However, if the
building is then constructed from very poor materials, leaving off
improtant mill work, and using the wrong color brick, etc. then the
result is not a good presentation of the architects original ideas.
So if I have the qualities of platinum in mind when I conceptualize an
image, then nothing else will be as good, and if I make a print with some
other materials, then my ideas/concepts will not be accurately
communicated to the viewer. Consider a translator working at the United
Nations, who doesn't translate precisely, but instead translates something
"related" to the original. It is obvious that ideas could be lost in the
translation.
Back to the architecture analogy... In this poorly rendered building,
what is presented is not only not a *good* representation of the original
ideas, but it presents a very *different* idea altogether, because someone
living or working in that building would have to interact with all these
changes. If the owner gets nauseated by the walls which were painted
chartreuse, you can't just say, "Oh, the architect is a brilliant man, he
originally specified that this wall should be off-white. This should have
been obvious to you." But it isn't obvious because the person does not
live inside the head of the architect. All he knows of the architect and
the architect's ideas, he has to learn by looking at the final
presentation. So if the walls are chartreuse, then he assumes that is
what the architect wanted, and that the architect is maybe not so good
after all.
Frederic Goudal
bea...@netcom.com (Beakman) writes:
>
> Frederic Goudal (gou...@info.enserb.u-bordeaux.fr) wrote:
>
> : In my ideas the print are like the clothes of a (wo)man, they are just an
> : external look. What makes the quality of a (wo)man are not his(er) clothes,
> : even if a (wo)man with nice clothes looks better.
>
> So what if you are a fashion designer, and the clothes *are* your art?
I was speaking about the value of the human beeing, and I guess you
understood it very well :)
>By
> this I mean a photographer who has a very definite idea of what the final
> print should be, and doesn't stop short after just conceptualizing an idea.
> Guernica would *not* be the same if it had been rendered in pastels or in
> watercolors, the selection of paint *was* important.
I cut the following comparison because it is near the same.
What you say is that some differences are very disturbing. I agree on
that point. The fact is that you may define a "distance" between the
concept and the different materializations you may have.
I pretend that the smaller the distance, the weaker the concept.
To say it the other way, if the concept is strong, than you can do a
lot of change without loosing the spirit.
It is possible to discuss what becomes a very strong concept, like the
Fountain by Duchamp which has given all the ready-made school, which
is in my mind only minor change to the original work.
f.g.
P.S. It should be kept in mind that this point of view is only mine,
and I don't think I say the truth in any way. But I believe in my way of
thinking.
Beakman
Frederic Goudal (gou...@info.enserb.u-bordeaux.fr) wrote:
: bea...@netcom.com (Beakman) writes:
: >
: > Frederic Goudal (gou...@info.enserb.u-bordeaux.fr) wrote:
: >
: > : In my ideas the print are like the clothes of a (wo)man, they are just an
: > : external look. What makes the quality of a (wo)man are not his(er) clothes,
: > : even if a (wo)man with nice clothes looks better.
: >
: > So what if you are a fashion designer, and the clothes *are* your art?
: What you say is that some differences are very disturbing. I agree on
: that point. The fact is that you may define a "distance" between the
: concept and the different materializations you may have.
: I pretend that the smaller the distance, the weaker the concept.
: To say it the other way, if the concept is strong, than you can do a
: lot of change without loosing the spirit.
I understand what you are trying to say, however, I think that in the end
it is the great execution of a great idea which makes a great artist.
And great execution depends on getting it exactly so -- not just a loose
interpretation. I think that presenting more than just the "spirit" of
the idea is necessary to be a great photographer. With poor execution you
might be a great idea man, but not a great photographer. The
photographic print is everything. There is nothing else that means
anything. It doesn't matter what camera or lens you use, how you took
the picture, how you developed it, etc. The print is all there is.
The print is the viewer's entire window into your idea.
If you will allow me another analogy...
How do we judge a chef? What makes a chef great? Obviously, it is the
taste of his food. If he tells us about his idea for a new entree', we
can say, "Hmmm, very creative. It seems like it might have some
potential." This does not make him a great chef. It makes him a great
idea man, perhaps. But not a great chef.
Now suppose that the chef is preparing this new entree' and she realizes
that she doesn't have the exact ingredients so she substitutes other
ingredients. The "spirit" of the original concept is still there, but the
taste is off. We taste it and say, "Interesting, but not great." The
chef says, "Yes, I know it's not right, but that's because I had to
substitute ingredients. It's really a great recipe though." Do we then
say, "Oh yes, I understand. You truly are a great chef!" No, of course
not. The only thing that will ever make this chef great in our opinion
is if we taste the chef's food and we think that the taste is great.
A great chef is not only creative, but also a master of his/her materials.
And his/her greatness is judged solely by the artifact of the chef's art
-- the food. I believe that the same is true in photography. A great
photographer is creative, but also has to be a master of his/her materials
because in the end the only thing thing by which a photographer is judged
is the artifact of his/her art -- the photographic print. And, the thing
which makes a photographer truly great, is to have BOTH great ideas and
great execution -- meaning, the final print -- just as the taste of the
food is what makes a chef a great artist, and seperates him/her from
average cooks.
I agree with you that you can't have a great chef without great recipes
(concepts/ideas). But I say that to be truly great also requires the
production of a great artifact (the taste of the food). Because it is
by this artifact alone that the chef's greatness is judged.
If the production of a great artifact were not important in photography,
then we wouldn't need to take any pictures at all. We could just sit
around and talk about all our great ideas we have for making photos.
Regards,
Fredchance
In article <ux67vuo...@info.enserb.u-bordeaux.fr>, Frederic Goudal
<gou...@info.enserb.u-bordeaux.fr> writes:
snip
>What I call picture, is if you consider music what makes you recognise
>the greatness (or the poor quality) of a piece of music, on a 2$
>radio, on a 20.000$ equipment or in in a concert room. I have no
>consistent definition. I could call it in french the "substentifique
>moelle" (Thanks Rabelais) which means the very heart of the thing.
>
I think I agree with this if Frederic is saying that it is the artist who
is able to find and present the very heart of the thing.
It is difficult territory, though, because if this is the case then a work
can be called art if it is made by an artist and only then.
I happen to believe that there are people in the world ho have, and
sometimes who have refined through training, a greater than average
sensibility (I looked up the word to make sure I wanted to use it ....
Capacity to feel ..... Exceptional openness to emotional impressions ..).
Some of those people have given over their lives to that sensibility and
are called artists. Some of these people are photographers. There are,
however, many, many more photographers who make stunning, beautiful or
disturbing pictures than there are artists who make photographs.
It is quite romantic to want to be an artist and make art and the irony is
that anyone can decide that is what they are and what they do (the viewer
of the work decides for him or herself if they consider the work to be
good or bad and the product of a good or bad artist). I am a teacher and
I worked hard earning the right to play that role in society. I think
artists work hard for their right to call the work they produce art and it
is unfair that in the society in which I live I could, if I chose, put
artist on my passport but Picasso could not have put teacher. I am also,
however, proud of my photographs which I hope express whatever sensibility
I have.
I don't, by the way, think that the community of artists is any more
exclusive than the community of teachers. Do all of those who lay claim
to art, though, manage to reach the "very heart of the thing"? I would
rather be a good photographer than a bad artist who whilst making a good
immage missed the heart of the thing.
Fred
Peter Marshall
Many photo exhibitions in galleries are printed on 'silver gelatin emulsion'
or some similar term.
This is just the stuff we call photographic paper, though it is normally fibre
based rather than resin coated paper.
If you want details on the other processes I suggest you look for a book by
William Crawford called 'The Keepers of Light' though many other books also
have information.
Peter Marshall
On Fixing Shadows and elsewhere:
http://faraday.clas.virginia.edu/~ds8s/
Family Pictures, German Indications, London demonstrations &
The Buildings of London etc: http://www.spelthorne.ac.uk/pm/
.
Frederic Goudal
To answer to Beakman and Fredchance.
First I've never told that a bad/poor interpretation is needed.
I personaly work on "working print" - because I don't have a good
enlarger, and I can't afford to make all the picture printed in
exhibition quality. But I would not use the "working" prints for
anything elses thant working (and scan for the web, as the quality
loss is so big).
But typically in photography, lot's of people does just concentrate on
technical tips. And I try to tell and tell again : forget that, think
about what is important. If I push heavlily in this direction it it
because the photographers community is in general trapped into the
technical field. (Let's just count the ratio between technical
articles and the others in this newsgroup - I know there is the
technique word in the name, but this is the only international
newsgroup about photo and art).
Yes not everybody can be an artist, like Hockney. But on the other
hand, there is no artist diploma, and you don't need to do that as a
full time job. (By example, I know people who know more in car engine
than pro, and it's only a hobby). IMHO it is important trying to go in
the art direction. Because, to go back to the technical problems,
when going in the art direction technique will "follow", because it
will be needed to achieve the goal. But if you just work the
technique, art will not follow. To put it with other words - don't
forget I'm french - when you get a good artistic level, you get a good
technical level, but when you get a good technical level, you do not
have to get a good artistic level.
Back to the correct/loose interpretation, in fact the poor
interpretation has a meaning only if a correct/rich one exists (or has
existed). It is because an original painting exists, that the copy
have someting to say. Si Beakman is right, but but but... I'll say
again that the work must be strong enough so that the copy carries
something (the very heart).
f.g.
Kari Eloranta
In article <beakmanE...@netcom.com>, Beakman <bea...@netcom.com> wrote:
snip
>might be a great idea man, but not a great photographer. The
>photographic print is everything. There is nothing else that means
>anything. It doesn't matter what camera or lens you use, how you took
>the picture, how you developed it, etc. The print is all there is.
>The print is the viewer's entire window into your idea.
>
>photographer is creative, but also has to be a master of his/her materials
>because in the end the only thing thing by which a photographer is judged
>is the artifact of his/her art -- the photographic print. And, the thing
>which makes a photographer truly great, is to have BOTH great ideas and
>great execution -- meaning, the final print -- just as the taste of the
>food is what makes a chef a great artist, and seperates him/her from
>average cooks.
>
>David
>--
Firstly, this has been a very interesting and enjoyable thread. I don't
reguarly follow this forum but was delighted to stumble to this.
However I think that the quotes above indicate that it is a bit removed
from reality at this point. Think of Salgado, Koudelka, most of the
other Magnum people or lots of others. They don't do any of their prints.
A few of them couldn't do any lab. work. Some of them don't even develop
their negs. Are they just half-decent photographers as they do not/cannot
produce the singular end result? Of course not!
Furthermore, look any book featuring their work, no matter what
miserable pocketsize edition. You can recognize the originality and
keen eye even in those small prints. I think Frederic is much closer to
the truth with his vague defition of a great photograph as something
the captures the essence (maybe there isn't any better?). You don't
have to go to an exhibit by these masters to see that essence. Of course
it brings further satisfaction to see a perfect print of a great neg.
but it still is just a sideshow.
IMHO,
Kari Eloranta
Jean-David Beyer
Kari Eloranta wrote (in part):
> Firstly, this has been a very interesting and enjoyable thread. I don't
> reguarly follow this forum but was delighted to stumble to this.
>
> However I think that the quotes ... indicate that it is a bit removed
> from reality at this point. Think of Salgado, Koudelka, most of the
> other Magnum people or lots of others. They don't do any of their prints.
> A few of them couldn't do any lab. work. Some of them don't even develop
> their negs. Are they just half-decent photographers as they do not/cannot
> produce the singular end result? Of course not!
Henri Cartiere-Bresson comes to mind. He was such a bad printer that
Alfred Stieglitz would not give him an exhibition an An American Place,
but said he would if C-B would learn to print. C-B thought it irrelevant.
I think photography is much broader than it is being given credit for.
Some images demand extremely high print quality or they have no meaning.
Others work just because of the broad general form and composition. It depends
on the intent of the photographer.
Frederic Goudal
Jean-David Beyer <jdb...@exit109.com> writes:
> Henri Cartiere-Bresson comes to mind. He was such a bad printer that
> Alfred Stieglitz would not give him an exhibition an An American Place,
> but said he would if C-B would learn to print. C-B thought it irrelevant.
>
As a parenthesis, it must be said that because of people like Adams
and Stieglitz, Usa people seems to be very much worried by print
quality.
In France it seems that the amateur photographer don't worry about
such thing. Maybe because famous photographer are a bit like
Cartier-Bresson.
Maybe as I my informations about Usa comes from internet and my french
ones from photo magazines it is a bit distorded.
In fact there are great printers like Bregan in France, mostly because
all the fashion business in Paris. But photography in Frances, is very
far away from the Adams/Weston school. (No value jugement here).
Tom Farrington
From what I remember from art school days, C-B very early farmed out all
his processing and printing to a favorite lab/printer in Paris and
concentrated of seeking out decisive moments. His trademark "look" has
long been flat, midrangey prints, but I think that the body of his work
speaks for the effectiveness of this method for him! Don't know if the
Stieglitz incident was before or after C-B's decision to do it this
way. Maybe it was the catalyst! ;-)
Yours in grays,
Tom
Jean-David Beyer wrote:
> Henri Cartier-Bresson comes to mind. He was such a bad printer that
> Alfred Stieglitz would not give him an exhibition an An American Place,
> but said he would if C-B would learn to print. C-B thought it irrelevant.
<snip>
Paul Butzi
On 04 Jun 1997 15:29:38 +0200, Frederic Goudal
<gou...@info.enserb.u-bordeaux.fr> wrote:
>To say it the other way, if the concept is strong, than you can do a
>lot of change without loosing the spirit.
Let me see if I understand.
Last night, I listened to a recording of Vladimir Ashkenazy playing
Beethoven's Piano Sonata No. 8 in C minor (the 'pathetique'). It's
a glorious piece of music, and Ashkenazy does it justice (in my
opinion, anyway).
Your claim is that, because of the power of the concept (the written
score) it doesn't matter that it was played on what sounded to me
like a Bosendorfer rather than a Steinway. Fine, I can agree with
that.
But you also seem to be claiming that if the concept is strong, it
shouldn't matter if, for instance, it were performed on a twenty-five
cent harmonica rather than a Bosendorfer. Here, I have to disagree.
There are differences, and there are differences. Perhaps, as you
claim, the difference between a platinum print and a silver print
is more along the lines of the difference between a Steinway and
a Bosendorfer, and the 'art' will come thru. But I don't think you
can reasonably claim that the same art will come thru if the music
is played on a tin whistle, or on a kazoo. (And if you claim that
it does, I suspect that you either have no soul, or have never
really *listened*).
Let me put it this way - a boring, pointless photograph will be a
boring, pointless photograph regardless of whether it is printed
on a 300 DPI inkjet printer or on platinum paper.
But real art - art with *soul*, can express tremendous subtlety.
Part of that expression might be the artist's selection of
materials. Indeed, part of it might be the selection of film,
paper, developer.
The fact that people who make boring art (like mine) frequently
obsess over such things does not mean that in the hands of someone
who has mastered both art *and* craft, the selection of print type
will not be a useful expressive tool.
-Paul Butzi
Peter Marshall
Don
I think once you have learnt to make a good print on RC paper there is really
very little to learn to make good prints on fibre base.
Really the only difference is that you need to wash it for much longer and
drying is a bit trickier. The printing is no different - although different
materials - RC or not - will give slight differences in the result.
No normal b\w prints are truly permanent, though well-processed fibre prints
should have a reasonable lifetime. Much fine-art work is also selenium toned
(normally using Kodak Selenium toner) using a dilute toner which has minimal
effect on image colour (often moving from a very slight olive to a more
neutral tone) but is supposed to improve print permanence. It also usually
gives a slight but noticeable improvement in shadow separation. You can also
selenium tone RC prints to get these effects.
Fibre base isn't much harder to use, but nor will it magically improve your
printing. I'd get through the learning curve on RC and then when you can make
a really good print try it on fibre. Often you will be able to get better
print quality, but this isn't always the case.
Frederic Goudal
use.my....@halcyon.com (Paul Butzi) writes:
>
> On 04 Jun 1997 15:29:38 +0200, Frederic Goudal
> <gou...@info.enserb.u-bordeaux.fr> wrote:
>
> >To say it the other way, if the concept is strong, than you can do a
> >lot of change without loosing the spirit.
>
> Let me see if I understand.
>
> Last night, I listened to a recording of Vladimir Ashkenazy playing
> Beethoven's Piano Sonata No. 8 in C minor (the 'pathetique'). It's
> a glorious piece of music, and Ashkenazy does it justice (in my
> opinion, anyway).
>
> Your claim is that, because of the power of the concept (the written
> score) it doesn't matter that it was played on what sounded to me
> like a Bosendorfer rather than a Steinway. Fine, I can agree with
> that.
>
> But you also seem to be claiming that if the concept is strong, it
> shouldn't matter if, for instance, it were performed on a twenty-five
> cent harmonica rather than a Bosendorfer. Here, I have to disagree.
>
You understand the concept, but play the fool for the pleasure. Don't
try to be more stupid than you are...
> The fact that people who make boring art (like mine) frequently
> obsess over such things does not mean that in the hands of someone
> who has mastered both art *and* craft, the selection of print type
> will not be a useful expressive tool.
Read some of my preceding post about what my conclusion : If your goal
is really art, craft will follow, but if you just concentrate on the
craft, art won't follow.
But again aren't you discussing just for the pleasure of discussion
???
(In this case this is typically a case of craft for the craft. Shame
on you :) )
Beakman
Frederic Goudal (gou...@info.enserb.u-bordeaux.fr) wrote:
: use.my....@halcyon.com (Paul Butzi) writes:
: >
: > On 04 Jun 1997 15:29:38 +0200, Frederic Goudal
: > <gou...@info.enserb.u-bordeaux.fr> wrote:
: >
: > But you also seem to be claiming that if the concept is strong, it
: > shouldn't matter if, for instance, it were performed on a twenty-five
: > cent harmonica rather than a Bosendorfer. Here, I have to disagree.
: >
: You understand the concept, but play the fool for the pleasure. Don't
: try to be more stupid than you are...
: > The fact that people who make boring art (like mine) frequently
: > obsess over such things does not mean that in the hands of someone
: > who has mastered both art *and* craft, the selection of print type
: > will not be a useful expressive tool.
: Read some of my preceding post about what my conclusion : If your goal
: is really art, craft will follow, but if you just concentrate on the
: craft, art won't follow.
I think that this is a rather bold assumption. I do not think that craft
will necessarily follow someone pursuing art. A conscience decision has
to be made by the artist to also develop the craft. There are plenty of
"artists" who just "can't be bothered" with such mundane things as
craft. I was once told by a photo instructor that if your picture didn't
turn out the way you wanted it to be, and someone was critiquing the flaws,
that you should just say, "Oh, but I *wanted* it that way."
This was the same professor who preferred all my worst work. I became so
jaded that I would purposely make bogus "art" photos -- which were
complete jokes -- that he would like. *sigh*
Frederic Goudal
bea...@netcom.com (Beakman) writes:
> : Read some of my preceding post about what my conclusion : If your goal
> : is really art, craft will follow, but if you just concentrate on the
> : craft, art won't follow.
>
> I think that this is a rather bold assumption. I do not think that craft
> will necessarily follow someone pursuing art. A conscience decision has
> to be made by the artist to also develop the craft. There are plenty of
> "artists" who just "can't be bothered" with such mundane things as
> craft. I was once told by a photo instructor that if your picture didn't
> turn out the way you wanted it to be, and someone was critiquing the flaws,
> that you should just say, "Oh, but I *wanted* it that way."
>
> This was the same professor who preferred all my worst work. I became so
> jaded that I would purposely make bogus "art" photos -- which were
> complete jokes -- that he would like. *sigh*
That's why I said "If your goal is REALLY art".... :)
I don't beleive that post justification is a really art. (Althought it
is possible to include some random in the art process).
But on another hand I did some pictures with washed white which were
wanted. It could be considered as a flaw. But this time the "I wanted
it that way" was true.
The point where you come is simply a human one : who may you
trust. Some people succeed in some task with just a nice ability to
make people think their job is good. There is no theorical assumption
which will elliminate dishonest people...
Maybe this instructor was just a stupid guy who did not really
understand the use of wanted flaws. After all the limited dof on some
modern pictures is in complete opposition with the f64 spirit, and
would be confidered as a major flaw under som criteria.
Paul Butzi
On 06 Jun 1997 08:38:20 +0200, Frederic Goudal
<gou...@info.enserb.u-bordeaux.fr> wrote:
>use.my....@halcyon.com (Paul Butzi) writes:
>
>>
>> On 04 Jun 1997 15:29:38 +0200, Frederic Goudal
>> <gou...@info.enserb.u-bordeaux.fr> wrote:
>>
>> >To say it the other way, if the concept is strong, than you can do a
>> >lot of change without loosing the spirit.
>>
>> Let me see if I understand.
>>
>> Last night, I listened to a recording of Vladimir Ashkenazy playing
>> Beethoven's Piano Sonata No. 8 in C minor (the 'pathetique'). It's
>> a glorious piece of music, and Ashkenazy does it justice (in my
>> opinion, anyway).
>>
>> Your claim is that, because of the power of the concept (the written
>> score) it doesn't matter that it was played on what sounded to me
>> like a Bosendorfer rather than a Steinway. Fine, I can agree with
>> that.
>>
>> But you also seem to be claiming that if the concept is strong, it
>> shouldn't matter if, for instance, it were performed on a twenty-five
>> cent harmonica rather than a Bosendorfer. Here, I have to disagree.
>>
>
>You understand the concept, but play the fool for the pleasure. Don't
>try to be more stupid than you are...
On the contrary, I don't think I *do* understand the concept, and
I'm definitely *not* attempting to ridicule your position, just trying
to draw a box which includes your position and then trying to make it
smaller.
Ok, perhaps you reject the harmonica/Bosendorfer analogy. How about
this - you claim that it shouldn't matter whether the sonata is played
by Ashkenazy (who has clearly, clearly mastered the craft of playing
piano) or by *me* (and trust me, I haven't), as long as the concept is
the same. Now, I assure you that when Ashkenazy plays, it is art.
When I play, it is not. It's not a difference of concept - in my
head, the music sounds just glorious. It's just that I can't play
piano worth a damn, and that's being generous. There's a failure of
craft that leads to a failure of art.
I think (but am not sure) that there are differences in degree, and
there are differences in kind. You're claiming that deficiencies in
craft will always be differences in degree, and that brilliantly
conceived art will outshine inadequate execution. I'm suggesting that
deficiencies in craft will often be differences in kind - that art is
often dependent on execution.
>
>> The fact that people who make boring art (like mine) frequently
>> obsess over such things does not mean that in the hands of someone
>> who has mastered both art *and* craft, the selection of print type
>> will not be a useful expressive tool.
>
>Read some of my preceding post about what my conclusion : If your goal
>is really art, craft will follow, but if you just concentrate on the
>craft, art won't follow.
Ah, but I don't believe that if you try to make art, craft will
follow, any more than I believe that if you pursue craft, art will
follow.
I think there's a lot of anti-intellectual "art" (and I put the
word in quotation marks with a goal, here) out there that either
intentionally rejects craft as part of the artistic enterprise or else
was done by someone who had no mastery of craft at all, and
to be honest, I think it's almost without exception really boring,
pointless art. Likewise, I think there's a lot of "art" out there
which pursues craft but ignores "soul" (for want of a better word)
which is also pretty boring and pointless.
It's not possible to write great poetry with a limited vocabulary.
Working on craft is like building vocabulary. On the other hand,
having a large vocabulary does not make you a great poet. Working
hard on poetic vision doesn't make you a great poet, either.
Craft is necessary but not sufficient.
Soul is necessary but not sufficient.
To give an excellent example, I point to Paul Caponigro as someone
whose mastery of craft and artistic vision combine to produce
outstanding works. Without his ability to create beautiful prints
that fulfill his vision, his photographs would not be the astounding
works that they are. I recently saw a print of his - the image may be
familiar to you. It's a photograph of frost on a window. If you have
access to the volume "Paul Caponigro - Masterworks from Forty Years"
you'll find the image as image number 3.
It's one of the most amazing photographs I've ever seen. The
reproduction in the book does not do it justice. Not nearly.
A lesser printer might have turned out an image that superficially
resembled this print - dark where this one was dark, light where it
was light. But the finished print is different in kind. It is not at
all about what happened to be in front of the lens when Caponigro
opened the shutter. It's pointless to attempt to capture in words
what that little 8x10 print expresses. It effs the ineffable.
I think it was the brilliant jazz musician John Coltrane who said "If
you don't live it, it won't come out your horn." This is a great
truth. But I'll bet Coltrane practiced like crazy so that he could
get the music in his head to come out, too.
In the end, I guess, it boils down to the question "What is art?".
The best answer is probably that given by Louis Armstrong when asked
what is jazz?
"If you have to ask, you'll never know."
-Paul Butzi
Icy Oh
i don't know exactly how to explain this but silver gelatin prints seem
(to me at least) to be "on" the paper and palladium seems more "in" the
paper. it gives greater sense of depth, but very light-handed. I agree
with the previous post, some images will look better in silver, other in
palladium (now rarely platinum). One irony of most discussions of Ag
versus Pd is that they occur in books or magazines that illustrate the
"differences" by showing photographs of photographs, and all rendered in
ink on stock paper. you have to see the real thing to see the
differences.
Ivan Oelrich
Arlington, Virginia
Denise Carey
In article <beakmanE...@netcom.com>, bea...@netcom.com (Beakman) wrote:
> : Read some of my preceding post about what my conclusion : If your goal
> : is really art, craft will follow, but if you just concentrate on the
> : craft, art won't follow.
>
> I think that this is a rather bold assumption. I do not think that craft
> will necessarily follow someone pursuing art. A conscience decision has
> to be made by the artist to also develop the craft. There are plenty of
> "artists" who just "can't be bothered" with such mundane things as
> craft. I was once told by a photo instructor that if your picture didn't
> turn out the way you wanted it to be, and someone was critiquing the flaws,
> that you should just say, "Oh, but I *wanted* it that way."
>
> This was the same professor who preferred all my worst work. I became so
> jaded that I would purposely make bogus "art" photos -- which were
> complete jokes -- that he would like. *sigh*
>
> David
During the process of creating decisions must be made as to what goes and
what stays, like life I guess. One of the exciting things about viewing a
work by a deceased great artist is......that every mark I assume was judged
to remain. There is a heart beating behind every mark. That is the way it
ought to be. Every spot and patch of the work should be touched and seen.It
took Franz Kline weeks to perfect a stroke that appeared as though it took
a minute.
Lee Carmichael
Very nice!!! About that poet stuff...Here's a little ditty called
Fleas-Adam had'm. Craft and Art have to be together or no one will look
at it. A lot of people don't want to master the craft because it will
take the spontinaity out of the process. Ok, just pay someone to make
the craft excellent.
As usual,
Lee Carmichael