Can You Make Good Prints Without Seeing Good Prints?

[wgerrard]

Mike Johnston has been running a series of posts about the print which prompts this question: Do you need access to a range of well-executed prints in order to learn how to create your own prints?

In other words, can you produce a quality print when you have few, or no, examples to guide you?

I'd venture to say that most of us here who use rangefinders and film don't know anyone else who does the same. How are we to determine how our prints measure up if we know no one who makes prints and have no way of actually holding and examining a print made by someone else?

I'm talking about honest-to-God prints, not something online or something in a book or a magazine.

 

[Vics]

Fred Picker used to provice just such a service out of his Zone VI Workshop company. Also you might try Lens Work's site. they went out of print, but they may still be in business as a website. They used to have some nice sets at very affordable prices. Good luck!
Vic

 

[ChrisN]

Good question. I've joined a monthly print exchange on another forum (FADU) in order to gain feedback and see examples of other people's work.

 

[wgerrard]

Thanks, Vics, but I wasn't asking for my own purposes. I'm interested in the broader question: Can a photographer produce a good print with no or minimal exposure to good prints?

 

[Vics]

Thanks, Vics, but I wasn't asking for my own purposes. I'm interested in the broader question: Can a photographer produce a good print with no or minimal exposure to good prints?

Sorry. I meant to imply that yes, a benchmark is certainly useful.
Vic

 

[jsrockit]

I'm of the opinion that the answer would be no for most. Lokm at most 1st year univeristy photo students prints... they are generally bad. Go to the museum or galleries and check out good prints.

 

[bsdunek]

Even though I've been printing for many years, and have seen many good prints, I still am amazed at the prints of the old masters. There was a photo exhibit at the Grand Rapids (MI) Art Museum recently from their collection. Some of the old prints just blew me away. I need to work a lot harder!

 

[Steve M.]

Possibly. You have to wonder though don't you. A lot of people dis Ansel Adams because they've never seen his prints in a gallery, and even if they have they might not have seen prints that he printed himself. A lot was done after he died and they aren't the same quality.

Speaking in my painter mode, I have to say it's a qualified no. When I remember back to the first time I came around a corner in a museum and saw a large masterpiece by Max Beckman it just stopped me in my tracks. How would you know what to measure against if you never saw the best that was out there?

 

[John Lawrence]

Prior to seeing the work of a number of professional printers, I would have answered yes - but having been astounded by the sheer beauty of what I've seen from the very best printers, my answer would be no.

John

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

No, you can't...

But even in the process of making your prints, you can learn the limits of your materials, and that's practically the same...

Cheers,

Juan

 

[Sparrow]

But can one be creative if one merely emulates the work of others? or is it necessary to first make the mistake in order learn from it?

 

[Chris101]

No, you can't...
...

Actually I think you can. Perhaps it is easier to make good prints, similar to good prints made previously, with examples to work from. But the definition of a "good print" is not something that is etched in stone, or even that we can all can agree on.

As photography progresses into the future, the edge of the art will push into unknown territory. As that happens, there will be fewer and fewer examples from which to draw.

Now if you are only speaking of hobbyist photos, where emulation of the masters is the goal, then I would agree that one needs guiding examples. And of course, learning by example is how one learns the current art, and without some understanding of that, it is difficult to go beyond it.

 

[gns]

somebody must have been the first, so an obvious yes.

Seriously, though. I think you might start with defining what is a "Good Print". And that is really part of a broader question about the roll of craft in photography.

Cheers,
Gary

 

[John Lawrence]

But can one be creative if one merely emulates the work of others?

I see it more as stimulation rather than emulation. Unless you see with your own eyes what can be achieved, you'll never know.

John

 

[Chris101]

... Unless you see with your own eyes what can be achieved, you'll never know.

But unless you use your imagination to go beyond what has been achieved, you never will.

 

[filmfan]

You totally can. I've seen it done-- however you must be born with the "eye". This is rare and I certainly do not qualify...

 

[ampguy]

I think yes. A year or two ago, there was a link to blind photographers images, and they were certainly as good or better than most of what is being taken by those with good vision.

 

[sepiareverb]

Good prints, I suppose. Great prints absolutely not. Once you get to a certain point you must see prints better than your own to see what can be done.

 

[Andy Kibber]

There are, of course, those who will say that they can forge their own way and don't need to learn nothin' from no one. But it's probably not a bad idea to see what prints made by experienced craftspeople look like. You can then emulate or avoid qualities that you like or don't like.

 

[Sparrow]

Creativity is getting close to the edge, making your own mistakes and then learning from them, capitalising on ones errors.

Yep it's worth looking, worth studding technique, probably, but emulating, copying or dressing up up like Adams? na ...