Andy Kibber
Well-known
I think we're in agreement.
Finder
Veteran
Printing is simply a technical problem. If you have mastered your process, then you can make a great print without having seen a great print. Proof in point, Elliot Porter.
Sparrow
Veteran
With respect, no it is not! it is perceptual not technical ... and it isn't a problem, because a problem has a solution, and printing hasn't
Morca007
Matt
The only metric that should be used to measure a print is if it serves the purpose intended by its' creator, in which case, yes, you certainly can make a good print without seeing one.
Finder
Veteran
Can you please tell me why sensitometry and tone reproduction is not a technical issue? If I want to produce a certain look in my print, then I have a problem. I find a method to that, then I have a solution.
Sparrow
Veteran
The solution may very well be a technical issue, but it is the solution to "I want to produce a certain look in my prints" which is the perceptual problem, no?
Looking, reading and talking about printing may help one understand the current boundaries and conventions, and if you wish to work within those boundaries and conventions then I suppose technique is enough.
ashfaque
Learning
Perhaps an H-IPS panel monitor (1200 x 1200 or more) with a good calibration tool (like Lacie or ColorEyes) can help in this regard. Once you're happy with it, you can use the calibrator for the printer as well. Ofc a healthy pair of eyes is the most important thing.
I've learnt a lot about lcd panel technologies from this site: http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/
I've learnt a lot about lcd panel technologies from this site: http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/
Last edited:
Finder
Veteran
Perceptual problems that have technical solutions--you have to be able to manipulate your process to achieve the look.
Your second argument is simply false. I have certainly tried processes for which there has been no documentation. And even following instructions for a particular process does not lead to good results as there are many factors in the end result that the instructions don't cover.
Printing is a technical issue. If you want good results, you need to master the process.
Pico
-
Of course my response is simply anecdotal - I began drawing in stone lithography, and when I could no longer do it because I was rather nomadic for years, I turned to photography and the prints I made from the subjects I liked were lithography-like. IOW, previous personal experience led me to make photo prints similar to the drawings I had done.
(Petri 7S, Ilford film, ID-11, Brovira)
When I finally saw some excellent prints in person, my photography changed to accomodate the 'more photographic' tones evinced by Masters. Never quite got there, either. :bang:
(Petri 7S, Ilford film, ID-11, Brovira)
When I finally saw some excellent prints in person, my photography changed to accomodate the 'more photographic' tones evinced by Masters. Never quite got there, either. :bang:
Sparrow
Veteran
Sorry, I don't agree, printing is a creative process and therefore benefits from some unpredictability.
One cannot simply learn how to do it and apply that craft to every image and expect to create great prints.
crawdiddy
qu'est-ce que c'est?
Vermont may be a sort of backwater, but it's a very arty one.
Pico
-
Me thinks that between Sparrow and Finder we have a classic dichotomy, and it is healthy.
In support of Sparrow, I assert that to make great prints, one must make so many personal decisions (burn, dodge, bleach, tone) that mastery requires transcending text-book requisites. There is no 1-2-3 method to great printing.
In support of Finder, I would say that in order to transcend technique one first should master it.
A perfect text-book 1-2-3... print of an uninteresting image is what?
Finder
Veteran
What has unpredictability and and mastering a process got anything to do with each other? So you think that the control over tone and color will not lead to great prints? So you think the work of master printers is rubbish?
I would say there is real lack of understanding about the arts on the forum. Artists, with a few exceptions, actually master their craft so they are not slaves to random processes. But you probably don't like highly technically accomplished painters like Picasso and Van Gogh. You would perfer work that is less predictable.
Finder
Veteran
I would say you don't understand printing. Burning, dodging, bleaching, and toning are all technical processes. They are used to produce certain results. You cannot transcend a technique--there is no magic in printing; metaphysics does not apply here.
You are right that there is no simple series of steps to achieve a good print, but that is far from mastering the printing process. If you cannot control your process, random luck will not get you there. If if dumb luck does get you there, you are not going to repeat it or use it in another situation.
Sparrow
Veteran
You are putting words in my mouth I did not speak; I said
I believe one cannot be creative merely by emulating the work of others, and that it is necessary to make ones own mistake in order learn from them.
I believe one cannot be creative merely by emulating the work of others, and that it is necessary to make ones own mistake in order learn from them.
gns
Well-known
The first problem (the much more difficult and interesting) is, WHAT should it be?, what should the look be? Or, how do I want it to look? That is an aesthetic problem. After that, is the HOW. How do I achieve the look?, which is a technical problem. The nuts and bolts.
No?
Cheers,
Gary
No?
Cheers,
Gary
Pico
-
So instead of 'transcend', let me say Interpret. Many people who only saw Picasso's Cubist work, and not his very early work might say that he has not mastered drawing, but we know he has. For photography, consider Ed van der Elsken who's prints are just what he wants - they interpret. No cook books involved.
Ed van der Elske example here: http://www.photonet.org.uk/images/photoImage/EVE0301.jpg
Last edited:
Finder
Veteran
So you have two artist who have mastered a technique so they can achieve what they want. I assume you are now agreeing with me.
BTW, if you are using "cook books," you have not mastered the process. And how are you going to "interpret" something if you don't understand the language? Following instructions, like using phrase books, is not showing any mastery of a process, except for maybe reading comprehension.
Sparrow
Veteran
How do you tell if someone had previously mastered a technique when viewing work that didn't demonstrate that fact?
BTW Pico clearly said "No cook books involved"
kzphoto
Well-known
Jumping in late here but I had a bit of advice to share. An old photo professor of mine told me that there was a difference between printing for output and printing for emotion. A good print can communicate it's ideas very well but a great print will sing it's own virtues and invite further inspection. I guess the point was that if one is making a print it helps to know which direction to take the print. And if you haven't been exposed to great printing, how then would you make a print sing?