Can You Make Good Prints Without Seeing Good Prints?

Finder said:
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.
Click to expand...

I know how to print. I've been doing it for almost fifty years.
 
Sparrow said:
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"
Click to expand...

What are you talking about? I can make dye transfer prints. You will not see these skills in my silver prints. So when viewing my sliver prints, you will assume I cannot make a dye transfer? I have been given unknown emulsions and been able to use them. Once you understand sensitometry, it is not that difficult.

What do you do if the instruction don't get you the results you want? Do you buy another product with another set of instructions? Or do you manipulate the process to get what you want?
 
kzphoto said:
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?
Click to expand...

The same way many photographers have, by using their skills, knowledge, and experience. And experience in that they know techniques to get more quality out of the material.

I don't understand this desire to mythologize the printing process. If you can't get where you want to be, keep working at it. It may be a complex process, but it is hardly an impossible task. There is no magic to it. You don't need a wand--except for maybe making a dodge tool.
 
Finder said:
What are you talking about? I can make dye transfer prints. You will not see these skills in my silver prints. So when viewing my sliver prints, you will assume I cannot make a dye transfer? I have been given unknown emulsions and been able to use them. Once you understand sensitometry, it is not that difficult.

What do you do if the instruction don't get you the results you want? Do you buy another product with another set of instructions? Or do you manipulate the process to get what you want?
Click to expand...

I'm imagine you make the most marvelous prints ... but I fail to what that has to do with the discussion and I don't understand why you argue assertions I haven't made, in fact you now seem to advocating the same methods I postulated originally
 
Sparrow said:
I'm imagine you make the most marvelous prints ... but I fail to what that has to do with the discussion and I don't understand why you argue assertions I haven't made, in fact you now seem to advocating the same methods I postulated originally
Click to expand...

Funny, I reread the thread and you clearly believe that making good prints is not a technical issue. I clearly state is a matter of knowing sensitometry and tone reproduction and mastering that.

I am glad we are now on the same page.
 
Last edited:
Dan, check out the photography exhibits in NYC. I assume you live there since I saw you at the Mermaid parade 6/19/2010. Also a great, perhaps the largest concentration of fine B+W prints shown in NYC every year is AIPAD's annual show at the Armory. Galleries from all over the world bring their best prints to display and sell. Its the highest quailty and quantity of prints you are going to see as well as diverse B+W prints. B+w print prices vary from $500.00 to over $100,000.00. Thats right 6 figures and you get to pick them right up out of the bins. Nothing like handling a ED or Brett Weston print, or a Siskind or Minor White print. I think its in FEb or March. Google AIPAD. It would be cool for a couple of us to get together next year and see it! Later!
 
My own suspicion is that it's not possible, but not for any of the reasons already given.

First premise: If you're serious about photography, you go to all the exhibitions you can. You're bound to see at least some really good prints.

Second premise: No-one starts out as a genius at printing. You need practice. By the time you've begun to master the process, you're likely to have seen quite a lot of good prints anyway.

Aside: Some pics look better in repro than in real life. I've seen several AA prints that look better in repro than in real life, where they were sometimes grotesquely over-enlarged and tonally horrible. This is especially true of his Hasselblad shots.

Cheers,

R.
 
Roger Hicks said:
Aside: Some pics look better in repro than in real life. I've seen several AA prints that look better in repro than in real life, where they were sometimes grotesquely over-enlarged and tonally horrible. This is especially true of his Hasselblad shots.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

Indeed, true. Look at Lenswork Magazine. They have remarkable (tritone?) reproduction, bright paper, luminous-inks and gosh-knows what kind of screens, and small size (perfect for my viewing distance). Photos reproduced there have a special look and I would not be surprised if many images look better in their ink than in the original print, if there was one.
 
Roger Hicks said:
My own suspicion is that it's not possible, but not for any of the reasons already given.

First premise: If you're serious about photography, you go to all the exhibitions you can. You're bound to see at least some really good prints.

Second premise: No-one starts out as a genius at printing. You need practice. By the time you've begun to master the process, you're likely to have seen quite a lot of good prints anyway.

Aside: Some pics look better in repro than in real life. I've seen several AA prints that look better in repro than in real life, where they were sometimes grotesquely over-enlarged and tonally horrible. This is especially true of his Hasselblad shots.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

If I may be so bold as to add:

Third premise: Not every photographer is suited to being a skilled printer; these are (or can be) two entirely different skills.

~Joe
 
I live down the road from an accomplished photographer and collector and frequently sift though fantastic prints, competition winners and personal favorites. I hope it rubs off on me...so far I can impress myself but I wont go out of my to show off my prints 😉

I am actually having a printing session with him in a couple of weeks to pick up some tips and tricks.
 
JoeV said:
If I may be so bold as to add:

Third premise: Not every photographer is suited to being a skilled printer; these are (or can be) two entirely different skills.

~Joe
Click to expand...

Correct.
Not all people who like to take pictures *can stand* the discipline that is required to be a good printer.

That is why I think the relationship between a photographer and his/her printer (read: a different person, not those machines squatting on the table/floor) worked well in the past.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom