nightfly
Well-known
Curious if anyone else saw has gotten to see this show:
http://www.davidzwirner.com/exhibition/thedemocraticforest/
I'm a great admirer of Eggleston's work and was very anxious to see this. As wonderful as it is to see his eye and the beauty he draws out of the banal, I was very disappointed in the print quality. Having seen his work printed in dye transfer at the MOMA a few years back these overly large, not very well printed ink jets really cheapened the work.
I find it hard to believe a gallery would exhibit them actually.
Haven't seen a lot about the show elsewhere but thought maybe someone else had seen and perhaps I was being too hard on it or was missing something.
http://www.davidzwirner.com/exhibition/thedemocraticforest/
I'm a great admirer of Eggleston's work and was very anxious to see this. As wonderful as it is to see his eye and the beauty he draws out of the banal, I was very disappointed in the print quality. Having seen his work printed in dye transfer at the MOMA a few years back these overly large, not very well printed ink jets really cheapened the work.
I find it hard to believe a gallery would exhibit them actually.
Haven't seen a lot about the show elsewhere but thought maybe someone else had seen and perhaps I was being too hard on it or was missing something.
Thanks for the tip. I would imagine that 35mm film digitized and printed at 44 x60" would not be kind to up close inspection. I don't think I've seen dye transfers this big from him.
nikonhswebmaster
reluctant moderator
Worked fine for me visually, but I am just interested in the images, not that picky I guess.
nightfly
Well-known
I guess I was thinking a photographer of his stature would have insisted on better reproductions or gone smaller or something.
Made me think a lot about the relationship between photography and printing method and size. I guess for me Eggleston's work is somewhat inextricable from those dye transfer prints.
Made me think a lot about the relationship between photography and printing method and size. I guess for me Eggleston's work is somewhat inextricable from those dye transfer prints.
I think only other photographers worry about this stuff... not buyers of photography.
Steve M.
Veteran
"I think only other photographers worry about this stuff... not buyers of photography".
Absolutely true. Even I am concerned only about the image.
Absolutely true. Even I am concerned only about the image.
Huss
Veteran
Those concerned about edge to edge sharpness, micro contrast, bokeh.
Art buyers could not care less about that, quite rightly, as it has nothing to do with subject matter.
lawrence
Veteran
I recently saw an exhibition of his portraits at the NPG here in London and it was hard to tell the difference between the dye transfers and the inkjet prints, however images were printed the same size on both media.
I find it difficult to believe that 'art buyers' are only concerned about the image and not about print quality since this is an integral part of the image they are buying.
Sure print quality... but expecting a 40 x 60" print from vintage 35mm film to be awesome up close is a bit much. I'll have to see the show to see.
nightfly
Well-known
Richness of color is something you don't need to be a photographer to fret over and certainly as a buyer I'd be concerned. I expect bigger prints to be viewed further away and to be less crisp etc. Really more an issue of very blah color like the printer didn't really give a crap. Too big but more than that.
See the show if you can. It's worthwhile.
See the show if you can. It's worthwhile.
I think you give people a lot of credit regarding their level of sophistication in viewing photography.
I've seen two Eggleston exhibitions, one at the Corcoran Gallery in Washington DC in 2008 and the other at the Cartier Foundation in Paris in 2010. Two things struck me. First, that the colors of the prints and his color sense in itself were breathtaking, obviously several degrees better than looking at reproductions in books: for example, there was a photo of a rack of Coke bottles that, in books, looked like a mediocre photo — but, in the print I saw, the color was stupendous. Second, many of the photographs said, to me, why is this a photograph?
As I recall, the Corcoran exhibition didn't have any huge prints — and the dye transfer prints often stood out much more than the C-prints. At the Cartier exhibition there were also inkjet prints that easily looked as good as the dye transfers. There were also a few huge inkjet prints but they were not deficient, and I didn't have the negative impression that the OP had in New York.
_______________
Alone in Bangkok essay on BURN Magazine
As I recall, the Corcoran exhibition didn't have any huge prints — and the dye transfer prints often stood out much more than the C-prints. At the Cartier exhibition there were also inkjet prints that easily looked as good as the dye transfers. There were also a few huge inkjet prints but they were not deficient, and I didn't have the negative impression that the OP had in New York.
_______________
Alone in Bangkok essay on BURN Magazine