Fine art print?

haempe

haempe

Well-known
Local time
10:06 PM
Joined
Mar 14, 2010
Messages
984
What makes a "wet print" to a "fine art print"?
Is there a definition or something like a rule?

Someone can enlighten me?
 
haempe said:
What makes a "wet print" to a "fine art print"?
Is there a definition or something like a rule?

Someone can enlighten me?
Click to expand...

My definition is a print that has archival standards that is meant to be exhibited. Generally this translates into printing larger rather than smaller, where quality, technic and materials are all held to the highest standards possible.

Hope this helps, but by no means is my definition definitive.

Cal
 
To achieve archival standards the paper has to be fixed and washed in such a way that the chemical residues in it fall below certain levels to prevent fading. This extends the life of the print. In digital printing, the inks and paper are such that they are somewhat guaranteed not to fade if handled and stored properly for years set as forth by the manufacturer and the Wilhelm Imaging Research.
 
Thanks all.

Ok, I'm familiar with archival standard, in my book every wet print should achieve this.

Cal, ...highest standards possible... is plausible but quite vague.

Photo_Smith, I know, but what should one expect from a so called print?
 
Ok, message received.
Maybe I had should give more background info for a better advice.

I'm doing sometimes darkroom work for photo students (prints for small exibitions or portfolios) and every second ask for "fine art prints".
With the time I'm so annoyed and tired to explain what I do and what not, so I was thinking about using the term...
and wanted to know what it means among experts...
But if it's in the original language already means nothing ... I will avoid that. ;)
 
jsrockit said:
Why are photo students not doing their own darkroom work?
Click to expand...
You have really to ask? :D
The good ones do their homework themselves, some lazy ones give their badly exposed crap to me. *
To be fair, the most will never again holding a film camera in hand in their lifetime, so why should they lose time with a outlived process...

Edit: (*) Don't take that too seriously...
 
I'd say, that what they mean, is that you should correct their scr***'up negatives in the darkroom or PS, and produce a good looking print, that's all. In my mind, the so called "fine art" prints can be translated most of the time as "custom crafted". It is the viewer, and ultimately, the buyer, who decides what is art and what not, everything else is silence.
 
haempe said:
What makes a "wet print" to a "fine art print"?
Click to expand...

It's a marketing term.

I suppose you could also decide that a "fine art print" is a completed print made to the standards required, and monitored, by the artist (which could include intentional degradation over time, so the archival thing is totally irrelevant in my opinion), while a wet print is . . what?? . . any silver print, so including contacts, work-prints, proofs etc. and of which "fine art prints" are a subset?? Something like that.

EDIT: And not forgetting, the work and cooperation required from the printer, in order to meet the precise requirements of the artist, would be much higher - hence so would the pricing also be much higher.
;)
 
A 'fine art' print is something done to the very highest standards from authenticity to the original concept to the mounting and presentation. It can be any size, indeed if it was an 8x10 contact print it could be even more highly prized than a 40x50. This is because whatever the size, the photographer being a 'fine artist', wouldn't sell out his original vision or concept for commercially driven images sold by the square foot.
 
Calzone said:
My definition is a print that has archival standards that is meant to be exhibited. Generally this translates into printing larger rather than smaller, where quality, technic and materials are all held to the highest standards possible.

Hope this helps, but by no means is my definition definitive.

Cal
Click to expand...

I agree with this initial response. After all, content is the interpretation of the creator where art is concerned.
 
You might as well ask what 'art' is -- just as vague and pointless a process.

Seems like a minimum standard of quality (which, as mentioned, should be there anyway) but it's as much the subject matter portrayed, it seems to me.
 
MartinP said:
It's a marketing term.

I suppose you could also decide that a "fine art print" is a completed print made to the standards required, and monitored, by the artist (which could include intentional degradation over time, so the archival thing is totally irrelevant in my opinion), while a wet print is . . what?? . . any silver print, so including contacts, work-prints, proofs etc. and of which "fine art prints" are a subset?? Something like that.

EDIT: And not forgetting, the work and cooperation required from the printer, in order to meet the precise requirements of the artist, would be much higher - hence so would the pricing also be much higher.
;)
Click to expand...
Dear Martin,

Beautifully analyzed.

Cheers,

R.
 
A well done print to archival standards worth of an exhibit. Best if toned and printed on something other than plastic paper.
 
I think two separate things are being discussed.

" Fine art " is a type of photography, and "fine print" is a photographic print made to the highest standards as far as quality. Ansel Adams talks about it in The Print.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom