Idiot?

[ranger9]

Here’s a simple question - and it may show that I am an idiot. Why do I think black-and-white prints on paper, silver or inkjet, look good and black-and-white images on a computer screen don’t? Any other idiots out there? Any wise people with a solution?

Maybe my prints are crappier than yours, but most of them just make me sad.

My own form of idiocy: The same print that doesn't look good to me on paper often looks good once I digitize it, gather it with a few of its friends, add some carefully chosen type, send it off to Apple or Blurb, and make a little self-published book out of it.

They're still "prints on paper," so why do they make me happier in a book? Vanity, I suppose, or some misguided notion of gravitas. But then, every form of printing is a pathetic form of yearning for immortality, isn't it? I make prints, store them away in archival boxes, and pretend that somebody will care about them after I'm gone... even though I know realistically that when I finally keel over dead in my shabby little one-bedroom apartment, the handymen the landlord will send over to clean up the place will just chuck all those boxes straight into the dumpster, along with all my other little treasures that nobody cares about but me.

So, printing is a crutch. But then again, as the old saying goes... who isn't limping? I'll just keep making my little books and enjoying them while they and I last.

 

[ptpdprinter]

Maybe my prints are crappier than yours, but most of them just make me sad.

My own form of idiocy: The same print that doesn't look good to me on paper often looks good once I digitize it, gather it with a few of its friends, add some carefully chosen type, send it off to Apple or Blurb, and make a little self-published book out of it.

They're still "prints on paper," so why do they make me happier in a book? Vanity, I suppose, or some misguided notion of gravitas. But then, every form of printing is a pathetic form of yearning for immortality, isn't it? I make prints, store them away in archival boxes, and pretend that somebody will care about them after I'm gone... even though I know realistically that when I finally keel over dead in my shabby little one-bedroom apartment, the handymen the landlord will send over to clean up the place will just chuck all those boxes straight into the dumpster, along with all my other little treasures that nobody cares about but me.

So, printing is a crutch. But then again, as the old saying goes... who isn't limping? I'll just keep making my little books and enjoying them while they and I last.

The thing to do is have your prints all boxed up and ready to mail to the MOMA. Put the box next to your door with a post-it note that says "If I die, please mail." It helps if they are in one of those pre-paid USPS boxes.

 

[Hari]

Bank of America has giant prints on display by AA.
But a local museium has similar Adams prints of
moderate size which I enjoy the most. They are
all reproduced in books, which perhaps is a grade
above viewing in a computer screen.

 

[Bill Clark]

Because after a few glasses of wine the screen gets out of focus.

 

[Archiver]

Here’s a simple question - and it may show that I am an idiot. Why do I think black-and-white prints on paper, silver or inkjet, look good and black-and-white images on a computer screen don’t? Any other idiots out there? Any wise people with a solution?

When you want to look at a black and white image, print it, then stick it to your monitor. Problem solved. 😀

 

[Pál_K]

…But then, every form of printing is a pathetic form of yearning for immortality, isn't it? I make prints, store them away in archival boxes, and pretend that somebody will care about them after I'm gone... even though I know realistically that when I finally keel over dead in my shabby little one-bedroom apartment, the handymen the landlord will send over to clean up the place will just chuck all those boxes straight into the dumpster…

Slip a few naughty photos into the mix and that will cause someone to look through all of it.

I used to think that if I’d had kids there would be someone to pass my photos and cameras to who would appreciate them. Yet I look at my cousins’ kids and grandkids and they have no interest in anything over a few weeks old. Thus, like the Pharaohs, I’m building a pyramid and taking everything with me.

 

[kshapero]

I'm an idiot for a lot of other things.:bang::bang::bang::bang:

 

[Yokosuka Mike]

There have been a lot of interesting posts in this thread. Some are very philosophical; I like philosophy.

What is the point of creating a photograph if you’re not going to share it with anyone else?

Can one derive enough satisfaction from an image that once created only the creator will look at it?

Sure, I have some pictures that nobody else will ever see, they’re called the bad ones. Why keep them if nobody will see them? I learn from my mistakes. A bad picture can be a reminder of what not to do in the future. Another reason to keep a clunker is that it’s too time consuming and tedious to go back in the archive and root them all out for deletion.

If one doesn’t delete or throw away their photos before dying, then what? What are the odds of someone stumbling across your mountain of stuff and saying “holy cow! I just discovered the next Vivian Maier”?

Maybe there’s a fine line between waxing philosophical and babbling like an idiot.

All the best,
Mike

 

[580/Q]

Bill, you're not an idiot (of course). You just belong to a good, large club.

We can lay it off on technical factors like monitors not having the dynamic range etc... and all of that is true. But part of it is that we have been taught how to see black and white results either as negs, contact sheets (think of them as very small prints), and....prints. It is a (good) constraint of the form. More than a century of this conditioning has occurred with black and white prints either in books or displayed individually. We have developed a discerning eye (whether the "we" knows it or not).

On the other hand, we've only had monitors for a few decades. We haven't been conditioned to that yet. And certainly, a monitor display of a black and white image almost always pales when compared directly to the print. Almost always. Powerful content will render the form less relevant, but from an aesthetic point of view, the print trumps the screen -- in black and white.

Eventually, maybe; and perhaps the same people that make e-ink for devices like Kindles and other e-readers will develop a monitor suitable for displaying monochrome prints electronically, emulating the reflective qualities and broad dynamic/tonal range possible in a silver print. Maybe. Probably. Quite likely.

But for now, there are few things as glorious as an excellent print of an excellent image.

Chromes, however, I'm quite happy see on a monitor. The analogy is obvious: it's like a light box experience. The challenge there is to print a "chrome" -- and I'll include digital files in the definition of "chromes" for the sake of discussion -- so they look as good as the slides they are transferred from. Epson printers do well if you're willing to spend the necessary time refining a colour printing process which requires mastery of several disparate technologies. But the result, a print, is worth it.

Cheers,
S