Is there a point in making prints anymore?

[Steve M.]

It's a valid question. Very, very few photos are worth printing, so in a way I see the op's point. But when you get a great B&W shot, enlarger print it on fiber paper, and dry mount it and put it on the wall in good light, then you see why the goal of photography is prints. For snaps and 99.9% of what's seen, just show it on a monitor.

It's not just that either. I like physically holding and looking at 4x6 print proofs, and people I show them to definitely enjoy looking at them, so prints have purposes besides hanging on a wall. Ever tried to look at that monitor screen in bright light? Just pull out a print, and the light you're in helps to see it, not the other way around. Go out someday w/ an instant film camera and show someone the shot you just snapped. They love it. Now show them the shot on your camera's LCD screen. Yawn. Prints rule.

Someone said to me once (another photographer too) that they just didn't feel right having everything on hard drives and displayed on computer monitors. To them, a photographer should have lots of contact prints laying around, and negs in sleeves. I agree, and that's what photography is about to me, as I shoot B&W film. If you're not printing and just showing your stuff on a monitor I think you're missing a lot.

 

[GSNfan]

The reason I brought up the Matrix before is that I think that it segues into the larger question that you address:

If computers, technology, online interaction, and so on can provide a perfect enough substitute for a "real world" experience, would we want them to? All a photograph does is send a set of instructions to receptors in our eyes, which is processed and interpreted by our brains. This is true whether it is a print or a screen providing the information. What if we could cut out the "middle man" entirely and pipe this information directly into our brains? This would (executed properly) inevitably provide better quality than any visual experience. Why bother to create ANYTHING if a virtual substitute can be more perfect?

Obviously, this is a thought experiment, but I believe there is a real parallel between Cypher's dilemma in the Matrix and the question you ask about why bother to print:

If confronted with an imperfect "real" world and a more perfect "virtual" world, does the term "real" have any significant value? Is it better to be king of the Matrix, or a peasant offline. If human experience is simply the sum of the impulses that our brains receive, does it really matter where they come from?

First we have to reach the 3D photograph stage and then probably simulated reality such as in the matrix. But considering the fact that we cannot even mass produce FF sensors cheaply that is a long way to go. But yes, the future looks scary for still photography as we practice it today.

 

[softshock]

Yes. I like to hold it and see its beauty and so do a lot of others. Tangibility helps.

 

[StevenJohn]

The problem with the comparison with Cypher's dilemma, is that he was confronted with an imperfect real world and a less imperfect virtual world. I'm not sure you can say the same for printed photos vs. projected photos. I don't believe the projected photos are better. Is FB texture replicated on an LCD? To me, that texture is as important as grain to the feel of an image. Carrying it one step further, does impasto translate to an LCD? The feel of a photo is more than just sharpness and contrast to me.

The digital future of photography looks scary but we have no choice but to adopt, and until then people can print and follow the traditional ways of presenting pictures.

I have a choice. I absolutely have a choice. I buy film. I buy darkroom chemicals. I buy FB paper. Why do people drive manual transmission Ferrari's and wear mechanical watches? I'm sure a Ferrari with an automatic drives and handles just fine, but there is something hypnotic about a perfect snick-snick shift. Similarly, a $20 Timex will keep time better than a $15,000 Rolex, but there is something hypnotic about hearing tick-tick and watching a smooth hand travel around the dial.

 

[jawarden]

This table is in my foyer just next to the front door. The box on the left holds images of people (mainly kids in the hood) and the one on the right is places and things. There is always one print out on the top of the table, and it is replaced more-or-less weekly with a new one.

Anyone can look at these and enjoy them, with no batteries, passwords, etc. Wouldn't have it any other way. Prints are good.

Cheers,

Jeff

 

[Steve M.]

Yes, a print is real. It's an original. An image on a monitor is just flickering pixels (or some other computer talk stuff). You might even say that a monitor image is a second hand image, the print is the original. This is the exact opposite of what most people assume. I know a lot of people are fascinated w/ new technology, but it hasn't changed anything. It just means there are a LOT of less than stellar photos being taken by amateurs, and that's fine for what it is. Just don't confuse that w/ an exceptional print that's hung on a wall.

Photography is no different than any modern thing that has seen tons of changes due to technological advances. It's pretty much divided the issue into two camps: those who shoot film and print large w/ enlargers in a darkroom, and those who shoot digital and print on an inkjet (or don't print at all). And like everything else, the old, harder way often surpasses the new advanced stuff for quality, but the old way is difficult. It requires lots of time and attention, and most people aren't willing to do that, or quite frankly don't have a talent or drive for it. So there's lots of room for everyone's intentions. Nothing is really new anyway. Many, many years ago photographers were exploring photography w/o the use of cameras and lenses in order to free things up (Man Ray's infamous rayographs for example).

None of this affects the sales. An original handmade print is an original. A photo in digital form (unprinted) isn't, but all photos are subject to the same copyright protections afforded all images. Galleries show originals or certified copies such as editions. None of the technological advances have changed that, and probably never will.

 

[evanbaines]

The problem with the comparison with Cypher's dilemma, is that he was confronted with an imperfect real world and a less imperfect virtual world. I'm not sure you can say the same for printed photos vs. projected photos. I don't believe the projected photos are better. Is FB texture replicated on an LCD? To me, that texture is as important as grain to the feel of an image. Carrying it one step further, does impasto translate to an LCD? The feel of a photo is more than just sharpness and contrast to me.

My thought experiment simply used the idea that projected photos COULD be "better" in quantifiable terms, I wasn't arguing that they actually ARE better. I think that it is useful for the sake of examining the underlying philosophy to put the two vectors (digital projection and print) on even footing or even to give the edge to projection.

 

[Sparrow]

Art was not a commodity, it was commissioned by the kings and aristocrats, or clergy for a 'higher purpose'. The artist sold his services and not his art, the art was priceless and it was there to tell a story or make a statement about the person who commissioned it.

The things changed with the emergence of middle class and 'new money' who wanted the same goodies as the aristocracy so art became a commodity for sale and it has been so ever since.

But then we've come a long way from Caravaggio to Goya to Cindy Sherman?! lol

Who are you to question the purpose of my art? that is for me to choose not you

 

[StevenJohn]

My thought experiment simply used the idea that projected photos COULD be "better" in quantifiable terms, I wasn't arguing that they actually ARE better. I think that it is useful for the sake of examining the underlying philosophy to put the two vectors (digital projection and print) on even footing or even to give the edge to projection.

I don't mean any disrespect, but the thought exercise doesn't prove useful to me.

Previous criteria for projected photos being better in this thread mentioned contrast. I presented other criteria...paper texture is one that a projected image can't compete. If the projected image has zero texture, then it has zero ability to compete.

 

[zauhar]

The posted question somehow brought to my mind the question: "Since we have many ways of transportation, is it still meaningful to take a walk?"

While making prints will not improve your physical health, like walking does, your soul may benefit from it.
Making prints is not necessary, but it is not unnecessary either.

Beautifully put!

 

[rogerzilla]

To steal a phrase from Martin Amis, when The Bomb has gone off and we're "crawling through the iodized s**thouse that used to be England", we'll still have those photo albums to remind us what things were like.

Of course, all the blank film will be fogged by gamma rays but all the computers will have been zapped by EMP ;-)

 

[SciAggie]

You have the right idea, because throughout photography history most great works were done not for money but for an altruistic reason(s)...

The sale of photographs is a question mark because the reasons for looking at still photos are diminished day by day. How much time do we spent looking at still photos, and yet all of us, amateurs especially, furiously keep making pictures.

Our need for news and visual stimulus is satisfied by video in the form of Tv footage, youtube and movies, is there any place left for still photos?

As I said before the party as it was is over. We just have to imagine photography in this brave new world of saturation with video imagery, digital media and devices. Sometimes I feel nostalgic for photography as it was, even though I have no idea how it was because I was too young to be a photographer.

It has been interesting to me to watch how the essence of this thread has shifted as the discussion has matured and evolved. It has at least been a useful exercise to consider why we do what we do as photographers. It has also been refreshing to see a discussion with many different views remain so civil.

It seems to me that we have all discussed how photography has changed without stating the obvious - YES - there has been a pardigm shift. Photography in a digital age is different than it was 5, 10, 20 years ago. I don't know why anyone is really surprised, we live metaphorically on an ever shifting sand; change is the one thing that is inevitable. The printing press didn't kill handwriting and the computer hasn't killed books. It has changed their role and importance. Technological change does not alter our purpose as people who record images, it just gives us more tools with which to chose how we do things.

To say that our resons for viewing still images is diminished day by day is accurate but at the same time incorrect, at least in my opinion. Yes, video may be a better way to absorb news, I watched video from the earthquake in Japan. People watch video clips of a friday night football game on the local internet news site. Players buy digital images from me for facebook or their screen saver. Moms buy 16x20 posters at the end of the year to hang on their walls.

For sure an exclusive "print as an end product" mentality is dead. GSN, you brought up a good point earlier mentioning that at one time artists were paid for their time. I see those who are successful locally following that model. People pay for the skill of a professional photographer - there are choices as to the medium of the delivered product.

Lastly, our goals as photographers are the same as they have always been - in my opinion. We now just have more options for how to present our work. It is similar to what I see as an educator. Technology has transformed my classroom. All my students have laptops, I have an interactive white board, I have a document camera, digital camers, and video camera available. I certainly have more tools available and use them all. But guess what? Sometimes an old fashioned pencil and a piece of paper are the BEST tool for the job at hand. That's how I see a print - at times it is the best way to present an image - it's just not the only way.

 

[monochromejrnl]

I enjoy the process of making a wet print. My darkroom time is sacred 'private' time and if I can share the results of my efforts with others who appreciate holding a photographic print - then that's a big bonus.

A few prints I recently made for a friend who's return home to Toronto as a cordwainer (shoe maker) after apprenticing with a master cordwainer in Italy.

Shot with an M3/50cronv5 on Neopan400 @iso800, printed on Ilford MultigradeFB Warmtone (MGW.24K) double weight paper, developed in Ilford Multigrade Paper Developer.

 

[semilog]

I've started thinking along these same lines.

Photos just look so much better on a backlit display than on paper. There is a continuing issue with color consistency from display to display, but that is also getting better. And in a few more years, tablets will be cheap and common. I think the physical prints will become even more a niche thing than they are now.

Yes, I agree. A painting by Miro or Matisse or Paul Klee is so much better on an iPad than it is in a museum. Same goes for the 3D graphics terminals that we use for molecular modeling at work. Once a good 3D rendering of a Brancusi sculpture is available it will be better than seeing an actual Brancusi sculpture. Just as Avatar is far greater film than The Maltese Falcon.

 

[semilog]

First we have to reach the 3D photograph stage and then probably simulated reality such as in the matrix. But considering the fact that we cannot even mass produce FF sensors cheaply that is a long way to go. But yes, the future looks scary for still photography as we practice it today.

Exactly! Just like there's no one who does etching or stone litho or silkscreen or linocuts or woodblocks or charcoal drawings or watercolor or oil paintings any more, and certainly galleries don't show these media and works done in these media aren't worth the paper or textile they're applied to.

Why, just yesterday I was passing the local art museum and I noticed a pile of Edward Hopper paintings and Andre Kertesz prints in the rubbish bin. Didn't bother to take them, of course. Worthless, since I already had a MacBook Air in my satchel.

What a brilliant analysis. </sarcasm>

 

[back alley]

the neg is the original, the print is an interpretation.

only one neg, many prints...

same with the raw capture...it is the original and the print/monitor image is the interpretation.

 

[ChrisPlatt]

Indeed, it will be a great day when all the closed museums and galleries have been converted to Best Buy and CVS stores.

Chris

 

[Paolo Bonello]

monochromejrnl, your prints are fantastic looking shots although I find a little irony in having to look at them on my computer screen.

When I take photos, the ultimate goal in the back of my mind is to produce a fantastic looking print. I will admit, a very small percentage reach the lofty heights of that goal, nonetheless the goal does not change for me.

The point is, if I abandoned the thought of ever producing a print I will have less to strive for, so Yes, there is a point in producing a print. And no, I do not prefer to see the backlit verson over a real print. The proof is in those LCD picture frames. I had given one to my mother a long time ago and loaded up a bunch of photos in it. I noticed the other day that it had been switched off but along side it the regular frames with prints in them had not been switched off so she must like real prints more.

So this last mothers day I went through my whole collection of photos of family and especially the Grand kids and got a whole bunch of prints made for my mother. It was by far the best reaction to a gift I had ever received, she was practically in tears of joy.

 

[monochromejrnl]

Paolo - thanks and I agree that it is ironic that the vast majority of people will only get to see any of my prints online (or any typical darkroom hobbist's prints). However, my intended audience for the prints is the subject, the high end retailers that sell his shoes and potential customers.

I guess a LCD display hanging in a window or on a wall with a slideshow would work, however since the cordwainer is offering bespoke shoes the least I could do was to make some 'bespoke' wet prints for him.

monochromejrnl, your prints are fantastic looking shots although I find a little irony in having to look at them on my computer screen.

When I take photos, the ultimate goal in the back of my mind is to produce a fantastic looking print. I will admit, a very small percentage reach the lofty heights of that goal, nonetheless the goal does not change for me.

The point is, if I abandoned the thought of ever producing a print I will have less to strive for, so Yes, there is a point in producing a print. And no, I do not prefer to see the backlit verson over a real print. The proof is in those LCD picture frames. I had given one to my mother a long time ago and loaded up a bunch of photos in it. I noticed the other day that it had been switched off but along side it the regular frames with prints in them had not been switched off so she must like real prints more.

So this last mothers day I went through my whole collection of photos of family and especially the Grand kids and got a whole bunch of prints made for my mother. It was by far the best reaction to a gift I had ever received, she was practically in tears of joy.

 

[GSNfan]

It has been interesting to me to watch how the essence of this thread has shifted as the discussion has matured and evolved. It has at least been a useful exercise to consider why we do what we do as photographers. It has also been refreshing to see a discussion with many different views remain so civil.

It seems to me that we have all discussed how photography has changed without stating the obvious - YES - there has been a pardigm shift. Photography in a digital age is different than it was 5, 10, 20 years ago. I don't know why anyone is really surprised, we live metaphorically on an ever shifting sand; change is the one thing that is inevitable. The printing press didn't kill handwriting and the computer hasn't killed books. It has changed their role and importance. Technological change does not alter our purpose as people who record images, it just gives us more tools with which to chose how we do things.

To say that our resons for viewing still images is diminished day by day is accurate but at the same time incorrect, at least in my opinion. Yes, video may be a better way to absorb news, I watched video from the earthquake in Japan. People watch video clips of a friday night football game on the local internet news site. Players buy digital images from me for facebook or their screen saver. Moms buy 16x20 posters at the end of the year to hang on their walls.

For sure an exclusive "print as an end product" mentality is dead. GSN, you brought up a good point earlier mentioning that at one time artists were paid for their time. I see those who are successful locally following that model. People pay for the skill of a professional photographer - there are choices as to the medium of the delivered product.

Lastly, our goals as photographers are the same as they have always been - in my opinion. We now just have more options for how to present our work. It is similar to what I see as an educator. Technology has transformed my classroom. All my students have laptops, I have an interactive white board, I have a document camera, digital camers, and video camera available. I certainly have more tools available and use them all. But guess what? Sometimes an old fashioned pencil and a piece of paper are the BEST tool for the job at hand. That's how I see a print - at times it is the best way to present an image - it's just not the only way.

As an educator if this thread and the questions it raised has resonated with you, hopefully its a good sign.

A majority of people take photos these days as a 'creative outlet' to compensate for their day jobs, which are usually very rationalistic and devoid of feelings and emotions (check career thread statistics) and they're keen that the best way to go about taking photos is to stop thinking, because that's what they do in their real jobs, they think too much. This phenomenon has created a sort of illusionary bubble where it really does not matter whats going, the theme is to lets just carry on like before and go through the same routines and follow the same procedures even if those are by now defunct and even what we're actually doing, taking photos is rather questionable from a creative stand point because the only creative part of this so called creative process of taking pictures is the thought that its creative, which in fact its not. Pointing the camera at something and clicking is not the same as pouring down one's imagination in a canvas or carving it in stone. No matter how one sugar coat it with 'decisive moment', light, composition and post-processing whether analogue/digital... This goes back to my assertion that there is less need and time to look at still photos and one of the biggest reason for that is that its mostly recycled stuff. When people stop thinking they simply recycle what they like and that is more apparent in photography than any other medium. People simply go out to take photos that they like because they have seen it before somewhere, there is no impetus to 'think' because then that would be like work and boring, so here we're awash with recycled images of decent quality but nothing more and nothing less, a sort of mediocre stasis.

When you click on a news link about a demonstration you already know what sort of picture will accompany it, so why bother? why not just watch the video because at least it has sound, ambiance and inevitably emotions. The still has been recycled so much that you know before hand what sort of picture you will see simply by knowing the context.

Lets take for example the scared cow, street photography. The moment I use that word b&w images of people and a certain mood that accompany it automatically fills my mind. I still like it but I don't look at it. Why not? Well I have seen it all, and the very best still is Robert Frank so why should I bother? But I do take street photos of similar kind, its self-contradictory, but I don't know any better... However, I do know this much, I'm not an artist, what I do is not art and that keeps me grounded and sane. Because I know that my 'creative urges' could suddenly turn from taking photos to GAS...


... And now going back to the print. A painting is an original work, you can look at it and see every brush stroke of the artist, so its great as it is and it will lose its 'feel' in a digital display. A photograph is something else, especially a digital one where even its original can be copied infinitum, imagine De Vinci painting Mona Lisa on his iphone and sharing it with his friends on facebook, something that David Hackney a British painter does... If one starts digging all this comfy photography bubble that we've created around us crumbles, but its also hopeful because something new might come up. and in that positive note I think I'm done with this thread.