Magnum prints in the flesh

[helvetica]

I made a quick stop over lunch to see an exhibition of prints and articles from the Magnum photography agency hosted at the University of Texas. I am accustomed to seeing photos on a monitor, so seeing them in real life was arresting. Most of the prints where silver prints around the 8x10 size, some color and much larger.

What struck me was how little the technical details matter when you have a strong image. Everyone "knows" this, but to see it in person was convincing. I - like probably most of us - have spent too much time fretting over DxO and high ISO performance, micro-contrast, and micro-focus adjusting.

If you are in the Austin area, I would highly recommend that you set aside some time to check it out. They even have a few example of their printing notes where they have dodge+burn instructions on a print. As a real history buff bonus, they even have the original signing documents to establish the agency between HCB and Robert Capa!

 

[Roger Hicks]

. . . What struck me was how little the technical details matter when you have a strong image. Everyone "knows" this, but to see it in person was convincing. I - like probably most of us - have spent too much time fretting over DxO and high ISO performance, micro-contrast, and micro-focus adjusting. . . .

An excellent point. Do you also suspect (as I do) that the more real, tangible prints you see (or make), the less you care about what an image looks like on a monitor?

Alas, I'm too far away to get to that particular exhibition.

Cheers,

R.

 

[x-ray]

You're absolutely correct. Technical is important but content is king.

Pixel peeping and fretting over this lens and that body are a new phenomenon brought on by the idle enthusiast and the internet.

 

[helvetica]

Pixel peeping and fretting over this lens and that body are a new phenomenon brought on by the idle enthusiast and the internet.

If we are really honest with ourselves, I also suspect that we find it easier to put time into criticizing and fretting than to get out and actually take pictures. Getting out into the field takes effort and time, which are both precious commodities! Gear snobbery and pixel peeping can be done from the comforts of our desks and ipads.

 

[helvetica]

An excellent point. Do you also suspect (as I do) that the more real, tangible prints you see (or make), the less you care about what an image looks like on a monitor?

I think it has to do also with where we get our "social reinforcement" - that is, praise and affirmation. Facebook likes? Flickr favorites? 500px views? Physical prints require someone to come over and view it, but you can get a 100 virtual pats on the back in minutes online.

That, of course, is assuming where you find your reward in photography. I would love to see fine art prints sales take off. I would trade mountains of virtual kudos for a few sales of a print that a lot of hard work went into.

 

[Roger Hicks]

. . . I would trade mountains of virtual kudos for a few sales of a print that a lot of hard work went into.

Beautifully phrased!

Cheers,

R.

 

[Calzone]

I recently hung some Constantine Manos (Magnum) prints in my friend's house who knows the guy. They were beautiful prints, but technically soft and lacking the "bite" of modern emulsions/digital. Beautiful nonetheless!

I own two vintage Bruce Davidson prints from the Welsh Miners series. My two prints are of the little girl in the graveyard and the little boy with the baby carriage. The Magnum stamp is on the back with a hand written date.

Interesting to note that I traded surplus/extra camera gear with an art dealer to get these prints. I was day trading cameras like commodities.

These prints are stunning. Hard to value as it seems vintage prints never are for sale.

Cal