Bob Michaels
nobody special
Such a learning process since, just like printing for an exhibit, you are forced to make those absolute binary decisions about editing your work. You must make those yes/no decisions what photos are included. Editing is not reducing 10,000 photos into 500-1,000. It is those absolute decisions to edit down to 12-50 final photos where the 13th - 51st photo ends up being treated the same as the 9,999th. You are forced to acknowledge some new perspective about your work.
Darthfeeble
But you can call me Steve
The problem with looking at other's work on the internet is that you can't be sure what you are seeing on your monitor is what the photographer intended. Color can vary and luminance can too. Books are the real deal.
D
Deleted member 65559
Guest
Darthfeeble "Books are the real deal."
.....Prints are the real deal.....
.....Prints are the real deal.....
CharlesDAMorgan
Veteran
It's funny, but to me photographs exist digitally but live when printed. When I spent a day with Keith Moss, an Ilford Artisan Partner, learning to develop, it was when the latent image emerged on the print in the developing tray that I was totally hooked, transfixed by its beauty.
D
Deleted member 65559
Guest
Bill Pierce, I wanted to thank you for starting a conversation that had to do with photographs and not equipment.
Timmyjoe
Veteran
I don't know Bill. I've got a bookshelf behind me that has at least 50 photography books of the work of photographers I admire.
As to your question “Is beauty being replaced by volume?” I would say I think it is. Probably a big factor in that is now with all the digital "whiz bang" cameras available, pretty much anyone can make an image and post it to the internet with very little time or effort. Not that some don't take the time and effort and make beautiful digital images. But an image that can be so easily created with little time and effort, can be easily discarded, even by the creator, with little time and effort.
When it took a certain amount of skill, and a certain amount of time, to create an image with a film camera, (shooting, processing, printing, finding someone to publish) it took a lot more effort to put your work out there. I think when something costs you time and energy, maybe we value the process more and work harder at it. Also, as you mentioned, there used to be gate-keepers that had to be passed in order for your work to be seen. Now it's just access to the internet.
Just my 2¢ worth.
Best,
-Tim
As to your question “Is beauty being replaced by volume?” I would say I think it is. Probably a big factor in that is now with all the digital "whiz bang" cameras available, pretty much anyone can make an image and post it to the internet with very little time or effort. Not that some don't take the time and effort and make beautiful digital images. But an image that can be so easily created with little time and effort, can be easily discarded, even by the creator, with little time and effort.
When it took a certain amount of skill, and a certain amount of time, to create an image with a film camera, (shooting, processing, printing, finding someone to publish) it took a lot more effort to put your work out there. I think when something costs you time and energy, maybe we value the process more and work harder at it. Also, as you mentioned, there used to be gate-keepers that had to be passed in order for your work to be seen. Now it's just access to the internet.
Just my 2¢ worth.
Best,
-Tim
Darthfeeble
But you can call me Steve
It isn't a photograph until it's hanging on the wall. I was comparing books to the internet.
Chuck Albertson
Well-known
If the bassist for the Sex Pistols wants to publish his pictures, call Geraldo - Syd OD'ed 40 years ago.
D
Deleted member 65559
Guest
Darthfeeble "I was comparing books to the internet"
......true enough. In that case books definitely are the real deal
......true enough. In that case books definitely are the real deal
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Um, yes and no. Books can vary through a print run too, depending on how well the printer keeps their machines in spec and how big a run they make. Choices in what paper to use, what size to make, what printer to choose (and in that I mean what printing company because very few printing companies have more than one or two choices of actual printing hardware to work with), all matter. And Print On Demand (POD) book printing, such as Blurb, exacerbates these problems.
For example, my one "for sale" photo book was designed for and printed by Blurb. I ran at least four proofs of it, changing the density and color balances of half the prints by small amounts as well as trying two paper choices, before I felt satisfied that it was ready to place a 'real' order for the 85 or so pre-orders I'd taken at the reception. And I inspected about 50% of those fulfilled orders: I found variations throughout, but deemed them acceptably within range.
Current computer driven displays improve every year, some are now very good and very stable, so looking at my own work (always tagged with color profile) across a wide variety of displays, computers, tablets, and smart phones, I've found that in recent years the variations have become pretty small and almost as consistent as a POD print run.
There are few absolutes in this game. Ansel Adams in the 1920s-1930s was so distraught with the consistency and quality of book printing that he chose for a small run of books to print every page by hand himself, in his darkroom, and finish out the books in his workshop by himself. A friend of mine resurrected this notion a few years back and produced about a dozen absolutely amazing, hand-crafted books this way. He gave one of them to me ... it is without a doubt my most treasured book and is a work of art from the book jacket onwards. I count it as priceless, irreproducible, artwork.
If you place arbitrary limits on what you consider to be a finished photograph and worry about all the things that might go wrong, you can easily fall into the trap of "perfection paralysis" and never produce anything. I choose to work to the point of "good enough for my satisfaction" and let it go beyond that. I know the results on computer screen and even in print can be variable, I do my best to constrain the variability so that something of my intent can be expressed, and have to take it as a given that nothing is ever really perfectly consistent.
Viewers of photographs on line and in books have to learn to see past the variabilities of the media too.
G
willie_901
Veteran
The viewer is solely responsible for "thoughtful contemplation" The medium is not limit in any way/
Guth
Appreciative User
Bill, sorry, but my vote in this case goes to you being a grouchy old guy (I might not be as old, but keep in mind that "it takes one to know one" as the saying goes). A couple of thoughts...
I happen to love photo books but don't own all that many because my limited shelving space is filled with numerous other books of all different sorts.
Just because there are far more images available online it does not mean that there aren't still some shining examples of wonderful, creative work amongst them. I love the fact that a person needn't jump through through so many hoops to have their work seen by others.
Finally, no one is in total agreement with everyone else as far as what makes a wonderful image. The less people involved in the process of determining whether or not an image should make it's way to my eyes for viewing the better as far as I'm concerned. Yes there is far more quantity to wade through as a result, but when I stumble across some of the amazing images made by others that I would have likely never had seen otherwise, this is a worthy tradeoff in my book (no pun intended).
That said, for me an image viewed online via a screen, or even viewing a print in a book for that matter, will never take the place of viewing in-person an actual photograph that was printed with great attention to detail. I personally see these things as complimenting one another as opposed to competing against each other.
I happen to love photo books but don't own all that many because my limited shelving space is filled with numerous other books of all different sorts.
Just because there are far more images available online it does not mean that there aren't still some shining examples of wonderful, creative work amongst them. I love the fact that a person needn't jump through through so many hoops to have their work seen by others.
Finally, no one is in total agreement with everyone else as far as what makes a wonderful image. The less people involved in the process of determining whether or not an image should make it's way to my eyes for viewing the better as far as I'm concerned. Yes there is far more quantity to wade through as a result, but when I stumble across some of the amazing images made by others that I would have likely never had seen otherwise, this is a worthy tradeoff in my book (no pun intended).
That said, for me an image viewed online via a screen, or even viewing a print in a book for that matter, will never take the place of viewing in-person an actual photograph that was printed with great attention to detail. I personally see these things as complimenting one another as opposed to competing against each other.
jawarden
Well-known
The problem with photography on the internet is that it tends to increase the number of excellent photographers that I know about, the number of books that I own, the number and quality of prints I've collected and made, the gallery shows I've attended, and the overall enjoyment of everything.
Wait, what was the problem again? ;-)
Wait, what was the problem again? ;-)
Rayt
Nonplayer Character
One more thing. My pet peeve. OK stronger than that. I mean pure hatred. I am looking at my favorite photo books with pages at normal viewing distance 6 to 8 inches from my face and photo books tend to be huge like coffee table books. So why do publishers insist on double spreads practically destroying the photo? Just reproduce the photos on one single page. I can’t exactly flatten the pages without breaking the spine. Alex Webb’s - Crossings is especially heinous with his best shots given this treatment.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
For this exact reason, I tend to prefer 7 or 9 inch square photo books, although I have to admit that the 9x12 inch format gives horizontals a nicer presentation space, particularly if the pages are thoughtfully laid out. Larger than that is simply too big to hold enjoyably without some sort of support (table, book stand).
A "perfect" binding that allows the book to lay flat helps a lot too, but I always dislike any page layout that allows a single image to cross the binding.
G
jawarden
Well-known
I agree completely. Ruins the image.
jvo
Established
on the other hand...
speaking as a grouchy ole' man, the interent has been a boon to my library! i've collected many wonderful books that were castoffs, remainders, or in some way "used' books to be gotten rid of - for a pittance.
It's expanded my library such that i have to regularly make space pass off good ones i become less interested in. the cream rises to the top.
speaking as a grouchy ole' man, the interent has been a boon to my library! i've collected many wonderful books that were castoffs, remainders, or in some way "used' books to be gotten rid of - for a pittance.
It's expanded my library such that i have to regularly make space pass off good ones i become less interested in. the cream rises to the top.
robert blu
quiet photographer
RichC
Well-known
Bill - I'm afraid I have to completely disagree with you: books on photographs and by photographers - "photobooks" - have never been so numerous nor so popular and sought after.
This is partly because the price of images by desirable photographers has risen astronomically over the past couple of decades: at the turn of the century you could pick up a Cartier-Bresson print for a few thousand (not cheap, but affordable), now you'd have to pay tens of thousands. Some photographs cost millions today... So, people have turned to photobooks as an affordable alternative (but even they're getting pricey - I've several that cost me tens of pounds but are now worth hundreds!).
And partly because of the rise of self-publishing: this is now cheap and easy to do, and, importantly, respectable (not so long ago this was called "vanity publishing", a term that has since disappeared).
The rise of photobook publishing houses has been phenomenal over the past decade and half.
Photobooks have become such an intrinsic part of photographic practice that university photography degrees are beginning to include courses on photobooks, which include students designing and making dummies.
You have to look beyond the background noise of the billions of online images we're bombarded by today, which drowns out all other media, however strong and vibrant they are.
I should mention that I work in publishing and am also a photobook collector, so books are a topic I know about...
This is partly because the price of images by desirable photographers has risen astronomically over the past couple of decades: at the turn of the century you could pick up a Cartier-Bresson print for a few thousand (not cheap, but affordable), now you'd have to pay tens of thousands. Some photographs cost millions today... So, people have turned to photobooks as an affordable alternative (but even they're getting pricey - I've several that cost me tens of pounds but are now worth hundreds!).
And partly because of the rise of self-publishing: this is now cheap and easy to do, and, importantly, respectable (not so long ago this was called "vanity publishing", a term that has since disappeared).
The rise of photobook publishing houses has been phenomenal over the past decade and half.
Photobooks have become such an intrinsic part of photographic practice that university photography degrees are beginning to include courses on photobooks, which include students designing and making dummies.
You have to look beyond the background noise of the billions of online images we're bombarded by today, which drowns out all other media, however strong and vibrant they are.
I should mention that I work in publishing and am also a photobook collector, so books are a topic I know about...
emraphoto
Veteran
well you should have a forum about the matter unto your own my friend. or a blog. or something.
i suspect it would be very popular. there is a lot of interest from photographers who are less interested in gear and more interested in means to communicate. not that interest in gear is bad, just different.
when my son proposed going to University for photography i was constantly pushing the idea of spending the money on workshops about publishing, funding, grant writing, 2 dimensional design etc. and then producing a body of work. it took him two years at University to agree and drop the program.
there simply isn't enough of these sort of resources. they exist but it would be fantastic to see more. a shout out to Damaso, PKR and others for their efforts to date.