| Photography Forum: Philosophy Of Photography Forum: |
 |
Q. Ethics of printing
Asked by Sean yates
(K=1240) on 1/31/1999
|
Here's one, or maybe several. Please forgive if they dulplicate other questions on this forum. Also forgive if they reek of beer induced college undergrad discussions and run on too long.
Ansel Adams used to expose and dodge and burn his prints, and then hand them to an assistant to process. I believe he also used to tone them. In her biography (of Adams) Mary Street Alinder mentions John Sexton & she conferring over some of Adams prints which he'd toned too long, resulting in the characteristic purplish hue that selenium imparts. I don't recall if she said they discretly destroyed those prints to save Adams reputation or not.
Over the years, Adams interpretation of "Moonrise, Hernandez, N.M." changed. He printed the sky darker and darker and darker until he got the image we're all familiar with today.
Alan Ross prints small runs of certain Adams Yosemite negs which are available to patrons of the Adams gallery in Yosemite and I believe over the net.
When Parkinson's made it difficult/impossible for him, Edward Weston directed his sons, Brett & Cole in printing the museum editions of his work. As is pointed out in the book "Weston's Westons, California & the West" the interpretation vaires. Brett's seem a little less contrasty, and so on. Now, or at least until a while ago, Cole Weston used to print his dad's work, siging each print, "Negative by Edward Weston, Print by Cole Weston".
Shortly before his death, Brett Weston destroyed the majority of his negatives, saying only the original photographer could interpret their negatives.
I believe Robert Mapplethorpe had his prints made by an accomplished printer in New York who is still out there, doing his own work. I don't know if Mapplethorpe ever printed his negs, or he stopped when he could afford to have it done, or when the effects of AIDS prevented him or what.
Avedon has had his assistants print his negs for a while, albeit with incredibly detailed notes.
What do you think/feel about all this? Would you ever allow, have or pay another person to print your negs? Should an original, light sky, "Hernandez" sell for more or less than a later printing? Should a print executed solely by Adams, assuming it were possible to proove, go for more than a later one which his assistants helped print?
Yes, Brett's executions of his dad's neg is different, but considering the amount of time that may have elapsed between printings, the possible differences in water, paper stock etc., and the fact that his dad was there, directing, shouldn't Bretts be considered equal to or on a par with his Dad's?
What about Avedon & Mapplethorpe's work? Should an assistant or printer recieve a royalty or percentage of print sales as an actor does for a play, as a musician does for a recording of a performance? What about re-touchers?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
richard
(K=120) - Comment Date 1/31/1999
|
Most commercially based artists such as Avedon do not do there own printing. Mapplethorpe used a printer named Tom Baril who is an amazing artist in his own right. Penn does his own platinum but he is an exception. Albert Watson as folk lore would have it; is said that his on staff assistant prints his work till a final is made, then Albert goes in an actually makes the final per tests that the assistant did. Albert claims that he does his own printing. Galleries and museums are aware of this and a new addition to signed prints has resulted. In addition to signing (and or numbering prints) some artists are putting a stamp on the back of their prints: "NEGATIVE MADE ON: 9/20/98 Printed by artist on 9/28/98. This is done to for two reasons 1) to show that the artist printed the image, and 2) that the artist printed the image close to the time of exposure. It is said that this makes a print more valuable. Lets say a artist makes "x" amount of prints of a "said" negative. Years later when that image is in high demand, the artist says "hey I can make more money by just printing this old negative" In theory the new prints should not be as valuable as the old prints. Thats right, same image, by same photog printed years later- one is worth less than the other. Why is this? To protect the collector. We want to protect the collector- they are buying our prints. As "non printing photographers" such as Mapplethorpe, Herb Ritts, and Peter Arnell, keep becoming popular this will become a clouded issue. The history books will not differentiate; they are photographers because they snapped the shutter. The fact that they do not even know how to print seems not to matter. I do not like it, but that is the way it is. Printers like Tom Baril will not be credited for Mapplethorpes work- because....... it was not his work! RW
|
|
|
|
Howard Creech
(K=3161) - Comment Date 1/31/1999
|
Printers are often artists in their own right, and many photographers prefer to have their prints done by an artist who is as accomplished in the darkroom as they (the photographers) are behind the camera. Many photographers (in addition to those listed above) such as Henri Cartier-Bresson, Man Ray, Eliot Porter, etc. relied on others to print their negatives and transparencies. Other photographers print their own negatives and transparencies (Ansel Adams) Photography and printing are, in fact, not always the two sides of one coin, but often two different disciplines. Not everyone is an artist at both, and I, for one, don't feel this takes anything at all away from the photographer (I can certainly testify that I have met many printers who were better in the darkroom than I am, but were lost behind the camera) I do feel that the fame gained by the photographers (but not the printers) of great photographs is not a fair division of the credit. In many cases, the printers are aspiring photographers who jump at the chance to work with the greats in the trade, but for others, they toil in obscurity, while in truth their contributions to the finished product are just as important as those of the photographer.
|
|
|
|
Gerry Siegel
(K=927) - Comment Date 1/31/1999
|
I don't know, people. This is uncharted territory. Does a printer become alter ego to the photo artist. And, does that mean settling for being one of the "string section,if you will,and not minding it. If so, why is this as an issue downstream. I really am baffled, but that is my two cents for what its worth.
|
|
|
|
mark lindsey
(K=1720) - Comment Date 2/1/1999
|
In the case of Adams his assistant did nothing more than process the print at the specific times. Adams didn't believe in adding any uncontrollable variations to the printing process, so what the processor did was not of a creative mode. This method probably occurred at times when print orders were huge, such as when Adams gave notice that he would stop taking orders on a certain date and it took him three years to complete the ensuing orders. This is no more a part of the creative process than if Sexton had put the prints in the washer for him.
The interpretation of Moonrise never actually changed, only Adams's ability to print the original intention of that same image--note-- Adams said that he never quite got the print that he wanted from the moonrise negative.
Special edition prints came about so that the average person could afford to purchase one of Adams's prints, although not printed by Adams nor was it signed by him. (Earlier prints were but he decided that this was dishonest).
Ed Weston of course had extreme reasons for the printing to be taken over by Brett first, then later Cole.
In these two examples, both men thought that (and I agree with them) that only the photographer of the image can truly interpret the negative to match their own intent. That doesn't mean that someone else cannot get a wonderful print, just that it is different--not the same vision--
Brett destroyed his negatives because of a retrospective showing of Edwardss work. Adams observed that it was a hodge podge of prints made by all three (Edward, Brett and Cole) put on display, with no indication of who printed what. He said that even though all prints were of quality, they also all had very different styles of printing that the show had no direction or indication of Edwardss vision. He swore (Brett) that this would never happen to him.
Would I have someone else print my images? I don't think so. However if I paid someone to dump it into the developer on down that would be okay (that has no bearing on the creative side of image making to me, once I pull it out of the enlarger, its 2min,30sec.,blah,blah,blah), but for now, since I don't have thousands of orders for my prints coming in, I will be happy to do it all myself.
|
|
|
|
steve
(K=1127) - Comment Date 2/1/1999
|
This is not uncharted territory, and has precedents in other areas of printed art. It is common practice in both lithography and etching for the artist to "make the art" and a specialist (a printer) to execute the artist's vision in its final form. To date, this has not altered the perception that what the artist created (in lithography or etching)is a work of art, or that collaboration with a printer to produce the art somehow makes the piece less of a work of art. I don't see why the medium being photography should be different from other art forms.
For some photographers, the darkroom is where the final vision becomes reality. But, this isn't true for everyone, and in fact, for those photographers who do not like the darkroom processess it is probably a hindrance. Ansel Adams said (paraphrased) "the negative is the score and the print is the final performance." This is true, but a composer or conductor doesn't have to play every instrument in an orchestra for the final performance to be recognized as art. Neither does a visual artist need to totally make every aspect of his/her work in order for it to be art. If this was to be true, then we should all start making our own film and paper.
If the artist has a vision of what the final outcome should be, much like an orchestra conductor, they can work with other professionals to realize the final work. I have printed both lithographs and photographs for other people, and I can tell you that at its best, the collaborative process is exciting for both the printer and the artist; and can result in a final print that is better than what the photographer or artist had envisioned. That is what the trial proofs and reprints are for, is the artist and printer "rehearsing" and gaining an understanding of the final work and each other in order to make the final print.
For my own work, I am never satisfied unless I make the final print because I interact with the print as I am making it, and often alter my own vision as to what is important in the photo or what needs to be "tweaked" to get more out of it. If I had the money to have a printers make multiple proofs, I'm sure I could direct them well enough to make the final print to my satisfaction. But, to date, I don't have the time or money to pay someone to make 16x20 proofs. I know of artists who do. In fact, some of them will have an entire roll of 35mm proofed at 16x20 just to see what the photos look like.
As for paying the printer a royalty, or more than just a printing fee. That is something that should be individually negotiated between the artist and the printer. It is not a standard practice with lithographs or etchings unless the printer is also the publisher and is picking up the cost of printing giving the printer an investment in the work over and above the service to the artist.
|
|
|
|
mark lindsey
(K=1720) - Comment Date 2/1/1999
|
Steve,
I think you hit the nail on the head when you said,"I am never satisfied unless I make the final print". I think that it all depends on how picky an individual is about their own way of seeing and what the end product is. I think that just because there are many musicians to perform the score, it does not mean that the end result was exactly as envisioned by the composer. I believe it was Mozart who was frustrated because he could not perform every part?
Just because it can be done, or is done, does not mean that the final image does not suffer. I think that the ultimate proof of this would to have a show and have it be printed by many different printers. I think that even with the most demanding attention to their work, you and the viewers would be very disappointed.
|
|
|
|
Howard Creech
(K=3161) - Comment Date 2/2/1999
|
I believe that the work of photographers such as Eliot Porter, Man Ray, Henri Cartier-Bresson and many others who did not print their own photos pretty much speaks for itself. In recent times there have been instances (especially in Rock Music and Jazz) in which artists have recorded pieces in which they played all the instruments (and controlled every facet of the production) many of them were nothing to write home about. There are a lot of photographers who believe that Ansel Adams was a much better printer, than he was a photographer. If you print your own negatives (and you are both a good photographer and a good printer) then good for you...but it is mean spirited to "dis" the greats who have established their places in history based on the quality and longevity of their work. Some photographers wish to control every aspect of their image, from conception to framed print, and that is fine. Other photographers prefer to make the photographs...and let another artist make the print, and that is also fine. It is really not possible to second guess the decisions of another artist...and obviously many of them who are at the top of the pyramid in terms of history and recognition knew precisely what they were doing. Just because one artist (or a group of artists) does something a certain way is no reason why every other artist has to follow or adopt those same methods of accomplishing their goals. Like some one said earlier, maybe the collaboration between two (or more) artists can create something that no individual could have created alone (the cinema certainly indicates that this is possible)
|
|
|
|
mark lindsey
(K=1720) - Comment Date 2/2/1999
|
Howard,
How do you know that the images made by Eliot Porter, Man Ray, Henri Cartier-Bresson would not have been even more effective if printed by they themselves? Ansel Adams special edition prints are truly beautiful, but they are not of the same quality as the prints made by him. What photographers (famous or not so famous) choose to do is their own business of course, and if someone else can criticize Adams for not being as good a photographer as he was a printer, then I certainly retain the right to criticize anyone who I think clouds their personal vision by letting others interfere with the creative process (mean spirited I believe you said) which is a very personal thing.
I also resent being told that I cannot criticize someone simply because of his or her stature in history (is the Adams comment not the same thing? why do you not protest this?)
All in all I guess it comes down to how important you feel the act of printing is in the execution of an image. Personally I feel that it is as important as shooting the image itself and I will continue to hold that believe regardless of who disagrees. Color, of course, is much more straightforward in the printing process, and I have no problems with others printing those images.
|
|
|
|
Jim Sidinger
(K=105) - Comment Date 2/2/1999
|
I believe that Adams, himself answered the question best when he talked of the negative being the equivalent of a musical score and the printing of the negative being the equivalent of the orchestra / conductor performing that score.
Both the composer and the performers are artists in their own right and their output (the score and the performance) are works of art which may or may not be the same.
|
|
|
|
Howard Creech
(K=3161) - Comment Date 2/3/1999
|
Mark, I did not intend to offend you...obviously our views do not agree in this area...so be it...part of that may be explained by the fact the I shoot about 85 per cent of my photographic output in the form of color slides (as did Eliot Porter)and additionally by the fact that I am claustrophobic and hate being in the darkroom...I find it difficult to imagine the work of HCB or Eliot Porter capable of being improved by anything. I will plead guilty to being critical of A.A.'s work (given his historical prominence) after telling you that it was mean spirited for you to second guess those photographers whose place in history was assured. Jim, thank you for saying what I was trying to say (and doing a much better job of it)
|
|
|
|
Andy Hughes
(K=30) - Comment Date 2/3/1999
|
Photography is a strange art. If you compare it to painting, then having another artist printing a negative would be forgery. If you compare it to music, then that second artist is a performer. In the music world there are some performers who are as famous as the composer, but not many, it remains the composers work.
Which is Photography? Probably both, probably neither. A live performance of music is still better than a recording, so there is still a need for live performances... is there still a need to print older works?
I don't think I'll know in my lifetime the answer to the questions posed in this thread. Weston destroyed his negatives, I guess he's a painter, Adams left his to a university for top students to print, I guess he's a composer?
|
|
|
|
mark lindsey
(K=1720) - Comment Date 2/3/1999
|
Howard, You puzzle me. Doesn't the qoute by Adams about the importance of the print (posted by Jim)in conveying the creative intent strengthen my argument? I sure think that it does.
|
|
|
|
steve
(K=1127) - Comment Date 2/3/1999
|
No. It only strengthens your argument in relationship to your own work and Adam's work. Your conjecture that Porter's, or Bresson's work might have been more effecitive if they had printed them is specious and a non-sequitar as the opposite is also true. The work is what the work is, and it was produced through the method that they felt gave them the results they wanted (the best results). The photograph (end result) should be appreciated (or judged) on its own merit and not through the method of production.
If you, as the artist, are convinced that you need to print your own photographs because your creative process continues through production in the darkroom, that is good for you and your art, but it is not a universal truth that must be followed by everyone to attain artistic validity for their work. The collaborative process of using a printer to achieve the end work is not for everyone (like yourself and Adams). But printing your own work is neither more expressive nor a higher achievement than working through the collaborative method -- it is only different. Bronze sculptors use foundries, lithographers use printers, some photographers also use printers. Yes, the method of production is all part of the final art, but, the true artist is in control OF the process not the other way around. Therefore, the final product is a reflection of the artist and his or her intent -- not the production method.
|
|
|
|
mark lindsey
(K=1720) - Comment Date 2/3/1999
|
Again, for color work, I can agree that someone else can print an artists work, color is much more straightforward in its print production methods. Black and white, on the other hand, is much more manipulative and personal. It is a very subtle craft to master.
You mention the composer and the use of musicians; just because it is a necessity, does not make it perfect. Was it not Mozart who wished that he could play every instrument so that the whole would be performed correctly? Again, I think it all depends on how picky you are about your own work.
The expressive black and white image of one will always be more clear and powerful than the muddled expression of many.
I also noticed that in your earlier post you mention your involvement in printing for others, perhaps your argument on the subject comes more from ego rather than fact?
I believe we will have to agree to disagree.
|
|
|
|
Howard Creech
(K=3161) - Comment Date 2/4/1999
|
Mark, I believe the problem here is that all of us are willing to recognize your right to your opinion, but you don't seem willing to aknowledge that the opinions of others are just as valid as yours. Like I said earlier, if you feel the you need to both shoot and print the negative to insure that your artistic vision is realized...then in your case that is the truth...however that is not the only possible truth here. I don't believe that the work of either HCB or Eliot Porter was at all "muddled" or confused...in addition I do not believe that either of these artists could have improved that vision by printing their own work...both were competent printers...but both chose (along with many others) to allow someone with greater talent to print their images...that was their choice to make. I'm afraid that I will have to join the group of those who disagree with your premise...it is not about the argument, it is about the final product, however you happen to arrive there. That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.
|
|
|
|
steve
(K=1127) - Comment Date 2/4/1999
|
Mark, the "facts" are: the photograph is the final art not the method of production. I don't think you understand the true collaborative process in which the artist does not relinquish control of the art because they choose to use a production method that employs a specialist in a certain area. This is not like dropping the negative off at the lab and picking up the print at a later date and just "taking" whatever the lab gives you. Through the collaborative method of working, the artist is involved in all decisions that are made. The art production person, in essence, becomes another "tool" for the artist to use.
As for printing color it is a completely different printing mastery than black and white. I print Ilfochromes, and they are just as difficult and challenging to print as any black and white photos and maybe more so because you cannot fall back on 6 contrast grades of paper plus chemical manipulations to achieve a final print. This means that you have to devise your own new techniques and be very, very good at certain printing skills such as dodging, burning, and contrast/color control through masking. It also means you cannot be nearly as sloppy in shooting the original, or in your darkroom processess. Everything requires much greater process control, including control of yourself in order to achieve the final photo. Having shot and printed black and white for 25 years before switching to color, I have somewhat of a foundation to make these statements.
As far as my ego. I am a realist. Some people need to work in the darkroom to successfully realize the final print while others do not. The personal expression of the final piece of art is what really counts not the statement, "I made everything myself, and no one can do it better." Mozart may have wanted to play every instrument himself. Maybe he should have, and maybe his ego would not have allowed him recognized the final outcome as worse not better if that was the case.
Each artist must make the choice of how the final piece will be produced and become part of that process. If the process includes using specialists for certain production purposes, I personally, see nothing wrong with that as long as the artist does not abdicate control of work. There is a certain artist that I know, for a fact, draws only one lithographic plate (of 8-12 used), lets the printer fill in the rest AND choose the colors within a certain pallette. The artist will come back and look at proofs and choose/approve the final color combinations. When the run is finished, the "artist" comes back to sign the work. He makes a lot of money with minimal effort, that is his goal. I'm not sure where that sort of process falls on the zero-art scale. That is not the type of collaboration I am talking about as it is not a process whereby the artist is totally involved in the look and feel of the final work.
Yes, certain people seek me out to make prints for them. I do not go "trolling" for work and, in fact, have turned down many people. I work with people who have special project needs and do not want or cannot afford the investment in a complete color darkroom, but have a need for very custom color work. We work together to achieve the final print. This includes extensive discussion of each piece prior to making a proof to gain an insight into why the picture was taken, what the photographer wants to achieve and what areas need to be emphasized and why. This is the interperative part of print making, listening carefully to the artist to understand their intent so that you can bring it out in the print. After the first proof, we again, sit down and look at the print, evalutate it and discuss what the photographer sees in the print and what needs to be changed to make it work better. Again, listening to the artist. The proofing may take more iterations (five is the maximum I have ever had to do, but the proof print limit is when the photographer says, "that's it, that is exactly what I wanted"). As you can see, this is not like dropping it off at the color lab on Tuesday and coming back Thursday to see what you've gotten. The printer must check his or her ego at the door, and become the "conduit" through which the final art is made. As the printer, you are only successful when your skills (not your ego and personal expression) allow the artist to complete their vision.
|
|
|
|
Joe Stephenson
(K=377) - Comment Date 2/4/1999
|
Good topic. To me it doesn't matter how the image got on the paper-- so long as it is clear as to who did what. And I disagree, Andy, forgery involves misrepresentation. HCB credited his printer and never claimed to print his negatives. As to the question of the $ value of a print being higher if printed by the photographer, I see that as a collectors concern. I don't care; I just want to see the work. I prefer to do everything myself, but that's because I enjoy it or think that I can do a better job than I can otherwise obtain. Which version of Hernandez should one buy? Light sky, dark sky? I would buy the one I liked best, although limited financial resources will spare me the decision. If it matters, there is a long tradition in painting of using assistants to paint a large portion of the canvas, leaving critical areas like the hands and face for the master. If you look at many old masters, you are looking at a work completed by a team of two or more individuals, a situation even more complex than that which exists between photographer and printer. Sincerely, Joe Stephenson
|
|
|
|
james mickelson
(K=7344) - Comment Date 2/5/1999
|
Many in todays art and graphics world have a specialist do work for them. To produce a print with the dye transfer process it is usually to the advantage of the photographer to have a printer with this specialized knowlege do the work. It doesn't mean they give up any artistic control to any one. And they certainly don't advertise the fact they use someone else to make the print. Iris prints are another. Shot is taken, processed, scanned, corrected (using someone elses program), printed and proffed again, and after final corrections, printed. Easy. And no one congratulates the scanner/printer/machine operator. Final print says it all. Collectors almost always know if a certain artist prints their own stuff or not. Milli Vanilli is always found out. James
|
|
|
|
mark lindsey
(K=1720) - Comment Date 2/5/1999
|
I too believe that the final print is the most important aspect of what we do--exactly why I argue my point, and as for understanding the commercial aspects of professional work, I fully understand them, having worked for some of the finest professional labs in the country, thank you. I've preaced my sermon, time for me to move onto another topic.
|
|
|
|
mark lindsey
(K=1720) - Comment Date 2/5/1999
|
|
|
|
|
John Rountree
(K=135) - Comment Date 2/14/1999
|
Using the camera to record an image requires certain skills. Taking a negative, yours or someone else, and making a good print requires a totally different set of skills. Should a musical composer be required to play every part for every instrument in order to realize a work of music? Of course not. Is a successful musical conductor not an artist in the way he or she interprets the music and presents it to others? Of course he/she is. The point made by Mr. Creech about Cartier-Bresson and others is well taken...thier photgraphs are beautiful and significant contributions to the art world. The question is posed, would they be better if printed by the photogographer. Of course not. These prints are approved by the artist ecause they believe they show the photograph as they intended. I would like someone to give me an example of a Cartier- Bresson photo that would be improved if Henri printed it himself.
|
|
|
|
mark lindsey
(K=1720) - Comment Date 2/15/1999
|
funny how everyone chooses to press their points by referring to other types of art, such as music, rather than prove their points within the confines of the medium of expression that is being dicussed.
|
|
|
|
Jeff Spirer
(K=2523) - Comment Date 2/15/1999
|
OK, no art and no music.
I know someone who prints Dorothea Lange work for museums. People go to the museums and they see a famous Dorothea Lange photograph, one that he printed. Do they care who printed it? No. Do they even think about who printed it? No. Other than a bunch of anal- retentive photographers, the viewers of photographs, the intended audience, doesn't see this as a problem. So if a photographer wants to have someone else print for them, it's fine except that a small group of photographers will get upset.
It's also worth pointing out that some people have or develop severe allergies to all the toxic substances in a darkroom and are told by their doctors to get out of the darkroom. Should these people give up photography and become monks?
|
|
|
|
mark lindsey
(K=1720) - Comment Date 2/15/1999
|
Also, if Bresson couldn't print then that is a whole other thread and frankly, it is not much of an excuse. Furthermore, Bresson's images were effective because of the subject matter and its involvement with the "decisive moment". His images are of great moments, and he was a great photographer, but from what I have seen of his work, it would have been better communicated through better negatives and prints. Photojournalistic work does not have a history of consisting of quality negatives or prints, so I can see why there would be no concern about printing one's own work.
|
|
|
|
mark lindsey
(K=1720) - Comment Date 2/15/1999
|
Jeff,
sorry, but I have seen and heard of plenty of people who have seen a difference between prints made by people other than the artist. Lange, another example of a photojournalist with low print quality, mostly because (and she admitted this herself) she bracketed from one end to the other to get a correct exposure (or was that White?) You may say,"but what about all of those great pics she got"? and I would say,"what about all of those great shots she must have missed?".I can't take the reasoning of photojournalists for sloppy work to be a standard for my own.
as for anal-retentiveness, perhaps these are photographers who are satisfied with nothing but the best in quality and expressiveness in their work, and would rather be called anal retentive rather than being called a lazy, low quality slob.
In an earlier post I said that I understood perfectly the situation of Weston who had his sons print his work for him, and those prints were identified as such, because of the onslaught of parkinson's, so your last question is moot.
|
|
|
|
Jeff Spirer
(K=2523) - Comment Date 2/16/1999
|
Well for a photographer less well-known than Weston, and with an unknown printer, who would know the difference? It really doesn't matter if the final result is effective and what the photographer wanted.
Also, your attitude about photojournalists is way overplayed and quite a bit of a negative vibe. Photojournalism is a branch of photography and demeaning its practitioners demeans photography as a whole.
|
|
|
|
mark lindsey
(K=1720) - Comment Date 2/16/1999
|
Hmmm, funny, and I thought that some of my best friends were photojournalists. You can't deny that image quality is one of the last things considered by the majority of pas (I should know my first photography classes were at a very well respected PJ department at the college in my hometown. I know some Pj's who are very into quality (some even use the zone system for god's sake) others haven't a clue even after being in the field for years (and many of their images have suffered). The difference is that PJ is about SUBJECT MATTER, art is about something entirely different.
Hey, it doesn't make a bit of difference to me if others aren't as demanding about their own PERSONAL vision (personal being the key word here). If they want their work to be printed by someone else then so be it, but what happens when that person is not available, say, right through the middle of printing a gallery showing? different styles, etc., what a sad mess. There is nothing sadder to me than to take something so personal as one's own art, and give it away to be controlled by someone else.
It amazes me that some people can find such an important part of the creation of the photographic image so trivial.
|
|
|
|
John Rountree
(K=135) - Comment Date 2/16/1999
|
Sorry if the music analogy was too deep for you. I will re-iterate two points. First, name one of HCB's photos that could be improved if he did his own printing. Secondly, how do the skills necessary to make a good negative (disregard luck and excessive bracketing since a good photograph is more than good exposure)correlate to the skills of working with paper and chemicals in the darkroom? Vision is one thing, printing is another. Do you think HCB ever told his printer to try again so he would get it right for HCB? Are you saying that HCB never actually realized his vision because he didn't make his owm prints?
|
|
|
|
stefan
(K=437) - Comment Date 2/16/1999
|
I think the answer to the original question varies according to whom is asking it and the nature of the print being made.
When we buy a photograph, we are not paying for the materials, we are paying for the image. If artist X has an assistant or printer that can satisfy his vision, can produce a print that the photographer is happy to put their name on, then so be it -- what is the big deal?
If you are a collector investing in rare prints, I can understand that you would care since it might mean a lot of money. Cartier-Bresson did not care to spend time in the darkroom and could afford the services of a printer. I am not so wealthy and some of my negs are taken under unusual conditions; it requires a lot of dodging and burning with custom made dodging tools to get them to come out in a way that pleases me. But for some of my negs taken under more normative conditions, well, I'm sure someone could sneak into my darkroom, make a good print, slip it into my inventory and I might never know. In any case, if the resulting print satisfies the photographer (who, as author, is responsible for his/her work), then who cares if it was made by the artist, by an assistant, by a machine at Walmart?
|
|
|
|
Jeff Spirer
(K=2523) - Comment Date 2/16/1999
|
I have bought two photographic prints (everything else I've been able to trade.) In both cases, I saw the prints in books and contacted the photographer. I bought both without knowing who printed them. I later found out that one of them did his own printing, something that came up when he mentioned it in a conversation. I am fairly certain that the other photographer doesn't do his own printing.
Does it matter? What do I care, the images are what I wanted, and they convey what made me interested in the books. I got what I wanted from the photographers and it isn't that important to me how I got it. They're both nice prints, by the way, but I know printers who do work just as good.
|
|
|
|
mark lindsey
(K=1720) - Comment Date 2/16/1999
|
John,
Your attempt at an insult is pathetic--- the music analogy too deep? Please, try more like overdone and not relating to the realities of photography. If you want to use something other than photography in your examples then please try something original.
First, I havent seen an hcb print yet that I didnt think could be improved by better printing. If hcb was such a bad printer that he couldnt even interpret his own negatives better than other printers then that is his own downfall as a photographer.
Second, if you dont see the creation in the darkroom of the print to be on as high an order as making the negative, then whats the point of going on in this debate? You must be as handicapped as hcb if you feel this way.
Yawn
|
|
|
|
Howard Creech
(K=3161) - Comment Date 2/17/1999
|
Mark, if only the rest of us could arrange for a downfall like that suffered by Henri Cartier-Bresson. The truth of the matter is that HCB was a very good printer...he just didn't like working in the darkroom...I saw a few prints from his series on India in the early 80's that were made by him, and they were magnificent (but they were not magnificent because HCB printed them, but rather because the prints were very slightly different versions of works already loved by the public) He often made prints while at Magnum and they were used by the Magnum printers to get publication prints that were right on with his vision....many of these prints were later stolen from the Magnum files and sold on the auction circuit without HCB's permission or approval. It was HCB's practice to give prints that he made himself to friends as keepsakes, these prints were never meant to compete with his work that was offered to the public. Just as the works of fine writers are often edited by unknown editors...the vision of fine photographers is often brought to paper by unknown printers....Based on your reasoning, the works of great composers, writers, photographers, and other artists should be allowed to die with them...I think what you fail to realize is that most art forms are more collaborative than that. Should we refuse to read translations of the works of great writers who wrote in French, Maylay, Chinese, German, Dutch, Russian, etc. Should we refuse to look at the works of great sculptors who allowed foundry workers to cast their bronzes.
|
|
|
|
mark lindsey
(K=1720) - Comment Date 2/17/1999
|
Howard,
You haven't based anything on my reasoning from what I have seen. I haven't said that anyone who wants to have someone else print their work shouldn't do so, I have simply stated my opinion on what is the end result of not being in total control of ones own vision or art at an intimate level.
Everyone keeps giving me examples from other forms of art--sculpture music. I am not talking about those mediums so the points made about them are moot.
Throughout this thread I have agreed that in special circumstances which prevent the original artist from printing their own work that I did not have a problem with it, disease, death, etc.--isn't anyone listening? I know that many forms of art are more collaborative, don't talk to me as if I am an idiot please.
The samples that everyone gives shows not a single clue as to where I am coming from, which to me is severely disappointing considering we are all photographers---I give up, this is like trying to talk to a brick wall.
|
|
|
|
Howard Creech
(K=3161) - Comment Date 2/17/1999
|
Mark, we do not live in a vacuum, as visual artists...everything that we see and study affects what we photograph and how we do it....other art forms are not moot, rather they are of tremendous influence (direct or indirect) in how we percieve the world that we depict on film. We are the sum of our parts. I did not mean to treat you as if you were an idiot, and I appologize if it appeared that I was. I think you have every right to your opinion, I just don't accept your premise. The language of photography is about ideas, not mechanics. I respect your valiant "last stand" against the advancing hordes, but I can't but into your point of view. One "brick wall" signing off.
|
|
|
|
Trib
(K=2701) - Comment Date 2/17/1999
|
yyeeeeeeehhhhhhhhaaaaaawwww...man that was a scorcher. You contrary b***ards. he he he, wow, my head is swimming. I can't take sides in this...it is finished. I do know that if i did hand over my negs or else to be printed by another they had better be prepped for a long haul. I can't expect someone who wasn't present at the shoot to then interpret what I want in the printing. I print other's work to supplement my income and have printed for my entire income and what's on the neg and what can be done in printing is different enough to gobble a 250 sheet box. I am (and I suspect Mark and Howard too) so anal about print quality that we cringe at the thought of argueing with the printer and rejecting otherwise fine prints because of a slight cropping mistake or the variables that we would naturally want control over. I've handed printers a straight print with the most detailed cropping and dodging and burning instructions even included a roughly printed(dodged and burned)proof so they could match specific densities...well you can finish this run-on(hell, I can hardly visit any friends houses without adjusting the "color pac" of their TV) Great one guys and great question Sean.
|
|
|
|
Jeff Spirer
(K=2523) - Comment Date 2/17/1999
|
First, I havent seen an hcb print yet that I didnt think could be improved by better printing
Because it wasn't what HCB wanted in his print? Or because it isn't what you think the print should be?
If you think about it for even two seconds, you will realize that you have argued the opposite of what you think you are arguing.
|
|
|
|
mark lindsey
(K=1720) - Comment Date 2/18/1999
|
Not really Jeff, in this case I was talking purely of the technical aspects of the print, not to mention that I was a bit heated and pissed off at the moment. take it with a grain of salt.
|
|
|
|
John Rountree
(K=135) - Comment Date 2/18/1999
|
Geez, didn't mean to get all the way down toi pathetic, but the view from here isn't too bad. Anyway, let's stop beating up poor old HCB, and I will simply pose this question. Why is someone who takes the picture called a photographer and the person who puts the image on paper is called a printer? Why do we have two very different words with very different definitions to describe these two steps in the realization of a picture? What is the relationship of the words or processes involved?
|
|
|
|
|
