Fred Picker

[Marley's Ghost]

You can do a lot of this with VC split printing and dodge/burn accordingly to change local contrast. The thing that digital makes possible is complex edge transition corrections - say a wooded treeline against a cloudy sky. These are really hard to get right with silver printing but a matter of proper masking with digital.

I own a very fine digital capture system. I own a Hasselblad with several lenses for which a very fine MF digital back is available. I am an engineer by training and profession computers are second nature to me. But, what keeps me from going digital is output - I have yet to find any digital output media that is as beautiful at scale as a silver print. Yes, I could shoot film, scan, correct, and produce a full sized internegative for printing with silver. But that last step is daunting and hard to really get right. For now, at least, I continue to shoot film and print wet, while acknowledging that digital probably has a place in my future.

Interesting ... I'm an engineer from an engineering background: my grandfather worked for Vickers Supermarine on the Spitfire's development. My father was a rocket engineer on the Black Knight and Finally Black Arrow British space programme in the 60s and 70s that launched the first British satellite 'Prospero' in 1971. I started an enginearing company ten years ago designing and building music electronics and exporting my products worldwide after a long career as a professional photographer. I was (as far as I know the first professional theatre photographer in London to embrace digital photography.
For me photography is less about perfection and more about interpretation ... so I don't get my panties in a bunch about print quality and focus more on the the way it makes you feel

 

[Alan Clark]

so I don't get my panties in a bunch about print quality and focus more on the the way it makes you feel

The problem, of course, is that print quality helps to influence the way you feel....

Alan

 

[Marley's Ghost]

The problem, of course, is that print quality helps to influence the way you feel....

Alan

That rather depends on weather you are a photographer or not, The average consumer of photogragraphy doesn't know what they are supposed to see ... so they get influenced by the content not the fluff.

 

[thronobulax]

That rather depends on weather you are a photographer or not, The average consumer of photogragraphy doesn't know what they are supposed to see ... so they get influenced by the content not the fluff.

Weeeellll, I don't make prints for other people. I make them for meself, though certainly find it delightful if others enjoy them. For me, the digital/silver printing divide isn't about "quality" anyway. Very high quality can be achieved with either. I just don't find any of the digital print output media "beautiful" - which is to say, aesthetically compelling. This is very personal and I realize it's not a view shared by many others ... and that's fine. But I was more trying to explain that - notwithstanding my engineering and computing background - I've consciously chosen to work in silver until I cannot.

 

[David M]

There’s quality and quality, of course. Handling a copy of Vogue tells you a great deal about the content. It’s obviously about expensive things, about luxury. An Aldi catalogue produced in the same way would jar. I don‘t imagine that either Vogue or Aldi customers know much about paper manufacture or printing, but the message is still there and it’s still communicated.
You may remember Punk. Typically, they used torn photocopies to create their artwork with crude hand-drawn lettering. This was to emphasise their rejection of conventional (bourgeois?) values. This was a different kind of quality, but appropriate to the message. Once again, I doubt that your average head-banger knew much about printing, but the message would still be communicated.

So, my suggestion is that quality does matter and that people do notice, but that doesn’t mean that every print should follow the same rules. It should reinforce the image. It should be a decision, not an accident.

David Pye, in “The Nature and Art of Workmanship” has more to say on appropriate levels of craftsmanship.

 

[Alan Clark]

That rather depends on weather you are a photographer or not, The average consumer of photogragraphy doesn't know what they are supposed to see ... so they get influenced by the content not the fluff.

You've lost me...and I have the feeling that we have different ideas about what is meant by the term print quality.

Alan

 

[David M]

There are images where the subject matter overwhelms all other considerations. The little girl running from a napalm attack might be an example.
Otherwise, our view of almost anything is modified by the way it’s presented. Some things are surprising. Food tastes better if the cutlery is heavier. If there’s no cutlery involved, people report that a burger is tastier if it’s presented in McDonald’s box rather than a plain one.
These are matters of presentation and what we‘re calling print quality is one aspect of this. I belong to a group who show each other prints. We hand them round and quite frequently, someone will comment on the feel of the paper in the hand. Very often someone will comment on the surface itself. All these are aspects of something intangible, called quality. It can’t be simply a matter of fitting the negative curve to the paper curve in the currently approved way.

 

[Marley's Ghost]

a

You've lost me...and I have the feeling that we have different ideas about what is meant by the term print quality.

Alan

I love good print quality like everyone else, but sometimes I think particularly in large format circles, there is a feeling that it doesn't really matter about composition, mood, drama, social commentary or relevance ... expose it well and stick it on nice paper well printed and you are good to go. Personally I would rather see one image that moves me but is poorly printed than 100 perfectly exposed and printed 'masterpieces' that don't touch the soul. Of course if you master both the aesthetic and the technical ... brilliant.
What I meant was that just as it is mainly guitarists who listen to and analyse guitar solos in music - it is mostly other photographers who get all dewy eyed about the tonal range of a print. The average person (at least in my opinion) looks at content, in other words the the present not the box or the bow it's tied with.

 

[martin-f5]

• Getting photographs is not the most important thing. For me it’s the act of photographing. It’s enlightening, therapeutic and satisfying, because the very process forces me to connect with the world…
  (Michael Kenna)

 

[thronobulax]

There’s quality and quality, of course. Handling a copy of Vogue tells you a great deal about the content. It’s obviously about expensive things, about luxury. An Aldi catalogue produced in the same way would jar. I don‘t imagine that either Vogue or Aldi customers know much about paper manufacture or printing, but the message is still there and it’s still communicated.
You may remember Punk. Typically, they used torn photocopies to create their artwork with crude hand-drawn lettering. This was to emphasise their rejection of conventional (bourgeois?) values. This was a different kind of quality, but appropriate to the message. Once again, I doubt that your average head-banger knew much about printing, but the message would still be communicated.

So, my suggestion is that quality does matter and that people do notice, but that doesn’t mean that every print should follow the same rules. It should reinforce the image. It should be a decision, not an accident.

David Pye, in “The Nature and Art of Workmanship” has more to say on appropriate levels of craftsmanship.

And herein we rediscover a deeper truth - your understanding of aesthetics (and all philosophy for that matter) is fundamentally rooted in your worldview.

I have a rather different view of the examples you cite. I consider Vogue and its fellow travellers the worst kind of pornography. These magazines first seek to make women feel inadequate and then try to sell them overpriced goods to "cure" a nonexistent problem.

Punk and Dadaism were the outgrowth of the Deconstructionist/Postmodern theory schools, all of which were profoundly anti-truth and anti-beauty. They started out by denying even the possibility of objective truth (things that are true independent of my opinion or experience) and the proceeded to create "new methods" for destroying historically observed standards for beauty, truth, and so on. I've likely mentioned it before, but Roger Kimball's "Rape Of The Masters" is a superb disquisition into the whole sloppy mess and the horrid outcomes, framed around an examination of a half dozen or so classical paintings. If you love art, it's a must read.

It is certainly true that both examples were communicating their intended messages, but - in my view - neither produced objects of beauty, quality, or authentic art. They produced propaganda... and I reject propaganda as legitimate art or as a standard for beauty. Even Avedon's superb work for the fashion set - which IS undoubtedly beautiful in both execution and result - cannot (in my view) be treated as a serious artistic standard, because at its core it is ... propaganda.

 

[David M]

Can it be the case that guitarists (and possibly photographers too) have a vocabulary that enables them to articulate their observations on a guitar solo? Because someone can't articulate in the same way, it doesn't follow that they have not observed the same things as the expert.
Don't underestimate bows. Don't we all take care to wrap the Christmas presents appropriately?
I'm not entirely sure about all this "...we, Photographers..." stuff.

 

[thronobulax]

• Getting photographs is not the most important thing. For me it’s the act of photographing. It’s enlightening, therapeutic and satisfying, because the very process forces me to connect with the world…
  (Michael Kenna)

Yes, making art is always and first a self-indulgence. You do the work for yourself. If others enjoy the output, that's lovely, but that shouldn't be the audience in view at the time of making. The artist should be. This idea makes me mighty unpopular around the youngsters who think art is a way to avoid "getting a real job".

 

[David M]

Of course, it is a way of avoiding a proper job. Doesn't mean it's a way of avoiding hard work.
On the other hand, you know your youngsters best.

 

[thronobulax]

Can it be the case that guitarists (and possibly photographers too) have a vocabulary that enables them to articulate their observations on a guitar solo? Because someone can't articulate in the same way, it doesn't follow that they have not observed the same things as the expert.
Don't underestimate bows. Don't we all take care to wrap the Christmas presents appropriately?
I'm not entirely sure about all this "...we, Photographers..." stuff.

Of course. Everyone drinks from their respective wells differently. We individually drink differently over the course of our own work. But here's the thing - intent matters. The guitarist who seeks to find the perfect riff to complement a lyric is very different than the one breaking his Telecaster over his Marshall stack. The first seeks beauty (by some definition) because they believe that beauty is important and attainable. The second is throwing a nihilistic temper tantrum.

 

[David M]

I was trying to avoid moral judgement. This forum doesn't seem to be the place. Although I shan't comment, I don't necessarily disagree with your views on Vogue and Punk.

Smashing a guitar wasn't a tantrum; it was a considered part of the performance. Not perhaps to your taste, but part of an aesthetic whole. Different wells, indeed. Thank you for the expression.

 

[thronobulax]

@David M First, let me say that I love that we are able to have this conversation in a civil manner - it's all too rare in this electronically mediated circus called the internet.

Secondly, something to ponder (perhaps not here) is whether or not its possible to judge an aesthetic absent some level of moral judgment. If you'd asked the question prior to 1900 you'd have gotten a very different answer than, say, in 1950...

 

[David M]

You make a good point.
I think it's possible to make a distinction for the purpose of debate, even if we can't entirely disentangle things in the "real world". I doubt that we can unequivocally equate beauty with virtue although some people might try. It's a commonplace that artists are not the most virtuous people.
Current affairs suggest that people enthused by a fiery sense of virtue do no regard beauty very highly.

 

[Alan Clark]

a

I love good print quality like everyone else, but sometimes I think particularly in large format circles, there is a feeling that it doesn't really matter about composition, mood, drama, social commentary or relevance ... expose it well and stick it on nice paper well printed and you are good to go. Personally I would rather see one image that moves me but is poorly printed than 100 perfectly exposed and printed 'masterpieces' that don't touch the soul. Of course if you master both the aesthetic and the technical ... brilliant.
What I meant was that just as it is mainly guitarists who listen to and analyse guitar solos in music - it is mostly other photographers who get all dewy eyed about the tonal range of a print. The average person (at least in my opinion) looks at content, in other words the the present not the box or the bow it's tied with.

OK, I get you now. And I have to say I disagree with most of what you are saying.
One of my favourite photographers is James Ravilious. He spent many years documenting rural life in North Devon. Content is of paramount importance in his photographs, and they are brimfull with humanity. But Ravilious also had a clear and strong idea about how the tonality of his prints should look, and the kind of lighting in which they should be taken. He went to a lot of trouble to test and select lenses for his Leica camera that would deliver what he envisioned, so he could make prints with a certain quality. A wonderful quality. You might describe this as fluff, but I see it as a way of backing up the visual content and strengthening the message in his work. The print quality is at the heart of his work. You can't separate it from its content.
But with your Christmas present and box analogy, the present is entirely separate from the box, because it has nothing to do with it.

Alan

 

[thronobulax]

Current affairs suggest that people enthused by a fiery sense of virtue do no regard beauty very highly.

Oh how I wish we could meet and have a pint or two (or three)

 

[David M]

No. You hand over the whole thing. Although they can be dismantled, they cannot be separated. Both are chosen to delight the recipient. Would a present, a roll of paper and length of ribbon, handed over separately, be the same thing?

As an aside, it's often been noticed that children enjoy playing with the wrapping more than with the actual present. Some photographers also prefer the wrapping – the print quality. This is an imperfect metaphor and I must apologise for its excessive simplification.