"A photograph only has value if it is printed in a darkroom!”
This is a view held by many photographers.
I disagree. A photograph is worth more than the paper it is printed on!
If that’s not the case, then all art is seriously overvalued.
However, there are some photographic elitists who don’t seem to agree with me. They claim that only a photograph which is printed using the wet process in a darkroom has any real value, and those who do not use this process are not “real photographers.”
So if you are one of those photographers who judges other photographers based on whether or not they print in a darkroom, then may I suggest you look at your portfolio and ask yourself, “Is my best photograph only worth the small cost of the paper that it is printed on?”
Do you look at an image on a website and say “Those images are worthless because they are electronic?” or look at an Avedon print book and say “Those are worthless because they are printed using a printers press?” Do you look at an acrylic painting and say “This is worthless because it’s not in oil?”, or look at a pencil drawing and say “This is worthless because it’s not in paint?”
In the realm of the fine arts it would be unthinkable to criticise an artist or to claim that something was worthless because of their chosen medium. So it logically follows that an image should be valued on its extrinsic value and the response it generates in the viewer, rather than the paper it is printed on.
Now I can hear the shout that the value in a darkroom print is in the time and skill of the photographer that created the print in the darkroom. But if this were true then your worst ever print would have the same value as your best ever print, simply because you spent the same time on them. Also it would mean that anyone skilled in chemistry but terrible at photography should receive the same adoration as you.
Clearly, it’s the image that counts. We should all forget about photographic elitism because its just another round of Canon vs Nikon, SLR vs Medium format, and my lens is bigger than yours bravado.
I print digital images on an Epson Pro 4880. It’s an A2+ printer. My prints are bigger than yours,
Nah-Nah Nee-Nah-Nah!
This is Syd, looking to give some attitude to anyone who disagrees with me...
I disagree. A photograph is worth more than the paper it is printed on!
If that’s not the case, then all art is seriously overvalued.
However, there are some photographic elitists who don’t seem to agree with me. They claim that only a photograph which is printed using the wet process in a darkroom has any real value, and those who do not use this process are not “real photographers.”
So if you are one of those photographers who judges other photographers based on whether or not they print in a darkroom, then may I suggest you look at your portfolio and ask yourself, “Is my best photograph only worth the small cost of the paper that it is printed on?”
Do you look at an image on a website and say “Those images are worthless because they are electronic?” or look at an Avedon print book and say “Those are worthless because they are printed using a printers press?” Do you look at an acrylic painting and say “This is worthless because it’s not in oil?”, or look at a pencil drawing and say “This is worthless because it’s not in paint?”
In the realm of the fine arts it would be unthinkable to criticise an artist or to claim that something was worthless because of their chosen medium. So it logically follows that an image should be valued on its extrinsic value and the response it generates in the viewer, rather than the paper it is printed on.
Now I can hear the shout that the value in a darkroom print is in the time and skill of the photographer that created the print in the darkroom. But if this were true then your worst ever print would have the same value as your best ever print, simply because you spent the same time on them. Also it would mean that anyone skilled in chemistry but terrible at photography should receive the same adoration as you.
Clearly, it’s the image that counts. We should all forget about photographic elitism because its just another round of Canon vs Nikon, SLR vs Medium format, and my lens is bigger than yours bravado.
I print digital images on an Epson Pro 4880. It’s an A2+ printer. My prints are bigger than yours,
Nah-Nah Nee-Nah-Nah!
This is Syd, looking to give some attitude to anyone who disagrees with me...
posted by Richard at 12:59 PM
6 Comments:
First, off I engage in both. Each tool has its purpose, and I use each according to its abilities.
There’s a reason that Ansel Adams produced three books: “The Camera”, “The Negative”, and “The Print”. Each is seen as a separate art, and set of skills, to produce the final product, an image with an aesthetic and a value. This post process is also an art, digital or darkroom.
It’s been my long held belief, that each step of the process is a separate art. You are only a photographer if your efforts are limited to taking the shot, handing off the post processing to someone else. The post process is where much of the art, intentional manipulation, occurs in either film, or digital. That difference, I believe IS an item that should be addressed. The art of printmaking is very different from the art of digital graphics, although one process borrows from the history of the other.
I agree, the value is in the aesthetic of the image, but that aesthetic is controlled, and if done properly increased during the post production, GOOD post production.
In my experience, I have come to the knowledge that I have collectors that only purchase my color digital work. Likewise, I have collectors that only purchase my film work, and will gladly pay premiums for a film print, and will even pay more of a premium for prints on quality papers, that require more effort, and skill. However, the bulk of my collectors purchase any of the above, based upon the image appealing to them.
There is room for both, and each is an art. The shame is one assumes their process is the only art.
"A photograph only has value if it is printed in a darkroom!”
This is Neanderthal thinking.
As a fine art printmaker, I have papers and inks today that will last as long or longer than the chemical processes currently practiced. Of course, each process delivers a different look, but that aside, learning to produce exceptional quality prints is as time consuming for digital printing as it is for darkroom printing. Thinking otherwise is arrogant and self-serving.
Will
It seems so long ago now, but I covered much this same topic (at excruciatingly length) in a post back in December '06. So, I certainly agree with the essence of your argument.
Of course, the market is also having its say. As a result, gelatin silver prints may by their very nature become a scarce commodity, with "wet" photographers eventually reduced to a very small selection of film and papers, and many required to continue almost on an artisanal basis, coating their own papers, etc. That will naturally mean a huge increase in the "value" of GS prints as collectors scramble to acquire the very few new ones available and prints from bygone days soar in price. I can live with that.
Stephen
Great post! And I agree entirely.
I have greater appreciation for a well done digital image that was processed with care - than a poorly executed film print.
It's always been the same. Every time a new production technique comes along in the art world, those representing the earlier method denounce the results of the new method as inferior. This is nothing new. It's been thus for centuries and often denotes the boundaries between major periods in art. The arrival of egg tempura paints, oil paint, acrylics, photography... Each has lead to new forms of imagery that weren't possible before and were denounced by those whose egos are threatened by someone doing something new. Same old story.
From the first recorded photograph taken by Mr. Niépce in 1826, up through the photograph that I took on Sunday and printed our HP portable printer, leaps and bounds in photographic technologies have taken place. ALL out of the necessity to improve image quality and ease of printing, as I doubt any were created out of the converse. I wonder if Mr. Stieglitz and Man Ray would have thumbed their noses up at lets say....modern true continuous tone prints on Fuji Crystal Archive OR Kodak paper via Laser or LED methodology? One could in fact argue that any photograph that was not created exactly as Mr. Niépce's first photograph was, was in fact not a true photograph. But that would not fit well with us now would it? Also, one could argue that a Black and White photograph does not represent what is real, as we see in color and not black and white (no offense to those who are colorblind). Every photograph is manipulated via some method....lens...grainy film...Photoshop...etc. None 100% accurately represent what we see. Yet some photographers have picked their favorite technology niche over the last 100 years or so and champion it as being the only true photographic and printing method. That's fine..let them Basque in their facade, obviously they need the self-reassurance. Yes....there are those that think the photographic process and printing process that they use somehow elevates their final print artistic wise, as opposed to relying on their talent to do so. But the facade of the elitist methodology fools only the fools. Who still prefers a 4" black and white snowy TV screen over a large 42" plasma? I prefer to let the viewer make his or her own determination...after all..to the viewer ..their perception is all that matters. We as the artist or photographer, have to stay true to our vision....and when we and the viewer connect...this is the magic of art.
I agree that there is no 100% absolute definitive superior printing process, and all photographs are in fact....... photographs regardless of the printing process!!!. As a collector, I collect both, and prefer neither. Much of the "valuable" photographs in my collection and the collections of several prolific collectors that I know......are of the traditional process, but only because that process was the standard of the time AT the time of printing (much of these photographs were created/printed prior to 1965). One of these collectors is also a world famous photographer, and he rarely gets in the dark room anymore, and prints from various labs on paper such as Fuji Crystal Archive. In saying this, I agree with my collector contemporaries that the photograph matters...NOT the printing process or the image capturing process. Times they are a changing!! These collectors also feel that those photographers insisting on ones methodology as being paramount to a "true photograph" or "elite", are often using this claim as an artistic crutch (don't confuse this with a photographic methodology preference). A tool is a tool is a tool...its that simple. Moreover, wonderful beautiful images are a dime a dozen regardless of photographic or printing process (and we Erotic/Fetish and/or Art Nude photographers are a Dime a Dozen..there are millions of us). I state this to NOT diminish anyone..but to simply state a fact.
How valuable is a photograph??....Take a gander on Ebay...anyone can bid on and own an incredible signed/original photograph for about what it costs to take the family to Burger King for dinner (all printed using various methods). While your at Ebay...take a gander at the big names....Newton...Mapplethorpe..Adams. And if any signed originals are up for auction, note where the final bidding price falls (but even on Ebay they are bargain priced compared to gallery sales). These names are the legends...and their work is collectible for basically 2 reasons, (1) the incredible imagery that they have captured, and (2)...their names..NOT THEIR PHOTOGRAPHIC OR PRINTING PROCESS!! It will always be the guy or gal standing behind the camera that matters...not the paper or the tool's used to capture the image.
Not that art should be perceived as an investment, or be quantified as being good or bad based on pricing alone, we do sell our work for the highest price that we can get. Any of us who offers our work for sale, would be hypocritical in stating anything otherwise.
Don't shoot the messenger.
regards
bt
oh..by they way....all of my work currently is printed on either Kodak or Fuji True Photographic Paper via Laser or LED technology. The HP printer I mentioned above?...those are for my snapshots ;-) All photos are captured via Nikon Digital SLRs. My methods are not superior, they simply are my preference. Ahh..but what the hell do I know?
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home