Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5   Go Down

Author Topic: Is printing alive and well?  (Read 15256 times)

Otto Phocus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 655
Re: Is printing alive and well?
« Reply #60 on: October 08, 2015, 07:33:49 am »

Please explain then how it is possible to understand the famous Tennessee Williams quote:

"It isn't writing, it's typing"

I don't know.  You would have had to ask him.   :)
Logged
I shoot with a Camera Obscura with an optical device attached that refracts and transmits light.

jjj

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4728
    • http://www.futtfuttfuttphotography.com
Re: Is printing alive and well?
« Reply #61 on: October 08, 2015, 09:24:35 am »

It would be interesting to see a citation that describes how the word is "normally" used.   :)
Missing the point of normally, i.e everyday usage.
The fact that all those millions people who take loads of photos on the phones would not certainly describe themselves as photographers shows that nouns can have connotations beyond your narrow non-qualitative prescription.
Logged
Tradition is the Backbone of the Spinele

jjj

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4728
    • http://www.futtfuttfuttphotography.com
Re: Is printing alive and well?
« Reply #62 on: October 08, 2015, 09:31:44 am »

I think this is falling into the trap of subjectivity. A self-described actor, comedian, or builder that you say can't act, isn't funny, or is a rubbish builder is only a consensus of one. How many thumbs down did, say, Picasso get when ran amok with anatomy?
Actually you need to turn that the other way around. It's not if someone doesn't think you are good, it's if some people do think you are good. Plenty of people laugh at comedians that leave me cold and vice versa. I wouldn't claim those folk I'm not amused by are not funny, I'd say they are not to my taste. However if no-one finds you funny, then you certainly are not a comedian. Family and friends do not count, as they are often oblivious to lack of talent in those close to them.

Logged
Tradition is the Backbone of the Spinele

jjj

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4728
    • http://www.futtfuttfuttphotography.com
Re: Is printing alive and well?
« Reply #63 on: October 08, 2015, 09:39:30 am »

My goodness, what a precious bunch of snobs. A person taking a photograph is a photographer. A person heating up some beans in a pot is a cook, a person penning a note to the milkman is a writer. That's the way words work.
Not quite as Les explained quite nicely to Ray in a post you may have missed.
The point is, when a person starts using the camera to take pictures, then that act of taking photographs results in the legitimate claim that the person is a photographer.
The correct term would be that he is photographing, not that he is a photographer.
Now that there are almost as many people owning and operating some kind of device equipped with a sensor and screen, as there are people in possession of a pen or pencil, we should rejoice about the number of photographers and writers. Not counting all the cooks who can operate a microwave.
Logged
Tradition is the Backbone of the Spinele

Les Sparks

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 305
    • http://www.ncsparks.com
Re: Is printing alive and well?
« Reply #64 on: October 08, 2015, 10:56:33 am »

How did a discussion about value of printing become a debate about who is is photographer?
If you question the value of prints, read some stories about people coming home to see what they can recover from the floods in SC. Most mention the loss of their photos. The photos they're talking about are the records of their lives, wedding, kids etc.
These are the kinds of things that most (many) of us don't print now.
Les
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: Is printing alive and well?
« Reply #65 on: October 08, 2015, 11:15:12 am »

How did a discussion about value of printing become a debate about who is is photographer?
If you question the value of prints, read some stories about people coming home to see what they can recover from the floods in SC. Most mention the loss of their photos. The photos they're talking about are the records of their lives, wedding, kids etc.
These are the kinds of things that most (many) of us don't print now.
Les

Now that is beyond dispute.

One of the most treasured things I have remaining of my wife is a photograph that I shot for her International Driving Licence. Torn from the obsolete licence years ago, negative lost even longer ago than that, it's one of the two remaining, tiny prints I would guard with my life.

But that's about all in photography I deem as vitally important.

Rob C
« Last Edit: October 08, 2015, 12:03:53 pm by Rob C »
Logged

tom b

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1471
    • http://tombrown.id.au
Re: Is printing alive and well?
« Reply #66 on: October 08, 2015, 11:42:55 am »

Is printing alive and well?

Not in Sydney. if you are an amateur photographer and you want a 6"x4" print or something slightly bigger. The three local photography print shops have gone out of business. The nearest print shop is in a Harvey Norman store which is mainly a furniture and electronics outlet.

In Sydney it's hard to find a place to print your small photos and if you visit a photography gallery you can expect to pay a lot of money for a very big, well printed image.

Digital printing has made making an excellent image so much more easier, however there is the rub, there are lots of great images out there to buy. (Hey, for bargain basement costs compared to what they really did cost to produce.)

Cheers,
« Last Edit: October 08, 2015, 12:13:45 pm by tom b »
Logged
Tom Brown

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: Is printing alive and well?
« Reply #67 on: October 08, 2015, 12:11:20 pm »

That's not the first report I've read of the falling market/attraction for buying professionals' photographic prints; I suppose it hasn't gone unnoticed by HP either, which is probably the rationale behind their abandonment of the B9180, leaving me with yet another massive paperweight.

Rob C

jeremyrh

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2511
Re: Is printing alive and well?
« Reply #68 on: October 08, 2015, 12:15:33 pm »

So, as a matter of interest - who here is a non-swimmer?
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: Is printing alive and well?
« Reply #69 on: October 08, 2015, 12:20:35 pm »

So, as a matter of interest - who here is a non-swimmer?

HP.

jjj

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4728
    • http://www.futtfuttfuttphotography.com
Re: Is printing alive and well?
« Reply #70 on: October 08, 2015, 12:29:12 pm »

Snapshots or memory shot are always the most important photos to people. Always will be.
Even to those who like to take fancy photographs.
Logged
Tradition is the Backbone of the Spinele

Farmer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2848
Re: Is printing alive and well?
« Reply #71 on: October 08, 2015, 06:23:52 pm »

Please explain then how it is possible to understand the famous Tennessee Williams quote:

"It isn't writing, it's typing"

The juxtaposition suggests the intent, effectively giving context.  Each noun, on its own, has no such intent.
Logged
Phil Brown

BobShaw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2218
    • Aspiration Images
Re: Is printing alive and well?
« Reply #72 on: October 08, 2015, 08:38:46 pm »

In Sydney it's hard to find a place to print your small photos and if you visit a photography gallery you can expect to pay a lot of money for a very big, well printed image.
A big well printed image should cost a bit because ink, paper, big printers and wastage cost a lot. You factor that into the price you charge.

I use Harvey Norman for brochures because they are cheap, but anything quality for customers I either print myself on the 3880 or if larger get it printed professionally.
I am not sure what you mean by local but there are plenty of places that print.
Big camera stores like Teds and Paxtons have kiosks but places like Pixel Perfect and others do any sort of work.
Printers for up to A4 are really cheap so there is no market for most shop fronts doing it as they can't compete on price.

With this Interweb thingy taking off you can just upload images.
I  can print for you at AspirationImages.com
Logged
Website - http://AspirationImages.com
Studio and Commercial Photography

David Sutton

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1345
    • David Sutton Photography
Re: Is printing alive and well?
« Reply #73 on: October 08, 2015, 08:51:19 pm »

Logged

MatthewCromer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 505
Re: Is printing alive and well?
« Reply #74 on: October 09, 2015, 11:31:07 am »

I've been digitizing my old (printed) family photos and they get way more viewage on the iMac than they did sitting in boxes.

Logged

BobShaw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2218
    • Aspiration Images
Re: Is printing alive and well?
« Reply #75 on: October 10, 2015, 03:38:17 am »

True, but there is no such thing as old digital photographs.
Logged
Website - http://AspirationImages.com
Studio and Commercial Photography

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: Is printing alive and well?
« Reply #76 on: October 10, 2015, 09:23:15 am »

True, but there is no such thing as old digital photographs.


Bob, yesterday's digital is old.

Not a silly, facile remark, but more an observation of the fact that wet prints seem to remain relevant for at least as long as they exist (and often, thereafter, in memory). Old prints, possibly never even fully washed for posterity, appear in forgotten magazine editorial department drawers, and suddenly become collectible because of the name of the magazine as well as of, perhaps, model, but almost certainly of the photographer. History steps in and adds value. (Another source of revenue for both governments and treasure seekers.)

But digital prints are different. Different, I think, because of the provenance: the medium advances/changes so rapidly that the 'old hat' syndrome appears very rapìdly. Cutting edge (hate that term because of its constant over-use in stock agency spiels) a year or so ago, inks, printers and their limitations render material and image pretty much redundant all too soon. So, rather than holding value as collectible artefacts, they just become old junk, better reprinted on different mediums and with better inks, or, better yet, turned into wet prints.

That's print. What about images captured on digital? I guess that the relentless, sales-driven changes in pixel quantity and density will also contribute to the premature ageing of even two-year old captures, and their subsequent consignment to the bin of photographic memories.

Perhaps that's what happens to old photographers when we die: no, we don't just fade away and go out of focus, we are condemned perpetually to sift through the files of all that we shot and thought good when, in fact, 'twas all a pile of poop.

Had a reasonably filling lunch today: wasn't very nice, but did refuel the body, I guess.

Rob C
« Last Edit: October 10, 2015, 09:25:10 am by Rob C »
Logged

Les Sparks

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 305
    • http://www.ncsparks.com
Re: Is printing alive and well?
« Reply #77 on: October 10, 2015, 01:38:20 pm »

On a few occasions I've had people ask for a copy of a print--I've never had anyone ask for a copy of an image file to display on their computer or whatever.
I've seen comments on some of the images displayed on the forum such as "I'd love to see it printed."
I often look at the prints I've made even those made in dark days of my darkroom and enjoy them. The prints on my walls, of course get more attention than those in boxes but I often go through a few of them too. Some of the prints get  quick glance but there are a few that I spend time with because they speak to me (to use the concept in  Declan O'Neil wonderful essay). Digital image displayed on my computer screen or TV don't speak to me.  Maybe it's because prints seem to demand you spend more time looking at them. Images on my computer get a quick glance and then it's on to the next image.
The bottom line for me is that the aesthetic of a print is different from the  aesthetic of a digital image and I enjoy that of a print.
Les
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: Is printing alive and well?
« Reply #78 on: October 10, 2015, 02:33:09 pm »

On a few occasions I've had people ask for a copy of a print--I've never had anyone ask for a copy of an image file to display on their computer or whatever.
I've seen comments on some of the images displayed on the forum such as "I'd love to see it printed."
I often look at the prints I've made even those made in dark days of my darkroom and enjoy them. The prints on my walls, of course get more attention than those in boxes but I often go through a few of them too. Some of the prints get  quick glance but there are a few that I spend time with because they speak to me (to use the concept in  Declan O'Neil wonderful essay). Digital image displayed on my computer screen or TV don't speak to me.  Maybe it's because prints seem to demand you spend more time looking at them. Images on my computer get a quick glance and then it's on to the next image.
The bottom line for me is that the aesthetic of a print is different from the  aesthetic of a digital image and I enjoy that of a print.
Les


Yes, and I believe that in the context of one's own prints, much of the added attraction of print is in the appreciation of (or sense of requirement to appreciate?) the time spent making the thing, from making the tranny/neg/file down to that thing on the wall.

Of the one's I do have on my few walls, I see them now as part of the family, as continuity, with no desire to change them for others. If I had more walls, then it might be different, but the temptation then would be to make groups: girls in one room, abstracts in another, and so on. If I were to own a mansion, then I would still be one of the last people likely to buy from other photographers: I'd rather see my own personality around me to keep me in tune with myself, something easily lost in this modern society. I want to be myself, not partly someone else, and though I absolutely adore surfing through as many photographer websites as I find, I'm always happy to switch off and find new ones after I've added them to the favourites list.

So much for hanging pictures.

But books are something else! Had I but more shelves available, as well as more money to burn, then my small library of favourites would become enormous! Insofar as the work of other photographers is concerned, the book format, large and not soft cover, is the way to go. I could spend hours - and do - reading and looking at the work of my spiritual friends; the chance to immerse oneself into a book is fantastic. It's so much ahead of a monitor! As for an electronic book... please, no!

Rob C

Les Sparks

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 305
    • http://www.ncsparks.com
Re: Is printing alive and well?
« Reply #79 on: October 10, 2015, 05:45:10 pm »

Yes printed books are wonderful. They provide access to the work and wisdom of other photographers in a format that allows you to enjoy and explore that e-books in any format can't match.
Tonight here in NC is a great night for enjoying a good book--damp chilly and drizzle. Got a book of Adam's photos and thoughts, a glass of wine, and my dog beside me. What more could I ask?
Les
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5   Go Up