Luminous Landscape Forum
Site & Board Matters => About This Site => Topic started by: Jonathan Cross on September 20, 2015, 03:17:19 pm
-
Back in pre-history, some years ago, I remember Michael writing articles on this site about new printers and new papers. I do not seem to see him writing such articles now. What happens to all the images we take? Do we use electronic displays more than printed images? I have read a couple of articles in the UK exhorting printing for two reasons, the joy of a printed image and a means of preserving images for future generations as in looking back at our parents' and grandparents' photo albums.. The upsurge in internet self-published books, however, also means that we do not need to print ourselves and such books do not need images with huge numbers of dots. The ubiquitous iPad with its retina screen is such an easy way to show images, yet does not need many pixels. Even the 27inch Mac 5k retina screen only has 14.75 million pixels, so why do we need sensors with 2 and 3 times the number of pixels? OK, it allows cropping, but do we really need that when it is possible to create large files by taking 2 or 3 overlapping images and stitching?
I am not banging any sort of drum; this is just the result of me musing about what we do with our images now!
Jonathan
-
Hi Johnathan,
Did you happen to see/watch this recent "cover story" on LULA?
https://luminous-landscape.com/past-present-and-future-of-photography-a-video-interview-with-brooks-jensen-michael-reichmann-and-kevin-raber/
Some of it goes to exactly your question.
Regards!
Rand
-
Once you fill all the walls and portfolio cases, unless you are active seller or exhibitor, the incentive to print more new pictures, diminishes.
On the other hand, I still see many prints being submitted to camera club competitions.
-
I'm not sure that printing has ever been alive and well. Two interesting trends:
At recent photography exhibitions I have visited the prints have been very large and have been in the US$5000 range.
I'm in the process of downsizing, so I've been visiting furniture shops. I couldn't help but notice that there are lots of framed photographs on the walls for sale at bargain basement prices compared to galleries.
Cheers,
-
I enjoy making prints. But not big prints. Nowhere really to put 'em, and IMO if I were to force one upon a wall in my house it would rightly be seen—by me as much as anyone else—not as something pretty or interesting or compelling but as an ego display. So I make small-ish prints, 6x8/9" or sometimes 8/9x12", of my own-favorites as a kind of backup in case all my local & remote storage devices go Kablaam. Friends & family would much rather have digital versions for screen display…and most of the time so would I. The tech to make such prints at an excellent level has been around for quite a while. Not much to discuss now other than minor incremental changes. (IMO sensor tech has reached the same point.)
-Dave-
-
Back in pre-history, some years ago, I remember Michael writing articles on this site about new printers and new papers. I do not seem to see him writing such articles now.
Hum...is there a good reason why you didn't post this in the Printing Forum?
And, not for nothing, Mike ain't the only person writing for LuLa ya know. There was a recent timely review by Mark Segal about Epson's P800 printer https://luminous-landscape.com/new-epson-surecolor-p800-printer-review/.
You miss that one? Seems your post has an agenda...so what is it?
-
I still think of a print as the final stage. I print as much as I can afford to (ink and paper are expensive!!!) and also print to sell. I've got drawers and boxes of prints around and occasionally I like to get them all out and do things with them, like trying out new combinations.
Anthony
-
I still think of a print as the final stage. I print as much as I can afford to (ink and paper are expensive!!!) and also print to sell. I've got drawers and boxes of prints around and occasionally I like to get them all out and do things with them, like trying out new combinations.
Anthony
I've printed hardly any of my work. I don't really want my own pictures on the walls so the only real prints made have been for family and friends.
I keep thinking about doing something similar to you and make a kind of portfolio box of reasonably sized prints since the experience is so much better than looking at them on a screen.
-
I've just bought a new computer, I've been fighting new software changes.
One of the things that I love about prints is that you don't have to worry about what computer you are using!
Cheers,
-
I have to admit that once going to digital, I can't remember the last time I printed.
...I were to force one upon a wall in my house it would rightly be seen—by me as much as anyone else—not as something pretty or interesting or compelling but as an ego display.
-Dave-
I feel kinda the same way.
One of my biggest obstacles is choosing which photograph do I want to commit to by printing. I look at my photographs and think to myself "that's a nice one.. but nice enough to commit the space to hang it on the wall? Nah.
It was so much easier in the film days when printing was pretty much the only way to see the photograph in the first place.
-
I've just bought a new computer, I've been fighting new software changes.
One of the things that I love about prints is that you don't have to worry about what computer you are using!
Cheers,
However, I would love to see some digital prints from the masters!
-
Printing is alive and well with me but I struggle with presentation and good ways to share the printed product. The problem with digital presentation is the work is almost assured of having a very short life.
Every now and then I hear statistics about how many pictures are being taken every year and I think to myself that I needn't worry about this overwhelming stimulus overload since most of these photos will will disappear into thin air very quickly anyway.
Paraphrasing a quote from Koudelka (I think), just because everyone has a camera and takes pictures doesn't make them photographers any more than anyone having a pen makes them a writer.
In my mind the printed work is the archive of a photographer, the only way we know what they think is important.
-
In my mind the printed work is the archive of a photographer, the only way we know what they think is important.
And that can be a big error of judgement.
I used to print what I thought good or interesting on A3+ Hahnemuehle paper on my HP B9180. Then, at one stage, I discovered that the printer had stopped being produced and that HP themselves couldn't offer the complete range of eight inks at a time that I wanted to replace a few of them. Some well-meaning friends pointed out other sources of ink supply, but I didn't bite. If HP isn't interested, then I would be pouring more good money into vanity and simply delaying the moment when the supply of suitable ink (if non-HP sourced stuff is even genuine), from wherever, ceases.
I stopped running the obligatory 24hr power supply and let the machine gather dust.
Now and then, in between cursing HP, I get the desire to print something. But - you know what? - I no longer bother. I have a few boxes full of stuff that I like and realise that continuing along this line with a new printer/ink system is just an ego trip and nobody in the world that follows me after I'm gone will give a damn. And I don't blame them: apart fom some personal photographs of loved ones, what's the point of boxes and boxes of somebody else's fancies? There ain't one.
Even the traditional 'family snaps' thing is pointless. Like most families, I hold on to a biscuit tin of stuff from before I was even born, but it means zero to me. It still exists out of what might well be a totally misplaced sense of obligation, and nothing more. Two or three snaps of a lost loved one is all that's needed to ring the bell.
Generally speaking, unless there exists a commercial market for one's prints, then why bother? Your HD will show you all you've got worth showing so far, and looking back can be a curse, as I know too well, all by myself.
Indeed, printing can be fun, especially during the learning period, which may or may not go on for ever. But as with shooting, once you know how to get what you want, it takes something special to make you go out and do it. Otherwise, you are but a robot without an off switch. Therapy is one good reason to continue, but pray to God you don't discover the need.
Rob C
-
I think printing still has primacy, but definitely not exclusivity, as a visible expression of photography.
If one looks at the volume of images viewed electronically versus as a print the latter is a very small proportion of the former.
Yet a print can still show, on several levels - technical and creatively, what the same image would struggle to convey on current electronic devices.
It may be, as electronic displays of various types continue to improve, that in the future printing - perhaps as an artistic expression at least, becomes much less important that it is now.
Tony Jay
-
A print made on OBA-less rag paper using pigment inks will likely retain 90% of its gamut and almost all of its luminance 200 years from now.
I wonder which web pages will still be accessible, or what electronic media will still be readable.
Michael
-
If Archive.org keeps getting funding, Webpages will be accessible. While specific types of electronic storage media may change, the data stored on them can be re-saved when there is a change in storage media. We all had plenty of time to save off our data from 5 1/4 floppy disks.
So if the data is important to someone, I would opine it will be available in 200 years.
The advantage may be that the electronic data is available in several locations, there the hard-copy print is in only one location.
-
My state ASMP chapter struggled with their annual photo competition because it was print based - bring in your printed and framed work, and the judges worked from that. The last few years hardly anyone entered, because they just don't print their work much anymore. By going to a "submit files, we'll print the winners" format they significantly increased participation.
Except for me. If I can't 100% control my print, it won't be my photograph. As someone who developed during the days when you thought about how your printing technologies (wet sloppy technologies to be sure) would render an image, at the time you shot it, I still continue to do that. I know when I shoot whether the image will be a cold press rag print or a satin baryta print.
When I get together with most of my photographer friends, they're showing work on their screens. I'm dragging a 24x36 portfolio. Odd man out.
-
A print made on OBA-less rag paper using pigment inks will likely retain 90% of its gamut and almost all of its luminance 200 years from now.
I wonder which web pages will still be accessible, or what electronic media will still be readable.
Michael
You are right, I'm assuming that nobody will care about my images in 20 years let alone 200 years. Maybe a couple of my paintings will still be around.
Cheers,
-
On occasion I have a daughter and another stepdaughter that ask me to do some prints for them. The email or text the pictures they want printed. They are all from their instagram feed.
Seems these kids living in their screens like adorning their walls with rows of their favorite instagram pix using using string and clothespins...
Printing will be just fine.
-
In my mind the printed work is the archive of a photographer, the only way we know what they think is important.
For me, personally, I would modify the above (quite perceptive) statement to read: "In my mind the printed work is the archive of myself as a photographer, the only way I can really know what I think is important." I have no more room on the walls to hang new photographs, other than to rotate them among the limited available wall space, but I do have many boxes of such prints -- which I suspect, as others have commented, no one after myself will really be interested. My adult children, certainly not (as of yet?).
-
I used to print what I thought good or interesting on A3+ Hahnemuehle paper on my HP B9180. Then, at one stage, I discovered that the printer had stopped being produced and that HP themselves couldn't offer the complete range of eight inks at a time that I wanted to replace a few of them. Some well-meaning friends pointed out other sources of ink supply, but I didn't bite. If HP isn't interested, then I would be pouring more good money into vanity and simply delaying the moment when the supply of suitable ink (if non-HP sourced stuff is even genuine), from wherever, ceases.
I stopped running the obligatory 24hr power supply and let the machine gather dust.
Now and then, in between cursing HP, I get the desire to print something. But - you know what? - I no longer bother. I have a few boxes full of stuff that I like and realise that continuing along this line with a new printer/ink system is just an ego trip and nobody in the world that follows me after I'm gone will give a damn. And I don't blame them: apart fom some personal photographs of loved ones, what's the point of boxes and boxes of somebody else's fancies? There ain't one.
Even the traditional 'family snaps' thing is pointless. Like most families, I hold on to a biscuit tin of stuff from before I was even born, but it means zero to me. It still exists out of what might well be a totally misplaced sense of obligation, and nothing more. Two or three snaps of a lost loved one is all that's needed to ring the bell.
Generally speaking, unless there exists a commercial market for one's prints, then why bother? Your HD will show you all you've got worth showing so far, and looking back can be a curse, as I know too well, all by myself.
Indeed, printing can be fun, especially during the learning period, which may or may not go on for ever. But as with shooting, once you know how to get what you want, it takes something special to make you go out and do it. Otherwise, you are but a robot without an off switch. Therapy is one good reason to continue, but pray to God you don't discover the need.
Rob C
Although I have a similar experience to you with my dust-breeding printer, I find the rest of your post rather too negative, possibly even indicative of a bit of depression, certainly as regards your hobby! :-\
-
Even the 27inch Mac 5k retina screen only has 14.75 million pixels, so why do we need sensors with 2 and 3 times the number of pixels? OK, it allows cropping, but do we really need that when it is possible to create large files by taking 2 or 3 overlapping images and stitching?
Although 4K is still germinant, TV tech is already giving birth to 8K, that's 32 MP per frame (and 8000 pixels wide compared to 8700 wide in the new Canon 5DS) -- and it won't be the end (although it should be -- that's a different discussion).
So, I'm more concerned about how my 16 MP files are going to look when the kids throw them up on a 100-inch 8K ultra-high-dynamic TV screen! :o
-
Although I have a similar experience to you with my dust-breeding printer, I find the rest of your post rather too negative, possibly even indicative of a bit of depression, certainly as regards your hobby! :-\
Oh - that surprises me! Why is telling it like one finds it negative?
Anyway, hobby, profession - all part of the same thing: some people just live photography and, for better or worse, it's where I find myself and, to risk a tautology, it isn't about playing, it's a way of life.
;-)
Rob
-
I suppose some might find Rob's post a bit negative, but what he has said is the the sad truth of the matter. Especially for those of us gathering a few more wrinkles around the face and neck than we are used to seeing in the mirror. I still use a Canon 6400 and Epson 3880, but less and less as time goes by. I will always at least have some type of decent printer but when the Canon croaks that's it for the larger format (and my wife will absolutely love it when that beast leaves so she can redecorate!).
I do enjoy printing images, but these days they are more for friends and the only occasional customer and I am no longer printing for galleries as that whole dynamic seems to have gone away overnight and is more of a hassle than anything rewarding, either monetarily or personally.
-
Back in pre-history, some years ago, I remember Michael writing articles on this site about new printers and new papers. I do not seem to see him writing such articles now.
I think that this isn't because of a change in the amount people print, just there's less to write about as the market has matured and there are fewer product releases of significance.
-
Hi,
Like John writes, wrinkles do producer a somewhat different way of looking at the world, if not simply the mirror.
I think what might happen is that one's own sense of reality becomes moderated by, well, reality: you look backwards and consult experience, and learn to recognize potential traps that just hurt your foot and deliver you nothing but the sense of relief when you escape! Now, that's not to say that experience saves you every time; far from it. In my own case I realised long ago that there are mistakes that I shall continue to make, over and over again, not because I'm particularly stupid, but because some things can't fail to lighten up my imagination and, in the end, to travel hopefully is often the best part of the journey.
Somehow, filling the coffers of companies that desert you without giving a fig doesn't fit that description for me. Have a good day, HP.
Keith goes on to say that he feels the print is the final expression. Well, in many ways I guess that it is; for years it was pretty much all that I handed over to clients. I even went on to make prints on larger papers than the images required - I felt it looked better and raised the job closer to an artform than a simple commercial exchange of benefits, and best of all, I felt good about it! And as long as I did the printing, I was happy. Where it fell a little bit apart was in giant prints which I had to farm out.
Trannies, on the other hand, provided a sense of freedom to me: shoot, edit, submit and bill! Until calendars came along, and all the added responsibility of learning how that printing industry worked, the pitfalls, the ways printers would try to convince you they were right when they were visibly not so, and like that. But, it paid a lot better than just shooting and gave access to far more exciting work for me. But, and a big but, the creative reward part, for me, lay - and still largely does - in the shooting: the seeing and catching it. Once the model signed off and there was just the empty studio or the flight back home, it felt rather a bit flat. Time for a cigarette, no doubt.
So, when the pro ends and the am takes over, how to adapt? Not so easy, least of all because of the need/desire to find a self-motivated reason to do the shooting in the first place. It took me years to get it into my mind that carting the kitchen sink around wasn't going to cut it; it didn't depend on being ready to conquer every possible mountain at all. It depended on being in that rare mental state when you can truly forget what's going down beside you and just look.
You can do that with one body and one lens. In many ways, printing or not makes little difference to me, which is not to deny that I feel pissed off now, being denied the choice.
Rob C
-
Well I just fired up my Epson 3880 after it lay in the basement of my house all summer. I'm happy to say it is up and running like a gem. Why do I print? Because I want to learn to make fine art prints. I'm learning that there is an art to printing which is different from saving the file as sRGB and posting it on the web. I will spend the fall and winter making small test prints that I store in boxes and then in the spring I will print my favorites larger and then store them in boxes. I once watched a documentary of photographer Bill Cunningham and noticed he had many boxes of prints. It was interesting watching him go through them in the film. There is something so tangible about handing a print.
-
Pre-amble: I've never been a pro, and I have never really aspired to be... nothing against it, just there were other things that made me money and kept me fulfilled. Photography was never anything but a hobby.
There was certainly a time when prints were all there was: I used to make them and stick them to my office door. People would occasionally say nice things about them, which made me feel good. And of course in the 80's that was the only way I got to see my photos at all :-)
Then I moved, lost my darkroom, bought a neg scanner and an inkjet. So I could still make prints, and they made me feel good... even if my printer of the time was not so great for B&W, I turned out a few A3+ colour prints that still make me smile when I pull them out of the box. But there was the problem... they were in a box. Whereas it was much easier for people to see my photos via the internet... photo.net started up, I had my little online gallery and I got to learn all about bitchy comments and cropping advice... but I also got to "meet" some excellent photographers, some doing very different things to me but with whom there was a shared appreciation of style.
So online presentation did more to make me feel good than prints... even though I liked looking at the prints.
Since then, I've moved again, I changed operating systems, I came back much more to B&W, and my old printer sat unloved. Then I bought a Pixma pro-100, because I wanted to look at prints again, and it does beautiful B&W, and it was very cheap and doesn't need to be cleaned every day... and I've barely used it. My friends see my photos on 500px, or Tumblr or Fessebouc, and I see theirs, and we feel a sense of community that way. I find the idea of printing is now much more interesting than actually doing it. If I was selling prints, that would be different. One of my friends does extraordinary work which deserves to sell, maybe my printer will get some work making prints for her to hang in coffee shop galleries. That would make me feel good...
So yeah, it's a hobby. Feeling good is the key idea, and prints don't fit in so much. I don't have so much wall space, stuffing them in a box seems kind of a shame, so...
-
Prints are viewed by reflective light, a quite different experience from bright, backlit tranmissive electronic displays.
Some prefer the punch of tranmissive viewing but I don't. It's still the print for me and thankfully there still seems to be some sort of market for printers and materials.
One bonus you get with physical prints is that you are also able to present them as you wish. I find that matting or matting/framing somehow adds something to the image, setting it off and giving it gravitas (even not so great images benefit).
I also think that there is more satisfaction in seeing a portfolio of images over the single "heroic" image - and well presented prints do that better for me than a slideshow.
But it's all subjective and electronic is in the majority - just want print tech to continue to be available!
-
Losing the plumb of posterity for one's photographic work is one thing, but there are worse things we can, and almost certainly will lose: the net experience, knowledge and even, sometimes, understanding of what we have learned in our life-work within the medium. It's almost impossible to save that, have it accessible to other people interested in the medium.
Yes, there are, of course, scores and scores of books about the late greats, but that's not the same thing as having access to people who were there at the time, had personal experiences of the whos, the whys and the whens. It's difficult today to find anyone operating even as relatively recently as the 50s, who can tell others about how it was; it's not enough to look at books, tv programmes: those are almost invariably written and edited by other people.
Perhaps some of the more revealing/interesting comments from photographers happen outwith tv studios. Sarah Moon comes to mind, and some of her off the cuff videos (voice over images - not a sight of the lady herself) where her stream of consciousness is allowed to flow are magnificent from the perspective of understanding the mind of the artist; Avedon did some very interesting interviews in his own studios too, where clearly unscripted, the time and place allow emotion and personality to take over.
Taken from their hands, that gigantic wealth of experience vanishes forever, or as bad, gets subverted by political slant and cant.
Even watching some still-living heros of the 60s, it's hard to take them too seriously; yes, they attain great things, but repeated interviews reveal them to have a small selection of ready-made anecdotes that are digestible for public consumption, and offer little more than that. What's unobtainable is the personal, business stuff, material that tells how contracts came along, why they were won and lost, who messed it up for whom, all of that kind of thing; in essence, the humanity of it all.
In the end, what matters a few personal prints? So much more is going irreversibly down the photographic tubes at the same time.
Rob C
-
Even the 27inch Mac 5k retina screen only has 14.75 million pixels, so why do we need sensors with 2 and 3 times the number of pixels? OK, it allows cropping, but do we really need that when it is possible to create large files by taking 2 or 3 overlapping images and stitching?
The retina screen will have something like 45 million r, g and b subpixels. The 50 MP Canons have 50 million in total of r, g and b sensing sites. In addition, OLPF will cause some loss of resolution.
I don't fear that future display devices won't be able to show more information from ever improving cameras, but I fear that we humans won't be able to appreciate it. And I fear that the industry will prioritize some aspects that are easily "sold", while other aspects will be ignored.
Reading the reviews of Panasonic and LG 65" OLED 4k devices with (supposedly) HDR support as a future software update I am excited about how HDR images may look like when we don't have to do (as much) tonemapping.
-h
-
Imagine how different Antonioni's "Blow Up" would be today in the middle of the digital age. That film was all about the print and the hidden things that could be found. Today it would be a five minute short about pixel peeping.
-
Imagine how different Antonioni's "Blow Up" would be today in the middle of the digital age. That film was all about the print and the hidden things that could be found. Today it would be a five minute short about pixel peeping.
That's a wonderful idea!
;-)
Rob C
-
Prints are viewed by reflective light, a quite different experience from bright, backlit tranmissive electronic displays.
Some prefer the punch of tranmissive viewing but I don't. It's still the print for me and thankfully there still seems to be some sort of market for printers and materials.
One bonus you get with physical prints is that you are also able to present them as you wish. I find that matting or matting/framing somehow adds something to the image, setting it off and giving it gravitas (even not so great images benefit).
I also think that there is more satisfaction in seeing a portfolio of images over the single "heroic" image - and well presented prints do that better for me than a slideshow.
+1 - It is for me; all about the print.
-
Prints are viewed by reflective light, a quite different experience from bright, backlit tranmissive electronic displays.
Some prefer the punch of tranmissive viewing but I don't. It's still the print for me and thankfully there still seems to be some sort of market for printers and materials.
...
If ever "e-ink" displays becomes good (and it seems they have a long way to go), would this change your view?
-h
-
Paraphrasing a quote from Koudelka (I think), just because everyone has a camera and takes pictures doesn't make them photographers any more than anyone having a pen makes them a writer.
I think this quote needs clarifying. Are you referring to 'professional' photographers and writers, who strive to earn a living out of their activities?
A person who has a camera and takes pictures is a photographer. He might not be a professional photographer. He might not be a good photographer in the opinion of some, but he is nevertheless a photographer according to the broad definition of the word.
Now, it's true that simply having a pen does not make one a writer. One has to actually use the pen, or keyboard, to be a writer. But again, the same principle applies. I'm a writer and photographer, but not a professional writer and photographer, merely an insightful and rational writer and photographer. ;)
-
Are you referring to 'professional' photographers and writers, who strive to earn a living out of their activities?
Does it matter? The point is satisfying the demand for photos (or potentially related souvenirs, such as videos) is being met to a greater extent than before by people who are neither professionals nor enthusiasts. So there is less need for professionals in that domain. Similarly, I'd suggest that a greater proportion of the demand for images is being met by screen display, leaving less demand for prints.
-
Does it matter? The point is satisfying the demand for photos (or potentially related souvenirs, such as videos) is being met to a greater extent than before by people who are neither professionals nor enthusiasts. So there is less need for professionals in that domain. Similarly, I'd suggest that a greater proportion of the demand for images is being met by screen display, leaving less demand for prints.
I guess it doesn't matter from my perspective. I've never bought a print, except from businesses that used to developed my own negatives and slides many years ago. For the past couple of decades I've preferred to make my own prints, or process my photographic files for viewing on HDTV, and in the near future probably on UHDTV.
My ideal viewing media would be a 100 inch OLED UHDTV, although that wouldn't be quite large enough to display the largest print that's currently on my wall, which is a 4ft x 12ft polyptych. ;)
-
I think this quote needs clarifying. Are you referring to 'professional' photographers and writers, who strive to earn a living out of their activities?
A person who has a camera and takes pictures is a photographer. He might not be a professional photographer. He might not be a good photographer in the opinion of some, but he is nevertheless a photographer according to the broad definition of the word.
Now, it's true that simply having a pen does not make one a writer. One has to actually use the pen, or keyboard, to be a writer. But again, the same principle applies. I'm a writer and photographer, but not a professional writer and photographer, merely an insightful and rational writer and photographer. ;)
Indeed, except that I don't think you clarified it at all.
You created a distinction between pro and am which is not, I think, Koudelka's point, if he made that one. I, for one, see the distinction between pro and am as something quite different, but I don't feel like entering that piss-pot zone again, so I'll say simply that I think the point being made was one of quality: owning a camera doesn't make you a photographer any more than does clicking one. Making something good with the tools makes you a photographer. As with musos, owning a guitar (as I did for many years of self-delusion) never made me a musician - I never had the ability, only the desire. Fortunately I never had the opportunity to prove it to anyone else other than my one, unfortunate, music teacher and myself!
;-)
Rob C
-
I'll say simply that I think the point being made was one of quality: owning a camera doesn't make you a photographer any more than does clicking one.
;-)
Rob C
Rob,
I think I clarified the issue quite well, but you have now confused the issue again. No-one would claim that owning a camera makes one more of a photographer than clicking one. However, clicking one, whether one owns it or not, makes one more of a photographer than merely owning one. Okay? ;)
The other issue is defining what is a good photo. Is it determined by the amount of money it sells for? Is Andreas Gursky's Rhein II, which sold for $4.3 million, an exceptionally good photo because of its high price?
I happen to think that my polyptych of similar size is actually better than Rhein II. But that's just my personal, unbiased opinion. ;)
-
I think the confusion may be not understanding what a Noun is. In English, nouns normally do not have any intrinsic qualitative or modifying aspect associated with them. That is why we have Adjectives.
A person creating a photograph using a camera is a photographer in that a photographer is commonly defined as a person who makes or creates a photograph using a camera.
However, that simple circular definition should not imply any qualitative aspect to the Noun of photographer.
A person using a camera is a photographer but it does not further define the photographer as a good, bad, skilled, successful, artistic, lousy, ... insert any of many many adjectives.
That is the whole purpose of Adjectives -- to provide further qualitative or modifying aspects to the quality neutral Noun.
I am a photographer. I would defy anyone to logically support a claim otherwise. That being written, I do admit that most of the Adjectives associated with the Noun photographer do not apply to me.
When people assume a qualitative aspect to Nouns, miscommunication and misunderstand can occur.
-
Rob,
I think I clarified the issue quite well, but you have now confused the issue again. No-one would claim that owning a camera makes one more of a photographer than clicking one. 1... However, clicking one, whether one owns it or not, makes one more of a photographer than merely owning one. Okay? ;)
2..[/b]The other issue is defining what is a good photo. Is it determined by the amount of money it sells for? Is Andreas Gursky's Rhein II, which sold for $4.3 million, an exceptionally good photo because of its high price?
3...I happen to think that my polyptych of similar size is actually better than Rhein II. But that's just my personal, unbiased opinion. ;)
1. No Ray, the camera might have been stolen or simply bought or borrowed in order to remove the knickers off a possible idiot. Wouldn't even need film or card. Neither photographer credit nor photographer appellation would apply. But, the resulting court case would represent a further nail in the coffins of...
2. No. Never claimed such; I would rather go with the widely-held opinion that we know it when we see it. Unfortunately, usually only when somebody else shoots it. Our personal blindness is often inclined to mislead us vis-à-vis our own output.
3. Having personally seen neither, I would be happy to agree with you if only because I admire people who touch tigers, as I have said before.
;-)
Rob C
-
Otto, I think you forgot the regulation smiley!
Rob C
-
I think the confusion may be not understanding what a Noun is. In English, nouns normally do not have any intrinsic qualitative or modifying aspect associated with them. That is why we have Adjectives.
A person creating a photograph using a camera is a photographer in that a photographer is commonly defined as a person who makes or creates a photograph using a camera.
However, that simple circular definition should not imply any qualitative aspect to the Noun of photographer.
A person using a camera is a photographer but it does not further define the photographer as a good, bad, skilled, successful, artistic, lousy, ... insert any of many many adjectives.
That is the whole purpose of Adjectives -- to provide further qualitative or modifying aspects to the quality neutral Noun.
I am a photographer. I would defy anyone to logically support a claim otherwise. That being written, I do admit that most of the Adjectives associated with the Noun photographer do not apply to me.
When people assume a qualitative aspect to Nouns, miscommunication and misunderstand can occur.
Where you may be literally correct, actual usage differs. Lots of people take photographs, but would never in a million years describe themselves as photographers. A photographer is normally used to describe not just some who takes pictures, but someone who is good at taking pictures.
'The photographer' identifies who specifically took the photos regardless of quality.
'A photographer' implies some ability
He is the photographer who took those pictures
He is a photographer and who took those pictures
Another way of thinking about it would be with other skillsets e.g.actors. If you can't act, no-one would describe you as an actor. Same with comedians, if you aren't funny then you ain't a comedian.
So many nouns do in my view have a qualitative aspect to them, if there is skill or knowledge needed to be able to do whatever it is the noun describes you. If you claim to be a builder and are in fact rubbish at doing that job, you will called a cowboy instead. Though no idea why 'cowboy' is used as to mean an incompetent or dodgy person,, but again it has qualitative aspects.
-
Another way of thinking about it would be with other skillsets e.g.actors. If you can't act, no-one would describe you as an actor.
...except Shakespeare. ;)
All the world's a stage,
And all the men and women merely players;
They have their exits and their entrances,
And one man in his time plays many parts,
etc. etc.
-
...except Shakespeare. ;)
All the world's a stage,
And all the men and women merely players;
They have their exits and their entrances,
And one man in his time plays many parts,
etc. etc.
This is all getting way too deep for me. I just like making prints. They are real objects I can hold in my hands. They don't need electricity to view them :)
cheers,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
-
Ah, but they are not acting as someone else though Ray.
They are simply playing their own roles. :P
-
Ah, but they are not acting as someone else though Ray.
They are simply playing their own roles. :P
As indeed a photographer does, whether good or bad, skilful or clumsy, professional or amateur. ;)
-
Where you may be literally correct, actual usage differs. Lots of people take photographs, but would never in a million years describe themselves as photographers. A photographer is normally used to describe not just some who takes pictures, but someone who is good at taking pictures.
'The photographer' identifies who specifically took the photos regardless of quality.
'A photographer' implies some ability
He is the photographer who took those pictures
He is a photographer and who took those pictures
Another way of thinking about it would be with other skillsets e.g.actors. If you can't act, no-one would describe you as an actor. Same with comedians, if you aren't funny then you ain't a comedian.
So many nouns do in my view have a qualitative aspect to them, if there is skill or knowledge needed to be able to do whatever it is the noun describes you. If you claim to be a builder and are in fact rubbish at doing that job, you will called a cowboy instead. Though no idea why 'cowboy' is used as to mean an incompetent or dodgy person,, but again it has qualitative aspects.
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?
The use of a camera no more defines "Photographer" than using a brush and a can of paint defines "Artist". The definition is all in the intent of the user of the equipment and medium. I call myself a Photographer because my intent is to create an image - print or digital - that expresses something that I see, or feel, and hope the viewer may experience the same, or even something beyond my limited vision. Or it may just be an image that's just supporting a technical point, as technique is part of the art. If that communication fails, that makes me no less a photographer or artist, because my intent was not simply to record, but to express myself in some way. The output can certainly be critiqued, but you can only say that it's art or photography - acting or building - that you do or don't like in the end.
Now I can't get into the camera-shooting monkey's brain to ascertain intent, but until she's able to signify it, I'm not willing to call her a Photographer! Nor do I think the endless hordes of selfie-shooters would call themselves Photographers, but, gods help me, I may be wrong!
Pete
-
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?
Pete
Good point!
When I'm walking around with an impressive camera slung around my neck, I sometimes get asked if I'm a professional photographer, to which I reply, 'no'. However, I also sometimes get asked simply if I'm a photographer, to which I reply, "If you mean professional photographer, then 'no'."
Sometimes I try a bit of humour and reply, "No. This camera is just jewellery. Some people prefer diamond necklaces. I prefer a good camera." ;D
I don't think I've ever been asked simply if I'm a photographer whilst I've been in the process of taking images from various positions, probably because such a question would seem obviously silly. The question would then more appropriately be, "Are you a professional photographer?"
-
I don't think that owning a camera makes you a photographer any more than owning a band aid makes you a doctor. Unfortunately that is a sad situation that the industry has got itself in.
If you know enough and have good skills then you can be an amateur photographer and then progress to being a professional if you choose. Unfortunately most know f stop about photography and I prefer the term snapper or the one used in the modelling industry of GWC or Guy With Camera.
Back to the question. A photograph is not a photograph until it is printed. Graph = draw.
Tiny little jpegs on Facebook liked by friends are not the same as framed prints bought by complete strangers. You can't hide as much in a print.
-
I don't think that owning a camera makes you a photographer any more than owning a band aid makes you a doctor.
Well, unless you are a robot. In remote Canadian communities there are now experimenting with remotely operated robot "doctors" through which a human doctor located hundreds of miles away, can interact with the patient or nurse. If they ever offer a photographer's version of that robot with a 1/4" screw on his head, I would send him out to take all those sunrise photos which I'm missing now.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/robot-helps-connect-labrador-patients-doctors-1.975104 (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/robot-helps-connect-labrador-patients-doctors-1.975104)
-
I don't think that owning a camera makes you a photographer any more than owning a band aid makes you a doctor. Unfortunately that is a sad situation that the industry has got itself in.
Mere ownership of a camera is obviously a different issue. I can own a house and not be a house dweller. I might just rent it out and live in a tent.
I can own hundreds of cameras as a retailer. Of course it's true that mere ownership of a camera doesn't make anyone a photographer. That's bleeding obvious.
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. He might be a novice photographer, an inexperienced photographer, a lousy photographer in the opinion of some, or even a brilliant photographer as in my own case, but nevertheless a photographer. ;)
-
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.
-
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. Of course if you want to start trying to define what makes a PROPER photographer (by which I gather you mean one like you) then you start a difficult journey that tells more about the traveler than the goal.
-
In English, nouns normally do not have any intrinsic qualitative or modifying aspect associated with them.
Please explain then how it is possible to understand the famous Tennessee Williams quote:
"It isn't writing, it's typing"
-
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. Of course if you want to start trying to define what makes a PROPER photographer (by which I gather you mean one like you) then you start a difficult journey that tells more about the traveler than the goal.
And if you don't want to believe in a world of understandable definitions, then you prefer your 'journey' to be one of confusion.
Which tells more about the traveller than the goal. As you wrote.
Rob C
-
The correct term would be that he is photographing, not that he is a photographer.
It seems that we have these cathegories:
1. Someone owning a photographic device (i.e. camera, smart-phone,...)
2. Someone using a photographic device
3. Someone making some/a lot of cash operating said photographic device
4. Someone having lots of skill in operating a photographic device, as judged by 1/many laymen and/or 1/many self-proclaimed experts
The rest is semantics, is it not? We can argue all day about the term "professional photographer", how her income must be organized to be called a professional (and what kind of images she must generate).
Perhaps it is easier to just talk about "photographer" as any of 1-4, while "Photographer" is reserved for 3-4? Usually, the context should make the message quite clear for the reader.
-h
-
A photographer is normally used to describe not just some who takes pictures, but someone who is good at taking pictures.
It would be interesting to see a citation that describes how the word is "normally" used. :)
-
A photograph is not a photograph until it is printed. Graph = draw.
Dunno about that. In looking at various definitions of photography none of them mentioned the final media.
-
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. :)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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,
-
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
-
So, as a matter of interest - who here is a non-swimmer?
-
So, as a matter of interest - who here is a non-swimmer?
HP.
-
Snapshots or memory shot are always the most important photos to people. Always will be.
Even to those who like to take fancy photographs.
-
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.
-
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
-
HP.
;D ;D
-
I've been digitizing my old (printed) family photos and they get way more viewage on the iMac than they did sitting in boxes.
-
True, but there is no such thing as old digital photographs.
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
... what happens to old photographers when we die ....
Rob C
Only their prints survive.
Your computer either can't be accessed because no one knows your password or thrown away because it doesn't play the latest games.
Even if someone who knows what they are doing gets them it is unlikely they will continue to back them up and eventually bit rot will make your life's work dust also. Sad but true.
Unless you become famous in your own lifetime then nothing will remain. Many great artists weren't famous in their time.
On the other hand I am putting together an exhibition next month of images taken in our town of Kiama in the 1890's, along with images I have taken now from the same spot. The prints have survived over a hundred years and are have only recently been digitised.
I know a few photographers selling prints at $1000, but not many selling files at that price unless commercially.