Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => But is it Art? => Topic started by: William Walker on December 16, 2014, 09:23:58 pm
-
I seem to have developed the notion, not deliberately, that printing photography on canvas is not quite "fine art photographic printing". Is this a fair conclusion?
Perhaps it is my photographic and printing "upbringing" - most of which has taken place here on Luminous Landscape. In the "Camera to Print" videos I don't recall Michael Reichman or Jeff Schewe mentioning canvas. In his book, "The Digital Print", Jeff passes the printing on canvas section over to someone else. I trawled through most of the articles here on LL - I could not find any product reviews, tutorials or essays on canvas.
I spent a week on a printing course with Mac Holbert and John Paul Caponigro and we only printed on paper, and, in their "Digital Workflow" DVD, printing on canvas is mentioned only once without going into too much detail at all.
What is the top price paid for a photograph printed on canvas? Are photographs printed on canvas collected by investors or acquired by museums and galleries?
I look forward to hearing your views, and would appreciate any links or references to either bolster my impression or refute it!
William
-
I guess you can look at it any way you want. But its far more archival than the god awful toxic fading process that Lightjet and Fuji chrystal archive paper is. If you question that than what about water color paper. Its not traditional.
I make no bones about it. I relate fine art more to longevity, and print quality. I think its just an expression more than a fad. It been going on in the inkjet community since 1995 on Canvas. Do I think its as good as Paper. The answer is no. Is it better than Fuji papers that fade quickly and pour chemicals into waterways. Yes. Remember I was there at the very beginning. I believe its all good if there is longevity for the buyer and frankly its just an expression of what the artist wants. I think any process is good if there is some serious longevity to the final photographic print. Tim
-
I relate fine art more to longevity, and print quality.....yep!
-
What's longevity? Paintings are one of a kind. Photographs are endlessly reproducible -- in the sense that there's no "original" final image. Printing a photograph on canvas is an attempt to pretend the photograph is a painting. It's the kind of kitsch that evokes laughter in anybody who understands the difference.
-
Some great comments. As a long time user of both canvas and paper, including going back to producing cibachromes in my garage in 1976, I think I can come up with an argument or two.
Don't know what they call them in the rest of the world but in Australia, we have these things called 'canvas wraps'. The canvas is wrapped around stretcher bars, the photo is often stretched at the edges so it 'colour co-ordinates with the image. These, 'God-awful', 'look at me, I'm a work of art because I'm a stretched canvas' have sallied the reputation of canvas. A bit like 'we'll chuck all your images on a CD' has stuffed up the portrait and wedding industry.
But I am beginning to rant.
There's canvas, and there's plastic school book covering, and most look like the latter. Cheap, artificial treatments that make canvas look tacky.
So is canvas inferior, or somehow 'less' fine art than paper?
We have our most beautiful images on canvas in our viewing room. I print them on a unique canvas where the coating is infused into the cotton. I get the stuff from Canada. It has texture. It does not reflect. I spray coat with a UV matte coating and it is framed in a quality gold leaf, as gold looks good with my rich sepias. The image appears to 'float' as there is nothing to spoil the illusion that you are actually looking at the subject, and not a photo. It definitely is as 'fine art' as any paper print I have produced. Probably more-so.
This is moi after a spray job:)
-
Printing a photograph on canvas is an attempt to pretend the photograph is a painting.
That's an opinion, not a fact.
One that I don't happen to agree with.
-
One that I don't happen to agree with.
Be my guest.
-
If I remember correctly, Rhein II is face-mounted to acrylic. Nobody knows the longevity of that process.
-
Some great comments. As a long time user of both canvas and paper, including going back to producing cibachromes in my garage in 1976, I think I can come up with an argument or two.
Don't know what they call them in the rest of the world but in Australia, we have these things called 'canvas wraps'. The canvas is wrapped around stretcher bars, the photo is often stretched at the edges so it 'colour co-ordinates with the image. These, 'God-awful', 'look at me, I'm a work of art because I'm a stretched canvas' have sallied the reputation of canvas. A bit like 'we'll chuck all your images on a CD' has stuffed up the portrait and wedding industry.
We have our most beautiful images on canvas in our viewing room. I print them on a unique canvas where the coating is infused into the cotton. I get the stuff from Canada. It has texture. It does not reflect. I spray coat with a UV matte coating and it is framed in a quality gold leaf, as gold looks good with my rich sepias. The image appears to 'float' as there is nothing to spoil the illusion that you are actually looking at the subject, and not a photo. It definitely is as 'fine art' as any paper print I have produced. Probably more-so.
Hi Garry
Those prints look really good!
I was wondering though...in line with your "canvas wrap" comments (and it was those types of canvas prints I had in mind when starting this thread) - could you not produce equally good (or better) prints with one of the beautiful papers available and so avoid any confusion in the public's mind regarding "canvas wraps"?
Regards
William
-
Nobody knows the longevity of Face mounting. Really come on. The paper has a longevity by itself. The paper due to its chemicals and processing of the print is really only 2-12 years. So adding some glue which will be re-active to the dyes in the paper can only shorten it. Then you add some plexi to the process which most people are not using real plexi but some cheap ridiculous crap plastic like (Lik) does. I've used light jet. Had the second one in North America. It failed most of the tests. Its not that the paper if you process it the way it was intended to be processed it does have a decent longevity. But due to Osha and EPA it had to be altered thru processing it thru a processor. Which I agree with due to the toxic nature of the chemical and pollution. So since we have a process that last nearly several hundred years that can produce prints better than any other process, why in the hell would produce a process that is clearly inferior to represent your work. It lacks the dynamic range, color rendition, longevity, option for paper and framing options.
I will take flack for saying this, but since I helped design the pigment printing process (both before inkjet and the very first inkjet pigment prints) to get rid of all of these inferior limitations. I will say its because the people using it really do not represent the best interest of the photographic industry of selling and creating excellence in their work. Its really used by so-called photographers WHO DO NOT TO LEARN HOW TO PRINT CORRECTLY. Like LIk, Mitchum, Lough, Fatali, Mangleson and many others. FOR CHRIST SAKE GET SOME ETHICS!
-
What's longevity? Paintings are one of a kind. Photographs are endlessly reproducible -- in the sense that there's no "original" final image. Printing a photograph on canvas is an attempt to pretend the photograph is a painting. It's the kind of kitsch that evokes laughter in anybody who understands the difference.
Funny thing is that I sell more of my images printed on canvas than I do printed on glossy or other forms of paper. It might evoke laughter from the likes of you...but it evokes a different reaction from my paying customers. Now do I satisfy critics like you or critics like my customer. Give me a nano second to think about that.
-
And I'll bet the saturation is raised beyond all believability as well. That enhances sales too. As H.L. Mencken pointed out: "No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people." I have a friend who used to sell out of an annual art fair. One year I pointed out that he'd boosted the saturation out of sight on his pictures. H said, "Yeah, and my sales have doubled too."
-
And I'll bet the saturation is raised beyond all believability as well. That enhances sales too. As H.L. Mencken pointed out: "No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people." I have a friend who used to sell out of an annual art fair. One year I pointed out that he'd boosted the saturation out of sight on his pictures. H said, "Yeah, and my sales have doubled too."
So you are putting yourself on the "fine art" pedestal...basically everyone else who buys photos to be displayed in their living rooms, at times spending thousands of dollars are not intelligent and only YOU have this "what makes a print fine art" intelligence.
Seems very narrow minded to me.
-
I think perhaps that Russ is simply saying that most photographs are sold as decor, not as Art with a capital A.
Decor and Art are made differently for different markets with different motivations for buying.
(I see you lurking around Slobodan! We both know what you're going to say!)
-
... (I see you lurking around Slobodan! We both know what you're going to say!)
Funny... I was going to say: Merry Christmas and Happy New Year! :)
-
Err. I knew that!
The same to you! My wife is cooking up boeuf bourgignon right now for tomorrow. I hope your holiday is as good as mine is shaping up to be.
-
So you are putting yourself on the "fine art" pedestal...basically everyone else who buys photos to be displayed in their living rooms, at times spending thousands of dollars are not intelligent and only YOU have this "what makes a print fine art" intelligence.
Seems very narrow minded to me.
Andrew understands what I'm saying. I also ought to add: I've known people who bought monstrosities like super color-saturated pictures of Venice canals with gondolas drifting down them, hung them in their living rooms, and, six months or so later, couldn't stand it any longer and tossed them into the trash. Andrew might have added that for decoration to be bearable over long periods it needs to be at least somewhat subdued. Of course if you hang an over-saturated monstrosity printed on canvas in your garage you only have to look at it when you get your car out or bring it in, and the novelty probably lasts a lot longer.
And merry Christmas and a happy new year to everybody on LuLa. My wife's out there cooking too. Yum.
-
Just a note about some basic tenets of logic: NOT printing on canvas does NOT make your photograph a piece of Art, with a capital A.
Btw, I print of canvas. Isn't it a proof enough that it is Art? ;)
-
Well, I sell prints on canvas and on paper, some images just seem to work better on canvas than paper and visa versa – and as of now, I haven’t been able to work out a away to gauge which will give me the best results until I’ve actually printed the image on each. A mediocre image on canvas can look amazing and an amazing image on paper can look mediocre etc.
I find that canvas prints sell about 6 to 1 over paper prints and as the buying public is king in my eyes, I print and sell mainly on canvas as a result.
Canvas adds contrast and takes away an absolutley negligible amount of detail at normal viewing distances, but it does not boost colour saturation as Russ states, so sorry Russ but on this occasion I must say that you are wrong, as the contrasty nature of canvas actually darkens the colour. Darkening a colour is not and has never been the same as colour saturation, as saturation introduces more colour by adding other colours from the rest of the spectrum into your original colour, whilst trying (usually unsuccessfully) to maintain the original luminosity levels of that colour and is why saturating colours tends to block up and lose detail, whereas darkening colours just adds a soupcon of black but retains detail – therefore a darker colour is not a more saturated colour, it is simply a slightly darker variation of the same colour.
So, is an image more ‘arty’ on canvas than it is on paper? No. Do the buying pubic prefer images mounted on wrapped canvas that don’t need a frame and are easy to hang? Yes. Do other photographers and pixel peepers like to see your work on canvas wraps? Not really. Do other photographers and pixel peepers ever buy your work? Very rarely.
So what’s a guy to do? Print for sales and revenue to Joe public, or print to show off how good his work is to other non buying pixel peepers and photographers?
Oh yes and Merry Christmas everybody - I already know what one of my presents is going to be, it's the latest Motorhead album Aftershock (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9uUvCNHd9s) - brilliant...! I will be having that playing in the car and turned up to 11 on my way to photograph Neist Point at sunset tomorrow, yes I know, how ever I have managed to wangle a 4 hour pass to go out photographing on my own on Christmas day, as well as postpone the Christmas dinner feast until early evening, I will never know, but I have.. ;)
(http://www.animatedgif.net/seasonal/xmas/brsanta_e0.gif)
Dave
-
Darkening a colour is not and has never been the same as colour saturation
Agree 100% ...
saturation introduces more colour by adding other colours from the rest of the spectrum into your original colour, whilst trying (usually unsuccessfully) to maintain the original luminosity levels of that colour
... but completely disagree with the above. Think of the HSL color model, and saturation has nothing to do with adding other colors of the spectrum (which will alter the hue) nor changing luminosity.
So what’s a guy to do? Print for sales and revenue to Joe public, or print to show off how good his work is to other non buying pixel peepers and photographers?
Print for sales and revenue,
Oh yes and Merry Christmas everybody -
Thanks and the same for everybody
-
Greetings William.
Merry Christmas!
I can confirm that in the CPS tutorial series that printing on canvas is covered and very well too (C2PS_48_PrintCanvas.mov).
Everyone else seems to be having a ball debating the merits of printing on canvas and my contribution there will be to read with interest!
Tony Jay
-
Hi William.
Sorry for the delay in getting back to you. I don't think the public have any confusion about what canvas wraps are. They are what they are. As Dave mentions, they outsell paper prints. It's possibly a novelty to them. It's cheap and easy to bang up on a wall. Some portrait photographers like them because they can sell them as a set.
Here's you all together in the middle, at the sides are the kids, at the top is the dog and underneath is grandma....sort of thing. Big pictures with no space wasted on matte and frame. Here's the set, problem solved all on one wall. $5K, will that be cash or credit!
I didn't mean to sound superior by putting down wraps as most of my contemporaries flog them to their customers. It's just personally, I think they look second rate as compared to a nicely framed and matted print on paper or a nicely framed canvas.
-
Agree 100% ...
... but completely disagree with the above. Think of the HSL color model, and saturation has nothing to do with adding other colors of the spectrum (which will alter the hue) nor changing luminosity.
Print for sales and revenue,
Thanks and the same for everybody
Yes you are indeed correct Francisco, I have engaged brain and given it a bit more thought and agree that increasing saturation is achieved by adding more and more of the same colour until it becomes a solid 100% detailess block of that one colour :)
Dave
-
I have printed on canvas that is then mounted on gatorboard and framed. I have also printed on canvas that is mounted on stretchers with black edges. Do you have the same aversion to the stretched with black edges?
-
... Do you have the same aversion to the stretched with black edges?
Black edges work rather fine for me and my public, to the point that it is not even perceived as "canvas" any more. Public seems to associate "gallery-wrap canvas" with cheap, cliche canvas, but not with black edges.
-
fine art; noun
1. creative art, especially visual art, whose products are to be appreciated primarily or solely for their imaginative, aesthetic, or intellectual content.
So, prints on canvas are indeed "fine art".
On several occasions I have overheard art show attendees asking among themselves whether photographs printed on canvas were photographs or paintings. More than once people concluded that they were paintings only to be amazed when the photographer corrected them. So, at least in cases where canvas texture is similar to that commonly used for paintings, there is indeed some confusion among the general public as to what they are viewing. That could be negated with a simple sign, but that doesn't change the fact that some canvas types give the impression of a painting.
Whether one likes photos printed on canvas prints is purely a matter of personal taste. There is no question that canvas prints outsell conventional prints on paper. I personally prefer photographic prints on a very smooth paper surface and do not use canvas even though I know sales would increase if I did. I think the bottom line is that everyone should do what they are comfortable doing, and whatever that turns out to be is not "wrong".
-
There was an "early kitsch" tradition, roughly coinciding with the oil-on-astroturf period, in which heavy canvas was used to create "the look of real painting". Sad clowns, wide-eyed orphans, and Elvis.
I have to say, I was resistant to the idea at first, but the newer fine-weave canvases make for very nice media. No kitsch in this canvas. The texture is very subtle and even, and the coating gives it a more 'gesso' quality. Does a nice wide gamut too.
-
I've just come across an art fair that does not allow photographs printed on canvas in the "photography" category (57th Street Art Fair, Chicago). So there is that.
-
I seem to have developed the notion, not deliberately, that printing photography on canvas is not quite "fine art photographic printing". Is this a fair conclusion?
For me the notion that if it is art just because you print in paper instead of canvas it is like saying a painter does art if he/she paints only on canvas instead if she/he does acrylic painting. Dismiss the artistic value of a photograph in its composition and them the different decisions during the adjustments in lightroom/photoshop/etc... just because it is printed in canvas...
Perhaps it is my photographic and printing "upbringing" - most of which has taken place here on Luminous Landscape. In the "Camera to Print" videos I don't recall Michael Reichman or Jeff Schewe mentioning canvas. In his book, "The Digital Print", Jeff passes the printing on canvas section over to someone else. I trawled through most of the articles here on LL - I could not find any product reviews, tutorials or essays on canvas.
Small note, in the new version of the "Camera to Print": "Camara to Print and Screen" ( http://media.luminous-landscape.com/video/tutorials/c2ps/C2PS-ToC_final.pdf ) you have two chapters: 47 and 48 dedicated only to canvas printing. The explanation is not made by Jeff Schewe or Michael Reichman , they go to the studio of Andrew Collett ( http://www.andrewcollett.com/ ) (he was featured before in one of the LLVJ), I suppose both, Jeff Schewe and Michael Reichman, wanted to explain it with someone with more experience than them doing canvas printing.
-
Black edges work rather fine for me and my public, to the point that it is not even perceived as "canvas" any more. Public seems to associate "gallery-wrap canvas" with cheap, cliche canvas, but not with black edges.
As H.L. Mencken pointed out: "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public."
-
As H.L. Mencken pointed out: "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public."
Presumably you consider yourself to be a representative member of the American public?
-
Not when it comes to buying or producing photographic prints on canvas, Isaac. Where do YOU stand on that question?
-
I didn't set foot in the USA until my mid-thirties, I doubt that's typical.
-
What does that have to do with your take on canvas prints?
-
Feed the conversation, Isaac.
-
That would mean taking a stand, Andrew.
-
Feed the conversation, Isaac.
"Boeuf bourg{u}ignon."
What does that have to do with your take on canvas prints?
My "take" is that it's easier to ridicule "the taste of the American public" than it is to know what's currently acceptable (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=96078.msg788309#msg788309).
-
In other words, you don't want to answer the question because that actually would be taking a position on something.
-
I confess that that I am puzzled by your attitude, Isaac.
You routinely chide people for failing to meet your expectations for meaningful contributions, by repeating the admonition 'feed the conversation' and yet when the same is applied to you, you become slightly snotty and - more notably - continue your nearly unbroken record of failing to make a single meaningful contradiction.
Are we your puppets, to dance for your amusement, while you sit in your lofty tower of enigmatic questions?
No. We are not.
-
Two pages later and it would seem that it boils down to personal taste.
I have the feeling that this might be one area in commerce where the "artist" - not the customer should set the standard. No, the customer is not always right! Sometimes they need (and desire) to be educated. If one believes that canvas printing is "fine art" - no problem.
It is therefore up to each photographer who sells prints to sell their work in whatever medium they feel most comfortable with. It would be interesting to know what the average selling price for canvas prints is, as opposed to paper. My guess would be that canvas wins by a long way in terms of volume, while framed paper prints sell for higher prices.
I will continue to print on paper. Personal taste.
William.
PS. What prompted this question in the first place was when a local, very successful, photographer asked me whether I printed on canvas. I told him that I had taken a decision not to print on canvas because I did not consider it to be "fine art printing". I see now that I might be wrong. Still, I am quite prepared to lose that business because nothing here has convinced me otherwise.
-
To me, I guess it comes down to texture. A canvas stock that has a coarse weave is more suggestive of a faux-painting look, where the coarseness of the weave is seen as pointless and counterproductive in the context of a photograph. A very fine texture weave, with a gesso-like coating, looks more like a fine-art medium, something very close to a fine paper stock. I don't know why anyone would object to the latter.
-
If the objective is to get closer to a fine paper stock why not use a fine paper stock?
-
If the objective is to get closer to a fine paper stock why not use a fine paper stock?
Because, with paper, you need glass, mat, and frame, which, for large sizes, means substantial weight, special hardware to hang, glass reflections, and is pretty costly.
I asked Michael's how much just to frame one of my 20x30 canvases, i.e. no glass, mat, backing, etc.: $800. That would be twice as much as what I charge for the canvas.
For smaller sizes, print on paper, properly framed, is hard to beat in terms of estethics and elegance. For bigger sizes, canvas wins in terms of practicalities and lack of reflections.
-
If the objective is to get closer to a fine paper stock why not use a fine paper stock?
In our tests, the canvas stock accepted ink especially well and produced a wide gamut, better than the comparable paper. It was also cheaper for large prints and set up well for long-term durability.
-
You two guys make a fair point, but I'd have to ask what your objective is. If it's "cheaper" than by all means print on canvas. A photograph on canvas has "cheaper" written all over it. If it's quality then fine paper is essential.
-
You two guys make a fair point, but I'd have to ask what your objective is. If it's "cheaper" than by all means print on canvas. A photograph on canvas has "cheaper" written all over it. If it's quality then fine paper is essential.
These are weighted considerations. I started out hating canvas, but found that my objection to it had mainly to do with the coarse weave "faux painting kitsch" look which was ridiculous. Then someone showed me a fine-weave stock with a great coating. And then they showed me how wide a gamut they could get out of it. I no longer saw aesthetics as a barrier to using it thereafter. The fact that it was also cost-effective (in terms of mounting and coatings) was just an added benefit. Fine art paper stocks are also good, and especially good if the way a given paper accepts ink is integral to one's artistic goals.
-
A photograph on canvas has "cheaper" written all over it. If it's quality then fine paper is essential.
The buying public purchase your work because of the image content, the composition and what it says to them. Canvas, paper, acrylic, metal, it’s all the same to them or at least means very little compared to the image itself. They buy the work because they acquire an emotional connection to it and are then prepared to exchange their hard earned cash for it. It could only be a photographer who would purport to judge the aesthetic quality of another photographer’s work, based on peeping at the substrate it is mounted on, or whether it has the appropriate gallery frame or not.
So what I think you are referring to here Russ and suggesting should be a tenet chiselled into stone for us all to follow, is how you see and present your work as a photographer, but also as someone who has a predetermined mindset of what you think looks ‘cheap’ or what looks like ‘quality’, which in actual fact has nothing to do with what is actually cheap or quality. Or indeed has anything to do with how the buying public gauge what is cheap or what is quality. People buy the picture for what it is and for what it means to them, not for what it is printed on, or how it is or is not mounted and framed.
I recently visited a gallery show and the ‘artist’ told me he was also a picture framer by trade. The mounts he was using were exquisite and obviously very expensive and very much reflected in his prices. The pictures within the frames on the other hand, were no more than average (I am being kind) and so when I asked how he was doing for sales, after giving me several reasons why he wasn’t doing well, it became fairly obvious that he wasn’t selling anything. Yet he had the best of everything presentationally but hadn’t yet realised, it isn’t a beautiful hand finished walnut frame with gold leaf inlays etc that makes people want to buy your work, it is the work itself and what it means to them the moment they see it – I suppose you could compare this to a common critique of good and bad design as ‘Form over Function’, only in this case it would seem that you are arguing for ‘Presentation over Content’.
But having said all that Russ, if what you do works for you, then I sincerely wish you every success with it, but this can only ever be how you think you should present your work, but which I would argue has nothing to do with how the buying public think they should buy it, as they don't really think about any of this, only whether they are emotionally attached to the work and what it means to them ;)
Dave
-
In other words, you don't want to answer the question because that actually would be taking a position on something.
Don't put words in my mouth.
I'd rather listen to those who actually are presenting their work on canvas and learn something, than ridicule other people's taste.
-
Black edges work rather fine for me and my public, to the point that it is not even perceived as "canvas" any more.
So, just like an unframed painting?
-
Don't put words in my mouth.
I'd rather listen to those who actually are presenting their work on canvas and learn something, than ridicule other people's taste.
In other words you don't want to answer the question any more than you want to answer the earlier question regarding whether or not you actually shoot pictures.
-
You two guys make a fair point, but I'd have to ask what your objective is. If it's "cheaper" than by all means print on canvas. A photograph on canvas has "cheaper" written all over it. If it's quality then fine paper is essential.
In your opinion.
-
I've recently taken a page from Bill T's book and I'm printing "sofa sized". Four by six foot prints look fantastic and I can do it all myself. I even manufacture my own stretchers. With conventional framing, the framed images would probably weigh fifty pounds. Gallery wrapped, they're probably less than five.
I'll say it again, just in case anyone missed it. They look fantastic.
-
… the framed images would probably weigh fifty pounds. Gallery wrapped, they're probably less than five.
That's a strong incentive.
-
I've recently taken a page from Bill T's book and I'm printing "sofa sized". Four by six foot prints look fantastic and I can do it all myself. I even manufacture my own stretchers. With conventional framing, the framed images would probably weigh fifty pounds. Gallery wrapped, they're probably less than five.
I'll say it again, just in case anyone missed it. They look fantastic.
Yeh, they might look great and your customers love it and you sell them for buckets of dollars....but are they fine art ....as I quickly run away with my head tucked under a big hat ;D
-
Duck, Chez. They're gonna tell you this is "fine art" and beat on you.
-
I thought that "fine art" is in the concept, idea, content, etc. not medium!? It is like saying that the only fine art are oil paintings, but not drawings, not graphics, etc.
-
Yeh, they might look great and your customers love it and you sell them for buckets of dollars....but are they fine art ....
Actually, I give 'em away. I sold my photographic skills for decades and I'm done with that. Besides, few things make me happier than seeing my work on my friends' walls.
Are they "fine art"? They sure as $*&# are. I love 'em and so do their owners. In fact, some of them hang on residential walls that also display several conventionally framed (and gorgeous) prints by Michael Reichmann.
-
I thought that "fine art" is in the concept, idea, content, etc. not medium!? It is like saying that the only fine art are oil paintings, but not drawings, not graphics, etc.
Slobodan - I should have made that clear in the beginning, the particular photograph's artistic merits are not in question. In my own mind I took that as a given, it is, as you say, the form of presentation that I needed clarity on.
-
With the above post in mind, let me ask the question in this way:
1) A mythical photographer - who we all agree is "one of the best" - offers a colour print for sale. (I am guessing a Black & White would be a no brainer!)
2) This mythical print - which we all agree is his finest - is offered printed in a choice of paper or canvas. Neither medium/substrate adds or detracts from the photograph. Both the same size.
3) The paper print is framed and matted as per "archival standards".
4) The canvas is offered "stretched" - as per "archival standards".
5) The price is the same for either choice: $100.00.
Which one would you choose?
-
With the above post in mind, let me ask the question in this way:
1) A mythical photographer - who we all agree is "one of the best" - offers a colour print for sale. (I am guessing a Black & White would be a no brainer!)
2) This mythical print - which we all agree is his finest - is offered printed in a choice of paper or canvas. Neither medium/substrate adds or detracts from the photograph. Both the same size.
3) The paper print is framed and matted as per "archival standards".
4) The canvas is offered "stretched" - as per "archival standards".
5) The price is the same for either choice: $100.00.
Which one would you choose?
The way you've posed it ("neither medium/substrate adds or detracts") there would be no rational grounds for preferring one over the other. :-) What <blinkety-blink> would be the deciding factor?
In practical terms, once I saw the extremely fine weave coated canvas, that changed everything. Like silk compared with burlap. The coating gave it a more continuous surface texture. It just looks like something you can print on in that subtle way it needs to.
-
With the above post in mind, let me ask the question in this way:
1) A mythical photographer - who we all agree is "one of the best" - offers a colour print for sale. (I am guessing a Black & White would be a no brainer!)
2) This mythical print - which we all agree is his finest - is offered printed in a choice of paper or canvas. Neither medium/substrate adds or detracts from the photograph. Both the same size.
3) The paper print is framed and matted as per "archival standards".
4) The canvas is offered "stretched" - as per "archival standards".
5) The price is the same for either choice: $100.00.
Which one would you choose?
Why is the canvas also not matted and framed using the same archival mattes and same frame? I very rarely leave my canvas prints stretched. I use the same process to matte and frame the canvas print to finish off the print.
-
William, in your scenario, first determining factor, for me, would be size. If small, then framed print; if large, then canvas. Another factor would be decorative use. If, say, modern, high ceilings, plenty of wall space, very large canvas really goes well, even unframed.
Another thing from your scenario, the price. The lower the price, the more goes to the print framer, less to the photographer; in your case, like 80/20. The opposite with canvas.
-
William, in your scenario, first determining factor, for me, would be size. If small, then framed print; if large, then canvas. Another factor would be decorative use. If, say, modern, high ceilings, plenty of wall space, very large canvas really goes well, even unframed.
Another thing from your scenario, the price. The lower the price, the more goes to the print framer, less to the photographer; in your case, like 80/20. The opposite with canvas.
Come on guys! This print is virtually (pun intended) being given to you at $100.00 from a Master(!) - it has nothing to do with production costs! You are on the receiving end - which would you choose? ???
-
Come on guys!... You are on the receiving end - which would you choose? ???
I did answer that: if small, print; if large, canvas.
-
Returning to the OP's question: If the presentation technique, rather than the image content, defines whether or not the piece qualifies as "fine art", then we're all in trouble.
-
So, just like an unframed painting?
Not exactly. I associate unframed oil painting with untidy white edges, with staples visible. A black edge, in my opinion, creates an illusion of a frame. In the images attached, you see first an oil painting with a thin black frame around. Then there is my canvas with a black edge.
The third image is another oil on canvas, this time framed with a canvas mat, and under non-reflective glass (according to artist's directions). There is no reason that a photograph on canvas can not be matted and framed similarly, especially a smaller size canvas.
-
Not exactly. I associate unframed oil painting with untidy white edges, with staples visible.
Thanks. It just so happened that the artist, of the 2 unframed oil paintings I have, did paint the edges black.
-
Slobodan, do you colour the edges black after stretching?
-
Slobodan, do you colour the edges black after stretching?
I outsource printing, and that is one of the options they offer. I initially considered gallery wraps, but since I tend to frame tightly in-camera, that meant mirror edges, which I do not particularly like, plus it means more work. Black edges almost look like a frame. You can have edges of different colors too, to match the image's dominant color, but then you loose uniformity of presentation at art fairs or exhibitions.
-
Returning to the OP's question: If the presentation technique, rather than the image content, defines whether or not the piece qualifies as "fine art", then we're all in trouble.
Peter, for the purposes of this question, I attempted to remove the "image content" from the equation, let us assume that we all agree that it is, in fact, a wonderful piece of art.
That being said, it is clear that we all have our own ideas regarding this issue, which is very much like "art" itself! Something to be celebrated, because once we all agree on what art is or should be - it stops being art...?
A worthwhile exercise nevertheless! Thank you all for "answering" my question!
William
-
I initially considered gallery wraps, but since I tend to frame tightly in-camera, that meant mirror edges
I've never printed on canvas. I'm not clear what a gallery wrap is. I've read that it's any canvas stretched over a frame with no other frame around it. Then I have also read that it is that, but with part of the image (replicated or not) wrapped around onto the edge. So, is a photo printed on canvas and stretched over a frame, with painted edges and no image wrapping around the edges, a gallery wrap? I'm finding that local art fairs prohibit gallery wraps.
-
I've never printed on canvas. I'm not clear what a gallery wrap is...
I wasn't precise, I should've said that i considered "image wraps." Gallery wrap is a more general term and includes also mirrored edges, or color edges (including black and white). What is not a gallery wrap is unfinished edges, with staples visible, which means it was meant to be framed.
-
Thank you Sloboan. Your canvas print with black edge looks superb!