No Canvas Print Allowed and Forced Limited Edition Rules?

[BobShaw]

On the idea of limited edition printing. You might remind them that would mean an Ansel Adams, Brett and Edward Weston, Paul Caponigro and so many others would not be able to show there.
Reality is that most photographs are printed in much smaller numbers than what  Limited Edition implies. Noted writer on Photography, David Vestal did some writing on it and found he seldom made more than 5 prints of any particular negative - and generally fewer.

Do some checking and have your facts straight before talking with them.

Ansel Adams does not do limited edition prints because he is dead.
He and the the others are famous enough to not need to show in that gallery so it is irrelevant. The OP is not in that situation.

Ansel and the others lived in a different world.
They were craftsmen and made unique photographs by dodging and burning and chemically processing prints.
There were printing presses then but that is not how they did prints.
They were similar to car makers before Ford invented the production line.

These days they would have to make prints the way prints are made these days because the papers and methods are no longer available to them.
This was a real challenge for later fine art photographers moving into the 21st century.

These days anyone with a digital camera and a digital file on a computer and an archival printer with a roll of paper on it can make as many prints at a time as come from the roll.

I have a large print on my wall that is 17660 / 20000.

How marketing was done in the good old days before the web thingy and Facebook is nostalgia.

[BillK]

You like imitation then? 

You are wrong if you assume a photographer that prints on canvas intends to imitate a painting on canvas.
Canvas is just another medium to print on that happens to be much more practical to transport large pieces to art shows, for me.
The thought of imitating a painting never crossed my mind when I decided to start printing on canvas.
Painting and photography are two very different skills, both to be respected. The thought that we are trying to imitate a painting is in your mind not
mine.

[Rob C]

Just found this strange thread.

Photographs, for me, require to be as highly glossed as possible if only to try and approach the fantastic tonal scale and look of WSG double-weight glazed on a very good machine.

Whether this look will ever be possible on digital printers I do not know. The only way I could approach the quality of wet prints was by doing the things on Hahnem...whatever matt paper and then encasing the damned things in archival crystal sleeves.

Photography has a wonderful history that has gone down the plug hole with the fixer.

Digital cameras can be wonderful too, but, it appears to me that's pretty much where the excellence dies. The best digital reproduction I've seen is on a monitor or an iPad. I think it's the natural mating call of the new media and machines.

Whether or not photographers are growing rich selling digital prints isn't my point. My point is that until we are blessed with glossy digital that doesn't turn any part of black/white into a bronze prize, we have problems. As for canvas, good grief - if you want to be a painter buy paint. Why fake? That's all canvas looks like - whatever subject you put onto it: wannabe painter. Don't hide behind buyers - they are innocent victims of what I can only think of as aesthetic vandalism.

Rob

[DougDolde]

More dumb anti canvas posts.  Get a life people you are wrong.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

I love canvas.

Several reasons:

- when I was doing art fair shows, they are the lightest, most easily transportable options. I can not imagine the nightmare of working with 24 large pieces (typically 20" x 30," but going up to 20" x 60") framed under glass
- they can be hung on walls framed (for a classic look) or unframed (for a modern look)
- they do not need special hardware for the wall, the way framed images under glass do, especially larger sizes (I was selling up to 30" x 40" pieces, or 20" x 60" panoramas)
- they DO NOT REFLECT light the way glass does
- they look the same from whatever angle you look at them

Ultimately, it is the image that counts. Some images work wonders on metal (e.g., brushed aluminum), some on paper, some on canvas.

The reason paintings on canvas are so valued is precisely because it is not under glass (apart from being originals, of course). It does not reflect ambient light, it looks the same from every angle. Just like canvas photographs. It is NOT about imitating. It is about the ultimate impression the image creates, no matter the medium.

[Rob C]

Cool; I read convenience before quality.

But hey, whatever floats your kit boat.

;-)

Rob

P.S.

Worst of all, it's just vulgar.

[KLaban]

More dumb anti canvas posts.  Get a life people you are wrong.

What a dumb post. Choice of media is a subjective decision, there are no rights or wrongs.

As a painter working in oils and acrylics I used canvas for more years than I care to remember, took the skin off my knuckles stretching the bloody stuff but loved it. I've admired the work of many painters who combine photographic images and paint on canvas.

As a water-colourist I've always used mat papers.

As a printmaker - silkscreen, litho, potato and all  - I've always used mat papers.

As a photographer I've always used mat papers. I'm not a fan of glossy papers and I've yet to see anything from a photographer printing on canvas that I've thought of as anything other than tacky.

These are my subjective opinions.

[Rob C]

There's also the case of (but not only of) Saul Leiter who painted over photographs of nudes. Some are in his last book, and I have tried to figure out why he did that. I wonder if he wasn't good at painting faces and the technique got round that. But then again, I was impressed by some of his abstract paintings in the book.
 
Art's a wonderful place to travel; life would be so much less rich without it - it's probably one of the earliest means of expression after the sex urge and the smack on the nose. In whichever order they come. Not that I'm suggesting they are connected, of course, but you never know.

;-)

Rob

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... I read convenience before quality...

I do not have problem with quality. What would the problem be?

I think a lot of gushing over paper photographs comes only from photographers and printers, the only two types who ever hold a print before it is framed. The only time one can appreciate the difference between a chemical and a digital print, or this paper over that paper, is when you hold it in your hand and can examine it closely, even get a tactile feel of it. The moment you put it under glass, the magic is gone.

I tend to view prints from a user perspective as well. In which case, convenience plays an important role. Any quality gains end up hidden behind the glass anyway.

[Rob C]

I do not have problem with quality. What would the problem be?

I think a lot of gushing over paper photographs comes only from photographers and printers, the only two types who ever hold a print before it is framed. The only time one can appreciate the difference between a chemical and a digital print, or this paper over that paper, is when you hold it in your hand and can examine it closely, even get a tactile feel of it. The moment you put it under glass, the magic is gone.

I tend to view prints from a user perspective as well. In which case, convenience plays an important role. Any quality gains end up hidden behind the glass anyway.

It's simple Slobodan: nothing can match the tonal scale and look of a properly glazed, wet darkroom print. I am, of course, speaking about prints by a printer who knows what he's doing.

I made literally thousands of back/white prints during my traineeship in an industrial photo-unit. I thought I had all the answers when I joined: I knew nothing. It took years of work to get there, and yes, I do pride myself on the standard that I achieved and think I can tell a good print from one that is not.

The underlying problem with canvas is that it is a relatively new invention that came about in order to imitate the world of paint and hide flaws that glossy prints reveal sans mercy. It fits perfectly into the mindset of those people out there with the belief that if it's canvas then it's art. There was no other purpose for its creation than to allow photography to ape painting. It's creators knew exactly what they were doing: mass marketing of faux art. Try to find some of the original advertising for the stuff if you don't believe me; the makers were not in the least bit shy about what they wanted to do; they had their market down perfectly. Obviously enough - it's still around. Why else would anyone have developed such a gargoyle?

As KLaban says, it's tacky. And my subjective opinion and experience agrees.

Regarding glass: when my Hahnemuehle matt rag prints are behind glass, only then do they regain some of the look I had managed to screw out of the files and see on the monitor. So no, the glass is a huge help in some cases. Its downside: gotta light it carefully or suffer.  But that is another matter, and nothing to do with the quality of a print.

;-)

Rob

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... and hide flaws that glossy prints reveal sans mercy...

What's wrong with that? I can only see it as a benefit.

As for revealing flaws sans mercy... are you suggesting women should not wear makeup? Or photographers shooting them should not use diffused lights, reflecting surfaces, softar filters, photoshop techniques, etc., but instead use on-camera flash in order to reveal their skin and feature flaws sans mercy? I think I heard of such an attempt, unfortunately, the photographer did not survive to tell us about it

[BobShaw]

I’ve noticed that a show in Portland says no photographic print on canvas allowed, and another show in Bend has a requirement saying the photographic prints must have limited edition of 250 or less.

I am not sure why this got to 3 pages.
These are the rules. Like it or not.
There ares standards for most things.
Some have high standards and some have low standards.
Decide what you want and market to that.

[Rob C]

What's wrong with that? I can only see it as a benefit.

As for revealing flaws sans mercy... are you suggesting women should not wear makeup? Or photographers shooting them should not use diffused lights, reflecting surfaces, softar filters, photoshop techniques, etc., but instead use on-camera flash in order to reveal their skin and feature flaws sans mercy? I think I heard of such an attempt, unfortunately, the photographer did not survive to tell us about it

Congratulations, Slobodan! The reddest of herrings ever encountered!

;-)

Rob

[Rob C]

I am not sure why this got to 3 pages.
These are the rules. Like it or not.
There ares standards for most things.
Some have high standards and some have low standards.
Decide what you want and market to that.

It's simple, Bob: some of us have nothing better to do. It's the life we were encouraged to get.

That said, within it all, there lurk nuggets of wisdom for those who seek such things.

(Things. I invariably mistype thongs whenever this word comes up. There are many such repeated mistakes; that's why my posts are always so brief: they consume oodles of my life time.)

Rob

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Congratulations, Slobodan! The reddest of herrings ever encountered!

;-)

Yes, Rob, I certainly deserve congrats for (barely) surviving such and attempt. At some point, I got a new lens for my Hasselblad, a 120/4 macro, and tried to demonstrate its virtues to my then-wife by taking a close-up portrait of her. The slide was pin-sharp, of course, and I was so proud of the facial details it delivered, alas...

Come to think of it, perhaps printing it on canvas could have saved my marriage? 

[Rob C]

Yes, Rob, I certainly deserve congrats for (barely) surviving such and attempt. At some point, I got a new lens for my Hasselblad, a 120/4 macro, and tried to demonstrate its virtues to my then-wife by taking a close-up portrait of her. The slide was pin-sharp, of course, and I was so proud of the facial details it delivered, alas...

Come to think of it, perhaps printing it on canvas could have saved my marriage? 

Slobodan, Slobodan, two wrongs don't make a right: first, for heads, never use anything shorter (on 6x6) than 150mm and don't get closer than six feet. Observing this distance advice will make your image too small, but still useful - where rings, both extension and romantic, make matters worse, forcing you closer and closer, noses larger and larger; using a 180mm is better. Trust me on this - avoid getting closer - there are usually other opportunities for that, if you want them. Never photograph a relative unless you preface the act with "I'm just trying out a new style" (don't mention the lens may be new - they'd never notice otherwise).

You maths/accounts/numbers guys sometimes lack other qualities than can help you navigate a more gentle, relaxed path through life.

;-)

Rob