If you don't make prints are you a serious photographer?

[Tronhard]

Recently I had a discussion about a comment in a photographic club magazine about the nature of photography. The editor of the publication said that "if you are serious about photography then you have to print". He did so for what he considered valid reasons:

1. Photographs were meant for paper, not screens
2. The print is able to be seen by any viewer in a consistent form, whereas screens may vary considerably the in quality of their output.
3. A good print is probably better in terms of definition and tonal quality than a screen.
4. Printed pictures can be admired at length while digital are shown for only a few seconds in a show

The editor apparently meant these comments in the context that he felt not enough people were entering print competitions because more people are outputting to displays, which could not be accommodated in the conventional framed show format. However, the phrasing suggested that this was applied to all photography.

So here is where I get to the issue...

1: "photographs were meant to be printed on paper"...
I had to take issue with that as I have never seen a valid definition of photography specifying the actual output, so I question the validity of that statement. Let me emphasize that I consider the printed image to be a valid and important expression, so I am not trying to undermine the printing of images, but I don't see it as exclusively valid either.

For a long time the image on paper has been the main means by which the mass of photographers have expressed themselves because it was the most effective, affordable and efficient means to do so at the time; however times have changed. In the latter part of the last century slide transparencies and more efficient slide projectors have allowed more individuals to share their work with larger groups, along with quality prints in galleries.

The transparency arguably represents the purest form of photography as the final product is the actually exposed medium, without post-production. The only way to express creativity once the image was taken was through the chemical darkroom and that resulted in general in prints - although I have seen output on etchings and other media apart from paper.

If one wanted one’s work to be shown en masse it required either a significant private investment or acceptance by a publishing house with editorial oversight.

Three revolutionary technologies changed everything.

Firstly, the development of digital imaging meant that people could take photos and see the results immediately and freely. While the technology was initially primitive and expensive, it has taken over as the main medium for photographic endeavour. (Yes, there are still people who love film and bless them I am not discounting them, but digital is much more prevalent). Just as the Box Brownie, the Instamatic and the Land Camera brought simpler and more engaging recording technologies, so the digital camera brought many powerful tools that enabled skilled and unskilled users to capture and share amazing quality images.

Secondly the parallel development of cheap personal computing provided a cost-effective platform for software that has created the digital darkroom. Now, as we use a digital camera and sit at a keyboard, we can be more powerful than ever in the creation and manipulation of our images, if we have the skills to do so. Those images can be output on many media from prints on paper, canvas and acrylics to monitors, to images carved by robots or etched in many materials.

The third revolutionary development was that of the World Wide Web, which has had a profound impact upon society as never before. The closest previous change was the invention of the printing press, giving masses the ability to develop literacy and to learn from books in a way that was hitherto limited to a select and powerful élite of society. That limitation of information held back the vast intellectual potential of humanity but, once established, the printing press unleashed a wave of creativity and technological, artistic and social development we still ride today.

The Web did something extremely profound and disruptive. It allowed us to publish freely. Until the Web and the Internet on which it runs became available, anyone seeking to publish needed the support of a class of publishers and editors who defined what was, and was not worthy of mass dissemination, and they printed it on paper, or possibly on a TV screen. With a free Web came the ability to create digitally and share it without oversight or restriction. This has generated a tsunami of creativity that has reflected a freedom of expression never before experienced. Without doubt this is a double-edged sword: on one hand the Web has been used for many positive and enhancing purposes: otherwise disenfranchised people have made life-changing creations. It is also true to say that without oversight the Web has allowed the publishing of material of dubious quality. Like any tool it has been used for good and evil.

Why am I saying all this? The web has produced an environment that, along with digital media, has democratised and exploded the use of photography. Many people engage in photography for a purpose rather than pure art, yet they still want to be good photographers within their own context. They use the medium to record other artistic endeavours, and to support social, literary, commercial, political and scientific activities, and they do so with serious intent. For example I think that those professional photojournalists who do not have their images printed on paper would take umbrage at being told they were not serious photographers.

It seems to me there are at least two (NOT mutually exclusive) camps in the photographic world. Competitions, as I perceive them, represent “pure photography", i.e. the creation of art for art’s sake, whereas “applied photography” captures an image for a further purpose.

Like any purely artistic endeavour, to say that one image is better than another is prone to debate once one gets past the technical elements of the construct itself. Thus I personally see the judging process in “pure photography” as having a very subjective element with regards artistic content: some of the images lauded by judges I would have thrown out if they were mine, and some that scored low I thought were excellent! In my 35 years of photography I had avoided joining any photographic club until recently because I felt a huge pressure to compete with others, and that is not my style. I prefer to compete with myself.

Previous to this I think photographic societies were dominated by a photographic élite who sought to enhance their abilities for the art itself. While I completely support that agenda for those purists, I think we also have to recognize that the demography has changed. People may be serious about photography, but not as a pure art in itself. So we have to ask ourselves, in the context of a camera club, how does that impact on how the members express themselves photographically, and what does that say to them as regards what is acceptable photography?

2. Paper is consistent, but screens vary their output.
I have some sympathy with that idea as long as everyone is looking at the same print or one printed on identical paper and with the same printer settings. Still, again one could argue that any properly configured screen with the same resolution should be consistent in showing what was originally intended. That leads us to making sure that we have properly configured our screens, which one would have to do in any case if we were to manipulate the image on screen and expect the same print consistency…

3. A good print is probably better in tone and definition than a screen.
For the moment I would agree, if we consider the pure form of the art. Still, times are a-changing, and with the development of higher definition screens now and in the future that will be less and less of an issue. See also 4.

4. Printed images can be admired at length while screens only display for a short time.
That really depends on what resources one uses to display them. I have seen the National Geographic International Wildlife Photography road show and the images were all on screens. Each had its own screen and they looked amazing. In fact I bought the books as souvenirs but find the printed images dull in comparison. Furthermore individuals who are not engaged in competition may well choose, as I have done, to put their photos on screens that can change images for free.

So, having opened either a can of worms or a Pandora ’s Box, I shall welcome the debate. Let battle commence!

[pnodrog]

It seems to me there are at least two (NOT mutually exclusive) camps in the photographic world. Competitions, as I perceive them, represent “pure photography", i.e. the creation of art for art’s sake, whereas “applied photography” captures an image for a further purpose. Like any purely artistic endeavour, to say that one image is better than another is prone to debate once one gets past the technical elements of the construct itself. Thus I personally see the judging process in “pure photography” as having a very subjective element with regards artistic content: some of the images lauded by judges I would have thrown out if they were mine, and some that scored low I thought were excellent! In my 35 years of photography I had avoided joining any photographic club until recently because I felt a huge pressure to compete with others, and that is not my style. I prefer to compete with myself.

Previous to this I think photographic societies were dominated by a photographic élite who sought to enhance their abilities for the art itself. While I completely support that agenda for those purists, I think we also have to recognize that the demography has changed. People may be serious about photography, but not as a pure art in itself. So we have to ask ourselves, in the context of a camera club, how does that impact on how the members express themselves photographically, and what that say to them as regards what is acceptable photography?

!

Overall I agree with your points. At present a good print generally displays photographs better than any digital display within my price range. There are some images that do look better on a digital display due to the dynamic range available but in general I prefer printed images, both for displaying my images and viewing others. However as you point out it is just a matter of time before technology produces "affordable" digital displays that exceed the quality of prints.

However I have to disagree that competitions = pure photography = art for art sake. Once you get proficient at entering competitions you soon learn that in order to enter a winning image it has to be striking, unique and fashionable. Even the competitions we have on this site clearly illustrate that there are types of images that are more successful (popular) than many images that I would class as "pure photography" and "art for arts sake".

[Tronhard]

So, in a nutshell... if one is a "serious photographer" does one need to print and enter competitions?

I think people take pictures for a vast range of reasons, but when they enter them into photo club competitions the image itself becomes the issue not the reason it was originally taken, or even the constraints imposed on the photographer in taking it.

For example a specialist astro-photographer may document the reality of a galaxy for technical reasons but the fact that it is beautiful is probably not the reason for taking it. When the image is entered into a competition it is not judged on its technical accuracies from an astronomical point of view, rather because of the inherent nature of the image as a piece of art - hence my expression of "art for it's own sake".

A friend of mine took an excellent image of a landscape with a bison grazing and put it into a club competition. The judges lamented the bison was not in a more pleasing location in the image. To do so he would have to walk over a precipice and hang in mid-air... The image is judged without context to why and how the image was taken, just what is seen... art for itself.

[pnodrog]

No... I used to do both. I no longer do but I still consider myself a serious (somewhat spasmodic) photographer and I believe (not just for the sake of the camera manufactures) there are many more.

Leonardo Da Vinci was serious in many things he did but was motivated by the discovery not the production.

[davidedric]

I can't see one has to print, but the local camera club is going the same way, with most competitions now digital only.

It really shows in the annual exhbition: you can walk round and look at the prints, go back and look again, stand nearer or further away........ Or you can stand in front of a screen and watch a slide show. No comparison.

As an aside, last year in our annual exhibition, we invited members of the public to vote on which (print) they liked best (the exhbition was in the library. From memory, a couple of hundred took the trouble to vote, which I thought was pretty good - and EVERY print got at least one vote. The comment I liked best was something like "How can I vote for just one, they are all FANTASTIC"

Dave

[Tronhard]

This is good Dave...
So is the issue the fact that the presentation was via a slideshow rather than a static display?
In that case would a series of static screens be an effective way of presenting?

Why do you think printing has become less popular?
Is the issue limited to competition rather than what people retain for themselves. Perhaps to put it another way, what do people outside of competition do with their images?

[pnodrog]

Good prints are costly to produce and even more costly to display or store. Club membership and entries into competitions has increased dramatically since images have been accepted in digital form. New novice members to a club used to wait for months before entering a fully mounted print in a competition. We find that now new members regardless of their level start entering club competitions almost straight away.

Most clubs I know have had to reduce the limit for the number of entries per member not just because of an increase in membership but because the ease of submitting digital images resulted in nearly all members submitting at the full limit.

Overall I think the standard has improved but to be successful now not only do they need to be able to take a good photograph they need to be competent at photo editing.

[mastamak]

Trev, I am not sure that you have to enter competitions to be considered a "serious photographer", but I think the general view is that you can improve your photography skills by entering competitions and accepting professional critique. - at least that is my experience. Of course the judging process is partly subjective, as you mention, but you can accept or reject the judge's advice as you wish. However, I am not sure how you are able to progress and advance by simple competing with yourself. As for printing, I am in general agreement with the comments in your photographic club magazine. I guess I actually enjoy printing the image and trying to achieve the best possible combination of image and paper. Also, it is great to look a print framed and hanging on your wall where it is available for all to see and comment upon. It is a bit awkward to do that on a computer screen.
Grant

[Adzman808]

Sorry for the flippant nature of what I'm about to post...

A couple of years back, I sacked off my national geographic magazine subscription, I was enjoying it, but felt bad throwing out the mags had run out of people to give them away too and they were taking up a lot of space.

Well this year, I re-subscribed, digitally. Wow, interactive interface, archive of issues, and still the great shots

Or am I now to believe that these shots are no longer valid because I'm viewing them digitally?

No of course not.

Many things makes a great shot. But IMO what makes a commercially successful shot or even a well received shot is the depth and breath of the audience, and digital screens have made that accessible to all.

Bravo IMO

[Tronhard]

Hi Grant- thank you for your considered response!

All good stuff and I appreciate your feedback on that. With regard to competing with myself... I am brutal in discarding my own photos. On average I keep about 1% of the images I take, and I don't fire off heaps either. I learned to be critical when I was selling them - in this case not so much the art as the applied aspects of the images. I don't see a point in deciding my photos are better or worse than anyone else's and I have already commented on the aspect of context and constraint so I won't bore you with that!

So back to my questions again...
In your opinion if one is a "serious photographer" does one need to print and enter competitions?

[mastamak]

A friend of mine took an excellent image of a landscape with a bison grazing and put it into a club competition. The judges lamented the bison was not in a more pleasing location in the image. To do so he would have to walk over a precipice and hang in mid-air... The image is judged without context to why and how the image was taken, just what is seen... art for itself.

Reminds me of a photo I entered in an International competition. The subject was a well-known waterfall that is a big tourist attraction. I wanted a natural shot without the "hand of man" and had wait an hour in the rain until a noisy group of backpackers had moved on. The judge said it was a great image but would have been enhanced had there been a person in the image - SIGH!
Grant

[Tronhard]

Hi Adam:

That is interesting... it alludes to the other benefits of the Web and publishing: the ability to search and identify information interactively. I have to say I was given the National Geographic digital archive going back to the start and I find it fascinating on many levels: the images, the cultural changes over time, the history.

I appreciate your feedback, and not just because we both like digital images!

[Tronhard]

Hi Grant!

Ha, that's the nature of the art... the eye of the beholder. I sympathize and I would probably have voted for your image. I am not a fan of people in my images when doing scenery unless it is specifically to provide context for size, and even then... perhaps I am socially dysfunctional and hadn't noticed!

My pet hate is those who stand in front of what you are trying to photograph while getting a "selfie" of themselves obscuring the thing they came to see, and stopping you getting a shot too!

I forgot to mention that I display my images on high-definition slimline LED screens mounted on my walls at home. The screens are several sizes, but at least a 32" and they look striking with the backlighting - similar to the effect I mentioned with the NatGeo display. I can change the images as often as I please for no cost, and do so over whatever interval I choose.

[Shadowman]

Seems like a dated concept, only partially mentioned in the editor's comments were the viewpoint of the customer or art patron; how an image is viewed is determined by the user. If the only medium available is paper that means the viewer has to be in the same space as the piece of art. In our digital world, art is viewed through electronic devices, sometimes viewing online inspires you to see the art in person and sometimes you are disappointed by the minuteness of the output; sometimes you are overwhelmed by its majesty.

[chauncey]

Doesn't it seem ironic that we're having this discussion on a digital medium...
how long has it been since you bought a book, or magazine?

[Mike Buckley]

how long has it been since you bought a book, or magazine?

I bought a book yesterday (not yet arrived) and I read one of several magazines yesterday that I subscribe too. I also finished reading a book yesterday about Margaret Bourke-White that a friend gave to me. Having said that, I rarely have my photos printed and I never print them myself.

[DanK]

I don't see much point in discussions about whether one must to this or that, what the proper definition of photography is, or what is "pure" photography. Photography is an enormously varied activity, carried out by people with many different goals and used for many different purposes.

That said, if you strip away the imperatives and overstatement, the editor had a point. You wrote:

A good print is probably better in terms of definition and tonal quality than a screen.

Not probably. Certainly. And printing gives you far more control over how the image will appear, even if you restrict the digital display to your own monitor. It also gives you the choice of size, paper type, etc. A fairly common comment among photographers I know, when they find one displayed digitally that they really like, is "THAT one you really need to print."

Lots of people don't print, and that's fine, if digital displays work for them. I don't print the large majority of my images, in part for want to time and space to hang them, and in part because digital displays are so easy to share. But I do get a great deal of pleasure out of printing and hanging (or printing and giving away) images that I particularly like. I am not saying that to be "serious" one has to do it, but it does offer a lot.

[rwreich]

Personally, I think that one does have to print in order to be a serious photographer. I'm not judging anyone here, of course. I'm merely suggesting that digital display as a form of final output is only half-finished.

Permanence is an issue. Maybe digital images will last forever, but where's the evidence? On the other hand, there are prints from two-hundred years ago that were created with archival methods because the photographer deliberately intended for them to be permanent. An image displayed on a screen might last that long, but probably not without changing the display device.

Printing is a performance medium. This argument doesn't stand up as well as it has in the past, but I am referring to the art of optical printing from film. The process of capturing a latent image using a combination of shutter speed and aperture to expose a light-sensitive material is only one third of the experience involved in creating an optical print. In some cases, a digital image is captured and the final output file is rendered immediately as a jpeg. Many take care to optimize their images by processing a raw file in lightroom and retouching in photoshop, but even so, images can be adjusted for hours or days before printing. In optical printing processes, the adjustments like dodging and burning are achieved during the print-making, which might last a few minutes (light-on-paper). I'm not arguing that one has to print optically to be a serious photographer. I am saying that optical printing gives the photographer more opportunities to use shutter speed and aperture to create the final output. Is that more "serious?" Maybe, maybe not.

Finally, a print is a physical object that can be owned. Sure, digital images are also own-able, but a print can be one-of-a-kind, which can make it more valuable. I would argue that If one is a serious photographer, one is concerned with how many copies of your image are available as well as where and when they are displayed. It is very difficult to keep tabs on this aspect of digital media, but much easier to track in print.

This is just my opinion, so don't take it too seriously. I'm not judging anyone as I'm sure I don't know everything.

[Mike Buckley]

While I was planning a vacation to South Africa a few years ago, I was told that I wouldn't understand the soul of the country if I didn't go to a particular place that was not on my itinerary. I responded that I was going on vacation to have fun doing the things I wanted to do and seeing the things I wanted to see, not to understand the soul of South Africa. Does that mean I'm not a serious traveler?

The whole notion that someone can define for someone else what makes them serious about something says a lot more about the definer than the definee.

I would be willing to bet that the person who says you're not a serious photographer if you don't print your images doesn't know the difference between an albumen print and a salt print.

If I'm not a serious photographer because I don't print my images, let's add a few more reasons I suppose I shouldn't consider myself a serious photographer (in the order I happened to think of them):

• I've done macro photography only one weekend.
• I do both color and monochrome photography when a lot of photographers say you can't be good at both and some say you can't be good at either when you do both.
• I rarely use a tripod outside my makeshift studio.
• I've used a fisheye lens only one weekend.
• I never stitch photos for the purpose of making a high-resolution image and I rarely stitch photos for any reason.
• I have never entered a competition other than at CiC.
• I have never taken a photography course.
• I have never taken a vacation for the purpose of taking photos and when I do go on vacation, taking photos is not the most important reason I go.
• I have never planned to take a photo every day, week, month or whatever.
• I have never used high-sync flash.
• I have never made a formal portrait.
• I have never taken a photo of a bird in flight and I have rarely photographed a bird not in flight.
• I can think of only one sports photo I have ever made and that was more of a travel photo than a sports photo.
• I rarely have my camera with me when I am not at my house.
• I have never developed my own film photos.
• I have never used a full-frame digital camera.
• I have never used a pro-quality lens.
• I have never done street photography.
• I consistently use compact fluorescent bulbs in my makeshift studio.

Did I leave anything out? If I'm not going to be considered a serious photographer, I wouldn't want to leave out any of the reasons.

[xpatUSA]

In a lot of discussions in photographic fora, I've often seen it implied that "the print" is the final arbiter of image quality. As one who does not print, I've never cared for that implication.

A corollary is the assumption that "FX" is the seriously official photographic acronym for any "full frame" lens or sensor format. As a Sigma DG lens owner, I don't care much for that either