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

[xpatUSA]

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.

Interesting thread, Trev. Are those the screens that just show pictures, i.e. not TV? Could you post or PM me a maker/model no. or two, please? Can't seem to find any big ones on-line probably using wrong search words, duh.

[edit] No need to bother, Trev, found the right words - digital picture frame, or phot frame [/edit]

[Shadowman]

I prefer sharing my images electronically with friends, cuts down on the fingerprints. Regarding printing those same images, I could get them printed through a lab and they would be ready for a photo album upon receipt. If I print them myself and I allow them to dry as needed; it increases the amount of time before I can safely mount the images. There are always compromises and multiple ways of furthering the arts.

[rpcrowe]

1. Photographs were meant for paper, not screens
That statement is simply the opinion of the writer who is using his personal bias as an arguing point re: prints vs. electronic renditions. I differ with his reasoning. I don’t remember anyone stating that transparencies were not viable forms of photography or that persons who shot transparencies were not "serious photographers". I think the same can be said of electronic photographers...

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.
Prints vary greatly in the matter in which they are displayed, the material on which they are printed, the lighting under which they are displayed and, of course, the quality of the print itself'
I have a 20x24 inch mounted canvas print of the Grand Canal in Venice which is fairly humdrum if viewed in average room light but, is spectacular when lit from above with an exhibition light. Additionally a print cannot be viewed unless the viewer has the ability to travel to the spot in which the print is displayed. This limits the viewing to a relatively few elite...

3. A good print is probably better in terms of definition and tonal quality than a screen.
I simply disagree with this statement.

4. Printed pictures can be admired at length while digital are shown for only a few seconds in a show
Perhaps, this is true enough if the only purpose for a photograph is to be exhibited in a show. However, I can return to viewing the image that I desire at any time for as long as I desire to. Does this mean that the only "serious photographers" are those who exhibit at shows or that the reason for photography, in the first place, is to exhibit images at shows?

The San Diego, California, County Fair Photographic Contest utilizes both prints and digital images for entries. You send in a selection of digital (JPEG) images electronically for the initial selection. The photographers who are selected are then invited to send in a print (under specific guidelines) of the images or image selected for the final judging. This saves the judges a lot of time and saves the entrants a lot of money since images that will not be considered for final judging don’t have to be printed…

[flashback]

First of all, when this editor says, "Photographs were meant for paper, not screens", does he specify which type of paper?
Secondly, in expressing his view that images are meant to be printed, does he at all specify which process?
And finally, what are his thoughts in terms of digital printing?
One word. Clickbait.

[Tronhard]

Hi New Member:

First, may I suggest giving yourself a handle publishing your first name so I give you the courtesy of addressing you properly, as I would like to do.

This is a well-considered argument and beautifully expressed if I may says so, and I take your opinion and points seriously. So let me address one or two of them if I may.

"I'm merely suggesting that digital display as a form of final output is only half-finished." Years ago in the days of analogue photography, I used to make and sell professionally images on transparency. Actually that was the standard medium of commercial work, yet they were sold not as a processed image but for what they were on the original slide, which became for me the finished product. It held my work to a higher standard than offering a post-processed print, so I have, and will continue to support that idea that the transparency image is the purest form of the art. I am still an old fossil and take relatively few digital images, but I still approach the process of doing so with the care I lavished on making good transparencies. I try not to depend on post-processing to save what I consider are marginal originals.

"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." Those long-lasting images are extremely few and far between, and I doubt anything will last "forever", but the images made long ago are secreted in environmentally-controlled places and rarely see the light of day. One of the things that makes old images and prints valuable is that they are so fragile (they are created using an inherently caustic chemical process) and will be more so as they degrade and they will - archiving slows the process of degradation not halts it. What we tend to see of them is reproductions, ironically most often on digital media - look at what art galleries and museums are investing huge sums doing. As an IT engineer (yep I did more than one thing), I know that digital information itself does not degrade, the medium it is stored on is the issue, exactly the same issue as the print, but I can transfer the data to devices and keep the exact structure of the work without loss of quality. Yes, I expect to switch screens... so what? Switching screens is like printing a new copy. The screens will get better and better and they allow me to share my images with others.

"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." You are right that I am concerned with who uses my images. Many people put images on sites for the world to see and don't care if they lose control over them. I do not normally publish on sites (this one is my exception and only 3 times). Since they are digital I can track certain items of metadata to find them. Someone can take a high-quality image of a printed photo and copy that and you can never track it unless you stumble across it. I know "applied" photographers who take photos for a living (and that's serious) and who never print themselves, they leave that to their clients, but they have legally binding agreements for what may, or may not be done with their images.

It is interesting that for all those except film users, the whole process of taking a photo, manipulating it, and printing it is generally done digitally so one can get a printed output. All of that quality depends on digital capture, storage and manipulation. The digital image can be manipulated for print or for display, in fact we do manipulate it on a display and have to calibrate the display to render the printed image as we created it. So in effect we are discussing what we consider to be the final product.

One thing that also comes to mind is the issue of resources. I have met photographers from very poor countries who live for the art, and for whom the creative process of capturing images is a rare step away from their squalid existence. They will never be able to print because the infrastructure is not available, or they cannot afford to harness it. Yet, they take amazing digital images and ones that would do well in any competition. They can take those images and share them with other equally poor people through the digital infrastructure, and to me that is what art is all about: not excluding who can use the image but sharing it to an appreciative audience as best one can.

If we say that a photographer is not serious unless they have the resources to make archival prints, then by definition we eliminate most of the world's population, is that not exclusionary and elitist?

[Tronhard]

Hi Jack:
What I attributed to the editor is quoted from what was written, so what you saw was what I got.

Not sure if your last line...Clickbait was directed at the editor or me. I cannot answer for him (although I know him to be a person of integrity and honesty), so I will answer for myself.

As I understand it (and I had to look it up!) according to Wikipedia: "Clickbait is a pejorative term describing web content that is aimed at generating online advertising revenue, especially at the expense of quality or accuracy, relying on sensationalist headlines to attract click-throughs and to encourage forwarding of the material over online social networks. Clickbait headlines typically aim to exploit the "curiosity gap", providing just enough information to make the reader curious, but not enough to satisfy their curiosity without clicking through to the linked content"

I took this chap seriously - he IS the editor of the magazine (BTW I am in NZ right now, not Canada) and faithfully expressed what he wrote. For me the issue brings up some important cultural issues and I think that as a topic it deserves some discussion. I have no interest in having it reproduced and there are no links to other materials or to generate revenue.

[Tronhard]

Hi Ted:
I use large monitors - basically TV-size screens that currently delivery 4k reproduction. I don't recommend a specific brand or model as they differ widely by location and change very quickly! I would expect to change the screens when there is a major update to the technology. I am looking forward with interest to the eventual arrival of Graphene-based screens that should offer major enhancements in both resolution and tonal qualities.

In the meantime I enjoy what I have.

[Tronhard]

Gidday Chauncey!

I bought a book recently. I just have to figure out how to get it to boot up...

[Mike Buckley]

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.

Please provide or at at least explain specific examples. I've done considerable study of the photographic processes going back to the birth of photography and am completely unaware of any process that was used before about 1950 that had any hope of rendering an image permanent.

[tbob]

Darn. I print some of my stuff.
I was just doing this for fun and the occasional accolade from friends and family. But now it seems I am a serious photographer; so I better put that behind me and buckle down. Best stop taking pictures of sunsets too.

[Tronhard]

Hi Mike:

That's really interesting. I had a gut feeling about that one, but didn't feel confident to question it in detail as prints, as you may have guessed are not my forte!

I have in my hand a book (yep with real printed pages , and words and everything) called "A History of Photography" from the George Eastman House collection, published by Taschen Press. It goes right back to the days of photography when "drawing with light" had nothing to do with cameras as we know them but included the use of pinhole capture to produce silhouettes or drawings as an output medium. It's a fascinating book that spends a lot of time on the developments (sorry about the pun) of the 19th Century, but goes up to the latter part of the last century. It preceded the digital era.

[Tronhard]

Ha! Good one Trevor (what a great name!!)
Absolutely keep printing, just put a disclaimer on the back saying you didn't meant to be taken seriously!

The sunsets you should definitely keep doing!

[flashback]

Hi Jack:
What I attributed to the editor is quoted from what was written, so what you saw was what I got.

Not sure if your last line...Clickbait was directed at the editor or me. I cannot answer for him (although I know him to be a person of integrity and honesty), so I will answer for myself.

As I understand it (and I had to look it up!) according to Wikipedia: "Clickbait is a pejorative term describing web content that is aimed at generating online advertising revenue, especially at the expense of quality or accuracy, relying on sensationalist headlines to attract click-throughs and to encourage forwarding of the material over online social networks. Clickbait headlines typically aim to exploit the "curiosity gap", providing just enough information to make the reader curious, but not enough to satisfy their curiosity without clicking through to the linked content"

I took this chap seriously - he IS the editor of the magazine (BTW I am in NZ right now, not Canada) and faithfully expressed what he wrote. For me the issue brings up some important cultural issues and I think that as a topic it deserves some discussion. I have no interest in having it reproduced and there are no links to other materials or to generate revenue.

Hi Trev,
I hope you don't think I was haranguing you about the subject, I wasn't. I don't know if you realized that the bolded/underlined comments I made were links to further expound on the points I was trying to make. My points being that if someone posits that photographs are meant to be printed (especially as opposed to just being viewed electronically) that they then should probably be including which methods they think are the best/most appropriate. So I guess I felt that such a broadly painted statement the editor made needs/needed to be challenged. And while I'm not questioning his integrity, per se, being able to show advertisers the average viewer numbers per edition, article or editorial is what makes an online magazine attractive to advertisers, assumingly helps set price for ads and ultimately makes the magazine profitable to the owner(s).

I do disagree with you on your penultimate statement, "For me the issue brings up some important cultural issues and I think that as a topic it deserves some discussion." Making a rather absolute statement as he did in no way signifies any cultural issue or significance; it's simply the opinion of one particular editor. As for the cultural issue you imply, I really don't see it. There are a LOT of things one could tag as a social issue but the age old conundrum of 'whether to print or not' to me simply doesn't rise to the occasion. Do Japanese photographers have stronger or weaker feelings about printing out photos than do Italians, Americans or British (or Canadians )?
As I pointed out at the beginning, if we're going to discuss whether or not images should be printed out on paper, then we clearly need to define all of our terms, such as the type of paper, chemicals and processes used. Moreover, we should probably first define what is meant by "serious photographer". As a not-so-serious photographer, can I still have my photographs printed out (which I have done)? Do I violate any set rules or laws of photography in doing so? Ok so I am being quite seriously tongue-in-cheek here but nonetheless, I don't think the degree of seriousness of a photographer should be decided by either an online magazine editor or what the photographer does with his or her photographs. Way too often it seems, there are way too many people always trying to suck the fun out of something enjoyable. I will always be there to stick my digital digit in their face and say 'really?'

[IzzieK]

Ha! Good one Trevor (what a great name!!)
Absolutely keep printing, just put a disclaimer on the back saying you didn't meant to be taken seriously!

The sunsets you should definitely keep doing!

I shall follow your advice Trev about not being taken seriously because I had just spent three days printing some photos for the coffee table of my eldest son and DIL as a surprise gift for them when I go for my next visit to Oz (soon). And I thought for a while I was being serious about my photography, now you just throw cold water on my enthusiasm to make great images...boo hoo....

And yes, William (chauncey) I just finished reading three books recently and since I cannot go out but briefly to continue my P52, I'd have to settle going online for my book...I have a Kindle, a Kindle Fire and an iPad, but never thought of using them to replace my books as I like something I can hold in my hand. Maybe I am old fashion like that...love my books.

[Mike Buckley]

I've never bought that book because it's "limited" to photos stored in the Eastman collection. I have about a dozen other books, some covering the entire history of photography and some covering only specific periods and collections. It is not lost on me that I'm content to have books covering other collections but not the Eastman collection; I should probably rectify that situation.

[pnodrog]

Serious photographers don't take the best photographs anyway. The best photographs are taken by people who enjoy life...

[Tronhard]

Hi Jack:
Absolutely no offense taken. I was more confused and puzzled than anything.

With regards to the social issue I want to explain my point... I joined a camera club after a long time of resisting because I wanted to enjoy the company of others who love the art as much as me. My partner is not graphically inclined and tolerates me on the occasions we go out and i want to take a photo. I have already found great gratification in the company of others with my photographic affliction!

Camera clubs are a social construct in their own right, in many cases they are actually called photographic societies, and I am referring to the social issue in that context. I have become frustrated at being pressured to print images and to enter competitions. I don't want to do that right now. Maybe that will change, but in the meantime being told people like me are not serious about photography if I don't make prints for competitions is, I feel, exclusionary and elitist. In fact when I joined the club I am with, I had to fill out a box to compete or not. When I chose to say no to competition I was classed as an observer and could not share any photos at all on any forum. I am hoping that is a setup glitch with their new site...

So I am addressing my discussion within the arena of the photographic club. I know lots of people who want to join but are put off by the same pressures I have felt and I think that has to change. As I commented in my original post people take photos for lots of reasons, and I want to be part of an inclusive photographic society.

[Tronhard]

Hi Izzie:

I was hoping to get a contribution from you - I always look forward to them!

So to decide if you are serious or not, did you take the images and print them for competition (apparently serious), or did you take them for social reason and print them to decorate the table (apparently not serious...) LOL!!!

[chauncey]

I bought a book recently. I just have to figure out how to get it to boot up...

It's easy Trev...somewhere on your Kindle, it'll say "open" and then "next page".

[Tronhard]

OMG.. So that's my problem... this one has paper pages! Maybe I should use it for Kindling???