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

[rwreich]

Trev,

Thanks for taking the time to consider my points. I was using tapatalk to monitor the forum on an ipad and didn't realize that my profile did not include a picture or other details. I have remedied that, I think.

So, in order, I'll try to respond to your comments.

Regarding original slides: This isn't really a problem for me because the slide is a tangible object that requires a physical development. That makes it very similar to a "print" in my mind, so it counts as "serious." (Tongue in Cheek)

Regarding very old prints: I understand that nothing lasts forever, but permanence is still a primary responsibility of the photographer. Images on display at museums, galleries, and archives are cared for by a staff of people who care for the photographs. It's yet another example of the value of printing. Rather than see it as a liability, I see it as an investment in the future of cultural preservation. I understand what you mean about the preservation of digital information and the analogy of making a new print by switching screens, but here's the rub: what if I want to look at a print that you made with your hands? What if I want to see the very same sheet of paper that you held in your hand? I mean to say that the original paper is important because it connects me to the photographer.

And, there are many examples of old prints that survive. They don't have to be silver-gelatin. Here's the first link that I could find regarding old prints surviving:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ndon-life.html

Regarding your thoughts about the use of images and applied photography: I totally agree. Commercial work is very different. After all, "serious" doesn't pay the bills, does it?

Regarding the consideration of the final product: That's a good point.

Regarding the issue of resources: I suppose that I should clarify. I don't think that it's fair to hold someone to a higher standard when the necessary infrastructure is not in place. I was really more focused on those of us who have the ability to print, but do not do it. I don't mean to be elitist, but I think that in some cases, it is okay to be exclusionary. As someone who makes their primary income from photography, I don't mind knowing that the vast majority of people will not print their images. It just means that I am able to offer something as a professional that gives me more of the market share.

Thanks again for taking the time to respond to my post. I love a good (and even spirited) conversation!

[rwreich]

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.

Here's the first link I could find: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ndon-life.html

I didn't say they had to be silver-gelatin, and yet these survived.

[MrB]

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.

A good point and a serious one. It would seem to be a good idea that those who have images that they are serious about keeping for subsequent generations to view, should seriously consider printing them. Images in print might be more likely to be seen, even if they are usually stored in an album or a box, as the viewer does not need an account, a password, or a special device capable of retrieving and displaying them.

As for the original question, I think I'm a serious photographer simply because it is the activity that occupies the majority of my leisure time, and I'm always trying to improve both skills and output - whatever form the latter takes.

Cheers.
Philip

[flschaff]

Couldn't resist this topic as I make dozens/hundred of prints -- mostly to show people about my travels. Photo shows stack of sets of prints !!

[Tronhard]

Hi Wayne:

One of the things I like about this forum is that one can debate a point, technical or intellectual and there is always an undercurrent of mutual respect that we all show to each other. I have found that sadly missing in some other forums such as DPReview, which sadly has a lot of trolls, just waiting to rubbish the contributions of others.

I hope you will continue to contribute to the forum and to the site, CIC is an awesome community and I think you will fit in just fine!

With regard to the discussion on printing. Let me first clarify that my original issue was the pressure to do competition printing which I am not inclined to do. Being a cantankerous old bugger, the harder they push the more I dig my heels in... However I think that for new photographers that pressure is something they don't need. When I did my analogue photography I had to sort out the film make and ISO, the aperture and shutter speed. While cameras can work on fully auto, these days to really get into the capture process one had to master many more elements that we just didn't worry about.

For me the tactile need to touch the finished product just isn't there and maybe that is what separates us. Perhaps we could all be happy if we separated the serious business of capturing an image from the serious business of printing it? Then I will happy to be merely serious in the former endeavour.

Take care, and again welcome!

[Mike Buckley]

Wayne,

Your first post mentioned 19th century prints that were made to be permanent. In your follow-up posts about that, one of them written in direct response to my question about it, you changed that instead to mention prints that were made to survive. Big difference between a print that was made to be permanent and a print that was made to survive. As an example, there is not a single print made in the 19th century that looks the same today as it did when it was printed and the scientists knew back then that change would indeed happen. That's because the materials they were printed on changed over time enough to also bring about changes in the images themselves. So, those prints survived and will for a long time given enough care but none of them were permanent.

[pnodrog]

Almost nothing in physical form is totally permanent. Certainly true for anything containing organic compounds. So prints on paper are not permanent.....
Prints kept in a vacuum at low temperature and protected from radiation may last thousands of years but if nobody can enjoy them it seems pointless.

In spite of the misgivings we have about digital records it still offers the best/most economic method of preserving images. Certainly the digitally recorded ones. We can duplicate them without degradation, update them onto new media or transcribe them into new formats and all this far more cheaply than preserving a physical representation.

[flashback]

Trev, why would you want to join a club that firstly, wants to dictate what to do and how to do it and secondly, not wanting to be a 'full' participant they then label you as a second class citizen, with limited 'rights and privileges'. Seems to me you would be much better off joining a club wherein members are there to learn AND have fun, rather than being required to have the distal, divided and re-divided outward protrusion of the tree trunk, inserted rectally. I know those people. They. Are. Never. Any. Fun.

[Mike Buckley]

Almost nothing in physical form is totally permanent.

True. However, to a "serious" photographer, there is a huge distinction between a print that is permanent in that it doesn't change much over time and one that survives though in a form that does in fact change significantly over time. I'm glad Wayne changed his mention of the characteristic from permanent to being able to survive because doing so made his statements factually correct.

[pnodrog]

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.

It seems a bit sad that the club has adopted such an antiquated view.

If you elect to not enter competitions do you get a reduction in membership fee? Will you get punished if you say yes you will enter competitions and then don't? Is there a quota?


It seems your camera club/photographic society has some dinosaurs in command. There is only one club in my region that only has a print competition and that is because they are a small country club and do not have a data projector or TV/Monitor available.


The growth in both membership and participation has been significant since the introduction of digital competitions. A few of the bigger clubs have added an extra club night so the print and digital judging is now done on different evenings.


Some of what used to be the most prestigious trophies for prints now have very few members competing for them. This is a bit unfortunate but is a sign of the times. On the bright side the entry and standard of audio/visual competitions has improved markedly since moving from projected slides to digital presentations.


To claim that you need to print photographs to be considered a serious photographer is totally invalid.

[chauncey]

Being a cantankerous old bugger

You know that you have achieved that goal when your children diagnose you as having Asperger's syndrome.

[Tronhard]

Hi Philip:

I guess the first question that comes to mind is how long do you want to keep the images for? Paintings, etching and drawings can last for centuries, depending on their chemical compositions and the conditions under which they were stored. Photographic output to paper is another matter. As was previously commented, images take over 100 years ago are unlikely to look now as they were when they were taken. The best-kept images have been stored in secluded, climate controlled environments that barely see the light of day - neither cheap nor exactly conducive to easy viewing.

Storing in physical format has its risks... When i moved to Canada I had around 600 salable-quality transparencies along with a box of prints (yes, I did print) in a box in my car. The car was stolen and the people who did so burned everything on the side of the road. I lost over a year of work and a lot of irreplaceable memories. That taught me a lesson... I never depend on the physical image now. My favourite hard-copy pictures could have been lost to a house fire, mold, mildew, water damage (as did photos I left with a family member), or misadventure: as in the case of my step mother who lost the plot with dementia and got into our photo albums and tore up my family photos going back 100 years.

I take my own approach from my experiences in digital archiving as an IT professional. If one creates a digital image there is no reason why it should degrade unless the medium it is stored on is lost or damaged. With all of the options for backing up data that are available I would expect that would not be an issue. There was some debate about the durability of burn-your-own CD's and DVD's. But frankly I would not use them for archiving anyway, I would use hard discs (platter as well as solid state) as they are much more reliable and less prone to wear and tear, and then again there is the cloud where your backups are further backed-up by the service provider. In 200 years if someone wants to see how quaint life was in the 21st Century, they could go to a museum and download my image and print it with the same configuration data as it was when I created it now, so the print should be at least as good as now. Frankly I have no idea how images will be stored in 100 years, but I suspect it will be nothing like we do today.

One valid issue is the version of files that will be stored. It seems that some software is not compatible with certain versions of JPG files, and that would be an issue. My solution is to store them in different file formats.

[Tronhard]

I know what you mean Chauncey: my step daughter tells me I am suffering from old-timers' disease!

[pnodrog]

Hi Wayne:

..........undercurrent of mutual respect!

Yes, if you don't agree with me I respect your right to be wrong.....

[Tronhard]

Hi Jack:

I chose to join a club for the companionship of those enjoying photography, and as always to learn from others' experiences as well as my own. Don't get me wrong: the club is in almost every way a welcoming, inclusive organization and I really like the people They offer workshops for free, go on great field trips and we have regular weekly photo walks in the city which inevitably end in a beverage somewhere. The issue I have brought forward is not limited to this club, it is existent in many clubs that I didn't join because they were more in my face about it. Each month there is a meeting for a presenter, a night for members' shows, and a competition night. I try to go to them all as a keen and willing participant, but not necessarily (in the case of competitions) as a contributor. Competitions are held for both print and digital images, and the issue that kick-started this whole debate was the frustration by the editor, who is also the VP, that fewer people were not entering the print competitions.

It is fair to say that we have a range of views on this in this forum too, as has been demonstrated by this previous contributions, and I am glad people have contributed.

[Tronhard]

Hi Paul... absolutely and for sure!

[Mike Buckley]

Yes, if you don't agree with me I respect your right to be wrong.....

But I especially respect your right to agree with me. In that case, it doesn't matter whether we're both right or wrong.

[rpcrowe]

"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."

I have many black and white prints in my genealogy collection of ancestors photographed and printed in the late 19th and early 20th Centuries that are in excellent shape today despite the fact that for a hundred years or so, they were never particularly cared for.

I also have a myriad of color prints shot and printed in the 1960's through 1970's that are beginning to fade very badly. These are commercially printed images as well as images that I printed and processed when I was in charge of the Photographic Laboratory aboard the Navy Aircraft Carrier, USS Constellation CV-64. However, I also have black and white prints that I printed and processed when I was the Chief Petty Officer of Constellation's Intelligence Center. Those prints are still in excellent shape.

So much for the spectrum of photographic prints being long lasting.

Depends on the type print and the method of storage...

[tao2]

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

Awww Ted,

It's FF not FX - FX was soo the Noughties... get with the program...Hope ye now call real film cameras... analogue...

[rwreich]

Mike,

Yes, I should have been clearer. I want my prints to last as long as long as possible and certainly longer than my lifetime. I think that my original statement came from something I read in Ralph Lambrecht's book, "Way Beyond Monochrome." I don't have it on hand because it's in my darkroom at the moment and I'm watching basketball at the moment. In any case, survival is better than nothing and my principal argument was that I wanted the original print to survive because of the tangible connection to the photographer. I want my great grandchildren to look at something framed on the wall and think, "my great-grandfather made that print with his hands." Now, that's something that I'm serious about.

Again, not a judgement about anyone else's preferences or priorities.

Thanks for helping me clarify what I should have said initially.

- Wayne