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

[Mike Buckley]

I want my great grandchildren to look at something framed on the wall and think, "my great-grandfather made that print with his hands."

I can most definitely relate to that. As an example, when I go to a museum and stand so close to a painting made hundreds of years ago that my nose almost touches it, I think about the fact that I am that close to the canvas and oil the famous painter used. That's a very special feeling for me.

However, that's no more special for me than the feeling I get when looking at a masterful image by a master photographer such as Cartier-Bresson, Bourke-White and others who so often relied on others to print their own images. There are so many master photographers who relied on others to print their images that if deciding whether photographers today are serious lies solely in the context of whether they print their own images, I personally consider it a false question.

[rwreich]

I can most definitely relate to that. As an example, when I go to a museum and stand so close to a painting made hundreds of years ago that my nose almost touches it, I think about the fact that I am that close to the canvas and oil the famous painter used. That's a very special feeling for me.

However, that's no more special for me than the feeling I get when looking at a masterful image by a master photographer such as Cartier-Bresson, Bourke-White and others who so often relied on others to print their own images. There are so many master photographers who relied on others to print their images that if deciding whether photographers today are serious lies solely in the context of whether they print their own images, I personally consider it a false question.

Having the kind of relationship with a printer (a person) who can communicate your vision in a tangible product is perfectly valid. I have no issues with that! I am really just a proponent of the tangible print, hand-made or otherwise. The only thing that bothers me in my own work is when I make a great photograph but am unable to realize the final image in print due to license issues (work for hire) or when the image is for a commercial client taking the product directly to the web.

[Mike Buckley]

I am really just a proponent of the tangible print, hand-made or otherwise.

Actually, that doesn't seem to be the case. Rather than being "just a proponent of the tangible print," you are instead taking the position that those who aren't proponents of the tangible print are less serious about their photography. I have no problem with you and I disagreeing on the importance of the print, but let's please keep to the facts at least as you have stated them.

[rwreich]

Mike, that's valid. I don't want to judge others, but values that we hold can be divisive. I do believe that allowing your work to live on the internet, exclusively, is less serious because of the obvious abandonment of the traditional photographic medium. I don't want to live in a world tied to my phone or computer. I want to see prints. I've tried to phrase it with enough room for people to feel justified in their own choices, but as clear as can be said, if one's photographs do not appear in print, I don't think it's as serious.

[pnodrog]

Is it serious as 6"x4" post card print or is it only serious once you get 16"x20"?

Is it serious if printed with dye based inks or only with pigmented inks?

If the objective is to produce an Audio visual documentary the photography can be every bit a serious as any other form of photography but a print will simply be irrelevant.
Having an objective for your photographs and sticking to it is the serious part.

[Mike Buckley]

if one's photographs do not appear in print, I don't think it's as serious.

Though that's not my opinion, you have done an excellent job of supporting the basis of your opinion and I highly respect you for that.

Despite the short exchange we have had, I already have the impression that I would thoroughly enjoy sitting at a corner table with you. I would be sipping wine and you would be sipping whatever you enjoy. Most happily at my expense.

[Mike Buckley]

Having an objective for your photographs and sticking to it is the serious part.

Print (ironically) that thought. Frame it. Hang it on a wall and put a spotlight on it.

[Tronhard]

Hi again Wayne:

Inevitably when you look at an image you will be tied to something, and I would argue that you have more chance of seeing your work on digital medium than if it is in a print on a wall, especially if you want it to be big enough to really appreciate - unless you stare at that wall a lot! The history of the evolution of any technology is littered with people who say we should stick to something because we have always done it that way. Frankly I think that is a cop-out (and I do not apply that to you because at least you have reasoned argument!).

Almost exactly 100 years ago there was a huge debate about the proliferation of motor vehicles. People decried their use because it wreaked havoc with traditional skills: such as carriage and wheel makers, and those who provided feed or removed animal waste in cities. Others feared the pollution (despite the fact that many people got sick from the flies and the manure dust in the summer), and others felt that these things were out of control and too fast for us to use safely - they may have had a point there! Still, time went by and the technology changed and the only times one sees horses and carriages is probably on a scenic tourist route.

I think printing is a fine thing to do, and I think competitions are fine too. As I have said repeatedly it is, to me, photography as a pure art. What I find somewhat offensive to the photographic community is to be downgraded as not serious about photography because one don't compete in print. When someone says that what they do is serious but what others do is not, is a put-down. Printing for art is just one expression of serious photography, but there are others. An image has an amazing ability to capture hearts and minds, and if used properly, to educate, inform and influence - surely that is serious. We all share the same seriousness about capturing images and making them the best they can be, but we do that for different reasons.

One of the most profound uses of what I would call serious applied photography is an example by a geographer called James Balog. He took up photography to demonstrate to people how glaciers around the world are shrinking, as he found tables of data just didn't get through. Over some years, with the support of National Geographic and Nikon he planted many remote still cameras in automated housings to take images each half hour during daylight of glaciers. This was not without cost to him: he pretty much destroyed his knees humping heavy gear to set up the remotes. After 4 knee operations he had to give up, but others kept up the work under his guidance and the result was a series of dramatic sequences played as videos showing the degradation of glaciers across Iceland, Greenland and other places. He took the sequences on tour and influenced thousands of people to change their views. In process of making the images and making a video from them a feature documentary "Chasing Ice" was filmed of what he did with still cameras and groundbreaking technology. The project got the following awards: Emmy in 2014 for Outstanding Nature Programming, Sundance Festival for Excellence in Cinematography, US Documentary, the Environmental Media Award. None of this was printed on images to put on a wall, it was all put on the soft media but it would seem that according to your definition he was not a serious photographer.

[Mike Buckley]

I saw a presentation by James Balog at National Geographic Headquarters years ago about the work he had been doing to document the shrinking of glaciers around the world. He is an extremely rare combination of great photographer and great presenter.

I'm not speaking for Wayne but I am speaking for how I understand what Wayne has written.

When someone says that what they do is serious but what others do is not, is a put-down

I completely disagree. While I understand that some people take it that way, I can assure you that not everyone does. I know that to be true because I don't and I have a difficult time believing that I'm alone in that regard.

When one person says he is serious about something according to his own definition of seriousness, it is not at all necessary to think that person believes everyone else who does not subscribe to the same definition is not serious in their own mind. So, it is not necessary to believe that person is putting everyone down who believes differently from him.

As a great example, though Wayne has repeatedly explained that he has a definition of being a serious photographer that applies to him and not to me, he has also repeatedly explained that he isn't being judgmental about it. So, it's impossible for me to feel put down by him. Similarly, I don't feel that you or I are putting him down because we use a different definition of seriousness than he uses. I suppose it's possible that you're putting him down but I would like to believe otherwise. I know for a fact that I'm not putting him down.

...it would seem that according to your definition he [James Balog] was not a serious photographer.

That's true but only if you limit yourself to a very informal definition as explained by Wayne here in the thread. Unlike pregnancy, there are different degrees of seriousness; it is not simply a matter of being serious or not and I give both you and Wayne enough credit to believe both of you understand that. So, it's very easy for me to appreciate that Wayne can believe that though James Balog is serious in some respects about his photography, he could be even more serious according to Wayne's definition if he also put as much effort into making prints as he puts into the other aspects of his photography. (Actually, as you'll see below, I'm not convinced that he doesn't put significant effort into making prints.)

None of this was printed on images to put on a wall

Not true. The Chasing Ice website sells 26" X 40" and 11" x 17" posters of an image of his. That fact isn't important in my mind to the basic thrust of the discussion but facts are facts and your statement is incorrect.

As for other kinds of prints about other subjects, Balog also has at least six or so large format books to his credit. He also solicits the sales of prints at jamesbalog.com. I could be wrong, but I believe the National Geographic was displaying large prints of his in their lobby outside the auditorium when I saw his presentation.

[Tronhard]

Hi Mike:

We seemed destined to have these discussions! But I enjoy the intellectual cut and thrust and when I debate with anyone it is because I respect them, otherwise I wouldn't bother.

Yes, I know Balog has printed books before but the body of work I refer to (apart from the advertising materials in the form of posters you referred to) is essentially an on-line one. The point I am trying to make is this... He is not making WHATEVER for the sake of looking at his prints on a wall and saying how artistic they are. He has done the vast majority of his work in the digital world because that is how he can reach people for a further purpose. How many people would have been influenced do you think if he had just published a few books and made a few posters? If you look at the images on his site would you, without knowing on what they were produced say they were not the images of a mature and serious photographer?

I have nothing but admiration and support for those who DO want to print and do competitions: if they get satisfaction and learn from the process of doing so I say "Bravo", so I am not attacking anyone, and I am happy to identify these people as serious about photography in that form. I will take issue when anyone feels that they can say that what they do is serious photography and what I do isn't just because I don't conform to their value set.

I am not serious about making competition prints or entering competitions, as are lots of other people who engage in photography. I absolutely admit that. But I, and many others ARE serious about the quality of the image that comes out of our camera for whatever purpose, and to say that I am not a serious photographer after all these years is a big issue. I see it as elitist. It all boils down, as it has all along, as to what one defines as photography. Does photography, by definition constrain the output to printing images on paper? I would say not. I has become a de facto means of doing so because there was no serious alternative until the last few years. I would never decry another photographer for making prints and taking satisfaction in what they have created, and I respect the skills they display in producing great images on paper.

But some of the arguments presented here to justify the superiority of paper don't stack up to me - e.g. archival quality images for the long term, the safety of prints as an archive medium at all, the fact that one can move or duplicate images between screens somehow degrading the end product, the idea that a print on a wall is somehow more accessible than one on an electronic device... I could go on, but you get the idea.

[IzzieK]

I can't decided now what kind of photographer I am --I used to send digital ones for magazine publication; print some to decorate my walls but never for a competition. I used to do oil painting while living in Oz (for competition), but compare that to photography, it seems that both have an option nowadays to be both in digital (Photoshop) and print (for display. So is this part perhaps answers partly answer your question and question your question as to which is which...

My project the last few days printing my images for an album is a personal one as my DIL is somewhat social and will brag of her MIL (me!!!) about my photography, especially the main subject is their only child and my only grandchild...so some audience there at least once a week. I just thought a digital album will not be displayed very long and had to be taken down at some stage whereas a print will be there on their coffee table for a longer time...

Just my thoughts...people have different habits of displaying artifacts (old photographs) and new ones. For albums as decorated as mine is, will be well taken cared of for years compared to digital images that will be replaced after some months on the wall. Besides digital wall cost electricity...plus the fact that my 3-year old going 5 years grandchild is still on the painting stage so her images will get display priority on the wall than a digital wall...

My 12 cents (inflation) worth...Not because a photographer print his/her image makes him/her a professional or a non-professional, an amateur or an enthusiast. One should be able/can reach his/her best to reach a level quite comfortable without the branding, don't you think?

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!!!

[Manfred M]

I have mixed feelings on this subject, as I have been printing for decades and do feel that in the digital age it is an undervalued aspect of photography. I certainly disagree with the author on some of this comments, whereas on others he is 100% spot on.

I also could never justify buying a high resolution camera if all I ever planned to do was to display images on a computer screen. Why buy a 24MP, 36MP or 50MP camera when the bulk of the computer displays can only handle 2MP images? I my Epson 3880 printer with it's native resolution of 360ppi needs to up-sample very slightly when I print my 36MP files at the maximum size that printer can handle.

Just to clarify, here is a full-size image out of my D800 (7360 px x 4912 px). At native resolution (360 ppi) of my Epson 3880, this translate to a full-size print of approx. 52cm x 35cm / 20" x 14". The small B&W image at the bottom right corner is the native resolution of my 27" screen - 1920 px x 1200 px. This shows you how much data gets thrown away when we use a computer screen versus a print and should clearly demonstrate how much higher resolution we get out of a print.





I also find that most of the criticism of prints comes from people that have limited experience in printing, especially larger print sizes. To me larger format is any print greater than A4 / 8" x 10" (or 8-1/2" x 11"). I find that the work to prepare a digital image for these sizes takes a lot more care and prep in post processing when than displaying an image on a computer screen. I can get away with a slightly noisy image on a screen, but need to be a lot more careful to clean up defects in a print. Preparing an image for print also means I am making choices on paper weight, finish and tint. A glossy print requires more attention to detail than a matte print as it will be less forgiving.

By the way, please don't confuse the quality of prints that come from a custom photographic service (or an experienced photographer with a high level of printing experience on a photo printer) from the mass-produced retail printing service. The quality difference is astounding.

Another common misunderstanding is that prints have a very restricted gamut. While this can be true if you head off the the run-of-the-mill printer who insist on printing sRGB images only. The standard AdobeRGB gamut was developed by Adobe in 1998 to provide a colour space that tied the capabilities of these two types of devices together. Things have changed a bit in the ensuing 18 years and some of the best computer screens come to within 99% of being compliant with AdobeRGB. Current high end colour photo printers with their 9 - 12 colour inks EXCEED the boundaries of this colour space.

Now. getting on to image permanence. The biggest problem with digital image preservation is something often referred to as "digital rot", which is a nice way of saying that both the hardware devices we use to store data as well as the algorithms we use to decode them. Devices like the m-Disc claim that their discs will retain uncorrupted data for at least 1000 years. Sounds great in theory, but even if you store an m-Disc player, the likelihood that you can plug it into some future computer and read it is wishful thinking. A physical print that needs nothing other than our eyes to decode it, is more "future proof".

http://www.mdisc.com/



All that being said is that physical prints have a host of problems to make them future proof. Improper treatment (insufficient washing) of traditional B&W photo (silver halide) papers left residual chemicals in the print that would eventually break down the image. Improper storage (humidity, airborne chemicals (hint - if the chemical has a smell to it, it's not good for photo life) and UV light all break down either the substrate or the image itself. Colour dyes are particularly vulnerable to breakdown, and it doesn't matter if we are talking about traditional colour photo papers or modern ink-jet based inks. Pigment based inks are more stable, especially black inks, although dye based inks are getting better.

[Donald]

I find that the work to prepare a digital image for these sizes takes a lot more care and prep in post processing when than displaying an image on a computer screen.

It depends on why you're doing photography, but for someone like me it's the fun and challenge of exactly what Manfred talks about, that makes me print my own. I've created the thing from beginning to end.

If I didn't make prints would I be a serious photographer? Well, there's been a lot already said above, hasn't there?

If I took my photography seriously and didn't print then, yes, I'd be a serious photographer. The fact that I do print doesn't make me any more serious a photographer than the person who takes the craft of image creation as seriously as me, but doesn't print.

There's one person on here I can immediately think of who doesn't print, but is a very serious photographer and a more talented one than many of us on CiC.

[Shadowman]

I agree with most of the comments, however there are a lot of serious photographers who do not make their own prints, to me making a print involves capturing the image, processing/editing the image, and then printing and evaluating the output. I was viewing a documentary on Dorothea Lange and her process was to review her film, request certain processing techniques, and then select which images were exhibited. I believe in the earlier part of her career she did all the work, but in later years most of the print making was done by others.

[Mike Buckley]

I'll wrap up my own thoughts on the subject -- be very glad you don't have to put up with me any longer! -- by explaining that I abhor labels. That's partly because neither my identity nor my self-esteem is based on any labels. It's also partly because so many labels mean one thing to one person and another thing to another person, thus so often rendering the labels meaningless at the best and misleading at the worst. This discussion proves that the label, serious, at least in the context of photography means certain things to some and certain things to others.

Accordingly, when I'm in a position that it seems helpful for whatever reason to describe my degree of interest in photography, I merely explain that I'm an avid photographer. I realize the term, avid, can mean different things to different people but there is hardly a word for which that isn't true.

I don't remember ever describing my enjoyment of photography in the context of seriousness and after this discussion I'm reasonably confident that I never will.

[Manfred M]

I merely explain that I'm an avid photographer

Tell them that you are a "professional amateur". By the time that they get they figure that one out, you'll have plenty of time to make your escape.

[Manfred M]

I agree with most of the comments, however there are a lot of serious photographers who do not make their own prints.

And this has always been the case, John. Henri Cartier-Bresson simply handed his films to his technician and let him worry about the details. Yousef Karsh collaborated closely with both his negative retoucher (a common practice when shooting 8" x 10" film) and his printer.

Ansel Adams was a noticeable exception to this as he did all his own work, from taking the image to processing (and modifying the negative) to making the final print.

Nothing has changed with the digital workflow, other than putting some very powerful tools in the hands of anyone who is interested in learning how to use them. There are well known commercial photographers that handle the entire workflow, while others farm out their work to others, including identifying the best images (often referred to as "editing"), retouching and printing. These can be done by a host of "assistants".

[Shadowman]

And this has always been the case, John. Henri Cartier-Bresson simply handed his films to his technician and let him worry about the details. Yousef Karsh collaborated closely with both his negative retoucher (a common practice when shooting 8" x 10" film) and his printer.

Ansel Adams was a noticeable exception to this as he did all his own work, from taking the image to processing (and modifying the negative) to making the final print.

Nothing has changed with the digital workflow, other than putting some very powerful tools in the hands of anyone who is interested in learning how to use them. There are well known commercial photographers that handle the entire workflow, while others farm out their work to others, including identifying the best images (often referred to as "editing"), retouching and printing. These can be done by a host of "assistants".

Manfred,

Yes, I thought it was important to make the distinction between a photographer making the print and getting an image printed. I was discussing this with Steaphany regarding her image Shhh... She's Sleeping and her involvement in the printing process. The photographer doesn't have to be complete involved in the printing process but it helps in understanding the complexities of capturing certain subjects. Incidentally, I often edit images differently depending on whether they will printed or viewed electronically. I can push the contrast of an image far more successfully when the image will only be viewed online.

[James G]

This is an interesting thread, which I kept intending to respond to, but then procrastinated because I'm not sure where I position myself across (among?) the various excellent and thought provoking opinions being expressed.

On occasion, I have commented on this forum that for me a photograph is only “A Photograph” , when printed. That said, the statement is a linguistic differentiation on my part between ‘Photograph=print=permanent’ as opposed to ‘digital image=transient/impermanent’.

So am I a serious photographer?... Or can my photography be considered serious?

I am not and never have been a professional photographer, I have never been an artist, professional or otherwise, and I have never been involved in graphic design/art etc. My interest in photography started when I was 13 or so and I have been clicking a shutter for 50+ years.
I have clicked for black and white, colour, slide, and latterly, digital. I have practiced in a darkroom, developing slide, colour, and B&W, printing, both colour and B&W. Since the switch to digital I now capture and post-process for both monitor and print. (A significant number of my images make it to print, but by no means the majority , which has a lot to do with my eclectic interests and fascination with light regardless of subject or my ability to render what I saw!)

But considering my "Photography", I am at best an autodidact, never having attended a course, or had any formal training. (In work, I was a scientist, and later an IT professional.)

I very occasionally, ‘exhibit’ selected images, but generally they are critiqued by a ‘biased’ and arguably uninformed, audience of friends, family etc, with a ‘regular’ exception being CiCs.
I do place some images that my wife and I believe have merit, on my walls.

So, inverting the original question somewhat.... after all the very serious and considered responses submitted would anyone on this forum consider me a serious photographer ? I’m not sure I can .....

[rwreich]

Mike,

First, let me say that I have really enjoyed conversing with you (and everyone here). You're kind to have found the common ground between us and I respect you for that! I'd share a table with you at any time, and while I do enjoy wine, I prefer bourbon. I'll buy the second round

Trev,

One of the difficulties surrounding this issue is the desire to make a clear statement, efficient and accurate for the sake of time. Unfortunately, this leads to drawing hard lines in the sand that are not helpful. I don't believe that "serious" can or should always be defined in a hard-line kind of way and applied globally without consideration for many other factors. Climate change is serious and communicating effectively in a documentary is also serious. I would point out that Balog's project seems to have been centered around photo for video using the time-lapse technique. That's very serious stuff and as you pointed out, James was so invested in his work that he required multiple surgeries as a result. I'm not here to put anyone down, so I apologize if you felt that I was being arrogant.

I appreciate Mike's perspective on our discussion because I feel that he understood what I meant to say. For the working pro, compromises must be made to achieve the best result for all parties and I take great effort in the images I produce for clients even when I know they may not go to print.

I think that if I had to rally against something related to this topic, it would be the lack of investment found in the droves of photographers who are content to publish their work on social-media or within a blog post where the images are buried by advertisements and other users' content. Those platforms never really allow the images to stand on their own and that detracts from the viewing experience. When one considers a print, one may be much more selective because of the investment involved and in the way that each print should be able to stand on its own.

The other slight discrepancy that I seem to have noticed (correct me if I'm wrong) is that you, Trev, are referring to competition prints in the original post and elsewhere. I'm not as concerned with whether the prints are entered into a competition.

It's taken me a while to think about how to convey this effectively, but I do not and would not decry others' work simply because it's not on paper. Maybe my thoughts on "serious" work is that if it is serious, it deserves to stand on its own, in print.