The print's the thing

[Donald]

I'm sure we've all heard the mantra that the print is the thing. If you google, 'The importance of printing photos', you'll find dozens of sites telling you why the print is the final step in making good photographs.

Well, I bought into that and do believe that printing gives my work that final stamp.

And now that I have started to shoot film again, after many years of shooting a) nothing and then b) digital, I am even more of a devotee of the print. As Ansel Adams said, “The negative is the equivalent of the composer’s score and the print the performance.”

It is clear to me that printing from the scanned negative gives a much better image than that which appears on screen. There is a greater depth, much richer tones, more subtle shifts in shade. I have known that this is case when printing from digital files, but it is so much more marked when printing from a scanned negative.

Sermon over!

[BobGilbody]

Hello Donald,

Interesting post. I tend to go off on tangents. Reading the post led me to think of Michael Polanyi and x-rays. You might find his book 'Personal Knowledge...' is relative to how you 'see' photographs. The following is from a paper about Polanyi:

"The interiorisation of tools requires effort and skill. One of Polanyi’s favourite examples is the skill
of interpreting X-ray photographs of human organs. Medical students have to learn the meaning of the shadowy
outlines by listening to the explanations of experts. They have to use their imaginative powers to indwell the
photographs in order to grasp the meaning of what they see. The use of the imagination requires commitment
to the belief that the experts are to be trusted and that there is meaning to be discovered. Commitment starts with
the appreciation that there is a problem capable of solution. Commitment to a problem acts as a heuristic field,
which draws the explorer to a solution of the problem."

http://www.polanyisociety.org/TAD%20...g24-34-pdf.pdf

My eyes are not what they were so I can't see a lot of things I'm sure others do. Nevertheless 'seeing' is skill that can be improved by taking note of what others see.

Bob

[Manfred M]

Donald - I think you and I are kindred spirits here in our love and devotion to the print. I had hoped to get back to film and the Hasselblad over the winter, but that is starting to look like it isn't going to happen.

I do find that most digital B&W conversions are missing something that film has. I'm not sure if it is the grain, the non-linear characteristics of film (including the variation by manufacturer and developer used), but film definitely has something that digital does not seem to have.

That being said, I do find that with the last couple of generations of high end photo printers, we have gotten to a point where the Dmax of inkjet can exceed what we saw with the silver halide print process.

I think the other thing that most people don't understand is the amount of work that goes into making a strong analogue or digital print. The "correct" exposure that our camera takes is an "average" and can include highlights that are too bright and shadow areas that are too dark. Traditional darkroom techniques called dodging and burning have been used for the past 100 years to do this. Given that print media has a lower dynamic range than our computer screens do, a strong print maker does this and the resulting prints can be amazing.

Just like in the traditional darkroom days, it takes time and effort to master these skills....

[BobGilbody]

I guess you are aware of this web site but then you may not be.

https://archive.org/

It is free to join and has lots of interesting stuff. I found 'Advanced Photography' by Michael Langford. I never did film processing but read about it years ago.

Anyway you might like to check out the site.

Bob

[DanK]

In my case, you're preaching to the converted. I get great pleasure out of creating prints, and I don't see on-screen images as a substitute.

However, even though film is going through a renaissance, I find I have no interest in going back to film. Digital offers far more control, and it doesn't require fussing with all of the chemicals, which I assume aren't healthy. I still have my old Canon FTb, and once in a while, I chance upon some of my gear--once a changing bag, once a film developing tank--but I haven't put a roll of film in the camera for decades. But it's nice that film is still available so that those who enjoy it still have access.