How do you print?

Home · Register · Search · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

FM Forums \| Alternative Gear & Lenses \| Join Upload & Sell
1 2 3 4 5 end

How do you print?

freaklikeme
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.4 #1 · How do you print?

mh2000 wrote:
This almost begs the question, "why even bother shooting the photo?"

If you can previsualize it, why not just appreciate the photo that you could have taken or printed if you had chosen to?

Is it a camera fetish?

I won't speak for Makten, but I can imagine other possibilities. I know plenty of hobbyists who have no interest in retaining/displaying/selling their final product. My best example of this is a choreographer who paints as a hobby. She paints over the canvasses and reuses them as long as she can, then she throws them out and stretches a new canvas over the frame. She's passionate about it, constantly playing with new surfaces, paints, brushes, etc. From what little I've seen, she's very talented, but she rejects the notion of keeping even her best work, much less showing it. She's pretty funny about it, too. Her typical response is, "Oh, sure, I could get a show at a gallery and watch my career explode and become a painter celebrated the world over, but then what do I do for a hobby? Choreograph one-woman shows in my spare bedroom?"

For some people, I think the process is the point, and not just a means to an end. If that process includes expensive gear, and they're not robbing convenience stores or swindling little old ladys to finance it, then why judge?

Dec 07, 2012 at 08:25 PM

mh2000
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.4 #2 · How do you print?

I wasn't judging, asking a simple question. If you are a reasonably good photographer, the process is seeing. Once you know what you are doing, that is everything. Actually pushing the button doesn't yield any surprises, so why push the button at all?

Actually, I am an artist and a writer, not a photographer in the strictest sense, and when I've been in periods of not caring about producing prints or showing photography I have left my camera and just seen photos and not taken them.

Not keeping paintings... well, painting is different than photography.

freaklikeme wrote:
mh2000 wrote:
This almost begs the question, "why even bother shooting the photo?"

If you can previsualize it, why not just appreciate the photo that you could have taken or printed if you had chosen to?

Is it a camera fetish?

I won't speak for Makten, but I can imagine other possibilities. I know plenty of hobbyists who have no interest in retaining/displaying/selling their final product. My best example of this is a choreographer who paints as a hobby. She paints over the canvasses and reuses them as long as she can, then she throws them out and stretches a new canvas over the frame. She's passionate about it, constantly playing with new surfaces, paints, brushes, etc. From what little I've seen, she's very talented, but she rejects the notion of keeping even her best work, much less showing it. She's pretty funny about it, too. Her typical response is, "Oh, sure, I could get a show at a gallery and watch my career explode and become a painter celebrated the world over, but then what do I do for a hobby? Choreograph one-woman shows in my spare bedroom?"

For some people, I think the process is the point, and not just a means to an end. If that process includes expensive gear, and they're not robbing convenience stores or swindling little old ladys to finance it, then why judge?

Dec 08, 2012 at 05:39 AM

sebboh
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.4 #3 · How do you print?

mh2000 wrote:
I wasn't judging, asking a simple question. If you are a reasonably good photographer, the process is seeing. Once you know what you are doing, that is everything. Actually pushing the button doesn't yield any surprises, so why push the button at all?

do you always shoot hyperfocally and always process to maximize realism? i guess you shoot a mirrorless camera so you at least see what your picture will look like before you hit the shutter. there is always a bit of surprise when you see the actual picture if you shoot with a rangefinder and more than i would like shooting with a dslr.

Dec 08, 2012 at 06:36 AM

ucphotog
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.4 #4 · How do you print?

I've been reading through this thread off and on over the last week or so. I keep wanting to vote, but I can't for the life of me figure out what "RC" refers to, so I can't decide if that's how I print or not. I know that I don't (yet

buy expensive papers, which elminates a few answers. If someone can explain that to me, I'll vote.

That said, here's what I do do. I just bought a Canon Pixma Pro9000 MkII. They were really cheap between a rebate and an instant savings. And B&H even through in a box of 50 - 13x19 sheets of paper. And free shipping ... Turns out the printer was about to be replaced, but that's OK. It doesn't print worse than it did because there is a better printer out there.

So, I print on Canon's 13x19 semi-gloss for now because it was "free" with the printer. I will probably go over to some Red River paper for my 13x19's when this stack runs out. I am using their arctic gloss or some such for 8x10's and I really like that. I bought a sampler set, but been to busy to do a valid series of test prints, so I haven't done that yet.

I did want to join in on the print vs non-print discussion. My actual discriminator is that the image needs to be "bigger" in many cases to have an impact. Growing up, 4x6s were the rule, with 5x7's being the "big" prints. 8x10's were to expensive and we only had a few in the house. Personally, I find 8x10 too small. I have 23-25" monitors and I print 13x19 (see above

and 16x20 and 20x30 at times from print houses. Basically, there is something more impactful to me when a good image is in those 19" and bigger sizes. It doesn't matter whether it is on a screen or is a print. Well, that's not entirely true. There are some images that just don't print well and the screen image is better. In other cases, a print is as good or better.

One reason for a print is to give as a gift to someone who only has smaller monitors.

Or perhaps a lower res monitor. A print is a few bucks, whereas buying them a new monitor might cost me hundreds.

In any case, I definitely don't think that prints "rule". Prints have their place. Images on a screen convey the image better. And sometimes it is a tie.

Frankly, at some point in the process, I use the screen image as my reference. I have edited and reviewed the image on the screen until it is as I like it. The print image really can't be any "better". A perfect print mean that it is exactly like what is on the screen. The other reason a print might be better is that I can't afford a 30" monitor, but I can afford to do the occasional 20x30 print.

And as I said, there are times when I think the size of the image adds to its emotional impact. I think that sentiment was echoed by someone else above as well.

Well, I am rambling on now and it is late ...

Dec 08, 2012 at 06:51 AM

freaklikeme
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.4 #5 · How do you print?

RC is resin coated.

Dec 08, 2012 at 07:16 AM

freaklikeme
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.4 #6 · How do you print?

mh2000 wrote:
I wasn't judging, asking a simple question.

Come on, Mark. You closed with, "Is it a camera fetish?" Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but to me, you may as well have written, "I've already decided to stop taking you seriously."

As for the rest, there's much more to the process of any visual art form, no matter how serious the undertaking, than previsualization. And if the process is the point, then no, you wouldn't be satisfied with simply visualizing what you might have done.

Dec 08, 2012 at 08:22 AM

cogitech
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.4 #7 · How do you print?

freaklikeme wrote:
RC is resin coated.

I have a few old glass thingies in a box in the basement which are resin coated.

Dec 08, 2012 at 04:23 PM

Makten
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.4 #8 · How do you print?

mh2000 wrote:
You print to present your image to other people who are not glued to a computer.

Are people not "glued to a computer" more worth?

When you go to a gallery/museum, prints are "real." I guess you would rather have a large LCD hung on the walls...

A paper isn't more "real" than a screen. It's only a flow of information from the photographer to the viewer in both cases. In my opinion the medium is totally irrelevant, but I prefer a screen if I have to choose, which I fortunately can.

...but typically, people prefer prints.

How do you know that? Remember that "people" are not the same as photographers.

If you only care about sharing your images on the web, then you have no need to print. If you are only going to show people images on a computer then prints don't matter, BUT if this is your final product, you can shoot with some pretty crappy gear, because, aside from pixel peeping, no one will ever see the quality of your images.

This is pure snobbery and I hope you understand that it's a matter of your own valuation of image quality. I can see the difference and that's what's important since I don't shoot to please others.

Dec 08, 2012 at 04:47 PM

ucphotog
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.4 #9 · How do you print?

"Resin Coated". Thanks.

And I checked and at least the 8x10 stock from Red River is. Not sure about my other papers.

Thanks again.

Dec 08, 2012 at 04:52 PM

bkwphoto
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On

p.4 #10 · How do you print?

I do art shows in the Midwest so for me printing is the final product. I've been doing shows for about twenty years doing less now than more as I'm retired. I have an epson 9000 and a 4000. When I shot 4x5 and 8x10 I printed large up to 30x40. With digital I stay around 16x24. When I'm not doing shows (seasonal) I mostly just concentrate on my website but still need to maintain larger files for any orders I might get. I love prints but hate printers (devices not people). I tried a few custom lab early on but found they never quite met my expectations so I do all my printing myself.
I print on all kinds of papers from rag to glossy depending on the image. I used to do a lot of canvas but not so much any more, mostly on order.
At art shows thousands of area people see my work on the web people from around the world can view so there is something to be said for the web.

Dec 08, 2012 at 04:59 PM

Mirek Elsner
Online
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.4 #11 · How do you print?

A paper isn't more "real" than a screen. It's only a flow of information from the photographer to the viewer in both cases. In my opinion the medium is totally irrelevant, but I prefer a screen if I have to choose, which I fortunately can.

Aspect ratio, size and frame are important for many photographers and LCD does not provide the flexibility yet.

Dec 08, 2012 at 05:58 PM

15Bit
Online
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.4 #12 · How do you print?

A thought experiment for you all: If photosensitive chemistry never happened and digital sensors were our first invented form of image capture, or more simply - if photography was invented now, do think we would choose to print our photos on paper?

Dec 08, 2012 at 06:10 PM

CalW
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.4 #13 · How do you print?

I see both technical and emotional differences between printed images and electronically displayed images.

From a technical point of view, some images can look much better viewed electronically because the luminance of a good monitor is difficult to reproduce on paper. Printing on a metal plated surface or on an actual sheet of metal can produce better luminance. Printing on plexiglass and displaying it back-lit can work quite well. But I have yet to see any affordable hard-copy-on-paper process that can beat a good monitor for luminance.

From an emotional point of view, most people seem to think of "art" as being something in hard-copy form that they can hang on a wall. If someone sees a fine-art print of one of my photographs that they like, they may be willing to pay $50 for an unmounted print or $250 for a framed print. The same image offered as a data file to be displayed electronically appears to have a much smaller value. I offer a personal-use-only license for my images as JPEG or TIFF files for as little as $20 and as yet nobody has bought one, although one person was interested and tried to talk me down to $5.

Dec 08, 2012 at 07:16 PM

williamkazak
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.4 #14 · How do you print?

mh2000 wrote:
This almost begs the question, "why even bother shooting the photo?"

If you can previsualize it, why not just appreciate the photo that you could have taken or printed if you had chosen to?

Is it a camera fetish?

ricardovaste wrote:
Makten wrote:
douglasf13 wrote:
Printing images keeps me from forgetting them on a large hard drive...

I hear you, but honestly I wouldn't even care if all of my photos were lost in a hard drive failure. They are worth nothing and I only shoot because I want to please myself and my eyes for the moment. I guess this is a fairly uncommon approach, but that's how I feel.

I think your sentiments on the subject are some of the saddest (emotionally) I've read on the subjects of photography on here :-(. You almost make it sound like you hate yourself! It sounds like you get something from photography, to "please your eyes" for a given moment... But to not do anything with them after seems a little odd to meat least. I've always thought about end product, and that's never been nothing. I guess better (marginally) that you use a lens and camera, than a whole in someone's fence to satisfy something

Interesting. Why take a picture and why buy a camera? Because it is all about the lenses! That's why.

Dec 08, 2012 at 07:24 PM

CalW
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.4 #15 · How do you print?

15Bit, that is an interesting thought. If we postulate that painted art in all media would have existed first in either case, our photographs would still be competing for wall space with those existing art forms. It is possible that we still would have looked for a similar and familiar display format to compete economically with paintings for wall space, leading us right back to paper. Or perhaps we would have looked at lowering the cost of monitors so we could have lots of them on our walls.

Dec 08, 2012 at 07:30 PM

douglasf13
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.4 #16 · How do you print?

15Bit wrote:
A thought experiment for you all: If photosensitive chemistry never happened and digital sensors were our first invented form of image capture, or more simply - if photography was invented now, do think we would choose to print our photos on paper?

I think so. People like to make or buy tangible art to put on a wall or hold in their hands, and paper is probably still the cheapest way to do this with photos. Plus, there are legions of photographers who started with digital and still choose paper as their output medium of choice.

Dec 08, 2012 at 08:34 PM

carstenw
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.4 #17 · How do you print?

Dec 08, 2012 at 08:50 PM

Mirek Elsner
Online
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.4 #18 · How do you print?

15Bit wrote:
A thought experiment for you all: If photosensitive chemistry never happened and digital sensors were our first invented form of image capture, or more simply - if photography was invented now, do think we would choose to print our photos on paper?

I think so. Even the silver halide photography went through the process of being accepted as an art form. And in the process the photographers applied principles already known from older 2d art - painting. If photosensitive chemistry never happened, I think the digital photography would follow the same process, albeit 150 years later.

Dec 08, 2012 at 09:18 PM

helimat
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.4 #19 · How do you print?

cogitech wrote:
freaklikeme wrote:
RC is resin coated.

I have a few old glass thingies in a box in the basement which are resin coated.

Nice.

Dec 09, 2012 at 04:16 AM

alundeb
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.4 #20 · How do you print?

mh2000 wrote:
This almost begs the question, "why even bother shooting the photo?"

If you can previsualize it, why not just appreciate the photo that you could have taken or printed if you had chosen to?

Is it a camera fetish?

mh2000 wrote:
I wasn't judging, asking a simple question. If you are a reasonably good photographer, the process is seeing. Once you know what you are doing, that is everything. Actually pushing the button doesn't yield any surprises, so why push the button at all?

It is generally interesting to ask these sort of questions, and I will share my answer to it.

Previsualization is the most crucial step in the process of making photographs, but it doesn't work on its own. There are several other steps involved, and they work in a feedback loop. The verification step is one of them. It is obvious that we need the verification step at least to learn how to previsualize. That begs the question, do you consider yourself a photographer so good that you don't use your photographs to improve your seeing anymore? Isn't it much better to always be in the process rather than stagnate where you think you are just good enough?

Without the verifications step you also don't get that rewarding feeling of fulfillment. Both that you actually did it, and the pleasure of seeing the result.

Another of my passions is cooking, and not relying entirely on recipes. When composing dishes, I "previsualize" how ingredients and flavours are going to work together. Sometimes I cook for friends, family and smaller parties, but mostly only for myself. It is not because I need it in order to survive. I could buy a dinner every day if I wanted to. If you ask why I ever bother making the food, the answer is that I love to actually taste it. Does that make my cooking a kettle fetish? Of course not.

Dec 09, 2012 at 10:13 AM

1 2 3 4 5 end
FM Forums \| Alternative Gear & Lenses \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 3 4 5 end