p.8 #1 · How Many Members Still Print Their Own Photography?
pjmsj21 wrote:
Jim
I took a bit of time to view your work on your website......really realy nice work and happy to know that it is being printed. Congrats!
Pat
Thanks,
Unfortunately, I just let that website sit year after year. I think it has been close to 10 years since I did any update, uploads or revisions.
I thought I needed it for a specific purpose and after all the setup work, I just left it. I keep telling myself maybe this year I will even look at it. I know many photographers who do a good job and take pride in their websites. I really should do that but with a literal billion pictures a day posted on line it is hard to take it serious anymore.
p.8 #2 · How Many Members Still Print Their Own Photography?
grandmas wrote:
I think that a part of the problem is that this is more of a gear forum than an artistic forum. Many photographers think that to be artistic they only need to read the rule of thirds and they are an artist. Another problem is someone seeking advise does not know who is giving the best advise, and choose the most popular choice, which may not be the best advice. The outcome is that many of the photos all look alike with no individualism.
I think you are on the right track.
There’s no denying the role of gear in photography… or in just about any other creative endeavor. (Ask writers about their favorite word processsor, dancers about shoes, etc.) And figuring out what equipment is appropriate and necessary, especially early on, can be a challenge.
Rules (of thirds, etc.) can be a useful starting point for people that can’t make sense out of an art. And trying to make work that looks like the work that people like best is also a very useful beginner’s technique. (Musicians try to sound like their teachers, photographers try to emulate the work of their heroes, etc. — both stylistically and via the equipment they choose.)
But eventually it isn’t about following rules or looking like someone else. It is about finding a voice and about understanding the effects of choices.
The reasons for getting the gear (even for those in gear forums) are about that “other stuff,” the things we hope to create using that gear. The gear is, for most, merely a means to an end.
p.8 #3 · How Many Members Still Print Their Own Photography?
Sometimes, it's about the gear.
I've been printing in darkrooms since the early 70s, including color: Agfacolor, Cibachrome. Now it's a big, fat pigment printer. I guess there might be a smidgen of art—whatever that is. Meanwhile, gear whoring is a valid use of time and money. Pleasure in the craft, too.
I've been printing in darkrooms since the early 70s, including color: Agfacolor, Cibachrome. Now it's a big, fat pigment printer. I guess there might be a smidgen of art—whatever that is. Meanwhile, gear whoring is a valid use of time and money. Pleasure in the craft, too.
Don’t let the artistic snobs tell you any different. Enjoy what you enjoy and screw the rest.
p.8 #6 · How Many Members Still Print Their Own Photography?
bdickers wrote:
True enough, but a tangible print can hang on a wall or be given to others, possibly even sold in some cases. A little trickier when the dots exist only on a screen.
True enough, but a digital file can also be given to someone else (enjoying it on his/her own screen. Maybe even enjoying it on a screen that hangs on a wall). Digital files can be sold as well.
But….I print and I love it!
p.8 #8 · How Many Members Still Print Their Own Photography?
Mujabad123 wrote:
I hope the same is the case with pixels on a screen…not "nothing more than that" :-)
In all seriousness, a photograph should be more than its physical manifestation, right?
This reminds me how much I like the old Minor White comment (referring to something a bit different than this), that (to loosely paraphrase) that a photograph is about what something is and about what else it is.
p.8 #9 · How Many Members Still Print Their Own Photography?
gdanmitchell wrote:
In all seriousness, a photograph should be more than its physical manifestation, right?
This reminds me how much I like the old Minor White comment (referring to something a bit different than this), that (to loosely paraphrase) that a photograph is about what something is and about what else it is.
Agree 100% that it should be more than its physical manifestation, wether dots or pixels. I very much prefer printed images.
p.8 #10 · How Many Members Still Print Their Own Photography?
I'm surprised that it has not been mentioned, but I have found some images look much better on a digital screen than in print. I have not found the opposite to be true. The kind of images that I find apply are usually where there is not a lot of separation in the colors, or camouflaged animals or birds.
p.8 #11 · How Many Members Still Print Their Own Photography?
grandmas wrote:
I'm surprised that it has not been mentioned, but I have found some images look much better on a digital screen than in print. I have not found the opposite to be true.
To each their own. No point in discussing preferences and perfectly fine if you like some better on a digital screen. Some images indeed really look stunning on a nice screen.
p.8 #12 · How Many Members Still Print Their Own Photography?
Mujabad123 wrote:
To each their own. No point in discussing preferences and perfectly fine if you like some better on a digital screen. Some images indeed really look stunning on a nice screen.
I have no reason to discuss it, I was surprised that it was not mentioned for a reason for not printing.
p.8 #13 · How Many Members Still Print Their Own Photography?
grandmas wrote:
I'm surprised that it has not been mentioned, but I have found some images look much better on a digital screen than in print. I have not found the opposite to be true. The kind of images that I find apply are usually where there is not a lot of separation in the colors, or camouflaged animals or birds.
That is quite often because it is harder to get a photograph to look great as a print than as a screen image.
A friend, who is pretty well known for the quality of his prints, once pointed out to me that an image processed to look good on screens often doesn’t look as good as a print, while an image processed to look great as a print usually will look good on the screen. I think this is actually a challenging thing about printing for people whose background has been largely with screen images.
One issue is that screens a prints work in radically different ways. The print depends on the paper itself to generate whites (which are often at least slightly off-white), and it is top-illuminated. A screen “glows from within,” and for some perhaps genetic reason we seem to be programmed to respond differently to things that glow.
In many cases, a dramatically dark rendition of a photograph can work more easily on a screen, and moving to print often requires us to bring more light into the image.
p.8 #15 · How Many Members Still Print Their Own Photography?
"Better" often means more intense colors up to and including neon level colors. That fits the vision some photographers are striving to achieve. Often a print will give a more subtle and natural look. Painter and other visual artists somehow managed to produce a few decent pieces through the centuries without computer or TV screens.
p.8 #16 · How Many Members Still Print Their Own Photography?
Forums are full of contentious discussions about printers, inks, papers, soft proofing and lots of other stuff about making prints, but nothing about how to properly illuminate them. "Experts" critique soft proofing mainly my telling others to turn down the brightness of their monitors, rather than turn up the illumination of their prints. Nothing about the spectral content of the illumination source. Lots of BS about impossibility of matching "internal glow" compared to reflected light. The single most important improvement most can make to the appearance of their prints is to turn up the illumination, even if you have no idea what the spectral content may be.
p.8 #17 · How Many Members Still Print Their Own Photography?
dclark wrote:
Forums are full of contentious discussions about printers, inks, papers, soft proofing and lots of other stuff about making prints, but nothing about how to properly illuminate them. "Experts" critique soft proofing mainly my telling others to turn down the brightness of their monitors, rather than turn up the illumination of their prints. Nothing about the spectral content of the illumination source. Lots of BS about impossibility of matching "internal glow" compared to reflected light. The single most important improvement most can make to the appearance of their prints is to turn up the illumination, even if you have no idea what the spectral content may be....Show more →
That and provide proper lighting onto the prints. Makes a world of difference.
p.8 #18 · How Many Members Still Print Their Own Photography?
rico wrote:
I've been printing in darkrooms since the early 70s, including color: Agfacolor, Cibachrome. Now it's a big, fat pigment printer. I guess there might be a smidgen of art—whatever that is. Meanwhile, gear whoring is a valid use of time and money. Pleasure in the craft, too.
What's the "Sparkle" for? BTW, I still love my 2000 and it's going strong other than requiring head replacement.
p.8 #19 · How Many Members Still Print Their Own Photography?
Sparkle is a very effective glass cleaner made in Chicagoland. In comparison, Windex is a streak-fest. I was cleaning something at the time, probably the laptop screen.
p.8 #20 · How Many Members Still Print Their Own Photography?
Camperjim wrote:
"Better" often means more intense colors up to and including neon level colors. That fits the vision some photographers are striving to achieve. Often a print will give a more subtle and natural look. Painter and other visual artists somehow managed to produce a few decent pieces through the centuries without computer or TV screens.
"Better" to me means more realistic colors emanating FROM the images, not ONTO the images, just like what you see in the real world. Light from the sun, moon, stars, man-made lights all are direct light, not reflected light. A computer screen can do the same, a print can't.
Artists did not haves the choice through the centuries of using TV screens or computer screens. Does the Mona Lisa look more realistic as a painting or on your monitor
One thing I appreciate about all those old famous paintings is that the artists did not put big ugly white mats between the paintings and the frames.
