p.10 #1 · How Many Members Still Print Their Own Photography?
shutterbug guy wrote:
one word of advice: footprint. I made darned sure I had enough room in my home office for this beast, ...
Yeah, these floor-standing printers require even move space than expected. Mine has essentially its own room in my commercial space! You really need 360° access to operate and maintain these monsters.
p.10 #2 · How Many Members Still Print Their Own Photography?
rico wrote:
Yeah, these floor-standing printers require even move space than expected. Mine has essentially its own room in my commercial space! You really need 360° access to operate and maintain these monsters.
I feel if the printer is on wheels, it’s quite simple to have the printer against a wall and just roll it out when loading rolls.
p.10 #3 · How Many Members Still Print Their Own Photography?
chez wrote:
I feel if the printer is on wheels, it’s quite simple to have the printer against a wall and just roll it out when loading rolls.
I have my Canon imagePROGRAF PRO-4600 up against the wall, and I will roll it out while printing to give it a bit of breathing room. To change the rolls, there is no need to make extra room; they are easily replaced from the front. I have both the original roll holder and the optional Canon Multifunction Roll Unit RU-43.
p.10 #4 · How Many Members Still Print Their Own Photography?
I have both my digital and film processed and printed by two different companies. One is in California the other is Dwayne's Photo in Kansas.
North Coast Photo in Carlsbad, Ca. has been great in processing both digital and film. They rebranded themselves as The Great American Photo Lab.
Dwayne's has the distinction of processing the last role of Kodachrome 64 film on Jan. 11, 2011. That was documented by Steve McCurry who also procured the last roll of Kodachrome 64 from Kodak as it came off the assembly line. They do excellent work on both digital and 35mm/120 film processing.
I also use Printique, an Adorama company, to process my digital. This company is full service that can print your images in nearly any size you desire. They can add mounting and framing services all at once. You'll have your printed digital images in your hands in less than five business days if you just want your images printed.
My wife Maria is a very good photographer. We'll send our images to Printique when they are above exceptional and have a backing mounted on the image. Then we'll have them frame it or have a neiborhood frame shop frame them for us. Many of her photos grace the walls of our home.
p.10 #7 · How Many Members Still Print Their Own Photography?
For what it is worth...I went to an Ansel Adams exhibition in London some years back....and looked at a lot of original prints.
Leaving aside the aesthetic qualities....I had my Canon G10 with me (still my take anywhere camera as it fits in my pocket) and looking at the quality of the exhibition prints (if judged on sharpness and tonal range)...the G10 files via my A3+ Epson printer produced better prints in some cases. I was quite surprised as he has a reputation for technical expertise.
With the advances in software, printers and papers...the gap has probably increased.
p.10 #8 · How Many Members Still Print Their Own Photography?
anthonygh wrote:
For what it is worth...I went to an Ansel Adams exhibition in London some years back....and looked at a lot of original prints.
Leaving aside the aesthetic qualities....I had my Canon G10 with me (still my take anywhere camera as it fits in my pocket) and looking at the quality of the exhibition prints (if judged on sharpness and tonal range)...the G10 files via my A3+ Epson printer produced better prints in some cases. I was quite surprised as he has a reputation for technical expertise.
With the advances in software, printers and papers...the gap has probably increased.
I think that modern photographers who have only used digital gear would be surprised to see prints by the “masters.”
Ansel’s prints are (mostly) spectacular for the time in which he made them, but a large Adams’ prints is unlikely to be as sharp in many cases as what we can get from current digital cameras. Our notions of how sharp (and large) prints should be has changed quite a bit.
(Subjectively, and speaking as someone who appreciates Adams’ work quite a bit…if Adams produced his work today it would likely not impress viewers nearly the way it did back when he was creating it. At that time, few photographers were hauling the kind of gear necessary to make those photographs into the places he went, and few were as attentive to all of the ins and outs of exposure, film processing, and the techniques of printing.
And… not every Ansel image or print was equally good. (He knew this, hence his famous statement about — to paraphrase — 12 excellent images a year being a good crop.) A story: A friend worked with Adams and was among those who had an association with him during his last years. My friend has prints by quite a few outstanding photographers, including some by Ansel. I was at his house once and he brought out some prints including one of Ansel’s of a lighter tree in front of a background of darker trees. (There’s a pretty famous one that fits this description, but this was a different one I had not previously seen.)
It was not exactly a great print. The highlighted foreground tree did not really stand out or glow, and the shadows in the background forest were blocked and there was no detail there. I wasn’t quite sure what to say when to my friend about the print, but I decided to be courageous and gently share my observation. His response was, more or less, “I’m glad to hear that. I thought it was just me.”
One more thing. About his technical expertise, quite a bit of that comes in ways that are not obvious to viewers, who have seen his style of prints and don’t understand just how complicated it was to get them to look that way they do. One of the most obvious examples is “Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico,” perhaps his most famous (and expensive!) print. Over that attractive foreground looms a deep black sky with bright, glowing clouds in places and a moon.
If you poke around online you can find copies of the contact print of the negative he exposed. It looks almost nothing like the print! Turning that negative into the print we all know was a pretty amazing show of photographic technical skill, not to mention vision.
p.10 #9 · How Many Members Still Print Their Own Photography?
gdanmitchell wrote:
I think that modern photographers who have only used digital gear would be surprised to see prints my the “masters.”
Even basic decisions at the analog printing stage—like how much exposure under the enlarger or how to crop—can radically alter the final print versus the taking moment. I was producing color prints in the early 1970s and color balancing felt the same as today, just slower. The glamor photography of early 20th Century (e.g. Hurrell) involved major retouching on the negative by specialists to enhance the final image. The more things change, the more thay stay the same.
p.10 #10 · How Many Members Still Print Their Own Photography?
Jumping in late here. I print my work and I love it! I'm pasting part of my artists statement here. Forgive the pompous language, but I think it might help explain my viewpoint on having physical art.
"...I like to approach my work as a blend of artistic and technical challenges where
precision is paramount and the product is print. The actualized image in paper and
metal is not a byproduct of image capture, but the intended destination. In a world of
fleeting pixels, I believe that the physical medium carries greater soul. As such, I have
become dedicated to mastering various printmaking methods from contemporary silver-
gelatin prints to classic alternative process methods such as the kallitype. A piece isn't
finished until it can be touched."
Artspeak aside, I don't keep a digital portfolio or website or anything like that (well maybe I should make a website). All my work is physical. It started with me falling in love with the materialsof the darkroom along with the feeling of actually making something. My day job involves working with computers all day so it is nice to get away from the screen.
Focusing on the printmaking aspect of photography has had a huge impact on HOW I shoot. Firstly I almost exclusively shoot black and white as the materials I work with are monochrome. While starting as a technical necessity it definitely helped me in the long run. Moving away from color I found to be liberating and freed me of the mindset of needing to have striking colors (sunsets? Who needs 'em!) so I can better focus on lighting, shape, texture, etc. Secondly it changed how I approached taking photos. I've become rather selective on what I shoot and really focus in on a given subject. It makes me very deliberate in my approach to a scene/location.
Along with film I do shoot digital and more of it lately than I used to. I've expanded my darkroom to include alternative processes such as kallitypes and cyanotypes using digital negatives. They are fun to make and (imo) stand out more than inkjet. I still feel like I am making something special even when using digital on my travels.
I definitely would encourage everyone to print their work. I think it can make you a better photographer and its nice to have something more than only something to scroll past on Instagram.
TL;DR, I like having physical art and I think you should too.
p.10 #11 · How Many Members Still Print Their Own Photography?
Yesterday, I was reminded again of why I print. After receiving an order for one of my photos of a Roseate Spoonbill flaring during landing, I decided to make an extra 24x36 print for myself. At the request of my spouse, it is now proudly hanging over the back of our couch, where she remarked, "it's so beautiful, I want to look at it every day."
