Digital BW, The Print

Mark, what if the entire edition faded in 3 years and was worthless?
You'd not reprint?   That once in a lifetime shot would be gone forever?
 

Not for me!! I would Never ever destroy a good image, I just can't buy
into the "edition" thing.

Jerry




Mark Tucker wrote:

> 
> I've got to calm down after that last post; my heart is still
> churning. I want to be level-headed when i write this.
> 
> I was thinking today about Paul Roark's post this morning:
> 
> (snip from paul's post:)
> 
> The fear that the digital printer can simply press a button and
> print as many copies as s/he likes with no manual labor
> probably does lower the price of the product. (Of course, AA just
> hired legions of assistants to do the printing, but who's counting
> ....)
> 
> (end snip)
> 
> It seems as if we must do something to counter this perception
> of "just pressing the button and another one pops out". I agree
> that this has a negative effect.
> 
> What about this?:
> 
> What if, when you thought you had a "keeper image", you then
> sat down and determined an edition number. Then, (just like in
> the darkroom), you'd make some test prints on the 2200, or
> whatever printer you're using, and then when you got it perfect,
> you'd print out THE ENTIRE EDITION in one run, in one day, at
> one time? To even carry it further, you might even banish the
> actual file that it was made from from your hard drive when the
> print run was over. (You might keep a rezzed-down version for
> PR and Publicity usages, but it might even be watermarked as
> such).
> 
> It seems to me that this procedure might make one straighten
> up, get serious, and realize the goal that's in front of him: he
> realizes that, at this point, today will be the very last and only time
> that this image will EVER be printed again.
> 
> In your documentation, you clearly declare this, in a sentence on
> your CofA.
> 
> (Now... this brings up that other issue of what I've heard about,
> where the old guys, AA, etc. would get sneaky and then come out
> with a NEW edition in a different SIZE. Is that slimy or what?)
> 
> So, my approach, listed above, would even supercede and
> eliminate that practice of changing sizes later in a new edition.
> You are saying, TODAY is the ONLY time this image will be
> printed. Today, I will make twenty, or thirty, or whatever my edition
> states it is, but then after that, NO MORE. Ever...
> 
> I would bet that if the top twenty or fifty guys that are known as
> digital printmakers got together and agreed on this approach,
> you'd see an immediate shift in the perception of digital
> printmaking. Overnight.
> 
> Just a thought,
> 
> Mark Tucker, http://marktucker.com
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page.
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various resources on the homepage.
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Jerry Olson 
<jerryolson@r...> wrote:
> Not for me!! I would Never ever destroy a good image, I just 
can't buy
> into the "edition" thing.

--------

Jerry,

That's exactly my point -- if you knew that today was the ONLY 
time you'd print a given image, you'd make damn sure you didn't 
print it with dyes.

I think this mindset would go a long way toward separating the 
men from the boys too. (This is no comment to you specifically, 
Jerry). But it would clearly separate the serious, committed 
artists from the "weekend warriors"; even if both owned 9600's. 
Each person would think long and hard about their creative 
decision making about a given image; then they'd test and test 
and test. And THEN, they'd make the final edition. And then be 
done with it.

They'd then clearly and methodically stack them all, and begin 
numbering them in the edition. And then begin sleeving them or 
matting them.

I just suggest that this entire frame of mind would radically alter 
how a person approaches his craft.

If this craft is going to be considered a "serious art", then we 
must be committed and resolute in our approach.

We must kill the "push the button and another one pops out" 
mentality completely. With a stake right through the heart.

Just my opinion. I might be wrong,

Mark Tucker

Mark,
I agree entirely with your intentions - it would be wonderful to 
change these perceptions- however, despite, one's best efforts on any 
given day, there is always the possibility that either it was a bad 
day (the planets were out of sync :-) or, you later learn a new 
techniquein PS that greatly enhances the image, or in the fresh light 
of dawn, you simply change your mind and that top right hand corner 
just has to be be a tad darker :-). Can any evolving artist really 
close the door on these options ? I don't know - it'd be tough. I 
agree with your sentiments 100% but I'm not sure I'm ready to go on 
the high wire without a net - yet. Still just a boy I guess.
Frank
www.frankgross.com

> 
> Jerry,
> 
> That's exactly my point -- if you knew that today was the ONLY 
> time you'd print a given image, you'd make damn sure you didn't 
> print it with dyes.
> 
> I think this mindset would go a long way toward separating the 
> men from the boys too. (This is no comment to you specifically, 
> Jerry). But it would clearly separate the serious, committed 
> artists from the "weekend warriors"; even if both owned 9600's. 
> Each person would think long and hard about their creative 
> decision making about a given image; then they'd test and test 
> and test. And THEN, they'd make the final edition. And then be 
> done with it.
> 
> They'd then clearly and methodically stack them all, and begin 
> numbering them in the edition. And then begin sleeving them or 
> matting them.
> 
> I just suggest that this entire frame of mind would radically alter 
> how a person approaches his craft.
> 
> If this craft is going to be considered a "serious art", then we 
> must be committed and resolute in our approach.
> 
> We must kill the "push the button and another one pops out" 
> mentality completely. With a stake right through the heart.
> 
> Just my opinion. I might be wrong,
> 
> Mark Tucker

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "frankg_photo" 
<frank@f...> wrote:
 or, you later learn a new 
> techniquein PS that greatly enhances the image, or in the fresh 
light 
> of dawn, you simply change your mind and that top right hand 
corner 
> just has to be be a tad darker :-). Can any evolving artist really 
> close the door on these options ?

_______

A photographer is always evolving and learning new methods, 
shortcuts, and techniques. He's always perfecting his craft. It's a 
natural evolution.

Let's also hope that he's also continuing to shoot photographs. 
New photographs. Any new techniques that you naturally learn 
along the way would be applied to these new photographs that 
you're making.

Who wants to sit around and obsess over some photograph that 
you made five years ago? You did your best at that time; that was 
then, this is now. The past is the past.

I put up some images on my site this weekend that I shot fifteen 
years ago. My connection to them is moderate to average; I 
simply copied the fiber print with a digital camera to get them 
onto the web. I didn't obsess over them. Almost, in some weird 
way, when I impulsively went to burn down a corner in one of 
them, I stopped because I felt like I was violating the image. I 
printed like I printed in 1985; I want to respect that. I print like I 
print in 2002; obviously with a very different take on life. I think 
each one deserves respect.

Just my opinion. But I'm not looking backwards.

-MT

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Mark Tucker" <mark@m...> 
wrote:
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "frankg_photo" 
> <frank@f...> wrote:
>  or, you later learn a new 
> > techniquein PS that greatly enhances the image, or in the fresh 
> light 
> > of dawn, you simply change your mind and that top right hand 
> corner 
> > just has to be be a tad darker :-). Can any evolving artist 
really 
> > close the door on these options ?
> 
> _______
> 
> A photographer is always evolving and learning new methods, 
> shortcuts, and techniques. He's always perfecting his craft. It's a 
> natural evolution.
> 
> Let's also hope that he's also continuing to shoot photographs. 
> New photographs. Any new techniques that you naturally learn 
> along the way would be applied to these new photographs that 
> you're making.
> 
> Who wants to sit around and obsess over some photograph that 
> you made five years ago? You did your best at that time; that was 
> then, this is now. The past is the past.
> 
> I put up some images on my site this weekend that I shot fifteen 
> years ago. My connection to them is moderate to average; I 
> simply copied the fiber print with a digital camera to get them 
> onto the web. I didn't obsess over them. Almost, in some weird 
> way, when I impulsively went to burn down a corner in one of 
> them, I stopped because I felt like I was violating the image. I 
> printed like I printed in 1985; I want to respect that. I print 
like I 
> print in 2002; obviously with a very different take on life. I 
think 
> each one deserves respect.
> 
> Just my opinion. But I'm not looking backwards.
> 
> -MT

Changing your mind about a print or edition the next morning is quite 
different from accepting what you did 15 years ago.
But hey - this is a conversation not an argument - 'cos i agree with 
your motivation/intention - i just cant yet get my head around the 
idea of destroying the negative/file after printing and saying that's 
that, and wish there were another way to achieve your intended goal- 
it's a very important issue for us all.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "frankg_photo" 
<frank@f...> wrote:
- i just cant yet get my head around the 
> idea of destroying the negative/file after printing and saying 
that's 
> that, and wish there were another way to achieve your intended 
goal- 
> it's a very important issue for us all.


----------

Frank,

Obviously some of my suggestions are on the extreme end of 
things. I think since the whole offhanded statement of "Oh, just 
push the button and pop out another one" offends me so much 
that I feel like I've gotta swing back the other way in an equal 
degree.

I'm not even really making any statements here; I feel like I'm 
more asking questions. Sort of "what if" questions; not like you 
have to act on them, but just "what if" we did this whole thing 
another way. How could we change perceptions? I think that we 
can (and must) take responsibility for changing it; no one else 
will. We all have the power to change and alter what people think 
when they think of fine photographs that are produced from an 
inkjet printer. The question is: how will we do it?

The Leica probably got snickered at at one time as well. I can 
hear the jeers now -- "what are you gonna do with that toy 
camera?", when everybody else in town was shooting a Crown 
Graphic. What did those Leica guys do -- they brought back great 
images that couldn't be produced with those big clunky cameras.

I read more today in that B&W Magazine. Some article about the 
ABC's of Print Collecting. Ironically, the author cautioned 
collectors not to poo-poo digital prints, AS LONG AS they had 
firm, solid information from the photographer that they had used 
the utmost in archival materials to produce the print. (Nothing 
wrong with that advice; they even mentioned the same thing 
about GSP and its related processing methods).

All this is just rolling around in my head. Plus, I'm pissed that my 
pigments in my 9600 won't produce a quality black on matte 
paper, and I can't go to dyes for fear of fading. So I'm acting kinda 
like a mouse who's back in a corner. Everywhere I turn, it's the 
wrong way.

-MT, http://marktucker.com/

> We must kill the "push the button and another one pops out" 
> mentality completely. With a stake right through the heart.

There is nothing new here.  One of the struggles photography went
through in getting accepted as a legitimate art form was the fact that
a photographer could make more than one copy of his work, while a
painter could do only one.  I see this as just another chapter in the
same story.

To me the biggest obstacle to acceptance is our own attitudes.  If I
am not willing to put an equal price on a carbon ink print as on an
emulsion print of the same size then I am exposing my own attitude
that it is inferior in some way.    Until we can do that we won't
make it.

I am more and more coming to see our carbon ink prints as a legitimate
art form distinctly different from "photographs" (photo meaning a
light-based process).  During the summer I went to our church office
for something and found a beautiful old etching in a frame, with acid
spots, dirty glass, etc.  I brought it home, replaced the crummy
cardboard backing with some acid free cotton matt board and cleaned
the glass.  The etching was of a pen and ink drawing and was really
beautiful, a real jewel.  I felt I'd found a real treasure and
returned it to the office in much better shape.

Etchings and wood/stone block prints are ink-based copies of original
art works from which many copies may be made, as are photogravures and
silk screen prints, yet they all enjoy "art" status.  Why not carbon
ink prints from inkjet printers?

I think this is the approach we should be taking.  We are not making
photographs, but are making carbon ink prints of our photographic
negatives.  Printmaking is a long established art form, and I think
this is the path we should take.  We are now photographers _and_
printmakers.  I believe if we insist on this distinction, and give
them equal status with our emulsion prints as reflected in our prices,
then the question of whether they are "equal" to photographs becomes
moot.  

By entering the argument we are giving it legitimacy.  Better to say
to someone, "What on earth are you talking about?  These aren't
photographs, they are carbon ink prints.  They are very similar to
etchings, but are made with an inkjet printer instead of a mechanical
press".  This will deflect the question into another area.

And when we speak to the public about it we should say something like,
"Yes, an entirely new art form is emerging from this technology. 
Photographers are having to learn a whole new set of demanding skills
in order to become good printmakers.  It takes many hours of
painstaking work to bring out the best of a photograph and do it
justice."  This is true.  I generally spend more hours working on a
scan in PS that I did on the first print of a neg in the darkroom.

A few months ago I showed some of my black-only carbon ink prints to a
man retired from the graphic arts printing industry.  He's not a
photographer, but knows digital imagery and printing inside out.  He
was astounded at the quality, and know what he said?  "Are you sure
these are photographs?  They look like etchings".


Regards, - cj

>>>>
i just cant yet get my head around the idea of destroying the
negative/file after printing and saying that's that
>>>>

You have to wait until you're 80, like Brett Weston did, and then
destroy all your negs and files <g>.

Regards, - cj

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Clayton Jones" 
<cj@c...> wrote:
> You have to wait until you're 80, like Brett Weston did, and then
> destroy all your negs and files <g>.
> Regards, - cj

-------

More at:

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=003GP
Y

http://www.jbhphoto.com/cwalbum/cwws3.htm

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=brett+w
eston%2C+destroy%2C+negatives&btnG=Google+Search

Cut and past wrapping URLs.

Mark, Clayton, et al...

To add my two cents...I am a good black and white printer, both of 
commercial portrait/model prints as well as fine art "tree/rock/root" 
and figure images. However, I never thought printing black and white 
came easy.  Each neg/print was a challenge.  Seldom did I get on a 
roll and feel that prints just popped out like cookies on a conveyer. 
They all had their own personality and it was up to me to find the 
special look in each negative.  That was a great challenge and I can 
look on some of my best prints with pride.

Now I have decided that digital holds the challenge for me.  Silver 
gelatin is in my past.  I closed my darkroom, am in the process of 
selling my equipment and am not looking back.  I accomplished more 
than I expected.  I love computers and  Photoshop with its electronic 
controls...I love the look of ink sprayed on lush paper surfaces that 
weren't available in SG printing. It is a whole new look.

Does it bother me that some uninformed people think it is a matter of 
turning on a machine and pushing a button that pukes out a print on 
demand...does it bother me that they don't understand just how much 
time and effort goes on before we push that button...yes it does. 
However, these people are ignorant and don't understand what I am 
learning..which is that inkjet printing is just as hands on involved 
as SG printing was...maybe even more so.  I can't tell you how much 
time I have spent with this digital thing.  SG seemed a lot easier to 
grasp and took even less time to become proficient.  We are in the... 
traditional printmakers being jealous of photographers...stage for 
this medium. They walk by the window of a one-hour lab, look at the 
prints flopping off the belt, look at each other and think that is 
how all photographers do it.

Someone told me once that "it is easier to ride a horse in the 
direction it wants to go."  One of the big advantages I had was to go 
back to art school and major in painting over 12 years ago.  That 
short time off from photography was worth it.  It gave me the ability 
to break away from some of the structure and tradition of 
photography. Most photo galleries are currently stuck in the 
past...try a painting gallery if you want to get someone to respond 
to images again and not process.

Now I am riding the digital horse and it doesn't look like the SG 
horse I rode for over 20 years.  In fact I am glad it doesn't.  I now 
think that it looks even better, but in a different way. I am letting 
the medium take me into many different possible looks.   Digital 
gives me many more options as an artist then SG photography did.

Mark, love your posts...very intense and very funny..., but you need 
to give up  comparing SG to digital.  When you do that you will have 
a lot more fun with photography...and that's really what it's all 
about.

Bill Agee
-- 

bill agee studio
capistrano beach, ca / laguna beach, ca

http://www.redsilver.com

those of you who are doing editions ...

how large are the editions ?

dplace
www.DLPimages.com

Bill,

> To add my two cents...

Well said, all.  I think you have eloquently stated what many of us
feel about moving from SG to digital.

You make some important points:

...inkjet printing is just as hands on involved as SG printing was,
maybe even more so.  

...SG seemed a lot easier to grasp and took even less time to become
proficient.  

...it doesn't look like the SG horse I rode for over 20 years.  

...Digital gives me many more options as an artist then SG photography
did.

-----------


>...go back to art school and major in painting over 12 years ago.
...gave me the ability to break away from some of the structure and
tradition of photography. Most photo galleries are currently stuck in
the past...

I enjoyed your web site very much.  Refreshing.  I love the pineapple
in your "New" section.

Regards, - cj

Mark,

Thanks for the links.  Sheds new light on the subject - I'd heard that
he destroyed everything.

I really liked the 2nd link with the workshop photos

    http://www.jbhphoto.com/cwalbum/cwws3.htm

A very nice glimpse of what he's doing, and I especially like the
photo taken in the darkroom after the lights went off <ggg>.

Regards, - cj