Klaus said:
> The photographer was there and very proud of
>this "brandnew" highclass and whatsoever perfect printing technique. I
asked him
>what process this was. He couldn't explain it, except that he knew his
negatives
>had to be scanned. I left the exhibit rather disappointed. This no
longer was photography but just
>a computer printout on expensive paper. No more aura, no more sincerity.
To me
>it was obvious that here somebody just had chosen a technique to make his
>mediocre photography sell better.
I am not sure how the prints being printed out from a computer for the
photographer made them any different in photgraphic or artistic intent from
a print made for a photographer by a professional printer or an engraving
made for a painter. Are Mapplethorp or Turner any less for getting those
with the appropriate professional skills to make gravures or platinum
prints or engravings for them.
The person who scans the prints and adjusts the levels on the computer is
exercising similar skills to those of the dark room printer. The question
of whether the 'artist' should have done it rather that getting a
professional printer to do it is a different matter. That a photographic
'artist' should be able to take and print a photograph is a view with which
I sympathise but not one which I consider wholly practical or one which I
would wish to impose on others. I have seen technically imcompetent
photographs turned to prize winning excellence by good professional
printers. And excellent photographers making excellent prints. It is, as
Darryl says, the end print that matters.
That I prefer to make my own prints as it gives me greater personal
satisfaction does not mean that I consider that everyone else should follow
the same path.
We have been discussing Iris produced prints but small desk top colour
printers can produce exciting images. Even at the most basic levels of
'manipulation', adjustments to the colour balance and contrast levels, can
produce prints of great subtlety. I have scanned in multicolour gum prints
and,making the adjustments on the computer myself, printed them out onto
sized Artistico or special coated papers to produce similar variations to
those I had spent hours producing with gum and water-colour.
I think it was Barny who asked whether it made me wonder why I persisted
with gum.
> Lets not only share our technical knowledge how to
>master a certain process, although I agree that this is the most important
topic
>for this list. But it's not the process alone which makes our photographs
be
>pieces of art. Let's also - at least from time to time - talk about the
'why'
>behind all our efforts. As long as it is related to the use of alternative
>processes I would appreciate very much to read (and write) s. th. about
this.
Klaus is quite right to seek more discussions of the 'why' as well as the
details of technique. Such an approach would make our discussions more
rounded. I found the discussion of whether one should record what the
camera sees in architectural photography or what the brain perceives,
enlightening, although others did not. Incidentally the discussion has now
spread and people are arguing which approach should be taken. Of course
there is no 'should' about it. The final print is a matter of intent and
purpose.
Which brings me to the question of 'the intent of process'. When I look
through the viewfinder or at the ground glass screen, I usually think that
the image I see would be suitable for one process or another. Sometimes
this leads to more than one sheet of film being exposed and at others, to a
different camera being used. But it is often better, but not invariably,
to take the decision at the time of taking.
But again, as Klaus says, it would be better to keep the discussion to the
use of alternative processes and not allow other disciplines to encroach
upon our deliberations; let them remain on 'Photoart' . I have noted what
Ron has said but would rather leave it there.
One area that might be discussed further is the question of where the
satisfaction lies. Is it in the process, the lighting of the pipe, or the
print, the smoking of the pipe. For me it is both. As it was for the
Secessionists. Coburn spent years learning gravure. One suspects that the
'arts and crafts' approach where the artist is responsible for the whole
process leads to a greater understanding of the craft and thus of the art.(
This is often true of the photographer as artist but this does not mean
that all photographers have to believe that they are artists or that what
they produce is art. Another topic that was revelled in on Photoart.)
In summary, are alternative processes arty crafty or arty farty.
Terry King