From: Richard Sullivan (richsul@earthlink.net)
Date: 03/10/02-01:54:29 PM Z
At 10:19 AM 3/10/2002 +0000, Katharine Thayer wrote:
>To suggest
>that folks who prefer the handmade print to the digital reproduction
>are trying to hold back the hurricane of progress, is to miss the point
>altogether.
>
>kt
That was not my point though I don't think anybody has accused me of that yet.
Personally I lust over a high quality ink jet system and the time to
indulge in it. I think it is a great way to get into small edition
publishing and especially for images. If one hasn't been blind lately you
will see that for the most part technical type publishing has moved to the
Web. PC magazine used to lug down my briefcase and was at one point nearly
1.5 inches thick. Today it is barely 3/8 inch. Notice the demise of the
photo magazines as of late. Technical and how-to information belongs on the
web: cheap to do, timely, correctable, and always accessible -- if you have
a computer handy. For magazines and technical works I prefer a PDF file any
day. I can print out multiple copies of any single page, a chart or formula
for instance to pin on the darkroom wall.
Images however are another story. Images on the web are for all intents
nothing more than illuminated slides and as such are wonderful but are a
poor substitute for paper based images.
Although there can be many variants on these definitions but lets go with
them for the sake of argument. I define "fine art" photography as that
which is bought for the image/object. "Editorial photography" is that which
appears in print. Never mind the crudeness of the definitions but accept
them for the moment.
I don't find the digital >print< to be satisfying as a fine art object for
the reasons mentioned in my previous post but if one considers them as a
means to editorial photography -- WOW! In this realm it is the image that
is the center of attention and not the "print" object itself. In this realm
the photographer is freed from the constraints of traditional publishing
which up to now has depended on high print runs for economy.
I see a couple things holding back "personal publishing" at the moment.
One is the print speed. For a run of 250 books with 25 images you're
looking at a great deal of time. At 5 min per print you are looking at 520
hours of print time. Even at 25 books which might be a more reasonable run
you are looking at over 2 full 24 hr days.
Another problem is binding. This has not advanced technically in nearly the
same degree as the printing end of things. Hand binding 25 books in the
classic manner might be doable but 250 books is a real chore. Comb binding
nor other Office Depot binding solutions are obviously not acceptable for
an art book production.
In the realm of small edition image + text publishing I see the digital
print liberating photographers. At this point in time it is feasible and
will become more so in the future.
I have no fear that there we will see Gresham's Law invoked in the
photography realm. I have heard indications that it has affected the Iris
print sales of some well known photographers as low end digital, which is
now as good or better than earlier Iris prints, has been driving out those
works. You don't hear a lot about Iris much anymore. (Well Murdoch lately
-- great movie!)
More later.
--Dick Sullivan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 04/10/02-09:28:54 AM Z CST