Print quality

D

David M

Very Active Poster
Registered User
Joined
Jan 29, 2017
Messages
3,160
Another thread on this forum, which started with a tricky technical problem, evolved to touch on questions of print quality. Because of the thread's technical origin, this was expressed in terms of ease of printing the highlights and suchlike.
I don't believe that this is what arrests and entrances us in front of one image more than another, although it may be a part.
What is it that stops us? What is print quality? Are they the same, anyway?
 
You have to evolve your own style and way of printing. There's no right or wrong some favour the gritty contrast chosen by Ralph Gibson others, myself included, a far more tonal approach.

In my case print quality is about a rich tonality with good shadow and highlight detail when present, It's a balance but the secret is in the negatives, and a good negative prints very easily and can be interpreted differently if you want too. A poor negative means a struggle to make a good print.

Print quality is a number of factors for instance I saw and exhibition of Ketesz prints at the Barbican all contemporary prints made before WWII, the largest were about Whole plate, they were small exquisite and jewel like, superb.

I saw a large retrospective of Kertesz work all modern prints, and the quality of the early prints had been lost. It was the opposite with AA's images I saw the large retrospective "Classic Images" at the Barbican late 1980's and the print quality was superb (all modern prints). But when I saw AA's images from his daughters collection in Oxford & Edinburgh the print quality was poorer, these were contemporary prints made around the time he'd shot the images.

So it's largely about expectations, but you don't expect poor dodging/shading or over burning of corners/edges, poor retouching etc.

Ian
 
I remember the overblown Kertesz images. I also remember the tiny contact of the sleeper on the train, from Elton John's collection. Huge difference. Considerable envy.
I was asking the question because I suspect that we might be a little bit obsessed with the precise control of tonality. You touch on this when you mention not expecting "poor dodging...poor retouching etc." It seems to me that at some point, the delights of print perfection must give way to the delights of subject matter and composition. (There is also the question of sequencing, which hasn't so far made any appearance on this forum.)
It's possible to argue that once any faults are not obvious to a normal viewer, they are irrelevant.* We ourselves may be abnormal viewers, but even we must have a threshold beyond which we look at the image itself.
This is not a suggestion that we slacken our efforts in the matter of fine printing, but an attempt to place print quality in its proper place.

I suspect that I agree with you about AA's early prints, but that's a different debate for a different thread.

*Afterthought: we might draw a parallel with resolution. But not now.
 
I agree it's possible to be obsessed with negative/print controls, I think learning basic craft is important, maybe spending a bit of time mastering it.

Having mastered the craft it actually gives you greater creative freedom, knowing when you press the shutter you've control over the image. In my case it was mainly honing craft in the late 1980's, using the Zone System which I largely pay lip-service to rather than strict adherence.

The issue of sequencing is important, and it can through up problems with prints, sometimes you may need to re-print and image to fit a sequence. I pay a lot of attention to sequencing, as well as exhibition layout, I've experience of curating over a dozen exhibitions of other photographers work (individual and group shows) in the past as well as a similar number of exhibitions of my own work.

I'll often work out a sequence then get a couple of photographer friends to review and discuss the sequencing, they also have experience exhibiting. Usually I'll have to re-print one or two images at the last moment.

But there's another issue and that's editing which images should be in and which should be excluded, a favourite image shouldn't be used if it's not coherent with the rest of the work. I've also been known not to use an image that I thought looked too much like someone else's work.

But that leads to how you achieve your own photographic style, and approach, what you want to achieve.

Ian
 
I've had arguments with people who considered that mastering the craft would drastically inhibit their creativity. I think what you say is right. Would we think a pianist was creative if they didn't learn what those black and white* things were for and when to press them?
There's a quotation somewhere about something being a good servant, but a bad master. Can't recall what it was, but the Zone System fits the blank space perfectly.
You may well know the sequencing system at Paul Hill's of making small prints of all the candidate images and spreading them out over the floor. Rather like a game of Patience. Interesting to see how a sequence evolved when different people had a go. Then there's the problem of the one cracking image that doesn't quite fit.
Is this forum ready for a thread on sequencing?

*The reference to black and white is a happy coincidence; I've just noticed it.
 
I doubt that I can add anything further to this thread that Ian G hasn't already said so well. The issue with "print quality", for me, is that it's so very much subjective. Ian has already touched on a few of the technical aspects which, to my mind, are a given in a quality print. David brings up a good point regarding the relation of print quality to composition and the story told. For me, a fine print recedes into the background and enhances the story being told. It, also, displays characteristics that you won't find in an "ordinary" print. What do I mean? Have you ever seen a B&W silver print where light seems to emanate from the paper? Where you can feel the air present? Where the water is wet? I have seen these and made a few myself. For me, what Ian has expressed and the points contained herein all role into my definition of a fine print.
 
David, Paul Hill never did anything on sequencing the twice I did workshops with him. I've always found it quite logical it's like telling a story, I've often grouped images rather than an constant lone.

I think a point I missed about print and negative quality is consistency. An example would be a diptych I did about 30 years ago with an image shot on a hot sunny summers evening and the second the same shot but in made in the winter fog and they worked well together.

When I had my first major exhibition I did have to leave out what I considered at the time my best and favourite (at that time) print, now I can't remember which print it was :D

Ian
 
I believe that a number of photographers were making books at the time and a book enforces consideration of what comes next. Fay Godwin took prints for one of her books to the Photographers' Place to sort out the final edit. I feel that the word "sequence" doesn't quite describe what is going on. It's more than simply arranging them in order. It might include decisions on sizes or framing style, for instance. For a book, which image faces which can be a very tricky matter.
And yes, consistency is vital. Do you find that it's sometimes a surprise to see two otherwise satisfactory images side by side and they don't seem to be friendly to each other?
Telling a story is one view of sequencing, but in the case of, for instance, the Somnambulist, there is a journey, but no narrative as such.

Although it's not an LF concern, there is a move to use rubbishy cameras to make intentionally poor quality images. I believe that many of the practitioners are quite serious. Perhaps a similar impulse to the New Topographic movement. It's another version of print quality serving the image-maker's intentions.
 
It would be easier with Fay Godwin;s work as all prints are square from 6x6 negatives :D Obviously we were on different Fay Godwin workshops at Paul Hill's Photographers Place.

I have had issues because I shoot different formats, 6x6, some 6x9 a very little 6x7, then 6x17, 5x4 & 10x8, 7x5, and I shoot/print to format. It took a bit of time finding the right balance of print sizes, initially I made a wrong choice with the 6x17 prints putting them in 20x16 frames, I realised when giving a talk that the 6x17 prints/frames didn't work, then I found matching frames that were far better suited to the format, approx 23"x12". They work really well now.

Do you find that it's sometimes a surprise to see two otherwise satisfactory images side by side and they don't seem to be friendly to each other?

Yes sometimes by reprinting and altering the contrast/brightness that can be overcome. Other times it's better to sequence differently.

With most of my exhibitions some images fall naturally into sets, actually I was partially inspired by some of the New Topographers and they weren't all anti-craft, some of my images have Political/Environmental under tones usually about damage and loss in the landscape. I remember having a discussion about it with Fay Godwin, I travelled everywhere with her on the Paul Hill workshop - her car was her camera bag, and I knew the area. Sometimes those private discussions were worth more than the rest of a workshop, I found the same with John Blakemore.

Ian
 
Sequencing is important, and editing. I no longer exhibit my photographs. They go into books. I think hard about the sequencing, but at the end of the day it's the quality of the images that counts. If there was an exhibition of 20 Rembrandt self-portraits on round the corner in my local Village Hall, I wouldn't care a jot if they had been arranged and sequenced. They could hang them all sideways and I would still love it.

Alan
 
David M said:
I've had arguments with people who considered that mastering the craft would drastically inhibit their creativity. I think what you say is right.
Click to expand...

I've heard that many times as well, the reverse is definitely the case. Knowing basic craft lets you explore the boundaries with greater certainty.

The problem is that many young people starting to use film think Lomography is representative of film photography. I was shocked at the ow grade films on sale in the shop at the Photographers Gallery in London when I was there two weeks ago.

Ian
 
I haven't been tempted by the PG's film.
I've been thinking that we might redefine and reconsider the interest in faulty work as an interest in evidence of process. Consider things like the ultra-large Polaroid camera, where prints are commonly displayed and reproduced with the messy ends from the reagents visible. We often see the brush-marks around a platinum print. Wet-plate makers sometimes seem to glory in faults that would have made Mrs Cameron blush.
You may remember Robert Thompson, the Mouse Man, who made furniture in oak, by traditional means. His table tops were adzed flat and the adze-marks left as evidence of the craft. (Adzing is difficult and dangerous) All very fine, but for the purpose of eating, an anonymous Ikea table top is so much better.
Both Ikea furniture and digital images seem to bear no evidence of their manufacture and I suggest that both Lomography, at the low end and Thompson at the high end are reactions to this.
 
Ian,
I was only suggesting a similarity with the New Topographics as an example of reaction to a prevailing ethos. I don't suggest that they made poor prints, but rather that they reacted to hyper-craftsmanship and the valorisation of a supposedly natural landscape. We might consider f64 or the Linked Ring on the same light. Each movement reacted to what went before. I suggest that we now are in a similar situation, and so are the Lomographers.
There are also plenty of incompetent photographers, but when was that different?
(I can answer that: between 1834 and 1839.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top