Long Live the Print?
I’m writing this from Gresham, Oregon, just outside of Portland. Tomorrow I’m delivering a keynote presentation at the Annual Convention of the Columbia and Northwest Council of Camera Clubs. But today I had the honor of serving as a judge for their invitational print competition. This gave me an opportunity to see many photographic prints, and got me thinking about how the print has continued to be so central to photography even as digital technology has provided so many other ways to share images.
I love viewing images online, seeing projected slideshows, and even using other devices such as the portable hard drives used for storing images in the field, some of which have excellent displays. And yet, there’s something about a print that seems vital to photography. Perhaps it is the nostalgia of having started with photography making prints in the wet darkroom, which is a common experience for many photographers. Perhaps it is the fact that a print seems so much more genuine and not fleeting like the display shown temporarily on a digital display.
Regardless of the reason, to me a photographic print (whether silver-based or digital) truly epitomizes photography, and is by far my favorite way to experience photographic images. I can’t imagine a future where I don’t prefer the print to other means of viewing photographic images. And yet, digital has proven time and again that things change, often very quickly. I’ll be curious to see if my attitude changes with time, and to what extent other photographers will also continue to favor the print over other means of viewing photographic images.
Explore posts in the same categories: Digital
October 13th, 2007 at 6:29 am
Tim, what did you learn about new printers from your recent judging? I’m sure you asked, “What printer did you use for this image?” several times. Do you have any new intelligence on printers to share?
October 16th, 2007 at 10:18 am
……”there’s something about a print that seems vital to photography” I sure agree with the importance of printing the image. It is not published until it is printed….often you can’t see the flaws until it is printed. I print to 12 X 18 to be sure it is perfect.
October 16th, 2007 at 6:59 pm
In response to Charle Smith’s questions, the issue of what printer was used really wasn’t a consideration. Quite frankly, when you’re evaluating individual prints, you really can’t tell much difference between printers. Comparing the same image printed on various printers would certainly show some (relatively subtle) differences, but prints on their own don’t reflect this. Of course, judging prints in this manner also reminds me that many photographers still struggle with getting the best prints, both in terms of image quality and color accuracy.
October 17th, 2007 at 5:18 pm
As a photographer who sells online Prints, Tim, I have to say without question the actual Print is not only what provides me an income, but what showcases our homes, our offices, the banks and restaurants we frequent, even our favorite shopping haunts (pun intended).
My prints range from 5×7″ up to 32×48″ and I really enjoy it when a client calls or emails me to say how much more they enjoy their rooms once the Print is framed and hung. It is the final analysis of photography.
October 18th, 2007 at 12:31 am
Dear Tim,
…..as one that printed my own Cibachromes for years before I took a class from you just after your daughter was born, I have to agree… I photograph with THE PRINT in mind…..Whether using the 4×5 or the 1DSmkII I want the best image in the can, so the print will be all I can make it…..and I DO feel that the archivability of the Print is also of HUGE importance. Thank you for all you do to help all of us…. and reminding the newbies of the basics before the computer….in the END it is the Print now and forever more…
November 1st, 2007 at 10:09 am
“The print.” It congers many thoughts and visual applications. However the print is all mighty in that it, and it alone, can convey the trueness of what the photographer/artist envisioned at exposure. The life expectancy of prints will be . . . well . . . they’ll be around basically forever unless some wonderful new technology appears and viola we all can’t live without it, much like the digital camera and Photoshop of today replacing film. So will the print “Long Live?” Truly so - what would our walls look like without them? In regards to Mr. Smiths comment I find that his question about the printer is academic unless the print is of superb quality and detail, then and only then would the printer name/type be of value to know (we all want excellence). With technology moving forward and developing at a rate expotentially to where it was four years ago, I’m inclined to believe that companies manufacturing printers will be offering us, the consumer, machines that will WOW even the snobiest of juror/judges. As Ms. Cross puts it, ” . . . in the end it is the print now and forever more . . . !”
December 27th, 2007 at 4:22 am
I agree that prints, done properly are beautiful to look at and are certainly tangible. However, they are so very fragile, and so dependant upon proper lighting and viewing position. On the other hand , a well developed digital file displayed on a modern flat panel display in high definition is truly amazing. The internal lighting of the screen provides a drama and three dimensionality that to me is far superior to most prints. Besides, it’s wonderful to be able to change the photo at will, with no cost, as your interests and tastes change. People that have seen my prints , under proper lighting, definitely enjoy them more as a slide show on my 50 inch plasma screen in high definition! Also, some of us need to think of the tremendous savings in ink and paper as well as precious time that is involved in proofing and printing.
January 2nd, 2008 at 11:05 pm
Even if you ignore the initial cost of the 50″ plasma, I’d say you spend way more on electricity displaying the photo on the wall (even if it’s on only a few hours a day) than you would making a print and hanging it. A large plasma can run 500 - 1000 watts at $.23/kWh comes at 10 hours a day comes out to $419 per year (used 500 watts) (which ignores the fact that electricity is under priced — doesn’t take in to account environmental cost of mining coal and putting it in the atmosphere which will be paid later in taxes etc) LCD display use less power but still 200-400 watts.
Of course framing isn’t cheap either, and I certainly agree that the colors and the three dimensionality on the screen is much more than a print so I just mention it as something to think about (I noticed so many digital picture frames were sold this christmas and got to thinking about all the people that will leave these on scrolling through snapshots even when they aren’t home)