There are so many more opportunities to see so much more photography today, given the astonishing number new electronic ways to share photographs and to find the photographs of others. Through blogs, Flickr, the many photo web sites and discussion forums, photographer’s web sites, email, you name it, we all experience a flood of visual media. While not all of it is great stuff, quite a lot of it is interesting and the sheer variety is astonishing. I don’t know how much time you spend intentionally looking at photographs, but I suspect that I may look at over 100 per day. (I’m not counting the images that we are exposed to by don’t actually give attention to – add those to the mix and the total would be much, much higher.)
But one thing has perhaps been lost in all of this, and that is the appreciation for the printed photograph. The majority of today’s photographs never make it off the screen, and I know of quite a few photographers who virtually never make a print or even send their photographs out to have someone else make a print for them – their entire experience is with the on screen versions. I think this is unfortunate. There are many things about viewing a print that are special and that are not generally experienced by viewing a photograph on the screen.
For one thing, there is something about viewing images on the screen that encourages us to look quickly and then move on. (This effect is not limited to photographs; it happens with print media, where most readers won’t stick with anything longer than a few pages on the screen.) But often a photograph does not reveal itself fully to a cursory view. Good photographs are like great pieces of music: while they often do have an initial impact, the best photographs allow the viewer to discover more and more about the image with longer consideration and repeated viewings. It may come as a surprise to some, but I don’t always fully understand my own photographs until I print them and look at them over and over.* If you want to give yourself the opportunity to grow into understanding a photograph, I’m convinced that you’ll have much better luck with a print than with an ephemeral image on the computer screen.
There is also something compelling about the physicality of the print. It has depth and texture; the surface reflects differently depending on how you look at it; its dual nature as image and as mere pigment on paper becomes even more mysterious.
I have been printing a lot recently, primarily for myself – I made perhaps 50 prints during late December and early January.
Speaking of prints…
My friend Jim M. Goldstein is giving away some tickets to the upcoming Epson Print Academy events. (1/31/09 in Seattle, 2/7/09 in San Francisco, and 2/21/09 in Los Angeles). I’ve heard a lot of great things about this program, so wander on over to Jim’s blog and take a look at his post on this topic to find out more. And even if you don’t end up with one of the free tickets, Jim’s post has some information about good discount pricing on tickets to the event.
* One reason I’m thinking about this has to do with a photograph of mine that was used on the cover of Wallace Stegner’s West, recently published as part of the California Legacy Series by Heyday Books and Santa Clara University. (I’m especially proud of this usage, since I was already a big fan of both the “west” and of Wallace Stegner’s writing.) The photograph is of a place I visit very frequently, and while I like the photograph it hadn’t spoken to me beyond being a beautiful image of a place I know well. Something happened as I was reading the book; I looked at the photograph on the book cover one evening and realized that it is very suggestive of a thematic idea that, to me at least, seems associated with something that I take away from Stegner’s writing. I won’t go into the details here, but the point is that I didn’t understand this about my own photograph right away.
Hi Dan, I find this topic so interesting. Coming from a background of black and white developing and printing, I miss the printing of my own images since switching to digital photography 20 years ago. My dilemma: paper texture and feel is very important to me. But to protect the photo from fading and deterioration it needs to be framed under UV glass. But that destroys the texture/feel experience and the soft, rich look of a beautiful matte photo. I don’t like canvas or the new hard acrylic print displays, I like the feel and texture of matte and other fine art papers.What to do? I sell prints to clients who will display them, not stick them in a dark box to preserve them for 200 years. They want to see and enjoy them everyday. They also want them to last. Do you have any suggestions about framing, displaying and preserving prints on display? I know inkjet prints can be sprayed with a lacquer such as Moab Desert Varnish. But a pro lab I use for large prints told me they do not use sprays on Fuji Crystal Archive papers. So again, that leaves me with UV glass as the only option for protection. Do you have any suggestions? How do you display your prints? Thanks so much. i really enjoy your topics and your beautiful photography.
Hi Donna, and thanks for your comment.
There are a ton of options and preferences, so my choices may or may not be right for other photographers. You are right that most, if not all, clients buy photographs because they want to put them where they can see them. (I’d like to flatter myself that someone imagines that my work will still be around in 200 years, but that is less than certain, I’m afraid.)
I’m a bit of a classicist when it comes to how to display prints — probably because my first photography experiences also date back to the film era. I make my own prints on a very large Epson inkjet printer, using a variety of papers. Mostly I use Ilford Galerie Gold Fibre Silk because I like the paper’s feel and weight, the color, the fact that it is a “baryta” paper, and its purported archival quality. (On the negative side it is hard as heck to get it to flatten if you use roll paper.) I prefer to corner mount so that there is no adhesive attached to the print, though with very large prints that isn’t a viable option and I’ll use hinge mounts at the top.
I place the prints in a mat with a window that is about an inch taller and wider than the print area so that the entire print will be visible. (At one point I “over matter,” which creates an appearance that some like… but it also covers the very edge of the print. I mount this in a simple light metal frame that is not distracting and, at least with big prints, us a high quality UV plexiglass glazing. This is pretty much a necessity if shipping due to weight and the potential for glass to get broken.
It wouldn’t be a crazy idea to go ahead and make some smaller archival prints that you don’t mount, perhaps in a folio style presentation.
When a client wants something other than my kind of print and mounting I will try to accommodate, even including hiring out metal and acrylic prints.
Dan
Thank you for taking the time to reply to all my questions, Dan. Everything you shared is very helpful and appreciated. I respect the care and attention you give to your process. I’m not able to invest in a large professional inkjet printer (drool) and pigment inks, much as I would love that. I’m currently relying on pro labs which I find to be very inconsistent, even the best of them. Some cannot even deliver a print with evenly trimmed borders. Two pro labs have sent me prints like that. One lab sent 8x10s that only had borders on 3 sides — and they were 2 inch borders! You would think that would be obvious to the naked eye, but nope.The other pro lab did remakes for me after I sent them shots of the prints to prove the borders were uneven, and the remakes looked exactly the same as the original with uneven borders! I received TWO remakes of this same print with the same uneven borders on each. I get very frustrated with the lack of quality control. I am almost at the point of buying a moderately priced inkjet printer that uses dye-based inks (since only those printers are within my budget) then using a UV spray, crossing my fingers and hoping they don’t fade within a few months or years. I would hate to deliver an inferior product to anyone who cared enough to actually pay money for one of my prints. A dye-based inkjet would at least spare me the recurring lab issues and delays. But I do wonder if the dye-based inkjet prints, UV sprayed, would hold up for even a few years. Fuji Crystal Archive will last at least that. So I have to decide between two less than ideal options: the “pro” lab frustrations or the unknown quality of dye-based inkjet prints. My biggest concern isn’t 100 year life (unlikely), but 40 maybe? I certainly don’t want anyone who buys a print to see it deteriorate within a few months or years. Any thoughts or suggestions you have about this rather unpleasant printing choice method I need to make would be very appreciated. It’s kind of driving me crazy. Thanks again.
I’m very disappointed to hear of your experience with labs that are billing themselves as “professional.” That stuff should not happen except in exceptional circumstances, and it certainly should be fixed correctly when you contact them. I’ve used Aspen Creek a few times with good results on projects where a client wanted something other than my inkjet prints.
If you are going to get a printer, I’d get a pigment printer rather than a dye printer. Virtually all photographers are using pigment printers now for various reasons including longevity.
Even if you send prints out to a printer, it is worthwhile to have at least a small inkjet printer. Not only does that let you see more accurately what your print will look like (the computer screen, even when profiled, doesn’t provide a very good preview) before you send it off to a printer. For critical work you could also send along a copy of your small inkjet print as a guide for your printer who will otherwise simply use a profile to create what they expect will be correct. There are some relatively inexpensive printers from Epson and Canon that will do beautiful work on up to 13″ x 19″ paper.
Dan
Interesting you suggest getting at least a small inkjet printer. After so much frustration with the pro labs, i had been seriously considering that and doing lots of research. The pigment printers would be ideal, but the budget is not quite there yet. But the Canon Pixma iP8720 prints up to 13 x 19″ and is a dedicated photo printer that has gotten good reviews. The Chromalife 100+ inks, though not pigment, get some high marks from Wilhelm Research, especially when used with Canon papers. And I do like the Canon Pro line of premium papers. I’ve gotten beautiful results with Pro Luster, though a heavier Matte is my preference. Long story short . . . I bought the iP8720 and tested it with a nice fine art paper, Moab Entrada Rag, and the results are BEAUTIFUL! It has reignited my love for photography and the darkroom. I’ll probably use a UV spray like Moab Desert to add further protection to the prints. And i downloaded the ICC profile from Moab’s website, for the Entrada Rag. I just can’t thank you enough for all your help, Dan. It’s been a long, grueling, depressing slog with the pro labs and I’m glad that is over. I might try the one you suggested, Aspen Creek, if I need larger prints at some point. Appreciate that recommendation. Your taking the time to advise me and your nudging me toward investing in a printer, was such a tremendous help. It came at just the right time and helped solidify my decision, affirming that the direction I was heading in was indeed the right way to go. Happy days are here again. What a joy to be back in the darkroom and to have more control over my printing.The digital color darkroom is a world of infinite fascination and creative possibility. Thanks so much, Dan!
I was actually thinking about this too today at a bookstore. I was looking at a book by Galen Rowell, and I was amazed at how much different it is to see photos on print versus seeing them on flickr. I am torn on printing my own photos though. I am still building my own camera set up, so would rather save money to buy new lenses or a better tripod over printing photos.
But maybe I’m looking at it wrong, and I should enjoy the good photos that I have now. Do you have a method of displaying the prints you make, or do they go into storage somewhere?
Thanks for posting. Glad you enjoyed the Rowell photos. I guess I should have included the “photo book” in my little write-up, too. The experience of viewing the book is different from viewing online images and from viewing single photographic prints I think, but I’m all for viewing well done book prints. (If you ever have the opportunity to visit the eastern Sierra Nevada, stop in at the “Mountain Light Gallery” in Bishop, where many of Rowells photographs are hung as prints. I think you will really enjoy that if you are becoming a Rowell fan.)
I think that if you end up feeling that “the print is the thing” that you’ll eventually want to try doing your own printing. I think this is the only way that you can follow your vision for your photographs all the way through. But I also understand the dilemma of figuring out what to do next when you are still building your system, especially if getting a printer now means that you cannot make certain shots due to equipment limitations. Life is full of choices… and so is photography! :-)
As to what I do with my prints, there is not a single answer – it depends on the photograph and on where I am with that particular photo. I print some photographs at the request of a client who wants to purchase one, of course. At the other extreme, I make small prints of many new photographs so that I can hold them in my hand, see what they’ll actually look like as prints, and consider them over time. At the moment I have a stack of more than 50 such small prints sitting on my desk. I print some for display in my home. I’m working on assembling at least three portfolios right now, so I’ve printed many photographs for that purpose.