Hello.

I've been grappling with a question for a while. Can prints considered artistically valuable be made by a printer other than the photographer- i.e. a "commercial printer"? I'm not referring to the large format, fine art prints, but more to the street photography a la Cartier-Bresson. I've been an enthusiastic amateur photographer for 20 years. I understand the basics of printing but have never been able to invest the time (or money) into the art of good printing. I feel I am able to produce my visualized images by controlling composition, timing, exposure and film development. The printing process has never been a part of my creativity since I aim to produce a very "printable" negative. I truly respect good printers and what they can add to the image, it's just not a part of my vision. Does this preclude me from producing images (i.e. prints) which are valuable to the artistic market?

Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.

Thanks.

Asher

-- Asher Schachter (schachter@a1.tch.harvard.edu), August 25, 1999

Answers

Not printing your own work has a long history in other art media. Etchings and lithographs are often printed by professional printers through a colaborative process as the artist does not have the equipment and/or intimiate knowledge of the medium required to make a print. Many photographers have also worked that way. William Eggelston is one (current) fine art photographer who does not print his own photographs.

The important considerations are to find a technically competant printer who will work with you on realizing your photographic vision. This is not a "dump it off at the lab - and collect it at a later date" type of interaction. You will have to look for someone who is willing to listen to what you see in the work print and then can translate that to a final output that is what you want. If your photographs are good, there is no reason that you should be precluded from the art market.

I know several well known wildlife photographers who do not print their own work, and this has not stopped them from selling hundreds of prints a year.

You will hear the opinion that "only the photographer can print his own work." I personally do not believe that narrow attitude as it has been proven incorrect many times over. If you have an artistic vision, the printer will become an extension of that vision, not an impediment.

-- steve (s.swinehart@worldnet.att.net), August 25, 1999.

Your vision is what really counts and how the printer interprets that vision. Find a printer who will sit down with you and listen about what you percieve is the essence of the image and what you consider it should convey. James

-- james (james_mickelson@hotmail.com), August 25, 1999.

There is nothing wrong with collaboration in art. I think that we get the idea that we must print our work from the legacy of Ansel Adams. He was a master printer, and was able to use that skill as a part of his creative process. What would happen to the memory of Beethoven and Mozart if they had to perform their compositions today? The interaction of creator and interpreter is a very important part of many artistic statements.

-- chuck k (kleesattel@webtv.com), August 25, 1999.

I prefer to print my own prints....

-- mark lindsey (lindseygraves@msn.com), August 26, 1999.

Neither Bresson nor Eisenstaedt printed their own negatives. I believe this was true of Robert Frank and a long list of other fine photographers. George Fevre prints Bresson's negs, and Life lab prints Eisenstaedt's. Being a good photographer does not necessarily mean you need to be a good printer. In fact, some of the most celebrated photographers are/were truly lousy printers. See Leongard's book, Celebrating The Negative.

-- Todd Frederick (fredrick@hotcity.com), August 27, 1999.

I agree with Tod's answer. Many of the best street photographers did not do their own printing. One of the best printers where I live told me that to be a successful printer one of the attributes you need is to instinctively know which shades of grey will please the brain. He said you are born with this and it does not necessarily go hand in hand with being a good photographer (quite the contrary often). There are photographers and there are printers.

I do my own printing but that is out of necessity. Often I find it incredibly monotonous and wish that I could afford a good printer.

-- Andy Laycock (agl@intergate.bc.ca), September 03, 1999.

But to add to this thread, how do you know what a "good, printable negative" looks like if you don't print it? Do you have a good printer that you can talk to about what your vision is for this image? Their are many good printers around and they have developed their craft to a high degree. But most printers are also very good photographers. Their are very few good printers that are not good photographers. It is not born in them. They learned what it takes to make a good image and bring out the subtle nuances that create the right balance within the image. Most anyone can learn what it takes. Just look at images often and learn to see what it is that the printer/photographer was trying to convey and how they did it. You should learn to print. That is how you will develope your craft to it's highest potential. I know a few photographers who create great images in darkrooms put up in their bathrooms late at night after the kids and wife are all snug in their beds. It doesn't take a lot of room or equipment. What it takes is willingness to learn and discover. Printing is easy. And so is printing well. There are no excuses for not learning how. James

-- james (james_mickelson@hotmail.com), September 03, 1999.

I appreciate all views above. I certainly meant no disrespect to printers and their talents. However I'm not making excuses for not learning how to print. I have learned the basics of printing and have set-up a basic darkroom in my bathroom in the past. Yes, I could spend the time making test prints and learning the fine points, but I'd rather spend my time making photographs (i.e. negatives)and leave the printing to someone else or set-up a virtual darkroom with a negative scanner and software. At the very least I could print out a proof as a guide for the printer of how I visualize the final print. Alternatively I could bring the image file to a digital printer, especially since the quality of digital prints is advancing rapidly. That way I'd retain much control and would be paying only for the use of the equipment and supplies, not the skill of the printer.

Thanks again for your comments.

-- Asher (schachter@a1.tch.harvard.edu), September 04, 1999.

Asher,

You may be denying yourself a great pleasure by not printing your own, but you seem to be hyper-concerned with ART and not photography so maybe not. I hate to burst your bubble but photography is not art. Someone may posess a marketable eye for composition or even a artistic eye for composition but photography is really the interaction of light ......silver salts and chemistry. Bresson did not build the streets he photographed. He composed with a square and rectangular frame those subjects very artfully. Since he understood the workings of a camera he may even be considered a photographer but never an artist. That is for the critics to decide and a true artist never listens to criticisms by people who don't posess the skills they critique. So I ask you....how can you know what you want if you don't know how to get it? How will you know what 30cc's over magenta looks like and how precisely can you correct such common photo-foibles without that skill? Good luck to you....good luck in the world of precision with vague terms like "printable", "vision" and "too pink". God is in the details....don't leave that up to anyone else but you! Money and time are piss-poor excuses....honestly ...I'd rather produce one perfect print in my lifetime than a million printable ones.

-- trib (linhof6@hotmail.com), September 09, 1999.

Hi Trib

First of all, lighten up, please. True, photographers don't usually build the scenes that they photograph but this does not deny us "artist" status. Van Gogh didn't build the stars or the streets or the flowers in his paintings. However, the debate about whether or not photography is art is decades old and still unresolved. We're certainly not going to resolve it here.

My original question was simply whether it's considered a short cut to collaborate with a printer. As you can see from the answers above, some of the greatest photographers, including Bresson, did not print their own work. The "perfect print"??? It doesn't exist and will never exist so long as there are people like you and me who have different tastes, likes, dislikes and opinions.

As far as the "piss poor excuse" of time and money, most people have families to support and contribute their (non-artistic) skills and services to society. Do these people have no right to express themselves artistically should they have the desire to do so? Must we be limited by a requirement to shirk our primary responsibilities in order to be accepted as artists?

I hope we can agree to disagree. Thanks for your comments.

Asher

-- Asher (schachter@a1.tch.harvard.edu), September 10, 1999.

If you have a printer who can make better prints than you, then by all means use that printer! David Hurn has most of his stuff done by someone else. This doesn't mean that you shouldn't have a little darkroom. A used 35mm enlarger and a few trays doesn't take much space or money. Use it to make a proof print.

Does a print have more cachet which is produced by the photographer than by a commercial printer? Generally, yes. Can a commercial printer make a better print than the photographer? Quite possibly.

The real question is this: will those who will buy your images care? Have you sold anything? If your customers don't care, and a commercial printer makes better prints than you, then don't worry about it.

As to whether or not photography is art, don't worry about that either. Art, to quote somebody famous, is what you can get away with. For centuries artists have gotten away with daubing pigment on cloth, banging bits off of stone blocks, and hacking wood. Now we can get away with flicking a shutter, pouring chemicals, waving our hands over paper, and more pouring of chemicals. We could even go so far as to call three canister vaccuum cleaners in cubes of Plexiglas art, two bricks and a light bulb art, or even a pile of sand or a urinal as being art.

-- Brian C. Miller (brianm@ioconcepts.com), September 10, 1999.

Brian- I see you've visited MOMA! I once saw a slab of stone there as well as a sewing machine with someone's undies hanging from it. OOh la la

I'm with you- the final result is all that matters.

Thanks

-- Asher (schachter@a1.tch.harvard.edu), September 10, 1999.

Photography can certainly be art, but not all photography is art. Any artist should have a good understanding of the technicals in his particular field however the technical should not become the art. A painter has a technique for transferring his visualised image onto the medium of choice, as does a photographer. The technical means of doing this is not as critical as the image itself. I couldn't paint to save myself, I do though have a good eye for images. Does that mean because I can't paint, draw or sculpt I am less an artist because my chosen technique is silver transfer. I feel it is in the interest of the photographer to have a working knowledge of at least B&W processing and printing as this will help him communicate better to a printer if he wants to hand that area to someone else. Darkroom can be a drag or a joy depends on what part of the art you want to do your self. Not all painters stretch their own canvases, make the paints or construct the brushes, is it any less art. There are some images created photographically that leave me cold but they are important to the photographer that sought to express emotion in image and as such I try to step outside of my preconcieved ideas and appriciate a different veiw on life. Mind you at times my legs are not long enough to step far enough to appreciate some of the **** that is passed off as art either photographically or otherwise. If you can't print it yourself there will always be someone who can and when it is framed and hung it is still as valid as a piece of art work. Steve Nicholls [Adelaide, Australia]

-- Steve Nicholls (gl1500@chariot.net.au), September 11, 1999.

Very well said Steve. James

-- james (James_mickelson@hotmail.com), September 11, 1999.

I have to chime in here on this string. If you were to decide to have a bookcase build in your home, you would call someone who works daily (and has for years) with the materials necessray to create what you envision. Dispite the fact that you might be able to measure a piece of wood, cut it and screw it together. There are many myths that exist within photography and one of them is that photographers are the best printers of their own work. That by printing there own negatives they manage to impart some type of magical energy into the final result. The fact is that most photographers are , at best, good printers. But its rare to find those that are considered "great" printers. The list of photographers that do not print their own work far out weights the list of those who do. The reason is that these photographers recognize the fact that they are photographers, not printers. The professional printer is someone that has dedicated years to understanding the communicative abilities of the materials. Both technicaly and astheticly. This is not to say that every professional printer has the same depth of knowledge, but if you find one that has this level of understanding of the process it would only serve to increase your understanding of the mediums ability to clearly communicate what it is you have to say. As far as the "value" of prints made by the photographer vs those made by a professional printer ? This is primarly a an issue determined by the market place. If you have the chance, attend an auction of vintage and modern prints someday and see what people are willing to spend and what they are interested in spending it on, you'll be surpised. In fact there is an auction next month in NY that will feature several of Robert Franks early prints (not printed by him) with an openning bid price of $ 6,000 each. On the other hand there are images by other well known photographers (printed by them) that are being offered at $ 1 to 2,000 each. Its always a market issue.

-- jim megargee (jim@mvlabs.com), September 12, 1999.