Reading mode: Light Dark

Fine Art Prints?

Go to last post
Robin. I'm afraid that your pictures would benefit by cropping.

I invite readers to indeed click on your link below and then click on the b&w Market picture from Hungary. The screen will fill with about twenty thumbnails. Do noty click on any but just cast your eye over them all for a quick impression (which is what one does automatically anyway). What I immediately notice that was that NONE had anything that immediately drew me in. None of them had a strong subject that beckoned me with ..."Here's a story". I'm sorry but none of the images were strong images. All very generalised, nice pretty, sharp, well processed scenes. But I'm sorry to say overall not very interesting.
There is a fine line between average photography and great pictures.
Just my view.
Jules

................................................
nk4002r said:
This is a great discussion! I like the attitude. No need for
cropping, if you frame right and pay attention to your composition.
I prefer not to manipulate the image after taken, but reshoot
instead...

http://picasaweb.google.com/oveges/
Click to expand...
--
Black holes do not destroy information.
 
can't you just work for Purist magazine only?
Don Mason said:
Some years ago my pro group and I decided that it was time to
reject the current crass modernistic style of photography, and
return to our Purist roots.

Although I have enjoyed staying within the Purist domain, it has
caused a tremendous increase in overhead expenses for my
advertising work.

Having custom cameras manufactured for every conceivable image
cropping ratio format needed for layout work has cost me a fortune.

But, at least I never need to crop, and can remain a true Purist.

Cheers!
Click to expand...
 
Could be. But it's one factor out of many.
Jules
teresopolis said:
JulesJ said:
................................................
nk4002r said:
This is a great discussion! I like the attitude. No need for
cropping, if you frame right and pay attention to your composition.
I prefer not to manipulate the image after taken, but reshoot
instead...

http://picasaweb.google.com/oveges/
Click to expand...
--
Black holes do not destroy information.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
Black holes do not destroy information.
 
I must confess that whilst I find the concept an interesting curiosity, I'm baffled as to its utility.

Surely, the goal is to produce the finest photographs circumstances and talent allow. This 'purest' approach seems akin to shooting with a blindfold on i.e. it's all very meritorious in a self-flaggelating kind of way an no doubt it helps people with a certain twist of mind feel good about themselves but photographically speaking, what's the point of it?
kellert said:
cropping mean you didn't get it right in the first place or you are
trying to be dubious about something.
DMillier said:
I don't understand what you mean by purist.

Why do you not allow cropping?

And why do you insist on ACR?
kellert said:
Joseph S. Wisniewski said:
kellert said:
well, that's not the way me and my group approach matters. i guess
we're trailblazers of sorts.
Click to expand...
Just out of curiosity, who are you and your "group"?

--
Normally, a signature this small can't open its own jumpgate.

Ciao! Joe

http://www.swissarmyfork.com
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
Galleries and website: http://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/mainindex.htm
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
Galleries and website: http://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/mainindex.htm
 
It's perhaps in the eye of the beholder, but I tend to agree. Competent but not inspiring for me...
JulesJ said:
................................................
nk4002r said:
This is a great discussion! I like the attitude. No need for
cropping, if you frame right and pay attention to your composition.
I prefer not to manipulate the image after taken, but reshoot
instead...

http://picasaweb.google.com/oveges/
Click to expand...
--
Black holes do not destroy information.
Click to expand...
--
Galleries and website: http://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/mainindex.htm
 
Jim Coffey said:
Purists shoot slides; use Leica's (none of this SLR stuff); and
available light.

Of course, the super - pure use glass negatives.

If you want 99.44% pure you use Ivory.
Click to expand...
As pure as Marilyn, my favorite Ivory girl...

--
Normally, a signature this small can't open its own jumpgate.

Ciao! Joe

http://www.swissarmyfork.com
 
Gediminas 8 said:
Can someone define please?

Is it same as a 'contact sheet'?
Click to expand...
As DMiller said, the principle is the same. But the goal isn't. A "contact sheet" is made by placing a bunch of relatively small negatives (35mm or medium format) in contact with a piece of printing paper, but it's done in a "one size fits all" fashion to give you a "preview". The paper contrast grade is typically "average", maybe a grade 3. The exposure is right for a properly exposed negative (this is good, it lets you see which shots need more or less) and the development is purely generic.

An exhibition grade contact print is made from a large format negative, typically a 4x5, 5x7, or 8x10 (but you do see some 11x14 and 16x20). The paper contrast grade, exposure, development, and toning are fine tuned to match that image. In order to capture every last bit of negative resolution, the printing frame pressure is often very high (some use vacuum frames) and the exposure is often done with a special "point source" that yields even more contrast and acuity than a condenser enlarger. There may even be dodging and burning (my friend Bryce has a 16x20 contact printer that has that capability. Bryce is a purist. Kellert is something else).

Because the contact print caries so much of the resolution of a big negative, it's very highly detailed. 8x10 lenses may not be as sharp as those used with 35mm cameras in an absolute sense, but in proportion to the image size, they're much sharper.

A really good 35mm lens (like most 50-60mm macros) has much higher resolution than a 35mm sensor or film: typically somewhere around 200-300 line pairs/mm. You need 8x enlargement to make an 8x10 print from 35mm film. If you captured all of that 300 lpm resolution on a super slow, high resolution B&W film, and made a great 8x10 on an enlarger, with good lens and perfect focus, you'd be down to 37 lpm. That would still be a stunning print, much better than the average digital shooter is used to. That's also a theoretical limit with "heroic" technique. I'm good, and even my best tries with TechPan (a very high res film) and an excellent Schneider lens never got past 20 lpm. That's still a blazing detailed print, the normal criteria for "sharp" at typical viewing distance is 8 lpm. At arms length, say 3 feet (1m) away, the 20 lpm print is stunning. It breaks down at 18 inches (50cm) so if someone can get close to it when it's hanging on the wall, or in their hands (and they will get close to it, mark my words) it looks OK, but not "snappy". And you're enlarging 8x, which means dust and scratches get enlarged 8x.

The highest resolution DSLR sensors run about 100 lpm (5 micron pixel, 10 micron "pair") and don't lay more than about 10 lmp into an 8x10. But due to the difference in rolloff characteristics between digital and film, 10lpm digital looks a lot like 15 lmp film. They beat the snot out of just about any 100 or 400 speed B&W film, and pretty much any color film, but can't quite match a slow 25 speed B&W like TechPan or Bluefire just yet.

An 8x10 medium format lens may have trouble exceeding 1/4 the resolution of a good lens for 35mm: 50 lmp is typical. But you get nearly all of that resolution carried over from the negative to the contact print. The 40 lpm print is actually quite doable. And the technique for 40 lmp on large format 8x10 isn't as "heroic" as trying to get a 20 lpm 8x10 from 35mm film. The print is stunning at any distance, right up to the close focus limits of good vision under bright light.

It's hard to print digital with that kind of resolution. Even so called 2880 and 5760 dpi printers work by dividing the image into basic "cells" at 720 dpi, which is only 14 lpm. So, they can print an 8x10 as well as the best possible work with 35mm film (taking into consideration that roll-off characteristic again), but can't match an 8x10 contact print.

Now, I've done digital work with that kind of resolution. I've used an experimental "cell less" dither on GRIP that operates at 1440 dpi, or 28 lpm (also experimented with 1440x2880, but haven't quite got the non-square dither down yet) and taken stitched D2X images (3x3 to get 54mp (a true 18lpm) or 4x4 for 96mp (a true 24 lpm) on an 8x10 print. The results are, to say the least, stunning...

wizfaq

--
Normally, a signature this small can't open its own jumpgate.

Ciao! Joe

http://www.swissarmyfork.com
 
how are the pistons going to do this year?

do you think wallace finally has the mental thing down?
 
The title of my post is not intended to be disrespectful to you. I believe intellectual elitism and snobbery wreck art. This purism stuff is related to intellectual elitism and snobbery.
--
thezero
 
DMillier said:
A contact print is a single image printed by placing the negative
directly on the printing paper i.e. there is no enlargement done.
Click to expand...
Thanks. The contact technique is familiar to me since my childhood days of making my own prints in a darkened bathroom, but I had no idea why single images would be printed that way before Joe's explanation.

--
A travel gallery of my country and some others:
http://www.pbase.com/lithuania
 
I don't have anything against anyone who decides to pursue their muse in any particular style they prefer - that's a private for them.

But I must confess I do object to the implication pushed by some that a particular approach is 'superior' in some global sense.

I think the distinction between elitist snobbery and reputable art is probably one made by the consumer of the work - good work is usually (not admittedly always) recognised as such while indifferent work is often forced to rely on puffery and snobbery to sustain its survival. Sadly, the vagaries of fashion often come to rescue of mediocrity too.
Duwane Huffaker said:
The title of my post is not intended to be disrespectful to you. I
believe intellectual elitism and snobbery wreck art. This purism
stuff is related to intellectual elitism and snobbery.
--
thezero
Click to expand...
--
Galleries and website: http://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/mainindex.htm
 
kellert said:
at this moment we're not taking applications because we are in the
middle of a project.

we do have a web site, but i am not at liberty to give it out as it
is used for exclusive collaboration among the artists.

if you are truly interested i will contact you via e-mail the
moment we finish up with our current project.

keep in mind that we work together to create fantastic projects
that are highly theme-oriented. one of our primary goals is to show
commonality in life.
Click to expand...
Will you share one of your your groups projects?
Where can I see it?
Thanks

--
photography
 
Kellert - I've read your posts in this thread and feel compelled to comment.

I think the "rules" you and your group have imposed are fine if that's the exercise you want to go through. However, to call them "purism" is artificial at best, and comes across as elitist and judgemental.

First, you allow adjustments in ACR. Let's be honest, you can do a LOT in ACR that would push the picture far beyond the boundaries of what would be considered "pure" photography by most folks. [Just as you can do many things in-camera with filters and such that aren't "pure".]

Further, the idea of using a "normal" lens only is an artificial rule. Again, a perfectly fine exercise, and it will help ensure a certain continuity between the images created by the 11 photographers, while also providing an interesting way to think about the differences between visions achievable with functionally-equivalent equipment. But still artificial.

Also, at the small size you are printing, the idea of using a MF rig to take a square picture and only using full frames from the 5ds is also artificial and not likely to create a meaningful difference. I often take pictures using a 3:2 camera INTENDING for them to be cropped? How is that expression of vision necessarily different from expressing it on a 6x6 negative or transparency.

I guess in the end, I think that you're creating an interesting exercise, and if it produces something interesting it will have been worthwhile. But calling it "purism" is using a broad gray line to try to define a narrow space.
  • Marshall
 
i think i've already explained why i can not....at least not over the http://www .

however, if you actually reside in the santa barbara area i might be able to show you some past project portfolios that i normally carry in my van.

it just so happens that i'm going to be doing some work at the biltmore tomorrow from about 10 - 1. i'll be staying with one of our members in montecito shores over night. we'll be around the putting green area at the biltmore.
photography said:
kellert said:
at this moment we're not taking applications because we are in the
middle of a project.

we do have a web site, but i am not at liberty to give it out as it
is used for exclusive collaboration among the artists.

if you are truly interested i will contact you via e-mail the
moment we finish up with our current project.

keep in mind that we work together to create fantastic projects
that are highly theme-oriented. one of our primary goals is to show
commonality in life.
Click to expand...
Will you share one of your your groups projects?
Where can I see it?
Thanks

--
photography
Click to expand...
 
JulesJ said:
Robin. I'm afraid that your pictures would benefit by cropping.
Click to expand...
I disagree. No amount of cropping could make those fine-art... They are social-commentary. Probably, sad people on old bicycles are not your thing, that is why the pictures did not draw you in. There are many stories in this series, right there... I redeveloped them - so that they should not be as digital-like color-less, but more film-like black&white.
 
well, i'll share your views with my fellow members, but i'm not sure it's going to change our direction our outlook.

by the way, we're some 50 members from 11 different countries.
mpgoff said:
Kellert - I've read your posts in this thread and feel compelled to
comment.

I think the "rules" you and your group have imposed are fine if
that's the exercise you want to go through. However, to call them
"purism" is artificial at best, and comes across as elitist and
judgemental.

First, you allow adjustments in ACR. Let's be honest, you can do a
LOT in ACR that would push the picture far beyond the boundaries of
what would be considered "pure" photography by most folks. [Just
as you can do many things in-camera with filters and such that
aren't "pure".]

Further, the idea of using a "normal" lens only is an artificial
rule. Again, a perfectly fine exercise, and it will help ensure a
certain continuity between the images created by the 11
photographers, while also providing an interesting way to think
about the differences between visions achievable with
functionally-equivalent equipment. But still artificial.

Also, at the small size you are printing, the idea of using a MF
rig to take a square picture and only using full frames from the
5ds is also artificial and not likely to create a meaningful
difference. I often take pictures using a 3:2 camera INTENDING for
them to be cropped? How is that expression of vision necessarily
different from expressing it on a 6x6 negative or transparency.

I guess in the end, I think that you're creating an interesting
exercise, and if it produces something interesting it will have
been worthwhile. But calling it "purism" is using a broad gray
line to try to define a narrow space.
  • Marshall
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top