man & nature # 214 ~ prints
Friday, August 21, 2009 at 10:39AM 
Sundown from the Main Street bridge ~ Au Sable Forks, NY • click to embiggenDuring last week's visit with Aaron's workshop participants, one person in particular - who was familiar with my decay pictures from viewing them online here on The Landscapist - was kinda blown away when he viewed an actual print (24×24') of one of those pictures. I'm paraphrasing here but the reaction was along the lines of ...
Wow. The difference between seeing this picture online versus seeing it in print is amazing. I know that you are an advocate for making and viewing prints, and I agree, but this viewing experience really drives that point home in a very dramatic manner.
... or words to that effect. And that set my mind to wandering.
The one photo constant in my life was the C print - a negative-to-positive chromogenic print also known as a color coupler print. They were there when I started (back in 1967) and they were there until I dropped out of film-based picturing long about 2003. As far as I know, they are still there.
For almost all of that time, I made my own C prints - thousands of them, most of them for my commercial photography endeavors - during which time I became intimately familiar with and quite enamored of the look of C prints. The fact that C prints are made from color negatives, which have the most extended dynamic range capability of all color films and are very adept at reproducing subtle colors, gave the prints a beautiful appearance that was quite natural in look and feel.
C prints were, almost by default, the preferred media for those in the Fine Art scheme of things. A small number of Fine Art picture makers used Cibachrome prints, primarily for their archival qualities, but Cibachrome prints never had broad appeal due to the fact that the printing process (which used highly toxic / abrasive chemicals) was a positive-to-positive one - from one high contrast media (transparencies) to another very high contrast one (the cibachrome papers). Cibachrome prints were tack sharp and long-lived but also known for texture-less blacks, blown highlights, and colors that were, well, metallic chrome-like. All of which was exacerbated by an extremely high-gloss paper surface.
All of that said, I believe that comment regarding online viewing v. print viewing came in large part due to the fact that, independent of subject matter, a beautifully crafted print is, in an of itself, an object that can command its own attention.
Obvious examples of such are the BW prints of Ansel Adams, the dye-transfer prints of Eliot Porter, and the C prints of Joel Meyerowitz. It is very easy to get lost in just the very surface of such prints. I would have no argument whatsoever with someone who purchased one those prints to hang on their wall just to admire the print - and so that they could say,"isn't that beautiful" - meaning the print, not the picture.
That is not to say that I would do so - my preference is for beautiful prints with interesting pictures on their surface.
All of that said, I was wondering how many of you have ever seen a C print and I don't mean of the drugstore, 1-hr print variety (yes, those were C prints). What I mean is a C print that is produced to high standards and mostly likely viewed in gallery. Prints made by/for the likes of Joel Meyerowitz whose Cape Light prints are amongst the most beautiful prints of any kind that I have ever seen.
Reader Comments (2)
Indeed, they are beautiful! In fact, after seeing any good print (or often even an ink jet print), viewing the same image online is disappointing.
It's an interesting train of though, especially given current technology. I've seen some great C prints & Cibachromes. Some really nice silver prints (although not by the landscape masters). I own a couple of really nice dye transfer prints and would love to see some original Porters.
I have also seen some very fine inkjet prints which stand up to some of the best of the other processes.
I was, however, interested to see Man Ray's originals. He was one less interested in the print as an artefact and more as the means of mass production of the visual representation of an idea. His prints aren't high quality but that's not the point.
I think we're are at a point where these things can merge: the high quality mass production of the visual representation of an idea. Both worlds at once.