civilized ku # 792 ~ wherein I almost wax poetic about Sir Ansel / on seeing
Monday, December 6, 2010 at 10:56AM 
Carrot peelings • click to embiggenOver the weekend while we were having a birthday dinner with The Cinemascapist and family, we noted that the hotel bar & grill / pub (very much ground level, sidewalk front, glass walled, open to the public, part local hangout) in which we were eating only had wi-fi for registered hotel guests. I thought it a bit odd but the The Cinemascapist did not because, in his words, "wi-fi is outdated ... you don't need wi-fi because everybody has an iPhone so nobody needs no stinkin' wi-fi."
Say what? Even assuming that he meant that everybody has a so-called "smart" phone, the simple fact of the matter is that not everybody has one. Not by a long shot.
But, that matter aside, what I later got to thinkin' was that, re: electronic media generation wise, so many picture makers' picture viewing - both of their own and those made by others - is done, almost exclusively (and, most often, alone), on a screen of some kind or another. However, I don't care how big, how hi-def, or how impressive the screen might be, the simple fact of the matter is, for most picture viewing purposes, looking at pictures on a screen is a vastly inferior substitute for looking at printed pictures.
A host of other printed picture viewing considerations aside, one of the primary reasons that is so is because viewing pictures on a screen denies the tactile reality of printed pictures as objects / things in and of themselves.
Two examples thereof:
1. A few entries ago, I posted 2 of my Polaroid pictures. I deliberately did not create a pop-up link to bigger versions in order to preserve at least a modicum of the "real" Polaroid viewing experience - what I would call the "preciousness" of their diminutive size.
However, what can't be conveyed on screen is the tactile sensation, in the case of manipulated Polarods, of the "brush strokes" - actually surface indentations caused by whatever instrument one uses to push the emulsion around - that are part-and-parcel of the viewing experience. In addition to that sensation, there is the simple pleasure of holding a small Polaroid print in your hand and, in social circumstances, passing it around for others to hold and experience. And, perhaps, to engage in some lively real "live" chat regarding what you see and feel.
2. I sure that most of you have seen plenty of Sir Ansel's pictures online / on a screen. But, if you have had the experience of looking at an actual print of Sir Ansel's work, you understand that his prints are, in and of themselves, objects/things of incredible beauty (no matter what their actual referent might be). My first such in-the-flesh experience with an Adams' print almost caused me to pee my pants, not to mention the fact that I wanted to physically caress the print and/or shed my clothes and rub it all over my naked body and ............
That said, and other than my oft-stated advocacy for making prints and/or photo books of the results of one's picture making endeavors, I bring this all up as an addendum to the recent entry on photographer's block.
IMO, it is much easier to slip into a state of photographer's block if your own pictures are stashed / hidden away on a hard drive and if your looking at them is limited to on-screen viewing. There simply is no substitute, improving your vision/seeing wise, for printing them and putting them, at least those you consider to be the best thereof, on a wall for viewing.
And let me be perfectly clear about printing them and putting them on a wall. Relatively "quick and dirty" proof prints, printed out on a relatively cheap and simple photo printer, hung on a wall with tape or tacks, will fill the bill quite nicely. The point is to get them on a wall for you (and anyone else who might be interested) to look at and reflect upon on a relatively constant basis.
Think about it. If you don't respect the results of your own picture making endeavors - however developmental / experimental / works-in-progress they might be - enough to bring them out of the (digital) closet and into the real world / tactile light of day, how can you expect anyone else to ever take them seriously.
A question - have you outed any of your pictures? That is to say, out of the digital domain and into the real picture viewing world. If not, why not?
Reader Comments (7)
I am looking at about 2 dozen on my wall at the minute. Couldn't agree more about prints.
First, I know what you mean about seeing Ansel's prints up close. While living in Las Vegas, I went to see a major Adams exhibit and was simply stunned by the technical perfection. Just beautiful black and white photographs. Sadly, you weren't allowed to touch them.
And I also love to make prints. I agree that there's something almost magical about holding a print in your hands. It makes the whole experience more real, somehow.
Having said all that, I also have to say that Apple's iPad is a pretty decent substitute. And I mean "substitute" in the sense that it's very good, but not quite as good as holding a print. But I've found it to be a very good way to show others my own images without carrying a bunch of 8 x 10 prints around. The image quality is extremely good and you do get to "hold it in your hands", sort of. Heck, you can even make a slide show with music if you want.
Absolutely agree about Ansel's prints, I saw his Retrospective exhibition here in the UK a few years ago. With respect to making prints of my own work, I find it quite impossible to determine whether an image makes the grade or not unless I produce a print. The image may already look good on the screen, but if I then optimise it for the print I have in mind, it always looks so much better on the screen as well. I tend to reject those that I can't produce a satisfactory print from.
I make proof prints of every photo I make (after editing out the crap). I admit to studying them a lot, especially just before going to sleep as a last impression thing (weird, OK?) They're easy to handle being printed on 4X6 paper and are much preferred over the files on my iMac. Another thing I love about real honest to goodness prints, the larger ones that is, is that wonderful Bartya aroma from Ilford's GFS paper. It recalls the old days in the darkroom. It's like a hit of something good you won't get staring at your monitor.
I use a professional lab to print 4" x 6" prints of my better images. I like the idea of a physical representation rather than having everything online.
I have two large colour prints framed on my walls and my first B&W print is at the lab this very moment!
I also have a small collection of high-quality photobooks, the most recent being William Albert Allard.
I tend to think of the images I post on my blog as something different than the images I print and display as physical objects. My bog photos are like snapshots to capture thoughts and observations, whereas the images that I print are photos that stand by themselves as work I am proud of.
I was lucky enough to visit an Ansel Adams exhibit in La Coruna approx. 10 years back. It was an interesting show, showcasing also a number of his early photographs, but unfortunately marred somewhat by the reflections of the frame glass. Nevertheless it was fascinating through the direct confrontation with the rich tones and details of his prints.
Yes - prints are something different, maybe the "real thing" in comparison to viewing images on screen. And because of this I now get prints (from a commercial "no automatic improvements" lab) of roughly the 10 best of a month's work - more if there were special events -, and it has changed my experience of my own photography a lot.