Erik van Straten
Mentor
The older they are, the more wanted they will be - if they are in good condition.
Erik.
Erik van Straten
Mentor
There are many examples, millions and millions, of 100 years old or older. See for example some of the the millions of pictures of WW1 here:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/drakeg...57721645804032
Also Henri Cartier-Bressons oldest pictures, from his youth, are still there to be seen. Immortalizing. He was born in 1908. Go figure.
Erik.
Erik van Straten
Mentor
We must not think of our own photo's, but photo's in general. They will be very important for future historical research.
Erik.
Harry the K
Established
Since about 20 years the task of documenting our world is accomplished by digital means. And all the older, historically important darkroom prints, are digitalized by now. Darkroom is a niche, no longer relevant for documenting.
Erik van Straten
Mentor
How do you know? Do you believe this? What are the older, historically important darkroom prints? Are these prints listed or something?
Erik.
Erik van Straten
Mentor
It is easy to guarantee something for 100 years. There is nobody to check it. Do you believe this nonsense? What naivety.
Erik.
Vince Lupo
Nobody's Mentor
Many years ago I did some HABS work (Historic American Building Survey) for the Library of Congress. At that time the buildings had to be photographed in a very specific way, and using large format black and white film. Over 20 years later I checked the HABS site just to see what the photography requirements are and, sure enough, it's still large format black and white film.
For myself, I no longer have a darkroom nor do I have any room for one, and in our (soon-to-be) new house there likely won't be any room for one (and my loving wife just informed me that there will in fact not be a darkroom in our upcoming house, so there’s that), so unless circumstances change my Epson 3880 will have to do. I suspect it might be the same situation for many of us. I really don't mind it at all as the Epson prints look really good, I'm using 'good' 100% cotton rag paper and the Epson K3 Ultra Chrome inks are supposed to be 'archival' and long-lasting (and don't forget that this technology is not static so there will be continual improvements in scanners, printers, ink and papers). Plus I can make all the adjustments I need to (including retouching out all the dust spots!) in one go-round before I print. Will they last as long as a gelatin silver print? Who knows. Shall we all agree to meet back up in, say, 100 years and compare notes? Quite honestly, if I dropped dead today I'm pretty sure that all my work and possibly all my cameras would be chucked in the dumpster -- really nothing that I'll be able to do about it then because, well, I'll be dead. I suspect you might be too someday. I don't think any of my photos will have 'historical' significance and galleries aren't generally interested in them now while I'm alive, so I'm not really too concerned about any kind of 'legacy'. While I do have a handful of shots that are of consistent interest and have sold, by and large it's mostly worthless. Heck I just sold two beautiful large (14"x18") matted and framed Marion Warren gelatin silver prints for $400 each -- in the Annapolis, Maryland area he was a pretty big deal until his death in 2006, but an art gallery dealer recently informed me that he's now pretty much unknown, which unfortunately I don't doubt. And this is a guy whose work has been in Life Magazine alongside Alfred Eisenstaedt's. So no, I'm not worried about whether I'll be remembered in 100 years or if my work survives, as photographers far greater than I’ll ever be have already been forgotten.
I will say that I am shooting a lot more film these days and one thing I'm finding is maybe more important than the print is the negative. The negative can be scanned now and printed on an Epson, but that neg could equally down the road be printed in a darkroom (BTW platinum-palladium is even more stable than silver, so maybe we should all now be printing everything that way). So for me the preservation of the negative is more important than the print. Same goes with the digital file. Right now DNGS, TIFFS and JPEGS are widely readable and hopefully they will be in future, but I recently tried to open a PCD file from 1993 and no modern program would recognize it (bonus points if you know what a PCD file is!).
So I say shoot and print as you prefer - I don't think there's any one 'proper' way to do things, at least I hope there isn't.
Dogman
Mentor
This is kinda nonsense. We have many art photographers working in the darkroom today and producing silver gelatin prints for gallery and printing. Unless he has become unable due to his age, Lee Friedlander comes readily to mind. There are also many others who previously worked with chemicals and light sensitive papers who have switched to digital means. Some still shoot film but now print digitally, some shoot and print totally with digital.
I wish I could get the look I got in the 1970s with Tri-X negatives printed on Portriga-Rapid and Medalist papers. But they're gone. And I'm no longer willing to deal with film and developing and the tedious scanning and cloning out dust spots. I'll accept the digital alternative and try to emulate a bit of the look I once got with what was available decades ago. I dunno if my pictures are gonna be here in 100 years or not. I dunno if they even should be here in 10 years or not. I expect they'll end up in a landfill, even the silver gelatin ones. I'm fine with it either way and I won't be around to care anyway.
EDIT: I was writing while Vince was posting. It's nice to see we have the same attitude.
I wish I could get the look I got in the 1970s with Tri-X negatives printed on Portriga-Rapid and Medalist papers. But they're gone. And I'm no longer willing to deal with film and developing and the tedious scanning and cloning out dust spots. I'll accept the digital alternative and try to emulate a bit of the look I once got with what was available decades ago. I dunno if my pictures are gonna be here in 100 years or not. I dunno if they even should be here in 10 years or not. I expect they'll end up in a landfill, even the silver gelatin ones. I'm fine with it either way and I won't be around to care anyway.
EDIT: I was writing while Vince was posting. It's nice to see we have the same attitude.
Erik van Straten
Mentor
There are much better papers now: Ilford MGFB.
Simply clean your negatives before putting them in the enlarger. I hardly ever have a dust spot on my prints.
Erik.
Harry the K
Established
Put the name of any photographer known to the public into a search engine, and you will be able to see her/his photographs.
The private category is different, of course. My darkroom pics will not survive, I guess, because my children have no interest in them. Landfill. I don´t know about yours, of course.
Erik, the war is over, and digital has won. This insight never influenced my darkroom behaviour, I still print and have fun, and am happy that the materials are still available. And I don´t need a future perspective for my prints.
Erik van Straten
Mentor
There is no war and there was no war. There was a digital tsunami, but there still is film and silver gelatin paper. You've heard what Bell said: collectors have no interest in digital prints. They want silver gelatin and other prints made with a noble process. Analog photography became a fine art.
Erik.
Harry the K
Established
Until digital caught up with darkroom qualitywise, which happened at about 6 oder 7 Megapixel sensors, it felt at least like a war of oppinions.
A fine art, yes, no doubt. But documentary is a different pair of boots.
Out to Lunch
Menteur
"A noble process". I had a good laugh at that, Erik. I know someone in Saigon who owns a large collection of prints -both, silver gelatin, and digital. He doesn't buy all of these prints by his lonesome since he's too busy making money but is guided by a respectable NY gallery owner. You may say that he's hedging his bets but I believe that he wants to own contemporary work which is often not available in silver gelatin. Cheers, OtL
Erik van Straten
Mentor
Do you believe it or do you know it?
Don't think I have anything against digital photography. It's good for internet use and the like - as long as you don't think digital photography is an "advancement". Many people do.
Erik.
Dogman
Mentor
Erik, are you familiar with Richard Benson? A no nonsense guy, Benson was a dean of Yale Art School in USA and was known as a master printer. Along with a long list of inventions and designs for printing books and photographs, he was the darkroom printer for Paul Strand's photos for Strand's last books. Benson lived with Strand and his wife while printing the negatives chosen. He shot a lot with large format camera for most of his life but he began to become interested in digital photography and developed a methods of printing digitally. He felt that, without doubt, digital means of photographing and printing was the highest quality achievable with the technology available at the time (he died in 2017). IIRC, he was using a Canon digital camera, iMac computer and Epson printer for his own work by the end of his life. I'm no expert. Benson was.
Benson is a bit of a hero of mine for one of his statements. He said the only thing that matters is how the picture looks--not how you make it look that way. It was kinda like an epiphany for me when I read those words. Nobody really gives a damn how much you put into your photographs, they just look at the pictures. Big collectors might prize a certain method used but those collectors don't really give a damn about quality, they collect for investment. Art galleries may prefer a certain method but all you have to do is look at what is considered "art" today and you know they really don't give a damn about anything except the business side.
Benson is a bit of a hero of mine for one of his statements. He said the only thing that matters is how the picture looks--not how you make it look that way. It was kinda like an epiphany for me when I read those words. Nobody really gives a damn how much you put into your photographs, they just look at the pictures. Big collectors might prize a certain method used but those collectors don't really give a damn about quality, they collect for investment. Art galleries may prefer a certain method but all you have to do is look at what is considered "art" today and you know they really don't give a damn about anything except the business side.
Vince Lupo
Nobody's Mentor
Wow really well-said, and I definitely learned something. Just goes to show that there are many ways to go about doing things to achieve an end.
I just looked up Richard Benson and came across this short video: https://www.google.com/search?q=rich...id:RBzbdb6zNZw
This one is over an hour long and is presented by the New School. It’s from 2011 so some of the technology they’re talking about has of course changed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQCfdhmgfj8
Many thanks for the bit of education!
Erik van Straten
Mentor
Yes, but I only give a damn about artistic achievements made by people. Art that is made by a machine, leaves me cold. I can't help it.
Erik.
ptpdprinter
Mentor
I remember something Dan Burkholder said in a lecture to the effect that you don't get extra credit just because an image was hard to make.
Erik van Straten
Mentor
Yes, that is well known, a painting appears more beautiful if it gives the impression of being made with the greatest of ease, take Velasquez for example. But if something is made by a machine, it doesn't make any impression at all.
Erik.
PRJ
Another Day in Paradise
Get your head out of the sand and look around. The art world moved past your bias many many years ago. I'd say at least 90% if not more of the photographs sold today from contemporary photographers are color, and almost no one prints color in the darkroom any more because of size requirements in the modern art world. That means they are all produced digitally in one way or another. Even the old stalwarts like Eggleston and modern dudes like Hido have their images printed with ink squirts on paper.
If you like making prints in the darkroom for yourself that is one thing, but claiming what you are claiming is just plain dense. There is a small subset of collectors that prefer silver prints no doubt but they are a small subset, not the majority.
Personally I prefer silver prints for black and white and I'd prefer to make color prints in the darkroom too. Color in the darkroom is more a pain than it is worth to me, so I scan film and print in with ink squirts on paper, or as I refer to is as, stinkjet, because back in the day it stunk. If I had a roller transport machine I'd probably do color in the darkroom too. They look nice.
There is no point arguing about anything either. If your work is good enough you could print it on tissue paper and some museum somewhere who has people specializing in print preservation will figure out a way to preserve it.
99.9999999% of all photographs ever taken have been lost to time. It has always been that way and always will be.