Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/10/17

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: Re: [Leica] Re: dry & wet darkroom :-()-:
From: Martin Howard <howard.390@osu.edu>
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 21:33:05 -0400

Tina Manley jotted down the following:

> How can you judge something without seeing it first?

I'm not judging the quality of the prints.  I'm making a comment on the
relationship between an artifact and its price.  I don't know or care
whether piezography prints look better or worse than silver gelatin prints,
which is irrelevant to the point I'm making.  What I do care about is that
computer-controlled print production will allow you to produce large numbers
of absolutely identical prints, while traditional print making doesn't.  Or,
at least, requires a hell of a lot more work to achieve the same thing.

But that is too, beside the point.  The main point is that computers are
great at doing the same thing over and over again (series production) while
humans are not (craft).  Introducing an element of series production into a
craft reduces something of the craft-ness ;)  It's this fundamental nature
of the process that is interesting in this relationship between artifact and
price.

> As anyone who has tried printing with the Epson printers can tell you,
> humidity, inks, temperature, paper surface, paper weight, thickness
> settings, etc., can all make a difference.  It's not as easy to get
> identical prints as you might think.

Ah, but if I'm using the same file to print the same image on the same
paper, then only temperature and humidity remain as variables.  (If, as part
of this discourse, we're assuming the strive to make identical prints in the
darkroom, then the same premises should apply to the computer-controlled
print production too).  I'm willing to make an educated guess that they
affect the final image quality much less than equivalent variables in a
darkroom.

> I still think we pay for uniqueness of image, not uniqueness of process.

Uniqueness of image *comes* from non-uniqueness of process, to some extent.
Image has to be seen holistically, or I could go out and photograph a friend
jumping over a puddle and sell it for as much as a new print of the Gare St.
Lazare negative.

Still, I believe it's a combination of the two.  While not an art dealer
myself, I believe I've read enough about the buying and selling of works of
art to draw this conclusion.

Buying art, like stocks, has more to do with psychology than anything else.
Which is why paintings sell for more than photographs and why silver gelatin
prints sell for more than ink-jet ones.  If you can get away with selling
your piezography prints for the same as your silver-gelatin ones,
congratulations.  But I'm pretty sure that you're an exception to the rule.


Tina, please don't take any of this personally.  I love a good discussion
and have no problem with the fact that we disagree on some points.  I know
that you are much more experienced in these processes than I, but I'm much
too stubborn-headed to conceed to seniority alone! ;) ;) ;)

M.

- -- 
Martin Howard                     |
Visiting Scholar, CSEL, OSU       |     It is essentially contestable.
email: howard.390@osu.edu         |
www: http://mvhoward.i.am/        +---------------------------------------

Replies: Reply from bfranson@greennet.net (Bill Franson) (Re: [Leica] Re: dry & wet darkroom :-()-:)