St3v3M Loc: 35,000 feet

An interesting question came up while looking over another thread I thought I would ask here so as not to hijack the original post.

The statement was: "...but not photography that would make it to print, frame or any wall."

So, when taking a picture, or at least when presenting it to others, does it always have to be of the quality where you'd want to print it?

Curious. S-

Mark7829 Loc: Calfornia

I think when you present an image for your consideration, it is for purpose. A reasonable purpose would be to gather feedback, ask a question or present an issue. But if you want to just share an image that may be humorous for example I think that might be for another forum where it is clear that the purpose is just to share.

St3v3M Loc: 35,000 feet

It's a fair point of view, and I suspect I know your answer, but what do you think. Should every image be presented thinking it's going to print, or are there occasions when it's acceptable to present something less than, say for fun for example?

And thanks for being the first to answer! S-

Mark7829 Loc: Calfornia

The ultimate goal of every photographer is to take the image to print. In print the photograph becomes art. The print is tangible, physical, and real . It can change the mood of any wall in any room. Good photos properly printed look better than any LCD. The print provides better feedback for the photographer as well. Prints will often expose the image's strengths and weaknesses better than an LCD. There is more detail in the print than can be found on the LCD. What you see on the LCD is just a facsimile. The print is original and has far greater value.

St3v3M Loc: 35,000 feet

I appreciate your reply, and understand your point of view, but to add my own I think you may have to define the word photographer to qualify your statement as I believe there are many, many, many people out there today taking photos that have no idea, or want, to print images and simply share them to allow others to see them. For them, the digital revolution is about more than the camera, and has extended to the digital medium as well, set out in the same way as a print would in your world. Is one better than the other, I imagine that is an answer best left to those who share them for their own personal reasons.

Thank you again for your reply, and for sharing your opinion. S-

Mark7829 Loc: Calfornia

There is no need to define it but rather categorize it along the continuum from amateur to master. The masters always print. Print is better. It is the art the final step where you make decisions on ink, paper, mat, glass and frame or other hard media. Prints are displayed. Only prints are judged in competitions not LCDs and end up in homes and museums.

St3v3M Loc: 35,000 feet

That makes more sense now and I appreciate it! S-

Dave Chinn

As naive and gullible I can be, I don't understand why it has to be, "the ultimate goal of every photographer is to take the image to print". "The print is original and has far greater value" is just an opinion. There are online photo competitions that work just as well. Not everyone has the need or interest to print. Does that place them in the amateur category? I think not. Having the credentials of a master doesn't necessarily make them a master, maybe on paper but in reality? No.

I enjoy a print just as much as the next person. If there is no need for a print then a LCD will do just fine for most. This just my opinion and I do think I will stick to it. It has worked out fine so far.
Dave

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

"So, when taking a picture, or at least when presenting it to others, does it always have to be of the quality where you'd want to print it?"

"When presenting to others..." there are several reasons I post photos to UHH:

1. In Photo Gallery and Close-up forums it is most often to share what I consider a pretty or interesting subject or scene, one I've hopefully shot and edited to a decent-enough quality that others can enjoy and even perhaps occasionally be inspired by (because UHH covers a very broad spectrum of interest and experience).

2. In FYC, often my topics of a single photo are to ask for help regarding either composition - including cropping - or pp, or to use as a starting point for broader discussion (see my latest topic on mountains).

With all these examples I have rarely think in terms of "print-worthy" because some of my favorite images that I do print are not necessarily those that have received favorable feedback or popularity when shared with others.

Also, I print fewer than I used to anyway. Often now it's enough for me to have just enjoyed the experience of being out in nature, capturing a fleeting moment of beauty, enjoying it while I'm editing, maybe sometimes looking back at it, but mostly just moving forward to the next adventure.

The value is in the original experience, the editing to finish a vision of that experience, and to a lesser extent, the sharing in photo forums. I suspect this defines me as "hobbyist" photographer

Uuglypher Loc: South Dakota (East River)

If to take the image to a laudable print is not the aim of each exposure, then a major proportion of the "snapper's" output will be incapable of development to acceptable print quality.

edited...sounded pompous!

Dave

mcveed Loc: Kelowna, British Columbia (between trips)

All of this is, of course, just your opinion. Right? Your statement that "masters always print" is only true if you define "master" as "one who prints". Otherwise it is only your opinion; I know several photographers whom I would consider "masters" who either don't print or print very few of their "masterpieces". The statement "Print is better" is only true if by "better" you mean higher quality. With this I would agree, however electronic format can be enjoyed by millions in a short period of time where prints can only be enjoyed by those who go to the museum or gallery. I consider this ease of distribution to be a significant aspect of "better". Prints are not the only medium judged in competitions: witness the plethora of internet photo competitions. Prints do, indeed, get displayed and end up in homes. But so do millions of digital images get displayed on digital photo frames in homes and businesses, and even in some modern galleries. The statement that "The print is the ultimate expression of the photograph" is becoming less and less relevant and more elitist as time goes by. This is, of course, only my opinion, which I readily acknowledge.

Graham Smith Loc: Cambridgeshire UK

I never print, I have no desire to print.

Dave Chinn and Linda, in their replies, echo my thoughts exactly.

Also printing uses valuable natural resources by the manufacture of paper, printers and cartridges. I wonder how much paper the average home photo printer tosses in the bin?. My guess is a lot.
Printers are, by design, life limited. The manufactures claim that they are recyclable but just how many actually get recycled? My guess is that it is only a very small proportion. How many use vegetable based ink in their printers? Again my guess is very few.

mcveed Loc: Kelowna, British Columbia (between trips)

Absolutely not! Take a look at photo essays presented in National Geographic, Arizona Highways, or any number of similar magazines, and you will find many excellent and informative photographs that would never make it to 'print, frame, or any wall'. Does that diminish their value, beauty or quality? Not in my opinion. When I visit a new area or city, I often task myself with creating a "photo essay" which captures the essence or spirit of the area. The photos will include few that I would consider for framing and hanging, including close ups and detailed images of certain aspects that I find interesting. I am primarily a nature photographer, and like Linda from Maine, I consider the experience of just capturing a good clear photo worth the effort. Many of these photographs are never seen by anyone except me, but I look at them often on my computer thereby reliving the experience of capturing them. For me the decision to print a photograph is based more on subject matter than quality. Except for select bird and landscape photos most of my photographs are not considered for "the ultimate expression". Certainly more of my photographs are printed in self-published photo books than ever make it to the wall.

pfrancke Loc: cold Maine

many reasons to take a photograph. But I would argue that it is not to print. It is to PRESENT. Our presentation technologies go far beyond print. Now having said all that, I am in complete agreement that energies spent to make the PRESENTATION more interesting, powerful, have greater impact, etc are precisely what the goals of the photographer/artist are about. The tools are composition, camera skills, post processing skills, observation skills, etc, etc. Skills applied to be able to improve the "presentation" (new word to replace that old technology word print).

Edit - and Steve did say "when presenting...". Powerful presentation is the goal, and as has been pointed out by others, the journey itself that allows us to see the world in ways we never have before, is much more important than the destination of powerful presentation.

jenny Loc: in hiding:)

When asking, "Do you print?", what exactly is meant by the question, and what is meant in the answer?
And of course the answers are individual for the uses of photography are many.

But to answer the question for myself, YES, I print. That does not mean I send out an image for someone ELSE to
print FOR me, as that is sometimes the answer from those who do. We see many anecdotes on UH from those who
never print and send out for everything only to find "decapitated relatives" and iconic travel image subjects have
been sliced to lack of recognition.

To get into printing for yourself is another extremely valuable lesson in how to use your camera, particularly for those
of us who do our serious work in either portraiture or still life. This, rather than casual snap-shooting or landscape, is
where we especially notice distortion, learn to plan exactly where we want every part of our image to be in the frame,
learn to frame for the total image without cropping, learn to avoid the pitfalls that occur when deviating too far from
the aspect ratio in which we expose our images, etc..

And yes, basically when dong serious work, my goal is wall-worthy quality as there is too much time and effort involved
in bringing my vision of a planned picture together, gathering props and setting up a still life, to be careless in what is
then done with it. Therefore the number of pictures exposed in a year might be many fewer than those some people
may snap in a day. This does not however, mean some event or object isn't photographed to share casually with family
by email and then deleted. To each and all, then, his, hers, and their own.