Digital BW, The Print

Tyler,

I know I get to the point where I have 3 or 4 full size prints and I 
will ask my wife which she liked best. He reply is often. "The all 
look the same." I could see that one was a little lighter in this 
corner or had more contrast in the top burn but I had gone past the 
point of making meaningful, discernable changes. I found that if I 
put those prints away for a few weeks, I couldn't tell one from 
another either when I took them back out.

I think that this is the way it should be. You need to satisfy 
yourself that you have exhausted all or most of the possibilities. 
This really doesn't work for commercial work where time and cost are 
issues but we should be able to do this for the personal or "fine 
art" prints. If you don't push it past optimum it is difficult to 
know where that point is.

I don't know where you decide to stop. I think maybe you can just 
decide to give it a rest and take it up again the next time you print 
the image. I always loved the story of impressionist painter Bonard
(?) who was caught in a museum making some minor changes to one of 
this paintings hanging on the wall. Perhaps they are never really 
done.

I think that my prints are not truthful about the scene but hopefully 
are truthful about my reaction and feelings to what was in front of 
the camera. Same thing maybe.

I have never been comfortable with artist's statements or 
explanations of a work of art. I think a print is like a joke. If you 
have to explain it, most of the spirit is lost. Once you get to the 
heart of the matter, it seems like all you can do is ramble because 
the truth is in the prints and not in what you can write about them.

Martin


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Tyler Boley" <tyler@t...> 
wrote:
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Martin Wesley" 
<mwesley250@e...> wrote:
> > I know exactly what you mean. While the overall adjustments may 
work 
> > okay, local contrasts and brightnesses may not work at all. In 
the 
> > small print some small area is fine and at a larger size it 
becomes a 
> > featureless blob that needs local contrast work.
> 
> Right. The hard thing is knowing what to do when it just isn't 
there. Sometimes the smallest overall shift darker or lighter 
> can bring everything alive, and you wouldn't have known untill you 
see it. So does that mean you try every possible version 
> just to see it? Yikes. Or you'll jump through all these hoops, only 
to look at an earlier version and realise it's gorgeous, but 
> you didn't see it. It's hard to know when to stop, or just accept 
that a given image won't yeild an extraordinarily luminous 
> print, the image alone will have to carry it. But as Ken Smith put 
it beautifully one day, you can't print in a way that lies 
> about the image, it's a sin :)
> 
>  Mostly it is just 
> > the aesthetics. Things simply do not look the same as the print 
> > changes size. Works both ways too. An image that looks great as a 
> > 16x20 may not come across well at 8x10.
> 
> This is true for me. I tend to have a lot of textural eye candy 
over a high percentage of the print, but the underlying overall 
> graphic is not bold, pretty subtle. When I started making larger 
prints, I got a better grasp of what I was up to, and was 
> able to revisit some things that never worked smaller, then start 
to go WITH it. It constantly amazes me what revelations 
> still come about, it never really ends. That's why I still think 
there is art in the craft part as well.
> Jeez, I'm rambling. Better get some work done today.
> Tyler