Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Fine Art Photography: Ultimate Expression of  (Read 4034 times)
Farkled
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 97


« on: July 03, 2008, 06:35:05 PM »
ReplyReply

Is a print the ultimate expression of a fine art photograph?  If so, will it continue to be?  If not, then what is and what will be?  

I mean the word ultimate both in the sense of last as well as best.

I have a feeling that, in not too many years, display frames will achieve a resolution that exceeds that of the human eye and will do so in fine art sizes at a a tolerable cost.  If I am correct, will these frames overtake prints?

If I am not correct, will anything challenge the print in the next 50 years?
Logged
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #1 on: July 04, 2008, 10:02:34 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Is a print the ultimate expression of a fine art photograph?  If so, will it continue to be?  If not, then what is and what will be? 

I mean the word ultimate both in the sense of last as well as best.

I have a feeling that, in not too many years, display frames will achieve a resolution that exceeds that of the human eye and will do so in fine art sizes at a a tolerable cost.  If I am correct, will these frames overtake prints?

If I am not correct, will anything challenge the print in the next 50 years?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205373\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I shall not, unfortunately, be around to know in 50 years, but for what itīs worth, I think that the print will remain if only because people take pleasure in making them as others in displaying them.

The chances of higher technology becoming cheaper than a very basic one - not really, I think.

Rob C
Logged

wolfnowl
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5807



WWW
« Reply #2 on: July 04, 2008, 03:39:09 PM »
ReplyReply

I don't know about cost, but there are already electronic photo frames.  Imagine something like a 30" or 40" LCD or plasma screen mounted on your wall, networked to your computer system, that displays either a single image or a gallery of images at a preset pace.  It could take over prints in the future.  There are pros and cons of course, but if the technology exists someone will implement it.

Mike.
Logged

If your mind is attuned to beauty, you find beauty in everything.
~ Jean Cooke ~


My Flickr site / Random Thoughts and Other Meanderings at M&M's Musings
Dansk
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 153


« Reply #3 on: July 04, 2008, 03:48:05 PM »
ReplyReply

Electronic picture frames/viewers are never going to displace prints, rather compliment them. TV didnt kill radio, photography didnt kill painting, the VCR didnt kill the movie theater, in fact theres still huge markets for all of them.

 Theres all sorts of art movement in multi media. Pipilotti Rist, Douglas Gordon come to mind
« Last Edit: July 04, 2008, 03:49:13 PM by Dansk » Logged
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #4 on: July 04, 2008, 04:55:05 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I don't know about cost, but there are already electronic photo frames.  Imagine something like a 30" or 40" LCD or plasma screen mounted on your wall, networked to your computer system, that displays either a single image or a gallery of images at a preset pace.  It could take over prints in the future.  There are pros and cons of course, but if the technology exists someone will implement it.

Mike.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205547\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yes, Mike, Iīm sure that will happen; I donīt think it will become commonplace though, more sort of the New Loft decoration for the mega-rich?

Rob C
« Last Edit: July 04, 2008, 04:55:27 PM by Rob C » Logged

Gary Brown
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 211


« Reply #5 on: July 04, 2008, 06:45:15 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I don't know about cost, but there are already electronic photo frames.  Imagine something like a 30" or 40" LCD or plasma screen mounted on your wall, networked to your computer system, that displays either a single image or a gallery of images at a preset pace.  It could take over prints in the future.  There are pros and cons of course, but if the technology exists someone will implement it.

Mike.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
There was also the idea a while back about using such things for displaying art, e.g. [a href=\"http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2004-03-15-plasma_x.htm]Start-ups turn flat-panel TVs into works of art[/url]
Logged
Geoff Wittig
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1017


« Reply #6 on: July 04, 2008, 08:04:20 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Is a print the ultimate expression of a fine art photograph?  If so, will it continue to be?  If not, then what is and what will be? 

I mean the word ultimate both in the sense of last as well as best.

I have a feeling that, in not too many years, display frames will achieve a resolution that exceeds that of the human eye and will do so in fine art sizes at a a tolerable cost.  If I am correct, will these frames overtake prints?

If I am not correct, will anything challenge the print in the next 50 years?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205373\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Overtake, no. It's a different medium. I appreciate the convenience of seeing my images scroll past on a digital monitor, but it's not really a comparable experience. Future monitors like the Brightside DR37-P with controllable backlighting at the pixel level will provide a much wider dynamic range, and coupled with HDR imaging workflow may yield a completely new kind of photography. But it won't replace the fine art print any more than photography replaced painting.

The fine art print is a specific artifact with discrete characteristics chosen by the artist. You get to pick the precise paper, surface, inkset and printing interpretation to say exactly what you want to say, and the result is a work of art that may endure for generations. The image on a monitor? It's a transient event, gone as soon as you unplug it.
Logged
Farkled
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 97


« Reply #7 on: July 06, 2008, 03:50:34 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Overtake, no. It's a different medium. I appreciate the convenience of seeing my images scroll past on a digital monitor, but it's not really a comparable experience. Future monitors like the Brightside DR37-P with controllable backlighting at the pixel level will provide a much wider dynamic range, and coupled with HDR imaging workflow may yield a completely new kind of photography. But it won't replace the fine art print any more than photography replaced painting.

The fine art print is a specific artifact with discrete characteristics chosen by the artist. You get to pick the precise paper, surface, inkset and printing interpretation to say exactly what you want to say, and the result is a work of art that may endure for generations. The image on a monitor? It's a transient event, gone as soon as you unplug it.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205585\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

What about the idea of new printing technologies?  For example, what about 3D prints?  What about new display technolgies such as hig-rez 3D holograms?  

I think I can agree that the fine art print, as we know it today, is unlikely to disappear any time soon.  I can conceive of it being largely supplanted with newer tech though.
Logged
Geoff Wittig
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1017


« Reply #8 on: July 06, 2008, 06:34:19 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
What about the idea of new printing technologies?  For example, what about 3D prints?  What about new display technolgies such as hig-rez 3D holograms? 

I think I can agree that the fine art print, as we know it today, is unlikely to disappear any time soon.  I can conceive of it being largely supplanted with newer tech though.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=206009\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I beg to differ. A well-made fine art print is a very specific art medium with its own logic and criteria for beauty. Certainly there may be digital display art forms with their own forms and criteria, but they don't invalidate or "supplant" the fine art print any more than photographic prints supplanted oil painting.

I just finished reading a book on HDR photography. (Michael Freeman's). The author noted that after well over a century of experience looking at photographic prints, people have expectations about what a photographic image should look like. As a result, aggressively tone-mapped HDR images may show shadow & highlight detail our eyes can easily see at the time of image capture, but they just look "wrong" as prints. We have definite expectations, a sort of visual syntax, regarding what a print should look like. The art form has developed its own language of beauty. Digital displays may eventually evolve their own artistic language, but it won't be the same language a print "speaks".
Logged
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad