Print Crit: ...Then I Said 'Uh-Oh'

I grabbed an envelope off the stack at random to open. Frank Gorga, said the return address, from Antrim, New Hampshire—that's a State in our upper Northeast, New England, for those of you who don't live here. Sliding it out of the package and carefully removing the printed matter and the protection sheet, I thought, hmm, this is nice. Seven life points for black and white! Just kidding. Inkjet, but kind of a low-contrast platinum-palladium (Pt/Pd) vibe going on. A church building with simple massing, modeled by the light. Picture has a "deliberately bad lens" look, like a Holga or another kind of toy camera, or maybe even an actual old lens. It reminds me of some prints I made long ago by shooting a color film cassette in an Instamatic 105 and printing the negatives on Panalure...

...And then I though, uh-oh. As you've already seen from the first picture, there's a crimp running horizontally all the way across the page just below the image.

I noticed the stiffener for the envelope had the same crease in a location that matched. At first I thought the soft, heavy paper might just have been been pressed into the stiffener cardboard, as it would be under a pile of packages, say, and had simply picked up the defect in the cardboard; that can happen. But when I examined the manilla envelope, I saw a faint mirror of the same bend in the envelope. So the whole envelope was bent en route, and then probably straightened out again by somebody who thought they'd fixed it.

So the print did not survive the mail. Ruined.

But since the image area of the picture was not affected, let's go ahead and look at the print anyway, and pretend the crease isn't there.

The first obvious thing is the quality of the paper. It's got a nice deckle edge which you can see here. This snap probably gives you a good idea of the "tooth" or textured surface of the paper, but I did another shot anyway using the phone's Magnifier feature—click the Home button on an iPhone three times rapidly and you're in the magnifier, a softpedaled but often useful feature.

This is magnified about halfway, and well above 1:1.

The paper seemed like a front-and-center feature of this print, so I held it up to the window to see if there was a watermark:

There it is...Johannot, along with the familiar elongated infinity symbol of Arches, which has been making paper since Christopher Columbus sailed the ocean blue. You can also see Frank's penciled notes on the back showing through, but these aren't visible except in backlight.

Finally to the print. The illustration emphasizes some black speckling, which are indeed there in the print, but I had to go back and look at the print to make sure; they're not really part of the visual impression. The tones are nice; the image is mostly very soft, both in detail and tonality. There are a few sharp lines near the optical axis, but the image is quite blurry as it get toward the corners, and the corners are vignetted too. Again, the snapshot illustration emphasizes the vignetting a little more than the impression in person.

I'm not really too fond of what might be called generic picturesque subjects, but then, a lot of people like such subjects. It's a mistake to believe that criticism is "just a matter of taste"; actually I find I can be a little more objective about things that do not fall under the sort of approach that I tend to favor. If I can find one thing to criticize, it's a feature of the nature of inkjet that I've noticed before. Pt/Pd prints are widely admired as having a look of what's called, for lack of a better term, "depth," a sense that somehow the image is in the fibers of the paper; when well done, it can seem almost like light is emanating from the sheet as well. In my experience, soft- or low-contrast inkjets subtly impart the opposite impression, namely that the image is sitting on top of the paper, as if transferred to it rather than in it, and they can look just a bit flat or dead. A little like a pencil drawing, if you will. Frank's print has a bit of that, to my eye. But then, maybe he likes and prefers that; different printers like different effects, and there's no right or wrong except for each of us as individuals. I don't mind it. It brings out the "design" of the picture more than the "thereness" of the subject.

Good size; I wouldn't want to see an image so basic rendered too large. It's big enough to beckon you from the wall, and small enough to draw you in to look at it up close.

Nice picture; nice print. I think this one's a success.

At that point I picked up the the page I had set aside earlier and turned to Frank's written comments...

The backstory from the photographer
...And things immediately got even more interesting. Turns out it was an old lens—a very old one, a "simple single meniscus lens in a brass tube"—on a camera obscura, no less. And the picture is a digital capture of the image on the camera obscura's groundglass. Very cool.

In case you don't know, the camera obscura was the immediate precursor of the camera. It's like a view camera with no movements save an in-and-out adjustment for focus, and no provision for a film holder. There was usually a mirror in the box to rectify the image, although it was still reversed laterally, like a TLR viewfinder.

So Frank's picture encompasses aspects of very early as well as current photography! Neat. (For those of you who don't know me, "neat" is a term of rare approbation in my critical theory.) The camera obscura was essentially what spurred the invention of photography—it occurred to numerous people simultaneously that the image cast by the lens, which artists sometimes used to trace images from nature, should somehow be captured directly.

Frank confirmed his use of traditional printmaking paper, saying, "most of my printing these days is done with paper not specifically coated for inkjet printing." He used an Epson P800 in ABW mode.

He says he is of "that old 'it ain't done until it is printed' school of photography," and goes on to tell us that up to half his printing these days consists of cyanotypes that he tones to "eggplant black" along with the occasional salt print or Van Dyke brown print. But he gave up silver printing a long time ago, as he "simply gets better results more easily via the inkjet printer."

I enjoyed living with this this past week, the crease be damned. Good work and thanks, Frank. Into the Readers' Prints archival box it goes. Or will go, once the box arrives.

Mike

Every weekend I'll show you an original print and say whatever might come to mind about it. After one "Print Crit" is published, I'll pick another envelope at random from the stack and open that one, then live with it for the week before writing about it.

Feel free to share your own opinion of the picture in the Comments if you like, but bear in mind that the photographer is "in the room" and will see your comment.

Original contents copyright 2020 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

Clayton Ravsten: "I love the photograph. And the methodology...Mr. Gorga not only is thinking outside the box, but he burned the box down. Love it!"

Frank Gorga: "Thanks so much! I am honored to have my work featured in the inaugural Print Crit. Sorry about the crease...you would think that good stiff corrugated cardboard would be enough, but the folks at the USPS obviously just take that as a challenge. Next time I'll try a piece of iron!

"As for your comment on the size of my print...I find that images from the camera obscura really start to 'fall apart' when printed larger than nine inches square and that the six and a half inch square size is really the sweet spot for most images. In general, I like my prints on the smaller side. A preference that comes, I think, from my earliest days in photography (circa 1970) when all I could afford was to contact print my 4x5 negatives."

Scott: "I know you were hoping to do this via video, and perhaps you still will. But you should know your written version communicated to me a deep understanding of how you perceived this print. Well done! And I like the print as well."

Wozcraft: "Interesting technique. Sad about the crease but it reminds me of the photographer who found a crumpled envelope in his letter box on which the sender had written 'Photographs Do Not Bend' and underneath scrawled in pencil were the words 'Oh yes they do!'"

Dennis Ng: "A very good idea for your blog."

Mike: Glad to hear you think so. Thank you for the feedback.

Comments

[Neil Partridge]

That print has a lovely ethereal glow. I find it utterly beguiling. Puts me in mind of the recent Dawson City documentary about unearthed silent movies.

Descriptions of methods of printing are often abreviated, rattled through at pace, or full of hinted at nuances that the uninitiated (me!) find baffling. I would really appreciate a set of diagrams showing the methods/permutations. If they don't already exist I would be happy to create them for you to share. I would of course need someone to provide the relevant info for me to represent.

[Richard Parkin]

See, you didn’t need video!

[Marten Collins]

Thanks for that and really informative! I do so agree about a job not done till the print is made especially when the image is in Black and White/ Lovely print from what I can see and the look of the paper texture really helpful.

[Dori]

Thank you! Really liking this new topic.

Apropos of nothing, a lovely collage of Wisconsin photographs from the Atlantic:
https://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2020/05/wisconsin-photos/611710/

[James]

I really enjoyed reading that!
A fair subject, a good print, a nicely built critique.
I agree with what you say about the size of the print, but had never really thought about a reason why before.
If a print is too large I didn't notice it. A bit like hotel room pictures.

[Ken Lunders]

One way to deal with the dreaded Folded Cardboard is to use two pieces of the same size, but with the corrugation of each running at a right angle to the other. Works for me.

[Kurt Kramer]

"Pt/Pd prints"?

[Sorry, I should have put the abbreviation in parentheses after the first mention of the term as is proper. That's fixed now. Platinum/palladium. --Mike]

[Andrew J.]

I never quite understood what forensic photography was all about but now I think I can.
Good job.

[Michael J. Perini]

Nice it reminds me of Strand's 'Time in New England (cover maybe?)'

[This one?

http://www.artnet.com/artists/paul-strand/church-on-a-hill-new-england-0HJZGi717I2FKxxNJj9WPQ2

There are others. --Mike]

[hugh crawford]

And that's why I always mail prints in a tube or in a box.

If you really have to use an envelope corrugated cardboard is only strong in one direction. A couple of sheets of foam core work well. I used to work for someone who had a stack of plywood cut to the size that would fit into a flat rate envelope and would stick a piece in the envelope with whatever he sent to the art director.

[Mike King]

One of the things editors (like you) used to teach photographers (like me) was to use two pieces of corrugated cardboard for submissions, the trick was to have the two sheets of cardboard at right angles to protect the contents on every axis. I forget which magazine and which editor first put me on to this trick.

[David Dyer-Bennet]

This one I find the story somewhat more interesting than the print. But the story is interesting and the print supports it rather than fighting it, to my eye.

(I hardly ever like low-contrast prints including about all platinum/palladium prints I've seen; can't remember exceptions, but I do think I have seen some that I liked.)

And I can imagine this being a lot of fun to think of and do, if I were already working in that sort of process.

It's interesting to see your reaction before you read the artist's notes, and then after. I'm glad you chose to present it that way (I mean, I have to trust you on the order you say you did things, but I'm perfectly happy to do so).

Thanks to Frank Gorga for submitting this print to the public gaze!

[Bob G.]

Love the concept and backstory. Kudos to Frank Gorga! A video critique would only get in the way... don't think you need it unless you think it would add something... Just matte it tight... the crease seems off the main print area anyway...

[Bear.]

Lovely photo. Lovely critique. A lovely bright respite to an otherwise sad day. Thanks to all.

[Michael]

This is a very rich double, or really multiple, performance in a nutshell -- the life-in-photography of the printer/photographer, the camera-lens-printing process, the print itself, and your life-in-photography and commentary on top of that. The effect is of both an ease in execution and a depth of significance that is rare, I think, in so short a space. Huge thanks to both of you!

[Edwin]

Because of the way the corrugated cardboard is constructed, two stacked sheets of cardboard, placed at right angles are needed to prevent creases.

[Stan B.]

Love small, square, elegant B&W photographs such as this! The blurred, low key, minimalist image offsets the sharp lines and enhances the overall dreamlike quality...
Prints - are - Fun!

And video not necessary.

[Steve Belanger]

I really enjoyed this. Thanks to you and the photographer for the multi-layered presentation.

[George Andros]

Would you comment on the choice of paper for this particular image?
Color cast, surface texture, matte versus semigloss, etc.?

Thanks.

George

[David S]

Homage to Paul Strand?

[robert quiet photographer]

Interesting post, good photo, good way to give a critique.

[Jeff1000]

So I surmised that you liked the print, but you don't really like those types of prints? Is that correct?

[I might discuss the issue of taste vs. judgement more in a future post. I can't communicate everything I know or think about photographs and printing in one short post. --Mike]

[David Comdico]

Good photo. Good post. Thanks to both of you.

[Christopher J May]

I really enjoyed this first print crit, Mike and really look forward to the whole series!

I love the soft qualities of the print and think it's the type of image that works well printed small. It reminds me of the Luminous Landscape Video Journal in which Michael Reichmann visited daguerreotypist Mike Robinson and they discussed the very personal viewing experience that daguerreotypes effect.

I'm also intrigued by the idea of printing on non inkjet papers. The paper featured with this print is just lovely. I have images in mind that would work well with it and may have to venture outside of the realm of traditional inkjet media!

[J Hogan]

Always use a Coroplast sandwich when forced to ship via a simple envelope or express package.

[Speed]

Way back on May 5 Mike wrote, "First, I think the best guide to how I'll go about critiquing a print is to wait until I do it."

Right he was. So far it's been much more than I expected ... in a good way.

[Michael J. Perini]

Mike there is one even more similar, I'll see if I can dig it out.
Good company anyway......

[MikeR]

and I said "uh-oh" also ... because that print looks GOOD, and finished, and nice, and I sent you a "work print" and comparing the two, mine sucks.

[Ilkka]

Nice picture and good write up. There is no need for any video review. This is much better. Thank you.
Single corrugated sheet is bad for print support/protection because the flutes run one way and it can easily bend in one direction while being stiff in the other. Double wall sheet would be a bit better. That’s a corrugated sheet with two flutes and three flat liners, but the flutes still run in same direction. Better still, use two corrugated sheets in 90 degree angle. That gives stiffness in all directions.

[Frank Gorga]

George Andros asked "Would you comment on the choice of paper for this particular image?"

I am not sure that I have any strong rationale for why I used Johannot for this particular image.

These days, the large majority of my printing is done on matte paper and most is done on paper that is not specially coated for inkjet printing.

I have found that modern ink sets give respectable results on many papers. I use both Epson's Ultra HD (as used in the P800) and Jon Cone's Piezography Ultra HD inks. (I'm partial to the warm neutral K6 ink set.)

Sure, the Dmax is not as high as it would be on a glossier paper but that is true for matte papers coated for ink jet printing as well.

One needs to process one's image specifically with this type of printing in mind, but it is not difficult. Mainly, images need more mid-tone contrast for printing on uncoated papers.

One of the advantages of this approach is that it opens up an incredible variety of papers on which one can print. I like paper per se and I like to experiment! So I buy lots of different papers and I make prints.

I like Johannot because it is unique... quoting from the Legion web site "Johannot is a mouldmade paper comprised of 75% cotton and 25% esparto. Esparto is a perennial grass grown in Africa and the Iberian Peninsula."

Thus, in addition to its unique texture it has a slightly different feel in hand compared to a 100% cotton paper.

Johannot works particularly well with my camera obscura images which are inherently soft. I'm not sure it would work well with images that have lots of fine detail. The texture tends to conflict with (soften?) fine details.

I hope that this response is useful.