Print Crit: Three Small Prints

Readers have been submitting prints for critique, and I've gotten a lot of envelopes. I opened three small ones this week, and here's what awaited me...

By Jim Arthur

Well, hello there, little fellow! Jim Arthur of Phoenix, Arizona, sent a nicely prepared print made as a greeting card. The camera was a Canon 6D with EF 40mm ƒ/2.8 lens. The studio lighting for our star, Mr. Gecko, can be seen in the reflection. Jim had more than one chance to photograph him—the first night he appeared, Jim took a picture with his phone, but when the gecko reappeared the second night Jim was ready for him with a bigger camera. He made three appearances in total.

The picture isn't one, but it brings silhouettes to mind, since the sharp outline of the little lizard does all the work, so to speak. Because of the apparent reversal—light against dark—it also brings to mind naturalistic photograms of the sort popular in the 19th century. Jim says this is one of his early attempts at B&W. I think if I were interpreting this I might try it in "cyanotype blue" and see how that worked.

I have only two thoughts. One is that the apparent scratches are a sort of error I'm always careful to look our for...something that's not a mistake but that mimics a mistake. I had a record in the '80s on which one song had a tone that mimicked the sound of a phone. (The way phones sounded then.) It was supposed to be there, but it distracted me from the song because I always thought it was the phone. It happens in writing too—the writer will use a strange literary word or an arcane spelling that brings something entirely different to mind for the reader. It detracts from the flow of communication, in the same way a typo does. Anyway, in the dark area behind the lizard, there are what appear to be scratches. The scratches are on the sliding glass door; but they look like they might be on the print. I think I'd get rid of those just to eliminate the confusion. I once printed a landscape in which some fallen leaves that were perfectly natural to the scene looked just like scraps of litter. I wasn't above removing them to avoid the mis-impression.

Final thought—don't think cards aren't a fine medium for fine prints! I've gotten some beautiful cards over the years, from numerous friends and readers. The single-fold greeting card is a great way to share work and is a nice medium for the photographer-printmaker who wants a convenient and non-threatening way to share real work casually with friends.

By John Gillooly

Next up—a print with an opinion! This is "Leap" by John Gillooly. I liked this when I opened it and I like it now. It's not a "standard" print. It has a rough, high-contrast look reminiscent of a litho-print look. Turns out it was shot in 2001 on an early digital camera, the Nikon D1.

With this print, too, I have only a couple of comments. The first is purely personal...I have a sort of gag response to magenta. Perhaps a color expert might call the color fuchsia. Anyway it's a little too strong for me, like spice level six at a Himalayan restaurant. I suspect the fuchsia color was a bit goosed up, because we see a little too much of it in the girl's legs, too. My guess is that John feels the color is needed and he went a little too much to bat on its behalf, maybe? I'd at least look at it with the color toned down and see what happens. But that's just me. It's not a flaw in the print necessarily. The tonality is somewhat unreal anyway and I suspect many people will say that the strong color against the plain ones of the background is what make the picture work for them. If so, fair enough.

Still, there was something that nagged me all week about this print. There was something about it that didn't seem quite finished, quite whole. I tend to like prints that are "bound" with tone at the edges—I like edge burning—and when paper-white areas in an image are allowed to interface with an edge it can seem like the picture is spilling into its substrate so to speak. It gives a picture an unresolved feel, like an open tuning on a guitar. But that's not really it; there's actually tone everywhere along all four edges. Still, I might try it with a border—something thin but rough, probably—to see how that affects the feel. Not saying that would work, just that it might be instructive to try.

Actually that not-quite-there-yet feeling I get is reflected in the title, too. Is "Leap" maybe just a bit too literal and rote? He writes of the picture, taken at the end of a memorable trip to Cuba, "this has long been among my favorite images from a trip that marked a huge growth point in my path as a photographer—as a person learning to see." A more poetic title with a sense or an oblique implication of that deeper meaning might be worth finding.

And it needs to be bigger, which would feel more in keeping with its boldness. I wonder if John has ever tried to print it at three or four different sizes and pin them on his wall together for six or eight days, somewhere where he will see them often and can really look at them. That's an instructive exercise with the right pictures. When you look at a variety of sizes a lot for days on end, sometimes concentrating, sometimes not, the options "sorts themselves" and the "right" size becomes more clear. I don't believe 5 7/8 x 9" is it. It seemed constrained and sort of "crabbed" at this too-small size.

It's not printing craft per se that needs any work here; it's a fine-tuning of the aesthetic impression, needed to really honor the meaning of the photograph for the photographer. I think this could benefit from some more thought, and further exploration. This might even be a good file to send to another printer to interpret. They would fail, of course, but the exercise sometimes makes us aware of things we might be missing.

John is from Milton Village, Massachusetts, and has written a number of thoughtful and insightful comments here over the years.

By Mark Stracke

Lastly, in a plain envelope with no protection, a small and gentle print from Mark Stracke of the Bronx, New York. The print color is a warmish gray-brown, the paper color (it's Hahnemuhle Bamboo) mildly creamy. At first I thought this was just too unambitious a picture, but it has grown on me as I give it space and give it a chance. I like the way it calls to mind a large-format contact print; the fence is all in focus (thanks for that), and the background is blurred. Look at it quickly and you'll go "meh" and move on; but as I "felt my way into it" over the week or two it's been open I started to feel its specific sense of place, and I found myself imagining that it might be a place where there are memories for the person who took it. Sometimes when you catch yourself looking at a scene the only memory there is something you might be thinking of at that moment or someplace it takes you. What was it Eddie Vedder said of "Black"? "Fragile songs get crushed by the business. I don't want to be a part of it." Fragile pictures too easily get crushed too, or lost. Being quiet is not the same thing as not deserving to be heard.

The only suggestion I could make is that it needs better presentation, to set off its delicate, gem-like feel; but then, maybe it gets it, normally, and Mark just hasn't sent that to me.

I just finished writing this and I should wait till morning before publishing, but it's already a week and a half late fer Pete's sake. I'll post it now and rewrite it tomorrow.

Thanks again to Jim, John, and Mark, and everyone who contributed to the big pile of packages on my porch. No promises, this time, as to when the next Print Crit will be along!

Mike

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.

Please help support The Online Photographer through Patreon

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

Neil Partridge: "Could we have pictures of the prints laid on a plain background? It's quite distracting seeing your room/hand around them. Also if you feel they'd be better framed or matted could you create a mock-up? Not meaning to create too much extra work, just something simple to focus the eye. Thank you.

Mike replies: No, I'm doing that on purpose. I don't want anyone to forget that I'm looking at a paper print and that it's not what you are privileged to see. Anyone who has bought one of our print offer prints and compared the paper print to the online representation knows that they can be quite different things. In this case I'm not so much interested in showing you the image in its clearest, cleanest form as in discussing something that you can't actually see at all—the print. It's not the way we usually do things here but it's the way I'll be sharing the prints I talk about in the Print Crits.

Comments

[Bill Poole]

Well, I have to disagree about the scratches in print one. I think they establish the plane of the door and add interest to the photo and I like them.

On seeing print two, I thought immediately, this looks familiar. To me the piece immediately brought tom mind the iconic image by H C-B of the man leaping the puddle. This affects the meaning of the image in a way I cannot quite put my finder on. (Sorry to end with a preposition.)

[David Dyer-Bennet]

It took me a while to figure out what you were describing as "scratches" in the gecko print. But I was bothered by the same visual element, I just didn't label it that way. It's prominent enough that it messes up my attempt to read the center portion as a reverse silhouette. Maybe I'm not supposed to? But I didn't just catch it from you, that's the way my brain is interpreting the image also.

I really love this print critique thing. I hope you keep it going a long time. This is exactly what I like about TOP.

[Greg K]

With Jim Arthur's gecko print (which I rather like), I too first thought that the scratches might be distracting, but upon further consideration, I realized they actually help inform the image—without them, the gecko would seem to float in mid-air in an unnatural way. Perhaps, eliminating several of the longest (e.g., the long left one that skirts the lampshade and the vertical one above the start of the gecko's tail) would reduce the distraction aspect while the remaining ones would still let you know that the gecko is on a piece of glass.

[Timothy Auger]

Fuchsia, Mike. Fuchsia. Named after Leonhart Fuchs (1501–1566). Now shut your eyes and from memory spell Eschscholzia.

[hugh crawford]

In Mark Stracke's photo, the flowers are quite likely gifts of Hans van Waardenburg and the city of Rotterdam in memory of 9/11. The city and thousands of volunteers have been planting daffodils and tulips every year as a memorial.

Seems like there is a common thread of metaphorical barriers in these. In the second and third the impossibility of leaping into the past as easily as the future. The girl is at about the age when girls stop jumping over holes, the fence is literally a fence in front of a memorial.

In the old days, I would advise Jim Arthur to consider taking a file to his negative carrier but apparently that is about as affected as wearing jodhpurs these days. In any case, the scratches perform a valuable function by allowing the viewer to decode the space of the photograph so that it reads as a vernacular record of nature outside - livingroom inside rather than a studio setup symbolizing the lizard as the mediator between lamps and chairs or the darkroom procedure beloved by photo students after they discover Man Ray. Or maybe that is a salamander in which case it would make an excellent cover for an edition of Farenhight 451.

[hugh crawford]

Forgot to add the link http://www.ny4p.org/the-daffodil-project

[Peter Baenziger]

fuschia or fuchsia?

[As I mentioned, I'll do the edit in the morning. --MJ]

[Dan Khong]

If I have my way, which is rare in reality, I'd start my alchemistry cauldron and turn the "Leap" image into monochrome. That way, nobody talks about them gunky colours no more.

[RICHARD .Newman]

I think that no. 3, the Mark Stracke print might be interesting as a very high contrast (Kodalith) print.

[Martin D]

In Jim Arthur's picture: those scratches absolutely make that picture what it is. Magic.

[Mark]

I LOVE print crit! More! More! Please don't stop.

[Ilkka]

I agree. Keep it up, you are doing very well. Very interesting. Thank you.

[Sroyon]

Jim: If you want to go the authentic cyanotype route, you can make a "digital negative" (invert the image in Photoshop and print onto OHP transparency film) and expose it onto cyantotype-coated paper. the-chemist.biz are sending free sheets (well, cost of postage only) of cyanotype paper to provide creative inspiration during lockdowns (I have no affiliation with the company).

[christer]

Your print reviews (and the comments) are much more interesting (and inspiring) than the hardware reviews (and comments).

Hope to read many more. Soon.

[Richard Parkin]

Scratches? I saw spider web threads, still do because scratches usually have more directionality to them from cleaning or whatever. Anyway, keep the critiques going!

[louis mccullagh]

I think the table lamp competes too much with the gecko.

[JimF]

Great job again Mike. Keep it up. On the second print, Leap, I kind of struggle with the background. Maybe struggle is the wrong word. It's confusing to me. It's like a picture in a picture. I can't quite make sense of what is behind the girl. Agree with the bright color bleed but otherwise I like it.

[Dave Millier]

These print critiques are gripping. Not so much because they reveal anything particularly useful to me about the art of the print or the art of photography, but because of what they reveal about Mike's preferences, tastes and way of thinking about pictures.

I normally take my cue from Bruce Percy - other people's photographic advice, suggestions, opinions, tastes and preferences and knowledge can sometimes be helpful but if you aiming to develop your art, it's more important to be true to your own likes and dislikes and passions, they are the only thing that is unique to you. Others' views will only take you so far. Nonetheless, please carry on, Mike, it's a fascinating reveal of what stirs your passions and part of what makes this place the place to visit.

[Jim Arthur]

Thanks for the input everyone. Not many people see my work and as a printer I’m a rank amateur so it’s helpful to hear from other photographers.

When I began to process this picture my first thought was to remove the scratches but once I removed the dust specs from the glass I decided I liked that the scratches added a depth or layering to the composition. I do agree with Greg K that some of the longer scratches could probably be removed and I like Mike’s idea of introducing a little color. I’ll give both a try.

I think Mike’s advice to John to search for a more poetic title applies to me as well. I made no attempt to title my picture. It just didn’t occur to me. Considering all the odd facts about geckos I see on Wikipedia and the fact that this little guy visited at midnight, I should be able to come up with something. If I were to remove all the scratches from the glass, I suppose I could inform the viewer of the glass in the title.

I like the high-contrast approach of John Gillooly’s picture. The image sort of jumps out at me as the girl jumps left to right. The high-contrast presentation, the action, the motion blur, the bright color, they all work together to make an impact. Well done. I do think Mike’s right about the border though. A thin border might be worth a try.

My first impression of Mark Stracke’s image was that it looked like a vintage photo. I like the muted color, the level of sharpness, and the different layers in the image. They combine to create a mood that’s very relaxing. If you jack up the contrast the feeling disappears. The paper(?) blown up against the fence line in the lower right, the angular fence support, the lamp post, and the tower in the distance all help to draw you in if given time. I like it. Well done.

[Andy]

I'm finding this very instructive. Just the simple idea of trying the same image at different sizes struck home for some of my own photos. And I'm enjoying seeing the contributions. As somebody who was one of the early cheerleaders for The Goodbye Kiss (looking over my shoulder as I type), who knows, there could be more hidden gems to be discovered. More please...

[Nick]

It's funny, but even your little jpeg of the third print immediately grabbed me. It's something about the sharply defined fence and the soft background that almost lends it a certain fairytale quality. I wonder what I'd think of it in person? Or whether I would like it more or less matted and framed?

[Steve Rosenblum]

By the way, that Canon 40mm f/2.8 STM "pancake" lens costs only $179, but is surprisingly excellent. Roger Cicala tested it and couldn't get over how well it did: https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/06/canon-40mm-pancake-how-did-they-do-that/

[JOHN B GILLOOLY]

Mike, I absolutely love this print crit exercise that you are doing and was thrilled when my Cuba image popped up in the post.

Some thoughts on your comments. Over the last 19 years I have revisited that image and re-edited and re-printed. Interestingly, I've always called it Leap for some reason! I think that was the first thought that came to mind and it's just been that ever since.

While the title has never changed, this was in fact the most vibrant, saturated and contrasty version that I have printed. Seeing your version vs the one on my wall, I have to maybe agree about the overcooked magenta. This higher contrast version also renders the sidewalk very light as well as whatever that slate block behind her. Both of those issues then lead us to the lack of defined edges which you point out and which I also agree.

I've never really regretted that I chose to shoot with the D1 on this trip vs film, but I do wish I had been shooting RAW. In 2001, shooting RAW was very cumbersome in terms of workflow. The cards were small, the transfer times were slow, storage was limited, burning cds was slow, etc. These were the images I had in mind when I asked the question here a few months back regarding some up-rezzing software you mentioned. I have a 10x15 on my wall and because of the nature of the image, it holds up quite well.

Thank you for the critique of this print and the others - it really is very interesting and informative to listen to your thoughts and perspectives. This is also the type of exercise where the comments also provide incredible value - to hear the perspectives of so many talented and experienced people viewing the same images.

[Xf Mj]

Re: "Could you lay them flat and take uniform snapshots of them using studio lighting with no distracting house stuff or your hand there?"

I assume Mike's showing his handholding the prints, and so on, to make it obvious that they are prints. If maybe the print has a slight curl, then the lighting might allow us to see the surface or gloss when he holds it just so; if there is a rough edge (or not) to the paper we get to see that; etc. And we get to see a little of TOP HQ where these judgements are rendered. Makes me aware that he just grabbed these from his stack. Makes me think I'm seeing him in action, with his words just coming out, maybe even Bob Dylan free-wheelin', print love at first sight.

Just as texture and fibre add to the print, these details (to me) add to the print crit post. I assume he'll use his words to fill in the gaps of what we cannot really see. We're being presented with *his seeing* and everything is filtered through his perspective, and that is the whole point.

[Roger Bradbury]

I looked at the print By John Gillooly for a long time. I think its the difference between the low saturation but detailed street scene that does it, and the high saturation but blurred figure. But first it's about the figure, unselfconsciously jumping the hole.

I'm more and more drawn to photograph people recently, and even if they are not actually present in the frame, I'm drawn to photograph the result of their actions on the scene.

[John B.]

While some folk may enjoy the amateurish way of hand holding the prints with background clutter, I think it is being lazy and a little disrespectful to the photographers who spent time, money and energy to send the prints. It would be easier on the eyes and better for the images if they were simply laid down on a white, grey or darker background. Just say'in.

[BERND REINHARDT]

Mike, would you be able to share links to the photographers's websites? I was searching for Jim to see more of his work because I quite like the Gecko print.

[John Russell]

I like the informality of the presntation; it adds to the air of a discussion among friends, not a gallery visit. Love the critiques, Mike's and the commentariat's. The obssesive in me would be interested in the actual size of the photos - "card"?, "5 7/8 x 9" " image or paper?, "small"? - maybe I should just work it out from Mike's hand...

[That's reasonable...I'll give the image area measurements from now on. --Mike]