More Portfolio Work
Once more this post is about Ann’s images for her workshop portfolio (we’ll probably have unusually dry days for the UK and, thus, no opportunities to discuss images but . . . you have to be ready just in case). That’s because I really haven’t done much (read: anything) with my workshop portfolio so there’s nothing to discuss.
We’ve ordered the Hahnemühle paper we decided we wanted to use and, because one of the items we’d ordered was on back-order, the paper was slow in shipping and hasn’t arrived yet. Ann, however decided that she wanted to see how each the images she was considering including in the portfolio actually looked in print, so we pulled out my stand-by Red River Palo Duro Soft Gloss Rag, which should print very closely to the Hahnemühle paper, and set out to print each of the images.
Given the similarities in papers, it didn’t surprise me that the images we’d previously printed looked good on the RR SGR.
It definitely has a nice contrast range that certainly handles black and white prints well, offering deep, dark shadows.
There was even an image that I thought looked nicer in print than it did on a monitor. Some scenes are just so bright, that the lessened dynamic range you get from reflected paper instead of an illuminated computer monitor is a benefit rather than a hindrance for the image - so long as the areas in shadow don’t look muddy.
In terms of the portfolio image selection process, I described Ann’s desire to show a range of the types of images she makes in the earlier blog post about selecting a paper to use. Part of this round was to see how well the other images print and, which images go well together. Because Ann is wanting a diversity of images, having a variety of image types and, ultimately, image locations is part of the reason for the portfolio. That means, unfortunately, Ann will likely have to choose between the above image and the one below. I say unfortunately, because both look lovely in print. Having to make hard, painful editing choices is part of the difficulty in putting together a portfolio.
Other decisions were somewhat easier to make. I say easier, but that doesn’t mean it makes you feel good about it. I was rather surprised when I saw the image below in print because it was so much less than appears on a monitor. On screen there is a “life” to the image that simply isn’t there in print. In the print, the colors are not quite as vibrant, the fog not so mysterious, and the tree trunks have no dimensionality to them. They actually look like dark blobs. Ann and I have talked a bit about this image, wondering if it could be reworked a bit to print better, but we both came to the conclusion that it was not likely to work at the size it would be printed at (fairly small) even if you could enhance it here or there.
It was the first of the images to get eliminated from the pool.
One point that occupied a lot of our discussion time was the role your experience plays in making particular images. There are some images, like the one above, that immediately pull you back to the moment (hell, that entire morning) of making the image. You can still feel the excitement and wonder of simply being there and photographing. Does that hurt or help your decision-making about whether an image should be included or excluded in a collection? Of whether it is a good or a bad image? It certainly make it more painful when you decide that it needs to be excluded, as was the case here. My thoughts are that it’s both - helpful and a hindrance. When the image captures that sense of awe, you know it by seeing and feeling it. In those instances, selecting the image (for a collection, for printing, for whatever) is a no-brainer. An emotional connection also makes it harder, because if an image is missing that, you may think it is a bad image because it doesn’t capture what you felt at the moment (despite your wonderful feelings). However, it it still may be a good image worth showing. And, there is always the situation where the image is truly lacking and you just can’t set it aside because of your emotions. That one is probably the worst and the one you really have to overcome when you’re self editing because, face it, the image isn’t that good (unlike the other possibilities). I guess in this case, the print just doesn’t live up to what we know the image can be, so that’s the answer - all memories aside.
The printing disappointments were not limited to just color images. One of Ann’s black and white images suffered from printing as well. When it first came out of the printer, it looked rather light and flat. I knew to let it sit a bit, because prints sometimes darken a bit when they dry, and this one did - the darks became ever so slightly darker, which gave the rocks and bushes a bit more form and enhanced the visual spaces between the rocks. Better, but not really enough. There is something flat about the image in print that isn’t there on the screen. Ann’s photographs often have this quality to them that makes you feel that you can enter the spaces in the image and explore the place. That’s not present in the print, though it is on screen. That’s why you have to print the images because you never know. There is an adage that if an image prints well, it will look good on the screen. The reverse is definitely not true.
But it wasn’t all disappointment. The image that was competing with the color trees in the snow image above (from Yosemite) was an image Ann made of black oaks in the Lamar Valley (Yellowstone). Much like the two images that have that white tree trunk from Zion, Ann was likely going to have to choose between the Yosemite and the Yellowstone photographs. The Yellowstone image has the life and vibrancy of the photograph in the print that is there on the monitor. It’s successful in that respect, though Ann is still a bit unsure of whether it will be in or out of the portfolio, largely because of the limited size of the print we’ll be making (A4/letter size). It doesn’t fully work for her at a smaller size.
One print that shocked me was an image Ann included in the group because I insisted upon it. It’s the image from the Kelerwald that Ann made (I still think the best photograph either of us has made this year). What shocked me is that the image works almost as well at 8” x 10” as it did at 16” x 20.” Yes, some of the ability to see into the infinite detail of the branches is lost (I guess you could if you had a microscope, but certainly not with the naked eye), but the smaller print retains the same graceful lines, interesting coloration and sense of presence that the significantly larger print has. Even printed small, it’s an amazing photograph that encourages the eye to wander and explore the various parts of the image.
There were, of course, other images that I had anticipated would print well, even small, and did. One of them was the tree from the Dead Horse Point parking lot I posted about recently. When we had been picking images to print during our paper test, our color photograph choice was between the Brice Creek photo we used (because of the greens and difficult yellows to reproduce) and this image. This is the type of image that works well big or small.
But not all images are like that. Sometimes you just don’t know. In the Ansel Adams book “The Print,” he discusses that some images need to be printed at a certain size. He’s right, and it works both ways. Sometimes an image printed large loses something it has when printed small. That’s often true with grand landscapes. Other times, a lovely small image simply looks horrible when printed big. I wasn’t sure how the image below would feel when print small, but thought it could work. It does. For me, it works because of the plainly seen boulders and, as I’d expected, the clarity of the vertical tree trunks. Fortunately, added to that, the pathway into the distance is retained in the image. I’m sure if printed larger, you’d suddenly be blessed with a lot of character from the smaller pine trees, but small, they form a nice, non-distracting backdrop. The strange thing is, it works for me, but Ann is less sure about it (again). Setting aside the fact that her standards (at least for herself) are much higher than mine, all I can say is that it’s her portfolio and she’s the one who has to make that choice. For me, there’s no reason to exclude this image.
One final image, one which we both agree is lovely, is another back and white image. Even small the image has a phenomenal range of textures within it. Different sand textures, earth textures, even cloud textures. It’s a rather impressive print given its limited size.
For a portfolio exercise, this printing exercise was a good one. Ann started with 11 images and whittled it down to 9 or 8, though the elimination of the black and white image means she needs to rethink the color/black and white mix a bit if she goes that route. Perhaps find another B&W image to try, or adjust the mix, or to go just color. In any event, she knows she has enough images that will print well to have 5 to 6 prints for the workshop. That’s all she needs, though I don’t envy her having to make that Final Cut.
Here’s a short update on our travels. By the time you read this, Ann and I should be with my Army Bud John and Judy in Ireland for a short trip. They’ll be coming back to Didam as our first house guests for the following week! So with any luck, the next post will have some Ireland shots for you and, if not, they should come later. We then have a month at home before we head to England and Scotland for a 3-week roadtrip that includes a couple of workshops. Hopefully I’ll be able to get some blog posts lined up so you won’t do without while we’re in the UK. In any event, it should be an interesting next three months.