Steve M.
Veteran
The gallery should have done a better job editing which images they were going to hang. Some are quite good, some aren't.
I learned a long time ago to ignore what artists/photographers said and concentrate solely on the images. What they have to say isn't really important, but galleries like to have those little quotes for their shows, advertising and brochures. Still, the remark about not wanting his images to look like analog is a curious statement.
How exactly is that done? Everyone knows that film has a longer useable tonal range than digital, and grain sure don't look like noise. I'm not knocking digital because I can't always tell one from the other, but I just don't think I could take any of my digital images and make them look like a film shot. In the end, does it even matter? The image either works or it don't.
Maybe this wasn't representative of the overall quality that is on the walls? Always a little risky critiquing web images. Well, as long as he likes them.
I do agree that at a certain stage in people's career they may start to phone the stuff in because they know that the galleries will sell it anyway, but of course not everyone does or did that. Can you imagine Walker Evans, Ansel Adams or Matisse showing something that wasn't their absolute very best?
I learned a long time ago to ignore what artists/photographers said and concentrate solely on the images. What they have to say isn't really important, but galleries like to have those little quotes for their shows, advertising and brochures. Still, the remark about not wanting his images to look like analog is a curious statement.
How exactly is that done? Everyone knows that film has a longer useable tonal range than digital, and grain sure don't look like noise. I'm not knocking digital because I can't always tell one from the other, but I just don't think I could take any of my digital images and make them look like a film shot. In the end, does it even matter? The image either works or it don't.
Maybe this wasn't representative of the overall quality that is on the walls? Always a little risky critiquing web images. Well, as long as he likes them.
I do agree that at a certain stage in people's career they may start to phone the stuff in because they know that the galleries will sell it anyway, but of course not everyone does or did that. Can you imagine Walker Evans, Ansel Adams or Matisse showing something that wasn't their absolute very best?
emraphoto
Veteran
Most of the work that Matisse produced in the later stages of his life was mostly ridiculed and often referred to as trivial experiments by an old man.
gb hill
Veteran
Good to see he is still at it. Ralph’s at the point in his life it really doesn’t matter what he shoots. It’s his name that sells.
I still want a Ralph Gibson signature MP.
I still want a Ralph Gibson signature MP.
MIkhail
-
Man has to eat. What you going to do...
I would not pay much attention to what he says, that's not what RG is rightfully famous and valued for
I would not pay much attention to what he says, that's not what RG is rightfully famous and valued for
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
jarski
Veteran
Then there’s the nostalgia aspect also. World looked different back in -30s, -50s or even -70s. That can’t be brought back with any technology, besides time machine
MrFujicaman
Well-known
Uhhhhh...RG was born 01/16/39...he just turned 80.
Source-bio in "Deus Machina"
gnuyork
Well-known
Well, I say that, and then I see his most recent post on IG this morning (the one from DC with the tree outlining the comp of a man inside a building)...
excellent comp...Wow
Michael Markey
Veteran
The photography world is full of nice safe bubbles from which you can look at what other people are doing and wonder.
My advice is to look at stuff that you don`t like ….. you might learn something.
My advice is to look at stuff that you don`t like ….. you might learn something.
I agree and also your own bad photography can teach you a lot if you let it.
Keith, we both use the cameras we already want to no? I`m very comfortable with the camera I use and am in a good zone right now with my photography. Why would I mess that up just for a free camera? I guess I like photography more than cameras.
robert blu
quiet photographer
willie_901
Veteran
What aspect of David Alan Harvey's work deteriorated recently.
If digital cameras did not exist, do you think you would like David Alan Harvey's recent work?
willie_901
Veteran
But it's a Leica.
willie_901
Veteran
It's straightforward.
- Use a relatively recent digital camera with at least a 255 square mm (signal-to-noise ratio counts).
- Avoid using post-production or in camera-rendering methods designed to simulate film grain, film formulation response curves and, or film color hue rendering.
- Don't use very high camera ISO settings that result in severe sensor underexposure
[/QUOTE]
In some tonal range comparisons this would be the case. In some it would not. Quantitative comparisons are difficult because film formulations have a non-linear response while raw file data is linear.
The dynamic range recent affordable digital cameras equals or exceeds the dynamic range of film. The bit depth of a digital rendering is also relevant to perceived tonal differences. People who digitize their film images have the same bit-depth limitations as people with digital cameras. A pure analog workflow does not automatically maximize tonal range.
Analog film grain is noise. It is signal-dependent, spatial noise. A grain increases the spatial uncertainty for the image increases. Film grain is well-modeled as photon (shot) noise. Photon noise in digital images and film grain are described by Gaussian distributions.
I agree.
I recently attended an exhibit "Voices from the Photo League". The images were mostly large digital prints scanned from the large-format negatives made from 1945 - 1950 by Sonia Handelman Meyer and George Gilbert. These prints were excellent. The detail and lack of grain were In many ways they resembled images I have seen from well-exposed digital images.
Yes, that seems to be the issue. BUT, I`ve been there and done that I know it isn`t the right tool for me. A Leica CL (digital) I would use though for free... but I would not give up my X-Pro2 for a Leica M.
Steve Bellayr
Veteran
Who would not go digital if given a free Leica M10?
sjones
Established
Giving up film for a free M10; I wouldn’t. I’ll gladly stick with my M2 and Tri-X.
As for the latest Gibson photos, some of them are very good. Could I find similar stuff on Instagram (if I bothered to look)? Well, 500 trillion photos taken each microsecond across the globe, so yeah, most likely. So?
As for the latest Gibson photos, some of them are very good. Could I find similar stuff on Instagram (if I bothered to look)? Well, 500 trillion photos taken each microsecond across the globe, so yeah, most likely. So?
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Why is this even an issue worthy of being noted in an article?
Who freekin' cares whether someone is using digital capture or film? and why?
The only question is whether the photographer is making compelling photographs, telling interesting good stories, et cetera. For camera enthusiasts, sure: What tools were used is of interest in a geeky kind of way. But beyond that debating it, disparaging it, making absurd pronouncements that value the recording medium over the photographs ... it's a total waste of time.
I don't know Ralph Gibson's work enough to conclude whether I like what he's doing now more or less than what he did before. But it's very rare I like all of any artist's or photographer's work.
G
Huss
Veteran
Is the stipulation that if you accepted the M10 you would have to go digital and forgo film?
If that's the case, not me.