Michael Markey
Veteran
J. Borger
Well-known
i agree 100pct. I am a pretty good digital printer and good with photoshop. it takes not much effort to make a good digital print once you have your workflow right. To make. a good wetprint takes much more effort.
I still make digital prints when i can not get it right in the darkroom or when i have to print very large. Or when i print for a person who does not see or care for the difference. But darkroom prints look better to me and are far more rewarding. Last but not least they are unique handcrafted products, where i can copy a digital print as often as i want in exactly the same way.
People who state a digital print is not easier than a wetprint simply do not have enough photoshop/ scanning/ printing skills.
J. Borger
Well-known
Best proof for what i stated before. Ralph Gibson "went Digital" for commercial reasons. This is pure Leica Marketing, nothing more, nothing less.
He stays one of my favourite photographers but always had a fine nose to make good money with his photography. Perhaps next he comes up with a sotware bundle like Ralph Gibson Efex Pro.
Photo_Smith
Well-known
Yes, I can tell. The two are similar but I can tell the difference between ink on the surface of paper and a silver print is pretty big In my experience.
With C types I find the colour ink-jets have a wider gamut than the ones produces on a Frontier/Epsilon certainly a very different look as is a dye destruction print vs ink just another form, similar but certainly no where near identical.
Certainly its easier to pump the contrast on a digital print than one made by hand on C-type paper, for someone like myself who has been a Handprinter for over 25 years the difference is chalk and cheese.
Sparrow
Veteran
... so do you feel your words have less value due to that computerised rendering?
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Must be time for this old favourite!
Richard G
Veteran
Maybe the whole 2001 Ralph Gibson interview linked would have helped the discussion.
http://bermangraphics.com/press/ralphgibson.htm
Back then he was already pretty computer savvy. He said he got in early as it takes so long to learn Quark and Photoshop! He was laying out his own books and found the new tools fantastic for achieving a consistent tonality from the first page to the last.
He certainly did eloquently and persuasively hitch his barrow to film, but he was almost tongue in cheek at times about digital.
The opening part of the interview on the rangefinder and its fit with his vision was wonderful and should be a sticky link here. Nothing in that section would not have translated well to his taking up the Monochrom M.
He seems a very complex person. The same sense of irony and holding something back comes through in that Leica video Michael Markey just linked. As Cicero had it (Gibson has a very Roman head) 'Cui bono'. Leica Camera AG were glad to recruit the film die-hard, and Ralph Gibson, with his brand new Monochrom, was happy to oblige. This aspect of the matter possibly also contributes to the OP's passion in his original piece on his blog.
In the Mono section of Gibson's web site there are some beautiful shots. The compositional core of Gibson's work is camera independent, and you could even say his lack of interest in any detail in the blacks makes him perhaps the ideal Monochrom M exponent, less likely to blow the highlights, which he might want to do anyway.
http://bermangraphics.com/press/ralphgibson.htm
Back then he was already pretty computer savvy. He said he got in early as it takes so long to learn Quark and Photoshop! He was laying out his own books and found the new tools fantastic for achieving a consistent tonality from the first page to the last.
He certainly did eloquently and persuasively hitch his barrow to film, but he was almost tongue in cheek at times about digital.
The opening part of the interview on the rangefinder and its fit with his vision was wonderful and should be a sticky link here. Nothing in that section would not have translated well to his taking up the Monochrom M.
He seems a very complex person. The same sense of irony and holding something back comes through in that Leica video Michael Markey just linked. As Cicero had it (Gibson has a very Roman head) 'Cui bono'. Leica Camera AG were glad to recruit the film die-hard, and Ralph Gibson, with his brand new Monochrom, was happy to oblige. This aspect of the matter possibly also contributes to the OP's passion in his original piece on his blog.
In the Mono section of Gibson's web site there are some beautiful shots. The compositional core of Gibson's work is camera independent, and you could even say his lack of interest in any detail in the blacks makes him perhaps the ideal Monochrom M exponent, less likely to blow the highlights, which he might want to do anyway.
MISH
Well-known
Ralph has the Leitz enlarger that Robert Frank gave him that Mr Frank had printed the original prints for The Americans on. If he doesnt need it any more I could always use another old enlarger.
Richard G
Veteran
Must be time for this old favourite!
This was the one that first brought xkcd to my attention.
How about this one:
image by Richard GM2, on Flickr
Recaption: White to continue insisting that digital is not yet photography.
__jc
Well-known
If Ralph Gibson or any other high-profile photographer is happy for Leica to give them a Monochrom - and I think also this has been the case with Mary Ellen Mark who is extremely passionate about film - good luck to them.
Nobody but the people involved can be sure of the motives involved, but I'd hazard a guess that Leica would like to see fewer potential buyers spending their money on used M2s or M6s or whatever, and buying a new Monochrom.
Having icons of photography whose names are synonymous with using film being seen to migrate to using Monochroms may simply be Leica's marketing strategy to bolster sales of that camera - which, after all, was created to capture exactly that Market (of Tri-x users in the vein of Ralph or Mary).
Personally I don't think there's anything more to it than that. What the photographers' motives are no-one can say, but I'm sure they are manifold.
For my own part, I don't think it matters whether I prefer film or someone else prefers digital. I do. along with other film users, share a certain discomfort that film is being quite marginalized. But I think that there will always be a sufficiently large core of users to ensure it is a viable product.
I feel I should add, being relatively new to the forum, that I think in some ways this original post has demonstrated there is a sharp divide between some film and digital people here. Passionate argument is something to be encouraged, but at times I have been quite surprised to see quite churlish posts in this thread. Why not just enjoy the fact that we're all here because we share a commonality of interest?
Cheers, Phil (Johnny)
Nobody but the people involved can be sure of the motives involved, but I'd hazard a guess that Leica would like to see fewer potential buyers spending their money on used M2s or M6s or whatever, and buying a new Monochrom.
Having icons of photography whose names are synonymous with using film being seen to migrate to using Monochroms may simply be Leica's marketing strategy to bolster sales of that camera - which, after all, was created to capture exactly that Market (of Tri-x users in the vein of Ralph or Mary).
Personally I don't think there's anything more to it than that. What the photographers' motives are no-one can say, but I'm sure they are manifold.
For my own part, I don't think it matters whether I prefer film or someone else prefers digital. I do. along with other film users, share a certain discomfort that film is being quite marginalized. But I think that there will always be a sufficiently large core of users to ensure it is a viable product.
I feel I should add, being relatively new to the forum, that I think in some ways this original post has demonstrated there is a sharp divide between some film and digital people here. Passionate argument is something to be encouraged, but at times I have been quite surprised to see quite churlish posts in this thread. Why not just enjoy the fact that we're all here because we share a commonality of interest?
Cheers, Phil (Johnny)
wakarimasen
Well-known
A pretty similar comment was made about Scott Kelbys' shift to Canon from Nikon
dogbunny
Registered Boozer
Is there a source to him coming out of the digital closet, like him actually talking about the switch? Him having a special edition digital camera really doesn't indicate anything. Is he just happy to take the money for having a special edition camera and kicking out a digital book?
The video may be telling, but it doesn't say anything. Rather than assuming, does he spell it out anywhere? Sources?
The video may be telling, but it doesn't say anything. Rather than assuming, does he spell it out anywhere? Sources?
Richard G
Veteran
Very good point.
Ansel
Well-known
I'm always amazed that with a visual medium such as photography, people can't see the massive difference in aesthetics between analogue and digital. It doesn't get any better than a fine a analogue print.
Photo_Smith
Well-known
Of course not, and I have not made that argument. It isn't about the value of the words.
So I'll ask you again; do you see a that handwriting on paper is different from a print of the SAME words in say Arial despite the fact the PC user is using his hands that it isn't actual handwriting?
My point is the computer rendering isn't done by hand, but is a computer rendering.
jesse1dog
Light Catcher
75 is getting old!
75 is getting old!
So you are 75 and you have woken up today.
And you are thankfull!
You have no idea what tomorrow might bring but you do know that the number of tomorrows is ever decreasing.
You take photos, and because you know destiny is catching up, you want to see those photos - and today, because there might not be a tomorrow.
With a digital camera, you can do that.
With a film camera it's dubious - the workflow is too long.
And it's capturing the picture/story that counts.
I have several very good film cameras with excellent lenses.
I have several digital cameras.
I use the digital and I dont't use the film.
At 75 I guess the immediacy matters, at 76 even more so!
jesse
75 is getting old!
So you are 75 and you have woken up today.
And you are thankfull!
You have no idea what tomorrow might bring but you do know that the number of tomorrows is ever decreasing.
You take photos, and because you know destiny is catching up, you want to see those photos - and today, because there might not be a tomorrow.
With a digital camera, you can do that.
With a film camera it's dubious - the workflow is too long.
And it's capturing the picture/story that counts.
I have several very good film cameras with excellent lenses.
I have several digital cameras.
I use the digital and I dont't use the film.
At 75 I guess the immediacy matters, at 76 even more so!
jesse
DominikDUK
Well-known
Ralph Gibson used the digital workflow and knows quiet a lot about digital and that since the first serious digital cameras appeared on the market. He mostly used it to publish his work and now has gone one step further so what. Gibson when digital 20 years ago not now in his 76th year.
Michael Markey
Veteran
Yes ... as I said in an early post ... in my experience its the older chaps often with years of darkroom work under their belt who are the most enthusiastic about the digital work flow.
Maybe they can see the difference as Ansel suggests but if they can they don`t seem to care .
Maybe immediacy and a lot less frustration trumps any other considerations.
If after putting the fixer in before the developer too many times ,someone comes up to you and says here is a new Monochrome ...who can blame him
FrankS
Registered User
I simply said that they are different, that I personally prefer the process of film based photography, and that i personally put greater value on a wet print than a digital one. No where have i said that digital is not yet photography. Please don't put words in my mouth.
I'd rather have a great digital print than a bad analog print. In color, I'd rather have an archival digital print instead of a c-print that isn't archival. It's not as simple as you make it.