Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
So, artists are never allowed to change, evolve, make different statements? My film work today is a lot different that my old film work. I've evolved as an artist, I have different things to say, and I have become technically more skilled as well. I'd hate to be stuck working the way I did 20 years ago.
leicapixie
Well-known
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=139736
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=139736
I have the same feeling about those same photographers.
I love the use of digital, but seldom have i made a print, that really satisfies, what i once perceived as "my style".
We gain convenience, but loose something very important.
The uniqueness of our methods, imperfect, wobbly but always our very own.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=139736
I have the same feeling about those same photographers.
I love the use of digital, but seldom have i made a print, that really satisfies, what i once perceived as "my style".
We gain convenience, but loose something very important.
The uniqueness of our methods, imperfect, wobbly but always our very own.
redisburning
Well-known
I mean if all you do is plug and chug lightroom, sure.
saying that digital photography is easy as a whole is like saying there isnt a difference between the father-daughter dance and olympic figure skating.
btw when I scan I have to do all that **** on my computer anyway lmao. Adorama prints me nice 11x14s that beat the silver prints Ive personally done. I gave 3 of them as Christmas gifts at a family gathering. people's eyes were as wide as saucers and no one could believe that was from 35mm film.
saying that digital photography is easy as a whole is like saying there isnt a difference between the father-daughter dance and olympic figure skating.
btw when I scan I have to do all that **** on my computer anyway lmao. Adorama prints me nice 11x14s that beat the silver prints Ive personally done. I gave 3 of them as Christmas gifts at a family gathering. people's eyes were as wide as saucers and no one could believe that was from 35mm film.
Richard G
Veteran
I agree with this.
"No man stepped in the same river twice." Did Robert Frank drive across America again some time later? You can't have your twenties back. Some rare artists, Picasso, Matisse, Horowitz were still remarkable at a great age, but other pianists, photographers and writers have some late rubbish pushed out for commercial reasons. (I am not talking about Gibson there.) Pianos have only got better and more interesting. I don't think film to digital is the reason for one's first love fading. It's tempting to take Bruce's and Frank's point that the more difficult road is the only way to the more worthwhile and satisfying result, a sentiment I have a lot of time for, but there are reasons beyond Tri-X and Rodinal for not liking someone's later digital photographic output.
Sejanus.Aelianus
Veteran
Well, to someone like me, there isn't.
This whole discussion seems to me about people who want to impose their view of the world on others. Wouldn't it be a really nice idea if we simply said "I like that" or "I don't like that"? Why would anyone in their right mind want to tell other people what to like or dislike?
The world is a big place. I believe that there's plenty of space for everyone's likes and dislikes, provided that they just agree that everyone else has a right to their different opinions.
Brian Atherton
Well-known
Hear, hear.
For me, this discussion has descended to the equivalent of two bald men arguing about the use of a comb.
nongfuspring
Well-known
I think it's fine that the article is critical but if you're going to criticise someone's work then you should criticise the actual pictures, not make vitriolic blanket assertions about the medium.
Sejanus.Aelianus
Veteran
Oi! Stop being personal.
Koolzakukumba
Real men use B+W
As someone said earlier, this issue largely breaks down into two camps:
A. Those who believe the image - the artist's vision - is the only thing that matters
B. Those who believe that the image is important but so is the process used to achieve the artist's vision
I'm in the second group which is the minority opinion as far as this thread goes. For those in the A group, can you explain the following. Why does this Turner painting sell for £30 million and the identical-under-glass poster for £15?
A. Those who believe the image - the artist's vision - is the only thing that matters
B. Those who believe that the image is important but so is the process used to achieve the artist's vision
I'm in the second group which is the minority opinion as far as this thread goes. For those in the A group, can you explain the following. Why does this Turner painting sell for £30 million and the identical-under-glass poster for £15?
Attachments
Phil_F_NM
Camera hacker
The topic of mass-production of an image never came up here, if I recall correctly. Granted, the use of a computer allows for easier mass production.
The difference between the painting and the poster is one of production and limited release. There is one painting. That makes it unique and extraordinarily valuable. Not the same of the poster which was created for the purpose of mass production and sales.
A photographer can easily limit the number of images which is produced regardless of medium, analog or digital.
This analogy is reaching anyway. It's like saying that reading my first edition copy of Treasure Island is better than reading the same book bought from a bookstore today. If that were true then what the heck are people reading religious scripture for if they aren't reading the actual writings themselves?
Then it's only a stone's throw to reading the verse isn't enough. Hearing the sound of Beethoven's 7th Symphony on CD isn't as good as on vinyl, isn't as good as live. But Beethoven was an extraordinary composer and many in the modern era believe that we will never know his intention of how his work should have been heard after he went deaf due to differences in meter. So, hearing that work performed by a modern orchestra isn't the real thing, right?
Why bother?
Your process is good for you and while those in group B have their beliefs, they are a little bit myopic for folks who appreciate art, in my opinion.
Then again, since none of use have been debating this matter face-to-face or via handwritten letters with handmade inks on rag paper which we have made ourselves, this whole discussion doesn't matter and probably hasn't happened.
Phil Forrest
Sparrow
Veteran
... in the 80s when CAD was sweeping through the design world there were many egos that couldn't accept that hard won skills had suddenly become obsolete ... JMW Turner was progressive in his day, and would have had little sympathy with your (establishment) stance, he would be firmly in group (a I feel
One is an original and one is a copy.
Vics
Veteran
I'd go digital, too if Leica did this for me...
http://www.ralphgibson.com/current.html
http://www.ralphgibson.com/current.html
nongfuspring
Well-known
I worked briefly in art valuation.
All cultural artefacts (art, design, Churchill's hipflask - whattever) are valued based on a combination of their scarcity, cultural significance, and real or perceived quality. Just because something is hand made does NOT make it intrinsically more valuable in any sense whatsoever - Duchamp's found industrially produced readymades go for the multiple millions, and there are countless other examples of artworks that fetch ultra high sums and involved not only industrial processes but little or even no intervention on behalf of the artist at all.
The most expensive photograph I sold (a Desiree Dolron) was one of an edition of 7 digitally printed on reinforced dibond that sold for approx 100,000 USD. Coincidentally that was the most expensive piece of anything I ever sold of any type - painting, sculpture or otherwise. As a side note, the most ever paid for a photograph was for a Gursky, a digital C type for something like 4.5million USD.
Something being hand made ensures that a certain limited quantity of a given thing can be produced, but it does not ensure cultural significance or quality, both of which are much more important.
J.Paul
J.Paul
I would agree with you. Making a great image which is a property of, and also limited by a particular process is a singular personal achievement.
And fashioning an approximation of that same image by another means in which you do not have physical custody of it, and where you are insulated from it by a wall of technology is simply not the same.
The end product is not the same, even if it appears to be so.
Doing a digital representation today is for someone like Gibson or Salgado, a technological search to recreate the visual end and properties of film. The whole race among the manufacturers has been to be as "good" as film.
And when they achieve superiority in resolution and all other areas and surpass the limitations of the analogue method, they will still not be as "good" as film due to the fact that they will have dispensed with those properties which both make and, at the same time, limit film and paper methods thus making it what it is. Unique, and something which can be imitated but not recreated.
As far as the Gibson matter, it would not have been a substantial issue if he had not made the process by which he achieved his success an integral part of describing himself and his work.
Viewing the video above, it is clear that this is a commercial venture for both Leica and Mr. Gibson. A sales pitch in tone.
redisburning
Well-known
so are you seriously suggesting that Gibson is able to be bought out? why didnt he go digital with the M8 or M9?
I doubt Ralph, at his age and with his success, is in a position where he does much of anything he doesn't want to. unless he has a coke addiction I dont know about.
I doubt Ralph, at his age and with his success, is in a position where he does much of anything he doesn't want to. unless he has a coke addiction I dont know about.
Margu
Established
ralph gibson is an egomaniac and like all egomaniacs if you throw a party for him, he'll do anything. leica threw a party for him and give him a mono for publicity... that is all, so please don't waste your religious fervor on such a trivial issue
So, you know him personally?
back alley
IMAGES
mirror gazing again?
kdemas
Enjoy Life.
David Hockney began using an iPad for some of his artwork in his 70s. I guess he's a sellout too?
These threads crack me up. Use whatever you like, they're tools.
These threads crack me up. Use whatever you like, they're tools.