Ralph Gibson: Why would you ditch film in your 76th year?

nongfuspring said:
Stewart, to paraphrase a certain psychoanalyst, there are opinions people know they keep, opinions people know they don't keep, and then there are people whose opinions they themselves don't know they keep. You can't argue with an opinion someone refutes having, regardless of how self evident it might be that they do - it will only degenerate into a semantic snow shovelling contest.

I think to have a genuinely worthwhile conversation about film and digital, we should really be talking about the technical and possibilities of each. Hybrid printing, digital C types, alternative printing machinery, digital enlargers, alternative chemistry, the good stuff. I think that is far more interesting than murky essentialist rhetoric.
Click to expand...

I fear so.

As an aside digital C types are a blast to make ...
 
Stewart, to paraphrase a certain psychoanalyst, there are opinions people know they keep, opinions people know they don't keep, and then there are people whose opinions they themselves don't know they keep. You can't argue with an opinion someone refutes having, regardless of how self evident it might be that they do - it will only degenerate into a semantic snow shovelling contest.

I think to have a genuinely worthwhile conversation about film and digital, we should really be talking about the technical and possibilities of each. Hybrid printing, digital C types, alternative printing machinery, digital enlargers, alternative chemistry, the good stuff. I think that is far more interesting than murky essentialist rhetoric.
Click to expand...

I agree. That would be a much more constructive approach.
 
gnuyork said:
Let me get this straight...so some online wanna-be blogger gets his panties in a wad because Ralph Gibson is shooting digital now?? I'll repeat ...Ralph Gibson.

Mr. Gibson can shoot photographs with a shoe for all I care. He will remain legendary in my mind no matter what.

The same goes for Elliott Erwitt - two of my all time favorite contemporary photographers.
Click to expand...

Sejanus.Aelianus said:
It is your right to hold such views and it is also the right of others to hold differing or even contradictory views. As someone just mentioned on another thread: freedom is not predicated on each person's prejudices.

This is why, in my opinion, people should be careful of how they discuss the holders of different opinions, assuming they wish to persuade others to their own view.
Click to expand...

gnuyork said:
I think you might be missing my point....Ralph Gibson...do you think he cares what any of us think? Really?



I Don't.
Click to expand...

ROFL :D.
This thread would have died an early death if people thought Mr. Gibson cared more than an empty film canister about a blogger's opinion about his personal choice of tools ;).
 
This brings me to a question that has always intrigued me. The iconic photographers of the last fifty years or so who are no longer with us ... HCB, Winogrand etc. Would they have progressed to digital eventually or would the 'process' of analog remained their mainstay.

I'm surprised Moriyama's recent switch to digital hasn't entered this discussion!
 
doolittle said:
It's all about the end result. That's not to say that different processes don't have different looks, but at the end of the day it doesn't really matter how much blood, sweat and tears the creator of the work put in. It doesn't seem fair, but it's the way it is. A lucky snap shot can have more impact than a laborious staged photograph. A good portrait taken digitally and printed with an inkjet can garner more praise than a laboriously created daguerrotype.
A grainy black and white photograph can tell more about the horrors of war than an elaborate painting that the took the artist months of graft.

These arguments have been around since the dawn of photography.
I can understand the romance of wet based photography, but I cannot understand why it should diminish the value of a good digital photograph.
Click to expand...

Well, I got as far as the end of your first sentence and have to disagree already. For a pro, yes. For a hobbyist, its all about whether or not the time spent is satisfying.

Reading further, I have already stated that whether an image is successful or not does not depend on the medium.
 
Keith said:
This brings me to a question that has always intrigued me. The iconic photographers of the last fifty years or so who are no longer with us ... HCB, Winogrand etc. Would they have progressed to digital eventually or would the 'process' of analog remained their mainstay.

I'm surprised Moriyama's recent switch to digital hasn't entered this discussion!
Click to expand...
Probably both.

I'm friendly with several respected photographers such as Simon Roberts and Mark Power (of Magnum) who started with film but now use digital as well. I think most passionate photographers aren't that fussed about process unless it's central to their work, though they of course have preferences (Mark likes film better, but digital is more convenient). Most just pick the right tool for the right job...

I can't recall any photographers I've spoken to being so bothered by the "artisan" nature (or not) of photography as people in this thread seem to be. Personally, I don't care either way - it's all photography...
 
ChrisN said:
So it is the appearance of the print that matters? And personal preference?
Click to expand...

The technical abilities of the medium, the muscularity of it's capability if you will, which directly determines how it looks. Would a sculptor choose a chisel she had to baby? I want to be able to take pictures in difficult light, because I think it's more interesting than flat light. Digital is like being in a straitjacket comparatively, hell with that. Plus digital color is all ****ed up, I lack the information and probably the abstract thinking skills to explain it, but I can see it's ****ed up.
 
The thing with established iconic photographers is that they have made their name, and art buyers/investors will buy anything they produce because there is money to be made regardless of which medium they use, so they may as well use something easy, unless they are truly committed to a process instead of being committed to convenience and easy money.
 
Ranchu said:
The technical abilities of the medium, the muscularity of it's capability if you will, which directly determines how it looks. Would a sculptor choose a chisel she had to baby? I want to be able to take pictures in difficult light, because I think it's more interesting than flat light. Digital is like being in a straitjacket comparatively, hell with that. Plus digital color is all ****ed up, I lack the information and probably the abstract thinking skills to explain it, but I can see it's ****ed up.
Click to expand...

Interesting that you bring this argument to the table. I know that with best-practice technique I can record probably 12 stops of dynamic range on a 4x5 B&W negative. With 35mm it's probably closer to eight stops in most conditions (less-than-perfect exposure, and development that is an average for the whole roll). If I really want to record the maximum range of luminance values I reach for my Pentax K5 dSLR, which is capable of recording 14.1 stops. In fact the K5 records so much information that raw images look flat, and usually need to have the contrast increased to give a pleasing look. I find a well-exposed digital RAW capture to be no straitjacket - in fact it gives me far more flexibility to achieve the final image than a film negative.

My colour vision is not particularly good, and what constitutes "good colour" is very subjective, so I'll leave that aspect alone.
 
I'm with ChrisN.

I shoot both Portra 400 film in a Mamiya 645 and a 36 MP Nikon D800E digital SLR, and print both as C-type traditional silver prints, usually up to 30-40 inches across. Don't do B&W, only colour, and although the colour from each is different, it's fantistically subtle for each - the days of bilious digital acid green lawns are long gone. Practically, I'd say both my cameras create images about equal in dynamic range.

Honestly, the argument that film is better than digital or vice versa is over. At least for the smaller medium-format film sizes.

Argue about which you prefer for aesthetic, craft or other reasons, but the old technical saw that digital is inferior is over. Different, yes - just like film types vary.

As I've said, I have no preference for film over digital or vice versa - I just shoot with what suits the situation best. Or with what simply takes my fancy.

I'm rolling my eyes at the the entrenched positions in this thread. It's all photography!
 
FrankS said:
The thing with established iconic photographers is that they have made their name, and art buyers/investors will buy anything they produce because there is money to be made regardless of which medium they use, so they may as well use something easy, unless they are truly committed to a process instead of being committed to convenience and easy money.
Click to expand...
I think this is the tone that people are reacting too... It's one thing to claim you're not judging a style and considering them "equal but different", but then statements like this ooze judgment (they could only be doing that for commercial reasons, not personal or artistic!)

I mostly wanted to point out Ming Thein's last 2 posts have been about his experience film vis-a-vis digital, worth a read. It's his usual thoughtful, measured, but self-reflective style.
 
Yes, you may have 14 stops flat, but as you say to must apply a curve to make it look right. That increases contrast in the mid tones and decreases it in the shadows and highlights. C-41 film records .7 stop of density for every stop of light in the midtones, and then less for shadows and highlights. Digital records 1 stop for 1 stop flat, then you have to add contrast.

So at the end you always have more contrast with digital. IE it is not as good at eating light.
 
Ranchu said:
Yes, you may have 14 stops flat, but as you say to must apply a curve to make it look right. That increases contrast in the mid tones and decreases it in the shadows and highlights. C-41 film records .7 stop of density for every stop of light in the midtones, and then less for shadows and highlights. Digital records 1 stop for 1 stop flat, then you have to add contrast.

So at the end you always have more contrast with digital. IE it is not as good at eating light.
Click to expand...
er.... it's digital-- you can make the curve any shape you want, preserving contrast as you please in the zones you please

that said, the non-linear BW film response does make it easier to manage at the bright end-- but then digital sensor usually makes it easier to manage at the dark end
 
And about the color, hue twists by saturation in digital, so hue may be correct for a low saturation red, but will be rendered quite rotated at higher saturations, and vice versa. Also, when you increase saturation, it's increased it by differing amounts for low saturation objects than high saturation ones. It's ****ed up on the most basic levels.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom