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

A Less Beautiful Ralph Gibson
Click to expand...


I find this somewhat judgemental. A question mark after the statement would have made it considerably less so for me.

This is an interesting thread though! :)
 
The rant was harsh but I liked it. I do get tired of reasonable, mealy-mouthed centrist sh-t.

Sounds like in addition to his age, Gibson was hooked by the monochrom, which certainly seems to be a outstanding tool - that could have pushed him over the edge.

Randy
 
jsrockit said:
Sure, he's got a distinct processing style... however, if his photography didn't have strong enough framing and content, it wouldn't matter. If you decide that someone's work is inferior simply because of a process used, that is your hang up and not theirs.
Click to expand...

That's fair comment. I accept that's my hang-up. I'd love to have one of Ralph's darkroom prints. As for an inkjet print? I'd rather wait and buy the poster as it would be much cheaper. Whether the image is squirted from Ralph's computer to an inkjet printer in his studio or squirted from his computer, via a memory stick to a publisher's printer doesn't make much difference in my opinion.
 
Photo_Smith said:
of course it's true.
So you think that controlling computer software and pressing a print button is the same as making a print by hand?
Click to expand...

It's not that much different... the best equipment for a great print is a great set of eyes... that goes for the darkroom and in digital. We all know that there is more work to digital than pushing a button.
 
Because he i sponsored by Leica to use/ promote their digital camera's.
Simple as that. There are so many photographers linked to brands they never even use, or just now and then because of commercial motivs.
Same was Wim Wenders with M8 and Anton Corbijn with a Leica point and shoot.
Yes they probably use it once in a while .... so what.
Most of the magnum boys associated with Leica in fact use dslrs most of the time ..... same story.
 
J. Borger said:
Because he i sponsored by Leica to use/ promote their digital camera's.
Simple as that. There are so many photographers linked to brands they never even use, or just now and then because of commercial motivs.
Same was Wim Wenders with M8 and Anton Corbijn with a Leica point and shoot.
Yes they probably use it once in a while .... so what.
Most of the magnum boys associated with Leica in fact use dslrs most of the time ..... same story.
Click to expand...

But he's got a new volume of digital images. An established artist would not totally shift the direction of their work just to satisfy a sponsor.
 
jsrockit said:
It's not that much different... the best equipment for a great print is a great set of eyes... that goes for the darkroom and in digital. We all know that there is more work to digital than pushing a button.
Click to expand...

Which wasn't the point at all. don't get hung up on the 'which is better' argument that I wasn't putting forward.

What I am saying is a hand print is an artisan approach, made by hand. The computer>inkjet workflow replaces that, that's why when I burn and dodge on a silver handprint I'm actually using my hands.
When I do it with a PC I'm clicking on an icon which represents a hand-it isn't an actual hand.

So printing with a computer with Photoshop is VERY different to using a hands on approach–or would you like to tell us the workflow of a film based unsharp mask? and how that differs from digital?

A great set of eyes is an advantage, a skill set is more so. Digital certainly lowers the bar for ease of use and that is great.

But an artisan hand printer is a wholly different skill set.
 
zauhar said:
But he's got a new volume of digital images. An established artist would not totally shift the direction of their work just to satisfy a sponsor.
Click to expand...

Perhaps Leica even sponsored the book like Sobols latest work.

Is not it curious that an established photographer feels the need to tell his latest images are digital in a time 90% of all images is digital? I have not seen them. If, like he claims, he can recreate his well known look with the Monochrom why should he even mention it?

I do not care what he uses, i always admired his work.
Besides it is just silly to expect a long time professional photographer to use the same tools all his life, where the average advanced amateur feels the need to use and try different cameras about every 6 months.
 
Why ditch film ?

Why not? The guy isn't dead yet, is he?
He wants a change of scenery. Okay, let him have it.
 
Isn't it a bit odd that he is making a point of his new use of digital, after years of making a big point of his use of film.

You may say that it doesn't matter if he uses film or digital, but he has, and is making a point out of it.
 
nongfuspring said:
Why is it invalid for an "artisan" to use a computer?
Click to expand...

Why indeed?

There's an ageism undercurrent here too.If Gibson was 46 would this thread even exist?

You would ditch film in your 76th year for the same reasons you would in your 66th, 56th, 46th. 36th year and so on. You don't care to use film anymore.
 
It's not ageism IMO, its just making note of his age because frankly 76 is at/near the end of a lifetime, so it is more relevant than if it were at the beginning or middle. And he has made his film use a virtue previously.
 
The guy grew up and spent his life in The Age of Film. He was excited by it. Loved it. Spoke out about it.
Now it's The Digital Age and he is making new discoveries instead of rocking on the porch, feeding his cat.
He's excited about being excited about something new.

What's to talk about ?
 
willie_901 said:
Why indeed?
.
Click to expand...

Because artisan means handmade, it doesn't mean better, more accurate or skilled (although the latter is what the advertising pushes). If you are using electronic tools to dodge and burn you aren't doing it by hand.

That's not to say the product won't be as good, just it isn't made by human hands, there is a wholly different skill set involved.
 
burancap said:
How are you controlling the mouse/trackball/epen?
Click to expand...

Don't be silly. How can that be by hand? there is an electronic machine doing the hand process for you.
Have you not noticed the picture of the hand on the dodge tool on Photoshop?
That isn't a real hand but a software representation of one, you have a machine between you and the dodging!.

If you think controlling a mouse is the same as handprinting I'd like to challenge you to describe the process of making an analogue unsharp mask vs the photoshop one.
There is a reason digital darkroom is easier than traditional, the biggest reason being the massive reduction in HAND work.

Even in the film days you had Handprints and Machine prints, the latter still required the operators to have actual human hands the process was very different though!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom