burancap
Veteran
Silly? Silly would be using my NOSE to move the mouse/trackball/epen.
hendriphile
Well-known
Remember what happened when Dylan switched from "analogue" to "digital"? 
Koolzakukumba
Real men use B+W
"A Less Beautiful Ralph Gibson"
It's a play on words. The "less beautiful" refers to a Ralph Gibson print, not Ralph himself who's a handsome guy.
It's backed up by Ralph's own words where he concedes that an inkjet print is not as beautiful as a silver gelatin print.
Here are his words, "It must be said that the silver-gelatin print is still more beautiful than the ink-jet but at the rate technology is progressing it is not inconceivable that the substrates will become even more desirable."
Therefore, if you were to buy a Gibson inkjet print you'd be getting "A Less Beautiful Ralph Gibson".
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!
It's a play on words. The "less beautiful" refers to a Ralph Gibson print, not Ralph himself who's a handsome guy.
It's backed up by Ralph's own words where he concedes that an inkjet print is not as beautiful as a silver gelatin print.
Here are his words, "It must be said that the silver-gelatin print is still more beautiful than the ink-jet but at the rate technology is progressing it is not inconceivable that the substrates will become even more desirable."
Therefore, if you were to buy a Gibson inkjet print you'd be getting "A Less Beautiful Ralph Gibson".
marcr1230
Well-known
Is Gibson a printer or a photographer?
Isn't his photographic vision more important
Than the medium?
If he wants to try his vision and represent it with new tools,I don't see how he has betrayed film.
Isn't his photographic vision more important
Than the medium?
If he wants to try his vision and represent it with new tools,I don't see how he has betrayed film.
Steve Bellayr
Veteran
I thought about going digital with an M240 but it was not economically feasible. Having all the necessary lenses would, I thought, make it practical but when I spoke with the local camera dealer, who had one to sell, I looked at it differently. First I would need to update my computer/printer/programs to make using the camera practical, which would cost a minimum of $3k above any cost for the camera body. As a hobbyist this would not be economically a sound decision. However, if I was a professional, like Mr. Gibson, it would be very practical (though I do not know of any renowned photographer that spends any time in a dark room as they all had dark room assistants.) And, of course, at 76, he would want to experiment with a new system. This does not mean that he has forever, though at 76 forever has a different meaning, forsaken film.
mfogiel
Veteran
I think, he might have had some other reasons, beyond convenience, to switch. As others have suggested, could have been a health choice, or maybe a realization, that he hasn't got all that much time left, and that digital process will free his time to do things he could enjoy more, than sitting in the darkroom. It actually remains to be seen, if this is indeed the case, as I hear some people take more time editing digitally than in a traditional manner. Perhaps he could also be on a sponsoring contract from Leica - I don't know.
But to be quite frank, the tonality of Gibson's photos, famous for scant shadow detail and high contrast, was not so far away from what you typically can get from digital process, so for him the transition could have been more natural than for others. I am not expecting Pentti Sammalahti to go digital any time soon.
Finally - relative to collectors' desires - I believe he still might use Lambda printing for getting silver halide prints from his files, so as to keep the continuity with his earlier output.
On the shadows:http://mondoinbiancoenero.com/my-friend-the-shadow-2/
On shadow detail:http://mondoinbiancoenero.com/shadow-detail/
But to be quite frank, the tonality of Gibson's photos, famous for scant shadow detail and high contrast, was not so far away from what you typically can get from digital process, so for him the transition could have been more natural than for others. I am not expecting Pentti Sammalahti to go digital any time soon.
Finally - relative to collectors' desires - I believe he still might use Lambda printing for getting silver halide prints from his files, so as to keep the continuity with his earlier output.
On the shadows:http://mondoinbiancoenero.com/my-friend-the-shadow-2/
On shadow detail:http://mondoinbiancoenero.com/shadow-detail/
zauhar
Veteran
But not totally joking -
This thread partakes of a conversation that has been continuous for all the time I have participated in RFF, and I bet it goes back to the first day the site was opened.
There is a tension between those who care only about 'product', and those who think the process and the organic involvement of the artist are critical. The latter set feels that the product is indeed not the same when the process is changed.
And this is a spiritual argument. It expresses a deep value. Those who try to argue this in intellectual terms are really missing the point.
The point of view of those who think that all that matters is product is a trivial one - yeah, you made X, that's all that matters. I can sit in the chair whether a skilled craftsmen spent 20 hours on it, or if a machine turned it out in one minute.
The other point of view is deeper by construction - it pulls in the human element of skill and care, the involvement of the eye and hands. It shows respect for human creation and personal commitment.
Speaking of hands, the involvement of the hands when you contort them to make a shadow when adjusting a silver print is a much different thing than using them to pick pixels in PS. Just saying.
Randy
finguanzo
Well-known
Sometimes grown men like to wear stretchy pants, its for fun.
daveleo
what?
Remember what happened when Dylan switched from "analogue" to "digital"?
I was there ! Newport Folk Festival !
My whole folksy-artsy world fell apart !
How dare he do that !!
YYV_146
Well-known
The thought process implies that digital is inferior to film in some way. This is untrue.
What is photography? It is a way of expression and interpreting the world. Who cares if this process involves photoshop or a chemical darkroom? As long as the desired result is achieved, one might as well use either a 6x7 or an iPhone...there will be scenes when one medium works better than another, but "works better" does not equate to "achieving a desired result".
I applaud Mr. Gibson's courage to make such changes late in his life. If I were 70 and digital has been replaced by some fancy new medium, I'm not sure if I would have the energy to work with it...
What is photography? It is a way of expression and interpreting the world. Who cares if this process involves photoshop or a chemical darkroom? As long as the desired result is achieved, one might as well use either a 6x7 or an iPhone...there will be scenes when one medium works better than another, but "works better" does not equate to "achieving a desired result".
I applaud Mr. Gibson's courage to make such changes late in his life. If I were 70 and digital has been replaced by some fancy new medium, I'm not sure if I would have the energy to work with it...
J. Borger
Well-known
With a complete analog workflow it is almost impossible to create 2 100pct identical prints. Especialy if dodging and burning is involved. if you use instant film or start handcolering prints become even more unique and one of a kind!
A digital print otoh can be duplicated the same Thousends of times by anybody capable to push the print button.
FrankS
Registered User
Nail, on the head
YYV_146
Well-known
Not really. There is proofing involved in digital, as well as color management issues with the monitor/paper selection. I wouldn't be able to perfectly reprint something from another photographer, even if he gave me the full DNG file.
As far as I'm concerned most print-selling photographers I know are very cautious about how much and what to print. The decision is not one out of technical difficulty but one of practical supply and demand, but it's still there.
Koolzakukumba
Real men use B+W
Nicely put. You managed to outdo yourself and explain a spiritual matter in intellectual terms.
f16sunshine
Moderator
Digital… Film.. If he did not tell you would not know by flipping through one of his books.
Isn't that the more important point ?
Gibson will always be one of my favorites. His images now are different than those from 20, 30 years ago. Why should his technique remain the same? (Daido Moriyami as well as others too)
This conversation is over.
Isn't that the more important point ?
Gibson will always be one of my favorites. His images now are different than those from 20, 30 years ago. Why should his technique remain the same? (Daido Moriyami as well as others too)
This conversation is over.
Turtle
Veteran
Several Points:
1. I think Gibson's recent work is not what it used to be. I wont blame the camera for that.
2. Gibsons anti digital views a decade ago were undoubtedly framed by what digital cameras and output represented then. But they have both moved on, along with processing.
3. Now that you can print digital on silver halide paper and with the powerful processing platforms we have, you can do pretty well whatever you want and make it all but indistinguishable from film capture.
IMO, this is a non-issue. Digital has moved on and so has the photographer, so why hold him to 12 year old comments? This does nothing to diminish the value of film work, but I feel the author of that post is somewhat lacking in experience when it comes to the sort of quality and 'looks' people are achieving with digital capture now. Film will always have a place in my heart, but for only a small percentage of the reasons cited by the blogger. A good many just don't hold water. Besides, the elephant in the room is the value of a great shot and the unique vision of the artist giving the print value. Too many people attach value to the process not the mind that produced it.
1. I think Gibson's recent work is not what it used to be. I wont blame the camera for that.
2. Gibsons anti digital views a decade ago were undoubtedly framed by what digital cameras and output represented then. But they have both moved on, along with processing.
3. Now that you can print digital on silver halide paper and with the powerful processing platforms we have, you can do pretty well whatever you want and make it all but indistinguishable from film capture.
IMO, this is a non-issue. Digital has moved on and so has the photographer, so why hold him to 12 year old comments? This does nothing to diminish the value of film work, but I feel the author of that post is somewhat lacking in experience when it comes to the sort of quality and 'looks' people are achieving with digital capture now. Film will always have a place in my heart, but for only a small percentage of the reasons cited by the blogger. A good many just don't hold water. Besides, the elephant in the room is the value of a great shot and the unique vision of the artist giving the print value. Too many people attach value to the process not the mind that produced it.
Rick Waldroup
Well-known
From the catalogue, Walker Evans. Published in 2000 by MOMA.
"While Stieglitz and Strand painstakingly and through much darkroom experimentation made exquisite prints that call out to be admired, Evans aimed to conceal the craft that went into the process. Print quality is 'very important', he said, but 'it should be hidden.....Take one negative and print it several different ways, and just one will be right. It's really a question of truth.' Evans wanted the viewer to be directly confronted by the reality presented in the work and remain unaware of the travail hidden within it."
Gibson simply changed his mind and decided to move in a different direction.
"While Stieglitz and Strand painstakingly and through much darkroom experimentation made exquisite prints that call out to be admired, Evans aimed to conceal the craft that went into the process. Print quality is 'very important', he said, but 'it should be hidden.....Take one negative and print it several different ways, and just one will be right. It's really a question of truth.' Evans wanted the viewer to be directly confronted by the reality presented in the work and remain unaware of the travail hidden within it."
Gibson simply changed his mind and decided to move in a different direction.
Joakim Målare
Established
About tools and results...
I grew up around computers and simultaneously developed an interest in different arts, mostly sculpture, photography and drawing. Naturally, I am able to express myself freely with digital technology in two, three and four dimensions.
But as my artistic understanding and sensibility deepened (although still in its infancy) I realised there was something lacking in my digital work. Sure, superficially I was able to produce something similar to a real life drawing, but the digital version lacked warmth. It lacked traces from the physical intervention of life and matter, because the output was computed, mechanical. If this sounds unfamiliar, compare anyones simple sketch on paper with the same persons digital drawing using a tablet. No matter how well you synthesize the real deal, it will not radiate what people might refer to as soul, warmth, presence or similar.
At some point in time, you might come very very close in simulating reality, but don't forget the endless layers of technological interfaces you need to interact with to achieve that. I believe that in order to connect with your self, your senses and to some degree with yor subconscious, you need an unobstructed flow from mind through eye and hand to your choice of medium.
This may not translate well into the analog/digital debate regarding photography, for both are pretty technologically oriented already, but the argument in favour of the traditional process still stands. It is that of motion. Our bodies are built for mobility and our method of living is based on mind-eye-hand coordination - your will, your hand, a tool and the physical result. That's why I get more satisfaction out of my darkroom than the computer screen. It may not show in the print, but for the photographer it's still a valid point - motion keeps your mind fresh.
My guess is that Mr. Gibsons back is aching.
I grew up around computers and simultaneously developed an interest in different arts, mostly sculpture, photography and drawing. Naturally, I am able to express myself freely with digital technology in two, three and four dimensions.
But as my artistic understanding and sensibility deepened (although still in its infancy) I realised there was something lacking in my digital work. Sure, superficially I was able to produce something similar to a real life drawing, but the digital version lacked warmth. It lacked traces from the physical intervention of life and matter, because the output was computed, mechanical. If this sounds unfamiliar, compare anyones simple sketch on paper with the same persons digital drawing using a tablet. No matter how well you synthesize the real deal, it will not radiate what people might refer to as soul, warmth, presence or similar.
At some point in time, you might come very very close in simulating reality, but don't forget the endless layers of technological interfaces you need to interact with to achieve that. I believe that in order to connect with your self, your senses and to some degree with yor subconscious, you need an unobstructed flow from mind through eye and hand to your choice of medium.
This may not translate well into the analog/digital debate regarding photography, for both are pretty technologically oriented already, but the argument in favour of the traditional process still stands. It is that of motion. Our bodies are built for mobility and our method of living is based on mind-eye-hand coordination - your will, your hand, a tool and the physical result. That's why I get more satisfaction out of my darkroom than the computer screen. It may not show in the print, but for the photographer it's still a valid point - motion keeps your mind fresh.
My guess is that Mr. Gibsons back is aching.
redisburning
Well-known
Gibson is one of my favorites too.
I recently took a look back at my photos and I realized that while there was one specific film/developer combination I liked, outside of that I was much happier with the tones in my digital images. It's true I am fairly competent with advanced photo editing tools so I have a big advantage over your lightroom plug and chug folks, I suppose.
anyway congrats Ralph, 2014 is your digital year. it is mine too.
Photo_Smith
Well-known
You miss my point entirely.
Nobody up to now has suggested digital is somehow less 'pure' because it is generated by computers.
There is a huge amount of difference producing something (like a pair of shoes) by hand and making the same thing with a CNC lathe for instance.
nothing silly about my argument, it is just the definition of someone that is an artisan is someone who makes something by hand.
If you are using a computer to make your unsharp masks it is WAY harder to do that by hand.
The materials used by an artisan being made by industrial process is wholly irrelevant artisan made is hand made (without computer control) by definition.