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

FrankS said:
Nail, on the head
Click to expand...

Maybe. At least its one kind of nail. I'll suggest another. But first, this of course has nothing to do with Mr. Gibson's decision as I haven't talked to Ralph recently... well.. ever. :)

I'm 67 now. I've spent many years enjoying film/darkroom image making. But recently I've found that I only care about making stronger and stronger images that express my view of the world. I no longer care about the mechanics of how the image is made. And I don't want to use up all my time with the film/darkroom cycle. I just want to go out into the world and 'see'. Digital gets me much closer to that. Maybe this is an age-related decision on my part; I suspect strongly that it is. I see fewer years available ahead. I want to optimize my time out in the world seeing.

And just a note about post-processing time... I spend almost zero time at the computer processing images. They get downloaded, edited down, and maybe cropped. That's it.
 
Koolzakukumba said:
That's a very narrow-minded interpretation of what I've written but maybe that's because it's what you've chosen to read into it. It's about more than digital v film. It's about the way the computer interface is displacing the artisan in society.
Click to expand...

Good point.

From the article:
Why as a society are we so hell-bent on moving away from things made by human hand to soul-less computer-based crap?
Click to expand...

That is the proverbial $64,000 question. Why are people so damn obsessed with computers and technology these days??

In spite of of the dubious and wishful claims of the digital pulpit-pounders, "Newer" and "Faster" do not inevitably equate to better.
 
Originally Posted by J. Borger
"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."
YYV_146 said:
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.
Click to expand...

It's just a one button push for limitless copies once you've got it set up, though (until your ink or paper runs out).
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Photo_Smith said:
Which wasn't the point at all. don't get hung up on the 'which is better' argument that I wasn't putting forward.
Click to expand...

Ok.

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.
Click to expand...

I get that, but once you get the hang of it, dodging and burning by hand isn't that hard... it then becomes just another piece in the process. Physical hands may be removed from digital, but ultimately the idea is the same in both. I guess I never thought of my hands as an important piece to my process. It was just what had to be done.

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?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't know how to do it in either process. However, I've printed in color and B&W darkrooms in many different processes such as Cibachromes, C-Prints, B&W, Cyanotype, Van Dyke Brown, etc. Digital is just another process to me.

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.
Click to expand...

I can agree with that, but once you've done both... it no longer matters. You just use what works for what you want to accomplish.
 
Hey, what's this all about????

I'm in my 70th year...can't old guys have fun, too????

Besides, with a little age and perspective, it's easier to see that digital lets you do a lot more with an image and produce better prints than ever...and in a LIGHTROOM not a DARKROOM!!!
 
J. Borger said:
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.
Click to expand...

Don't you think this is because all of the processing is done prior to hitting the print button? You guys are making like people who make great digital prints just print straight from the camera to a junky old printer.
 
Turtle said:
Several Points:
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.
Click to expand...

Hate to disappoint you but I'm a very experienced digital photographer. Got a D700, a clutch of lenses and consider myself to be skilled with Photoshop. I've got some A3 black and white inkjet prints hanging on my wall that are almost as good as good darkroom prints. (Check out my gallery here - it's nearly all digital) But it was moving from film to digital that made me realise how one-dimensional and unsatisfying digital is for me. That's why I went back to film and haven't regretted it for a second.

I still use the D700 from time to time, mainly for taking product shots if I'm putting something on Ebay or to photograph darkroom prints for publishing on my blog. If digital were to disappear tomorrow I wouldn't bat an eyelid. If film went, I'd be gutted.
 
Chriscrawfordphoto said:
You mean like the industrial machinery used to manufacture paper and plastic film base, mix emulsions, and coat them onto the aforementioned industrially manufactured paper and plastic.

Photography has been dependent on a massive industrial complex for a century now. Time to drop the silly and illogical argument that digital work is somehow artisanal or 'pure'.
Click to expand...

I agree! (But I think you forgot a negative.)


;)
 
Photo_Smith said:
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.
Click to expand...


... that sounds more like an opinion to me. Who defined artisan as the absence of computerisation would you say?
 
Whether the original is film and reproduced as a traditionally developed print or it's digital and digitally printed, what we see in books, regardless of the type of original, is (in the vast majority of cases) reproduced digitally.

Therefore unless one views a reproduction from the original source, say, at an exhibition, the type of media (film or digital) is pretty much an irrelevance, IMHO.

Still love Gibson's though, what media he's using.
 
jsrockit said:
Don't you think this is because all of the processing is done prior to hitting the print button? You guys are making like people who make great digital prints just print straight from the camera to a junky old printer.
Click to expand...

Nobody has said that. Obviously you have to arrange your pixels in the most pleasing way prior to hitting the print button. Once you've done that, it's no different from a commercial printer knocking out thousands of posters.
 
The quality of darkroom equipment, technique and tools has historically been judged by its (and the users) ability to reliably reproduce the desired result. How is this suddenly granted the magical aura of "artisanal"? Is it more "artisanal" if instead of lightbulbs you were to channel sunlight through the enlarger and negative using fibre optics? Is my digital process more artisanal if I build a usb device that allows me to dodge and burn using hand-wielded light filtering device?

Obviously, the work flows of film and digital print making both have artisanal aspects in different parts of the flow, and both have rote technical aspects as well.

Artists like to learn-- what's the point of leaning on a learned technique and not evolving? When are you "done" learning, tools never to improve / change / evolve? I guess that's what some call craft vs art, when the purpose is to master a technique rather than use a technique as part of achieving a resultant output. In one case the product is slave to the technique, in the other the technique is an contributing aspect of the product.

I suppose the photographer in question could attempt to further evolve his analogue technique-- but maybe he hit a creative barrier there and wanted some more tools in his belt to achieve the output he wants next.
 
I have a Monochrom. And an M9. I worry about how I'll fund my extravagances when I'm retired. If I could somehow get Leica to build a nicer looking version of the camera I try to tell myself I don't need, say with a silver top cover and baseplate, maybe put my signature on the top of it, and give it to me, I'd be pretty pleased.

Wisdom does not come with age. I deal a lot with older people. Your average 76 year old is still riven by adolescent insecurities and full of ambitious plans, with one or two crazy ones in the offing. I reckon he feels about 57 or maybe 43. I know of a lady who bought a new car at 85, European instead of Japanese steering column layout. She switched formats with no problem, a greater feat than switching to an M7 from an M6 classic, with reversal of the shutter speed dial rotation. (She's gone digital by the way.)

What they gave to Ralph Gibson:


image by Richard GM2, on Flickr
 
wogg said:
The quality of darkroom equipment, technique and tools has historically been judged by its (and the users) ability to reliably reproduce the desired result. How is this suddenly granted the magical aura of "artisanal"? Is it more "artisanal" if instead of lightbulbs you were to channel sunlight through the enlarger and negative using fibre optics? Is my digital process more artisanal if I build a usb device that allows me to dodge and burn using hand-wielded light filtering device?

Obviously, the work flows of film and digital print making both have artisanal aspects in different parts of the flow, and both have rote technical aspects as well.

Artists like to learn-- what's the point of leaning on a learned technique and not evolving? When are you "done" learning, tools never to improve / change / evolve? I guess that's what some call craft vs art, when the purpose is to master a technique rather than use a technique as part of achieving a resultant output. In one case the product is slave to the technique, in the other the technique is an contributing aspect of the product.

I suppose the photographer in question could attempt to further evolve his analogue technique-- but maybe he hit a creative barrier there and wanted some more tools in his belt to achieve the output he wants next.
Click to expand...

Zauhar put it very well a number of comments ago:

"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.

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."
 
Koolzakukumba said:
Zauhar put it very well a number of comments ago:

"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.

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."
Click to expand...

Sure but where does this end? How far back should we go?
Since "you" are are not coating your own glass plates but rather relying on the pre-packaged emulation coated plastic sheets and bottled development chemicals…. is Respect for human creation and personal commitment in fact being abandoned?

Where is it reasonable to stop with this argument?
 
noisycheese said:
In spite of of the dubious and wishful claims of the digital pulpit-pounders, "Newer" and "Faster" do not inevitably equate to better.
Click to expand...
Likewise, in spite of the dubious and wishful claims of the analog pulpit-pounders, "Older" and "Slower" do not inevitably equate to better either.
 
Michael Markey said:
Randy summed it up for me.
Can I just say nice blog Bruce .
Click to expand...

I visit Bruce's blog regularly and it is inspiring. And look at Koolzakukumba's gallery here if you're not prone to envy. Maybe I'll have no trouble funding my retirement camera needs: I'm keeping my M2 and Rolleiflex. In that recent BBC interview David Bailey took a portrait of the interviewer with a plate camera, and had a very quick answer to his favourite camera for portraits, the Rollei TLR. A lot of us accept the camera making a difference to the final result, film can too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom