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

*I should say "strive" to get... the work here, digital or otherwise, is what pushes me forward.

And to clarify... I am not going 100% digital yet. I will keep two film RFs and two SLRs. The difference is I will only develop my own rolls from now on as limited as that may be. Film will only be for pleasure now like a good whisky or pipe. I will not kill myself over it any more.
 
redisburning said:
But now, I dont see an argument. I just see a dying medium that I no longer feel that attached to. And Ive had my hands in the chemicals, too guys. Maybe less than some of you, maybe more than a few others.
Click to expand...

I only shoot film, and I agree that film will not be around forever. But I can't think of any technology that will be.

Calling it a 'dying medium' is a little incendiary, but I don't think it's any more dying than digital, in 10 years time, we're more likely to be using a 50 year old film camera than a digital camera bought today.

I think what makes it feel different is that film has declined despite efforts to contrary. On the other side, digital declines and fades away constantly, but we are conditioned to accept it, value it, even desire it.
 
Can any of you tell a quality print made with all wet processes against a print made with a fully digital process, printed with archival inks on the same photo rag paper as the silver sensitized stuff? If the prints are matted and you don't have access to the edges for inspection to determine if the paper was exposed to ink or sensitized silver?

NO.

You can't. Don't fool yourself into thinking you can because the best photo printers these days are far and away much more consistent than all but the best darkroom printers. As a result they can deliver results which are just as good.

One is not greater than the other. They are equal these days.

So without the background story of how the photographer made the photograph then made the print, what you view is taken on faith.

Phil Forrest
 
Great. You say that a digital print can mimic a silver print. The process is still different, and the process is important to some of us. As a non-pro, it is NOT all about the final image for some of us.

If (making) a digital print makes you happy, then great. Happy for you. To me, it feels like cheating and doesn't satisfy me like a wet print.
 
FrankS said:
Great. You say that a digital print can mimic a silver print. The process is still different, and the process is important to some of us. As a non-pro, it is NOT all about the final image for some of us.

If (making) a digital print makes you happy, then great. Happy for you. To me, it feels like cheating and doesn't satisfy me like a wet print.
Click to expand...

The process is only important to the person who produced the print.
That said, there is no reason that a person viewing another person's prints should criticize the photographer for the process they use. That is the whole basis for this thread. None of you get to sit in Gibson's darkroom and watch him (or his paid tech) develop film and soup a print. Nor do you get to sit and watch him (or his paid tech) work on a computer.

So again, if Gibson hadn't told folks that he'd moved to digital, you'd all be happy in your ignorance and enjoying his work just as usual.
Goodness gracious this thread is like pulling teeth through the anal cavity.

Phil Forrest
 
I'm not criticizing another photographer, they can do whatever they want. I'm only speaking for myself and the value I put on things.

Jsrocket, I'm not kidding. With photoshop, one can do and create anything one wants. There are practically no limits. It's the software that is powerful. Digital photographers often say that digital is not easier than traditional photography. That does not match with my experience. I'm not saying that digital is capable of making a poor photographer into a good one, but a digital print is easier to make than wet one.

Sorry, I know this won't be a popular opinion, but it is mine.
 
I went to Ralph Gibson lecture many years ago given by the Floating Foundation of Photography. It was a beautiful setting on the Hudson River at the west end of Houston Street in New York City. The Foundation was barge that stopped at various places along the river with exhibitions, workshops, and lectures on photography, and to teach photography to the incarcerated population that filled many a prison on the Hudson. It was really a lovely evening. Very few attendants were there to hear Ralph lecture on his work. His trilogy was finally published. Wine was served, a projection screen was setup once the sun settled below the horizon. Ralph spoke and showed a lot of his work. His work from his early days was fantastic. You can see vision was already there. Then he did something no one expected. He cried. He cried and spoke through his tears that he thought he would never become the photographer he really wanted to be. It was awkward. No one knew what to say. Ralph said no more.

Maybe now is his chance.
 
FrankS said:
I'm not criticizing another photographer, they can do whatever they want. I'm only speaking for myself and the value I put on things.

Jsrocket, I'm not kidding. With photoshop, one can do and create anything one wants. There are practically no limits. It's the software that is powerful. Digital photographers often say that digital is not easier than traditional photography. That does not match with my experience. I'm not saying that digital is capable of making a poor photographer into a good one, but a digital print is easier to make than wet one.

Sorry, I know this won't be a popular opinion, but it is mine.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if I agree, but fortunately photos aren't judged by how easy or difficult it is to make them.

I am a very poor darkroom guy. In fact I never seem to be able to get color rolls the right way, so I mostly shoot B&W. But I consider myself a very good digital photographer. It takes experience to achieve the desired results with the right paper, proofing, color management .etc. It took me constant photo work in Photoshop for the past five years to fully understand all of the tools, processing methods, and own a hand-picked selection of third-party filter software to speed up the workflow. I can easily spend several hours on a single photo, or print multiple test copies without figuring out what does "click" in the workflow.

I can "do and create what I want" in PS (I do draw with digitizers, also with Photoshop), but only after hundreds of hours in front of a monitor or printer. Maybe darkroom printing is even harder - which is likely the case. But digital workflow done right is a feat in itself.
 
"digital workflow done right is a feat in itself."

No doubt! The digital workflow is all about spending hours learning what the software is capable of and how to use it.

I'd rather be the darkroom making wet prints than learning software. Feels more like photography to me.

(I only print B+W so I'm not talking about colour digital at all. If I were a colour photographer, I'd likely be digital.)
 
willie_901 said:
Not for everyone. I'd rather expend the minimum amount of effort required to earn the reward. Why waste effort?

Don't work hard, if you can work smart and achieve the same goal.
Click to expand...

You're not understanding the quote. Read it literally: the greater the effort, the greater the reward.

(Little effort = little reward)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
  • Article Article
What's happening with Photographic Film in 2025? Is this robust niche still growing?
2 3 4
Replies
72
Views
11K
Erik van Straten
Erik van Straten
lxforrest
A DIY retro digital camera project - Blog #5 China trip + Prototype 1.0
2
Replies
20
Views
897
Richard G
Richard G
J
  • Article Article
Movie Film to Digital Video Conversion: What you need depends upon your priorities and pocketbook!
Replies
6
Views
2K
EarlJam
E
J
  • Article Article
Who invented the Leica M3 and IIIg? Two great men at Leitz Wetzlar! Both projects were team efforts led by innovative engineering geniuses.
Replies
13
Views
767
Ljós
L
J
  • Article Article
What’s the best U.S.-made interchangeable lens rangefinder 35? It depends on your criteria.
2
Replies
26
Views
5K
rick oleson
rick oleson
Back
Top Bottom