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

[Thardy]

ralph gibson is an egomaniac and like all egomaniacs if you throw a party for him, he'll do anything. leica threw a party for him and give him a mono for publicity... that is all, so please don't waste your religious fervor on such a trivial issue

Photographers and egomania. Seems rather common (according to google search).

 

[shadowfox]

I am firmly in the camp that process matters and film process is more satisfying than digital having done both.

But Mr. Gibson is an expert, he knows what he's doing and I bid him success with digital. Do not discount the possibility that he'll be back in the darkroom again in a couple of years. 😀

 

[regularchickens]

The focus on artisanship seems odd to me. I'm making photographs, not shoes or bread. If you're focused on the details of being an artisan rather than an artist, what does that say about your priorities?

If you have a process you like, by all means, stick with it. But a photograph is just a photograph, in the end.

 

[FrankS]

"But a photograph is just a photograph, in the end."

I would argue to my dying breath (overstatement for effect) that there is a significant and relevant difference between a digital capture/photoshopped/inkjet print and a film based wet darkroom print.

Sure, use whatever process you like, but admit that there is a difference.

Imagine a wood carving exhibition. Some pieces are carved by hand, and other pieces rendered with a CNC machine.

 

[Michael Markey]

Sure, use whatever process you like, but admit that there is a difference.

This has come up before in many threads and a number of experienced dark room workers have insisted that there isn`t.

That may be , I wouldn`t know myself, I`ve just concluded that if there is it must be so marginal as question the significance of that difference.

Again ,if there is ,does it matter and under what circumstances does it matter.

 

[back alley]

the BIG question here, for me, is why is it so damn important for some of you to convince the rest of us in what you believe?

digital print or wet print? what is the big deal?

of course there is a difference…i prefer the digital look…it was what i was after when using film…i wanted that clean, no grain look and now i have it…i am happy, satisfied…

 

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

Imagine a wood carving exhibition. Some pieces are carved by hand, and other pieces rendered with a CNC machine.

I have to ask, what do you think would be the difference? More to the point, the CNC carvings could be repeated over and over again, so anyone who wanted one, could have it. This seems to me to be a really good thing.

:angel:

 

[jsrockit]

Imagine a wood carving exhibition. Some pieces are carved by hand, and other pieces rendered with a CNC machine.

If I like the ones better from the CNC machine, I have no issue with it. Just because something is done by hand doesn't make it better, it just means they worked harder.

So, how do you feel about many galleries selling ink jet prints of photos made from film? In color, inkjet prints can be archival. C-prints are not.

 

[FrankS]

The difference I speak of is in the process and in the materials mainly. The look is very similar. I just don't like all prints being lumped together and saying its all photography. I think that fails to recognize the effort put in by the darkroom workers. I make no comment about the image itself, just recognize that the medium is different. There will be great images printed digitally and there will be crap images printed traditionally (and vice versa) but the medium is different and it isn't "all just photography". One is a digital print and the other is a wet print. I think maybe people are reading more deeply into what I'm saying than what I'm meaning to say.

Now, going beyond that point, I personally place a greater value on a wet print than on a digital print, but that's just my bias, and it isn't relevant to the point that the media are different. It isn't all just photography and they are all not just prints in the end. The media are different.

 

[FrankS]

the BIG question here, for me, is why is it so damn important for some of you to convince the rest of us in what you believe?

digital print or wet print? what is the big deal?

of course there is a difference…i prefer the digital look…it was what i was after when using film…i wanted that clean, no grain look and now i have it…i am happy, satisfied…

I'm simply explaining my view in the face of disagreement. If others give their view and argue against mine, can I not respond? You seem to be vilifying just one side of the discussion. It takes 2 sides to disagree. Why just chastise one side? Because you're on the other?

 

[back alley]

The difference I speak of is in the process and in the materials mainly. The look is very similar. I just don't like all prints being lumped together and saying its all photography. I think that fails to recognize the effort put in by the darkroom workers. I make no comment about the image itself, just recognize that the medium is different. There will be great images printed digitally and there will be crap images printed traditionally (and vice versa) but the medium is different and it isn't "all just photography". One is a digital print and the other is a wet print. I think maybe people are reading more deeply into what I'm saying than what I'm meaning to say.

Now, going beyond that point, I personally place a greater value on a wet print than on a digital print, but that's just my bias, and it isn't relevant to the point that the media are different. It isn't all just photography and they are all not just prints in the end. The media are different.

it IS all photography frank…it's that simple!
i think you are wanting to say that wet work is better than digital but are afraid of being blunt and showing all your cards! you can be polically correct or you can be happy...

 

[Sparrow]

The difference I speak of is in the process and in the materials mainly. The look is very similar. I just don't like all prints being lumped together and saying its all photography. I think that fails to recognize the effort put in by the darkroom workers. I make no comment about the image itself, just recognize that the medium is different. There will be great images printed digitally and there will be crap images printed traditionally (and vice versa) but the medium is different and it isn't "all just photography". One is a digital print and the other is a wet print. I think maybe people are reading more deeply into what I'm saying than what I'm meaning to say.

Now, going beyond that point, I personally place a greater value on a wet print than on a digital print, but that's just my bias, and it isn't relevant to the point that the media are different. It isn't all just photography and they are all not just prints in the end. The media is different.

... but surely everything to do with photography has involved industrial manufacture for a century now ... drawing an artisan line at some point now seems a little arbitrary, no?

 

[FrankS]

All I'm saying is that just like oil painting is different from water colour painting, so is digital photography from traditional photography.

I've stated several times in this thread that personally, I put a greater value on a wet print. I'm clearly not trying to hide that and it isn't relevant to the point.

 

[FrankS]

... but surely everything to do with photography has involved industrial manufacture for a century now ... drawing an artisan line at some point now seems a little arbitrary, no?

As I've said before, computer hardware and software is the game changer, it is the watershed point for the artisanal line.

I'm old and set in my ways, so someday I'll likely say something like this, "So you can make a pretty picture using computers? Good for you, now try that with film."

 

[______]

As I've said before, computer hardware and software is the game changer, it is the watershed point for the artisanal line.

And I thought the watershed point for artisanal was the industrial revolution.

 

[sig]

All I'm saying is that just like oil painting is different from water colour painting, so is digital photography from traditional photography.

I've stated several times in this thread that personally, I put a greater value on a wet print. I'm clearly not trying to hide that and it isn't relevant to the point.

Both oil and water colour painting are painting. Just like digital and 'traditional' photography are photography.

 

[FrankS]

And I thought the watershed point for artisanal was the industrial revolution.

On a global scale and generally speaking, yes. But there are those who continue to create products using traditional pre-industrial revolution processes today.

 

[Vics]

David Hockney began using an iPad for some of his artwork in his 70s. I guess he's a sellout too?

These threads crack me up. Use whatever you like, they're tools.

It's true, but now he's into paper and charcoal, and doing beautiful landscapes. One never knows what's next with Hockney, and therein lies his charm.

 

[hendriphile]

Say, let's change the title of this thread to "The Mother of All Digital vs. Analogue Threads" and make it a sticky. 🙂

 

[jsrockit]

I'm old and set in my ways, so someday I'll likely say something like this, "So you can make a pretty picture using computers? Good for you, now try that with film."

See that's just it... you make a photo within a camera, not afterwards (man ray aside)...you simply embellish a photo after it's been taken (whether digital or film). So, you can make the same photo with film or digital pretty easily. Both work pretty well these days and do not require some kind of special aptitude. I think you are making film and darkroom printing out to be some kind of special skill that is impossible for the average joe to learn. Sure, it is hard to be a great darkroom printer, but it's also hard to be a great photographer and a great inkjet printer.