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

Phil, it does too - film creates a direct reflection of reality, a material reflection. The digital sensor counts photons.

Actually, perhaps the poster can dissemble a bit regarding the second half of the statement.

Randy
 
zauhar said:
Phil, it does too - film creates a direct reflection of reality, a material reflection. The digital sensor counts photons.

Actually, perhaps the poster can dissemble a bit regarding the second half of the statement.

Randy
Click to expand...

I'm just speaking as photography, when taken simplistically, is simply the drawing of light, regardless of medium.

Digital doesn't dismiss reality at all. It is the capture of light on a light sensitive medium. As for the philosophy of the moment part of the statement, that doesn't make sense either. Someone else made that lens that I'm shooting through, so perhaps it's Dr. Wakimoto's or Dr. Azuma's or Dr. Bertele's or Dr. Mandler's vision, not our own, if that were the case.

I've been repeatedly saying that if Gibson had a gallery show and was displaying images, most folks would assume they were taken with film and printed in a darkroom. We would all go about our lives and appreciate the photo for the photo, not the process that went into its creation by virtue of the fact that we do not have access to that process. So all the excellent printed images we see in galleries which we don't have a clue about production means only lend us knowledge of that production if the photographer tells us and that we have to take on faith.

I love film work and if I had my way, I'd produce nothing but film based photos but that's a ways in the future at best.

The "traditional" or "artisanal" processes which we're debating here are neither traditional nor artisanal due to the technology (which is the crux of this whole debate) that has made them possible. It's almost a hypocritical statement to say a wet print is an "artisanal" photo when it could be shot using any number of incredible technological wonders made in the last thirty years. Example: exactly which part or stage is artisanal, of my creating a photo using a Konica Hexar RF with 35mm UC-Hexanon, developing the film in HC-110 in a Honeywell Nikor tank, then printing using a Beseler 45MXII, souping the sensitized Ilford MG paper in Dektol, washing the print in either a tray washer or a vertical print washer?

I think this whole debate about the technological differences and implied differences between digital and film, computerized and wet lab, is ridiculous as this community and all photographic communities are solely dependent upon the technology which makes their work possible. Saying that any part of that is not artisanal or traditional because of new technology is just asinine simply due to the fact that photography has always pushed the technological edge.

Phil Forrest
 
taxi38 said:
There's more to it than just choice....,digital dismisses reality while film literally embraces it.Its the philosophy of your moment against the reflection of somebody else's .
Click to expand...

As some one that only uses film and a wet darkroom it behooves me to mention that my little handmade photos are not held back by reality
 
I've been fortunate to work with a very talented sculptor over the last few years and I have to say I'm in awe of his skill and vision. Most of his major works are designed (by him) on a powerful CAD program with a computer and a lot of the components that make up his works are cut with lasers. For me to suggest that his output is less significant because of the process he chooses would be a huge insult to his artistry.
 
Have no idea who this gent is.
I have seen resent pictures of Fred Herzog with digital cameras.
It is much more easier to get visible image on digital.
Convenience and retirement age is good combination. For retiree...
 
Keith said:
I've been fortunate to work with a very talented sculptor over the last few years and I have to say I'm in awe of his skill and vision. Most of his major works are designed (by him) on a powerful CAD program with a computer and a lot of the components that make up his works are cut with lasers. For me to suggest that his output is less significant because of the process he chooses would be a huge insult to his artistry.
Click to expand...

Technology made that type of sculpture possible. There is nothing comparable in the realm of handmade, to assess comparable significance to.

In the other, related thread, handmade vs manufactured, Roland mentioned that he's happy that his BMW forks were manufactured. I imagine the international space station occupants are happy that it was computer designed/manufactured, and not hand carved out of wood by an artisan, but that really is beside the point, as is your example, Keith.
 
FrankS said:
Technology made that type of sculpture possible. There is nothing comparable in the realm of handmade, to assess comparable significance to.

In the other, related thread, handmade vs manufactured, Roland mentioned that he's happy that his BMW forks were manufactured. I imagine the international space station occupants are happy that it was computer designed/manufactured, and not hand carved out of wood by an artisan, but that really is beside the point, as is your example, Keith.
Click to expand...


Respectfully Frank ... this post makes no sense to me. All I was suggesting is that Adrian (my friend) is no less of an artist because he doesn't hammer away at a piece of marble or chisel away at a piece of wood.

This gets back to the suggestion in the OP's blog post that Gibson is a lesser photographer because of his latest choice of process. :)
 
Sorry, film counts photons too. Photons hit film molecules that change. In digital, photons hit molecules that emit a charge. Photons all around. Photogs would be screwed if their camera couldn't handle photons!
 
Keith said:
Respectfully Frank ... this post makes no sense to me. All I was suggesting is that Adrian (my friend) is no less of an artist because he doesn't hammer away at a piece of marble or chisel away at a piece of wood.

This gets back to the suggestion in the OP's blog post that Gibson is a lesser photographer because of his latest choice of process. :)
Click to expand...
Exactly. On page 1 of this thread, the OP quoted Gibson saying, I'm interested in the alchemy of light on film and chemistry and silver. When I'm taking a photograph I imagine the light rays passing through my lens and penetrating the emulsion of my film. And when I'm developing my film I imagine the emulsion swelling and softening and the little particles of silver tarnishing.... Now, Gibson is articulate and at his workshop in Paris some years ago he had a lot of interesting things to say about photography — including the foregoing quote, which always struck me as, shall I say, "poetic," which in this case I mean "silly." While I understand why people like film, it's strange to think that this type of "imaging" is going to result in photographs that are better or have "more soul" than something shot digitally. Thirteen pages here in this thread of this "poetry?"

—Mitch/Chiang Mai
Chiang Tung Days [download link for pdf file for book project]
 
malland said:
Exactly. On page 1 of this thread, the OP quoted Gibson saying, I'm interested in the alchemy of light on film and chemistry and silver. When I'm taking a photograph I imagine the light rays passing through my lens and penetrating the emulsion of my film. And when I'm developing my film I imagine the emulsion swelling and softening and the little particles of silver tarnishing.... Now, Gibson is articulate and at his workshop in Paris some years ago he had a lot of interesting things to say about photography — including the foregoing quote, which always struck me as, shall I say, "poetic," which in this case I mean "silly." While I understand why people like film, it's strange to think that this type of "imaging" is going to result in photographs that are better or have "more soul" than something shot digitally. Thirteen pages here in this thread of this "poetry?"

—Mitch/Chiang Mai
Chiang Tung Days [download link for pdf file for book project]
Click to expand...

Nicely worded, thanks for saying it the right way.
 
I think it's been quite a valuable thread .... if it didn't matter to us we wouldn't be discussing it. It's also been pretty civil considering the factions involved! :)
 
I don't see how Keith it's been helpful, it's the same statements from each 'side' there always are in one of these, and nobody has changed their mind. Except for my statements about how I simply find film a superior medium in all cases, now we got those too...
 
semilog said:
Everyone's entitled to an opinion… but Gibson has over a long and varied career shot all kinds of stuff. What don't you like about it?
Click to expand...

Sorry to answer, but hey I liked feathered thing. I dislike the tele 'graphic' style of a lot of it, it's a bit cute. I dislike the contrast.
 
I haven't seen all of his work but the stuff I have seen are high contrast and gritty. I think digital suits his style.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom