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

Phil_F_NM said:
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.
Click to expand...

Artisans just use their hands to interact with their tools directly with the medium. There are no abstraction or devices in between that.
The level of technology of those tools is irrelevant, its the 'hands on the tool that fashions the product' that makes it handmade or artisan.
For instance a calligrapher is an artisan handwriter, he makes script on paper with a pen. Someone who uses a computer or other technology which means the hand-pen-paper interface is gone he can't call himself an artisan.

You can still be an Artist if you use digital tools but because of the layers of abstraction not an artisan, typically most artisans don't create art just handmade products.
 
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...

Hmm. You seem to think that people must justify their opinions, which they do not. The word "opinion" is the clue here. :angel:
 
Photo_Smith said:
Artisans just use their hands to interact with their tools directly with the medium. There are no abstraction or devices in between that.
The level of technology of those tools is irrelevant, its the 'hands on the tool that fashions the product' that makes it handmade or artisan.
For instance a calligrapher is an artisan handwriter, he makes script on paper with a pen. Someone who uses a computer or other technology which means the hand-pen-paper interface is gone he can't call himself an artisan.

You can still be an Artist if you use digital tools but because of the layers of abstraction not an artisan, typically most artisans don't create art just handmade products.
Click to expand...

Precisely. Thank you.

I think what has happened in some instances in this thread is that the reader perceives a slight against digital photography, projects new meaning into what is said, then proceeds to argue against that new meaning.

No one is saying that anyone is less of an artist depending on which medium he uses. (Keith) Yet again, what I'm saying is that digital and film photography are 2 different media, using different tool, materials, and processes. There is no value judgement here.

The other point is the one explained in the post I quoted here by photo-smith: the meaning of the term artisan. A digital photographer certainly can be an artist, but not an artisan.

Those are my 2 positions.

__________________________________________________________________________

I have gone on to say that I personally prefer film based photography and wish there is a distinction made between it and digital photography so that it is not "all just photography", but nowhere am I saying that my bias for one should be universal. I've said: Shoot whatever makes you happy.

I don't think I can be any clearer than that, so I should be done with this topic.
 
FrankS said:
I think everyone would be happier if I just moved over to apug.
Click to expand...

Frank, you need to quit feeling like the Lone Ranger.
A *lot* of us share your views.

This is a community, of course there will be some people whose views are diametrically opposite of ours. But hey, I even like some of those guys (and gals) on other matters. :)

Unlike our beloved photographs, we as humans have more dimensions than just two.
 
Phil_F_NM said:
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
Click to expand...

Phil, I agree that photography has always been a technological process. Likewise motion pictures. But there is something that happens when you cross the analog-digital boundary; there is a fundamental shift in the character, a loss of connection to material stuff.

The poetic statement from Gibson that another fellow wrote off as 'silly' was nothing of the kind. It reflected that understanding that there is a distinction between working with pure information, as opposed to being organically involved in the process of recording and transforming that information. Digital images can be encoded on any medium, and the information is just the same; the digital image can be printed enumerable time, and within the limits of printing technology they will all be the same. That information is invisible until decoded by yet another machine.

The image encoded on emulsion is a physical thing, it can be viewed by the naked eye just like any other object in your field of vision. The print is produced by a photochemical process, but you are an integral part of the creation, especially if you adjust the image. Your hands are literally on the the light that is making the image, a far cry from having your hands on a mouse or a digital tablet.

I didn't know that Gibson expressed that poetic view, I only know about it from this thread. Clearly the reaction to Gibson's move to digital is that he has had to abandon that poetry.

And before any wiseacre pops up, yes I know that there are plenty of people who can wax poetic about ones and zeros. I also use photoshop, and I also admire many of the digital images produced by fellow RFFers. I even like some of the new images that Gibson has published. So there.

Randy
 
The processes might have some differences. Even within the traditional film mode you can have 8 x 10 contact prints from a view camera or slides from a 35mm hand camera. But the basic process (what matters, I think) is the same. Looking/seeing, positioning the camera and deciding when to make the exposure. The technical differences beyond that are far less significant. I understand that they will make a difference in the look of the picture, but none are inherently better than others, and all are photography.

The hand-made thing always cracks me up. What in photography is done by hand???
 
Koolzakukumba said:
Shame. If you'd read further you would have seen that Gibson advanced much the same argument as I did (not put quite so bluntly) just 12 years ago 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. ....
Click to expand...

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. ...
—Mitch/Chiang Mai ....
Click to expand...


I also skipped the orig. article in the link and even 13 pages of this thread.
Obviously people always use to take just that part of quotes which fits their purpose and cut off context at a suitable word :D.

If Gibson said that above statement 12 years ago and now he is using a MM (?) then he is obviously thinking that this new camera he's using is suitable for his needs and as it is close enough in handling to a MP, he doesn't have to consult a 300+ page manual in order to get a tool to do what he wants.

If this guy at age 75, a pretty well accomplished artist (most likely a little bit more than all the critics here :cool:) decides to change his tool, who the /%§§&$ are all the folks feeling entitled to tell him he is SOOO WRONG and he's going over to the dark side :rolleyes:. Folks relax and get a LIFE :D.

If you are going to pay for a Gibson print, it of course is your decision for what type of print you want to fork out money, traditional chemistry silver gelatin or inkjet pigment on archival grade paper.

I assume that unless a MM incl. a 50apo is offered for 295.00 xy... (whatever your local currency is), then everybody keeps trying to convince himself that film is superior.

Who would care about the hair type of the brush of Picasso of the type of canvas he painted on ?

...rant mode off] where did I turn that switch on :p ?
 
I think Frank's point was simply that digital and film are indeed different things. They are not the same in the physicality of their individual natures. Each by a differing method coming to an end which is similar but distinct from each other.
Obviously, I agree with him.
 
gns said:
The processes might have some differences. Even within the traditional film mode you can have 8 x 10 contact prints from a view camera or slides from a 35mm hand camera. But the basic process (what matters, I think) is the same. Looking/seeing, positioning the camera and deciding when to make the exposure. The technical differences beyond that are far less significant. I understand that they will make a difference in the look of the picture, but none are inherently better than others, and all are photography.

The hand-made thing always cracks me up. What in photography is done by hand???
Click to expand...

I'm sorry that you can't discern the difference. I'm guessing that you are able to understand the difference between watercolour and oil painting? The reliance on computer hardware and software in digital photography is a more significant difference than paint type, isn't it?
 
I'm not so sure anyone here think there isn't a difference. I think some of us may disagree that one process is superior to the other.
 
FrankS said:
I'm sorry that you can't discern the difference. I'm guessing that you are able to understand the difference between watercolour and oil painting? The reliance on computer hardware and software in digital photography is a more significant difference than paint type, isn't it?
Click to expand...

Where in that did you get that I can't tell the difference between materials?
 
jsrockit said:
I'm not so sure anyone here think there isn't a difference. I think some of us may disagree that one process is superior to the other.
Click to expand...

Please re-read my post above where I have quoted photo-smith. #322

Take issue with what I write, not your projection.
 

Attachments

  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    123.8 KB · Views: 0
Guys, guys.

This is becoming very reminiscent of the mythical argument about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin or the all too real argument about who should have succeeded Muhammad. It doesn't matter to any sane person and the longer the argument continues, the less sense it makes to an outsider.

I'm not claiming any authority here, just an interested spectator who wonders why you don't just agree to disagree?
 
jsrockit said:
Mine was in response to J. Paul. Let's not get nasty here. Why take this stuff personally?
Click to expand...

Okay, but you misconstrued his post too. It's frustrating to discuss a topic when the other person misunderstands and puts new words in the other's mouth.

We are saying: different.
You are reading/understanding: superior

Film based photography is my passion so there may be some temporary heat, quickly dissipated.
 
Sejanus.Aelianus said:
Guys, guys.

This is becoming very reminiscent of the mythical argument about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin or the all too real argument about who should have succeeded Muhammad. It doesn't matter to any sane person and the longer the argument continues, the less sense it makes to an outsider.

I'm not claiming any authority here, just an interested spectator who wonders why you don't just agree to disagree?
Click to expand...

Where's the fun in that? :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom