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

[jsrockit]

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

There are 14 pages here Frank and your opinion is not the only one I am hearing. There have been plenty of other posts that do support that a few feel it is superior.

Film based photography is my passion so there may be some temporary heat, quickly dissipated.

Hey, I understand. Film has been my passion too. It just isn't right now. Though I did just pick up a Pentax 110 and some B&W 110 film.

 

[gb hill]

So when will Leica come out with the Ralph Gibson Signature Digital M & will it be under 10 grand? That is what his going to digital is all about folks. You ALL missed it.😀

 

[sig]

So when will Leica come out with the Ralph Gibson Signature Digital M & will it be under 10 grand? That is what his going to digital is all about folks. You ALL missed it.😀

The artisan (handcarved sugnature) version will not be better but more poetic. It will however be more real.

The cnc version will have a signature that looks like Gibson's, but it is not artisan so why bother?

Expected, photokina this year. Preorder is open.

 

[Out to Lunch]

This thread is going where I though it would. It hasn't quite achieved the bottom of the barrel yet but we're getting close. Keep it coming.

 

[______]

If the only thing you are saying is that certain of the processes of film photography and digital photography are different, it is so obvious that I can't imagine why you bothered posting.

 

[FrankS]

If the only thing you are saying is that certain of the processes of film photography and digital photography are different, it is so obvious that I can't imagine why you bothered posting.

Because for some people, who also bothered posting, "it's all just photography."

 

[sig]

If it is not 'just photography', what is it? Most of us say photography about both film and digital photography, so I assume and my opinion is that both are photography. Am I completely wrong?

 

[gb hill]

This debate reminds me of the turn of the century discussion Alfred Stieglitz had with painters & gallery representives in both new York & Paris who argued that photography was not, nor could ever be introduced as an artform. Later Alfred opened gallery 291 & the rest is history.🙂

 

[Vince Lupo]

If it is not 'just photography', what is it? Most of us say photography about both film and digital photography, so I assume and my opinion is that both are photography. Am I completely wrong?

Yes, somebody please tell me too -- I need to tell my clients what I've really been giving them for the last 14 years!

 

[muser53]

This thread is going where I though it would. It hasn't quite achieved the bottom of the barrel yet but we're getting close. Keep it coming.

 

[Photo_Smith]

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

Hand printing 🙂
Seriously have we become so divorced from the hands on experience of making a picture that someone can't imagine processing your images with your actual hands?
You know loading the spiral, pouring in the developer, agitation, taking out the film.
Printing it on paper so you put by hand under an enlarger etc.?

Have we got so far into the push button/slider world that we can't imagine what in photography is done by hand? (with three question marks)

 

[newsgrunt]

I'll wade in here.

The process, afaic/k, is only important to the creator of the photograph, not so much for people buying/collecting photographs/prints.

The circle of friends I move in (documentarians and photojournalists) would probably rotflao if they read this thread. They're comfortable using film and digital and will indeed use what best fits a particular story and be assured, the story is the most important thing in the end. What they used to get there is rather insignificant. They're merely items in the photographer's tool chest.

The editors and gallery owners/curators who look at and buy their work are only concerned with the final photograph. Imo, and theirs, the days where film based work and prints ruled the roost are long gone. Gallery owners don't care and neither do the national archives. What is IN the photograph is paramount.

As noted earlier, without content and framing…

ymmv

 

[nemo2]

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. And when I'm developing my film I imagine the emulsion swelling and softening and the little particles of silver tarnishing.

(...) "

Now he will have to imagine how the photons hit the silicone atoms and make electrons move... I guess he read some quantum physics books what enabled him to switch to another media :-D

 

[Photo_Smith]

I'll wade in here.

The process, afaic/k, is only important to the creator of the photograph, not so much for people buying/collecting photographs/prints.

The circle of friends I move in (documentarians and photojournalists) would probably rotflao if they read this thread. They're comfortable using film and digital and will indeed use what best fits a particular story and be assured, the story is the most important thing in the end. What they used to get there is rather insignificant. They're merely items in the photographer's tool chest.

The editors and gallery owners/curators who look at and buy their work are only concerned with the final photograph. Imo, and theirs, the days where film based work and prints ruled the roost are long gone. Gallery owners don't care and neither do the national archives. What is IN the photograph is paramount.

As noted earlier, without content and framing…

ymmv

The huge difference is if you do something for a job or purely for personal satisfaction. Most professionals will use digital, cost speed of use and meeting deadlines mandate that approach.

So there the final image is king, because that is what will end up in the magazine/brochure/flyer and it needs to be done 'post haste' someone else is paying for your time and wants results.

There is however a different path. One that doesn't require 'get it now' or even to satisfy anyone else. Something that might even be done for that somethings sake.

Like getting up at 4 a.m driving to a remote location, building your camera from the contents of your case, have a coffee, wait, light is right take a picture and go home; light is wrong go home-no pictures just beautiful solitude.
So while I agree a camera can just be a tool, sometimes for some it might be a little more involved-possibly something ritualistic, ephemeral almost unexplainable.

I don't care who buys my prints or indeed if anyone buys them, I do the above for my own eye, in fact the final result can be thought of as a by product of the process I enjoy.

 

[CK Dexter Haven]

I'll wade in here.

The process, afaic/k, is only important to the creator of the photograph, not so much for people buying/collecting photographs/prints.

The circle of friends I move in (documentarians and photojournalists) would probably rotflao if they read this thread. They're comfortable using film and digital and will indeed use what best fits a particular story and be assured, the story is the most important thing in the end. What they used to get there is rather insignificant. They're merely items in the photographer's tool chest.

The editors and gallery owners/curators who look at and buy their work are only concerned with the final photograph. Imo, and theirs, the days where film based work and prints ruled the roost are long gone. Gallery owners don't care and neither do the national archives. What is IN the photograph is paramount.

As noted earlier, without content and framing…

ymmv

How is this relevant? What am i missing here? Is Ralph Gibson a documentarian or photojournalist? Are we trying to suggest that all forms of photography are the same, with the same objectives, and the same critical criteria?

Either way, i would certainly argue that gallery owners DO care. Because buyers DO care. And, even when there is an exception, it doesn't disprove the 'rule.'

 

[newsgrunt]

No, most photojournalists I know aren't on a tight timeline with their work. Indeed, they take several years so can use either tbh. Again, whatever best works for their story is pulled out, they're agnostic when it comes to gear. One used an M240 (for the most part) for his latest exhibit/project and loves it but he does miss the look of the M9. Another has a Hasselblad but just got a Mamiya 6. His last long term project was digital.

I just wish there was less extremism in these 'discussions'

 

[newsgrunt]

No I'm saying the circle I live in, the photograph IS the thing. The process doesn't really factor into the equation. In other disciplines, perhaps.

re:galleries and archives. I'm going by what friends are telling me based on what is being collected and that archivists and collectors don't give too much weight to the processes. They've had both film and digital collected and the subject matter is the determining factor in having their work chosen.

In the end, I guess you can say I'm in the camp of the 'photograph supersedes everything' if you will. and this is from a photographer who has too much 35 - 8x10 film in his lockup and enough fibre paper and enlargers to start a professional lab 😉

and there should never be any rules in photography…at least ones that can't be broken

 

[Steve M.]

I'm not familiar w/ this photographer (my influence is Edward Weston, and I haven't seen anyone as good since him), but if this photographer in his 70's I'm sure his eyes aren't as good as they used to be. To him, those Leica M images probably do look as good as his film images. Personally I can't stand digital B&W, and all of the Leica M images I've seen look like digital images. Although they do look good, they sure don't look like Tri-X, you can't print them in a darkroom on fiber paper, etc. But hey, most people can't tell the difference, so to them it makes no difference at all. Just shoot digital I suppose.

There's also the issue of longevity w/ an ink on paper print vs a silver print, so if I was buying this guy's work it would be the older stuff that was shot on film and printed in a darkroom.

 

[Photo_Smith]

No, most photojournalists I know aren't on a tight timeline with their work. Indeed, they take several years so can use either tbh. Again, whatever best works for their story is pulled out, they're agnostic when it comes to gear. One used an M240 (for the most part) for his latest exhibit/project and loves it but he does miss the look of the M9. Another has a Hasselblad but just got a Mamiya 6. His last long term project was digital.

I just wish there was less extremism in these 'discussions'

Mea culpa, I thought you were paid to do a job directed by someone else rather than following you own path 🙂

There's no extremism here just personal choice, Ralph has made his and I respect that, even if it is a volte-face from his previous stance.

 

[Vince Lupo]

So how would something like a Polaroid spat out from an SX70 be defined? It's 'analogue', but it's certainly not 'handmade'.