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

[Vince Lupo]

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.

Actually you can: http://www.de-vere.com/products.htm

 

[Photo_Smith]

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

It's instant; the polaroid is the final product, like slide film. It certainly isn't hand made.(although slides can be hand processed)
I think people are confusing the point here, art/artisan/analogue are not the same.
Anything artisanal is hand made; if it is made directly by hand it can be; if it is a machine that makes it is manufactured by that machine even if your hands operate that machine.
The definition is that simple.

 

[ChrisN]

Actually you can: http://www.de-vere.com/products.htm

And there is also the option of producing a negative from a digital file, and printing traditionally from that. Peter Turnley uses that approach for the printing of his exhibition prints from M9 and MM files.

 

[Ranchu]

TBut 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.

There is a reason you're not using a 640x480 cell phone for photography. That would be really convenient, wouldn't it?

 

[Vince Lupo]

And there is also the option of producing a negative from a digital file, and printing traditionally from that. Peter Turnley uses that approach for the printing of his exhibition prints from M9 and MM files.

Yes that's really interesting. Jon Cone (Piezography) also has something along the same lines: http://www.piezography.com/PiezoPress/blog/piezography2-digital-negative-and-print-system/

So really, there are many approaches.

 

[Vince Lupo]

It's instant; the polaroid is the final product, like slide film. It certainly isn't hand made.

Guess if you shook the Polaroid as it developed, it could be considered 'hand assisted'!

Or if you're using the peel-apart kind.....

 

[FrankS]

For those of you hung up on the "handmade" or "artisanal" terms, just put those aside and we can call it silver based traditional photography. No problem.

 

[newsgrunt]

There is a reason you're not using a 640x480 cell phone for photography. That would be really convenient, wouldn't it?

Koci Henandez is doing some excellent work with mobile photography and everyone here should see the potential for storytelling, art. You name it.

http://instagram.com/koci

Photography is being attacked on many corners and we really shouldn't be infighting as there are other issues more important than the equipment we use to express ourselves or bring issues to the fore.

 

[zauhar]

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.

Frank, the other possibility is that the other side does understand , but doesn't care about the things you do. At that point the conversation has no point .

Randy

 

[FrankS]

You are correct, Randy. I was just hoping to help them see the error of their ways.

😉

 

[nongfuspring]

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.

I might remember incorrectly, but wasn't it you that said handmade artisinal film prints inherently have more value than digital ones?

 

[__--]

Koci Henandez is doing some excellent work with mobile photography and everyone here should see the potential for storytelling, art. You name i...

Good point. Come to think of it David Alan Harvey has been using various digital cameras for several years, including the iPhone and Instagram. Why not give him the "Gibson treatment" here as well? He's certainly at least as as well known.

—Mitch/Chiang Mai
Chiang Tung Days [direct download link for pdf file for book project]

 

[Ranchu]

I might remember incorrectly, but wasn't it you that said handmade artisinal film prints inherently have more value than digital ones?

Metamerism!

 

[gns]

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)

You are not processing the image with your hands. Light, optics & chemistry are doing it. Putting the paper under the enlarger by hand?? Really?? That's somehow different than putting the paper in an inkjet printer by hand? The point is, there is no direct link from mind to hand to paper as in traditional drawing or painting. Never has been, hence the title of the first photographically illustrated book, The Pencil of Nature. This "Issue" is as old as photography itself and (most) everyone got over it long long ago.

 

[Ranchu]

Koci Henandez is doing some excellent work with mobile photography and everyone here should see the potential for storytelling, art. You name it.

http://instagram.com/koci

People can do whatever they want, that doesn't convince me that the medium is not inferior where it matters to me. DR, the construction of colors, the look in general.

 

[gns]

There is a reason you're not using a 640x480 cell phone for photography. That would be really convenient, wouldn't it?

There is no reason not to. It's not so much the materials that distinguish interesting work, it's what one does with them. I don't think inconvenience makes art.

 

[Ranchu]

There is no reason not to. It's not so much the materials that distinguish interesting work, it's what one does with them. I don't think inconvenience makes art.

That's your business then. Best luck!

 

[J.Paul]

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.

I guess that is what I am saying. Trying to judge what is superior can be a black hole. It is really subjective and according to our own tastes and sensibilities.

If film and paper are your benchmark, nothing will ever be "superior' to that and if you favor and judge against the capabilities of digital work, how could film ever best the vast technological advantage which digital has now and will have in the future.

A great deal of this is cultural as well. Some folks are traditional in makeup and thought whereby an end should and must be achieved by means of a traditional method and process, while others are more progressive and enjoy reaching the end goal by any of the available routes which are available now or will be in the future.

I see some digital b&w images which are so beautiful that they jump off of the screen. I think sometimes too beautiful and too perfect. But that is what comes from judging them with the analog eye. Its kind of like connecting to the internet with a framing hammer. 🙂

 

[ChrisN]

People can do whatever they want, that doesn't convince me that the medium is not inferior where it matters to me. DR, the construction of colors, the look in general.

So it is the appearance of the print that matters? And personal preference?

 

[back alley]

remember when 35mm film was considered a miniature format and was mocked by the large format guys?