Salgado's prints

[Nick De Marco]

Just back from the Salgado exhibition, Genesis, at the National History Museum. Some astonishing large black and white prints there by one of our greatest living photographers. Seeing them in books or online cannot do justice - if you can you must go to see the prints.

Salgado is a wonderful man, as well as a brilliant artist and photographer. I have loved his work for years and it is such a pleasure to see his prints close up. So forgive me for getting technical, but I could not help noticing the rather obvious differences in the prints on display. I had heard he changed from using Kodak Tri-X film to Canon digital and converting to make the files look like Tri-X, but walking round the exhibition I thought I could really notice the difference. the tri-X prints, usually 2009 or before, were much more grainy yet mostly much more evocative to me. The digital ones, which appeared to be most of not all those after 2009, were still astonishing works but seemed a little cleaner and less grainy, and that seemed to take them a step away from the mystique that Salgado has created in much of his work, including much in the exhibit, with his amazing use of grain and contrast. I was left with a very strong feeling that I much preferred his film prints to his digital ones - which I had not expected - and was surprised just how obvious the differences between the two appeared.

 

[David_Manning]

Nick,

Thanks for the observations. I wondered about that myself.

Have you seen any of Salgado's medium-format prints? I wonder if the difference is not perceived but real, between "small-format" and other (MF, digital). In my meager experience with b&w digital, I find myself destroying quite a bit of well-captured data to emulate 35mm b&w film (contrast increases, grain additions, etc.).

On the other hand, I was in London and a gallery wanted about $50,000 for one of his Tri-X film prints. I wonder if his digital will easily command the same. I've always thought that a print's price was because of both the captured work and the skill of the printer and uniqueness of the print.

Then again, what the hell do I know? 😉

 

[Exdsc]

The simple answer is that whoever did the processing on those digital B&Ws didn't knew what he/she was doing.

The good news, those RAW files could be processed again by someone more competent.

 

[Vics]

Salgado doesn't print. Says he's exposed to enough toxic soup while shooting. He does supervise very closely.

 

[VictorM.]

Salgado in Toronto: http://www.rom.on.ca/en/about-us/ne...ry-culture-presents-sebastiao-salgado-genesis

 

[MartinP]

The simple answer is that whoever did the processing on those digital B&Ws didn't knew what he/she was doing.

The good news, those RAW files could be processed again by someone more competent.

For previous series, and since 2009, there was some processing of the files done and then they were output with an imagesetter to make a "film" negative. Those negs were silver-printed in the same way as the shots originated on film. The printer is reputed to use a lot of bleach-back and masking to gain a very luminous mid-range in the prints. It is a big assumption to make, but I think Genesis is printed like this too.

With the time and budget available, we can be pretty sure that the prints look exactly how Salgado wants them to look.

 

[sparrow6224]

The pictures should have said next to them "silver gelatin print" or some kind of gobblegook about what kind of digital print one might have been, if one were. My understanding is that he finally went over to digital because his film was getting x-rayed too much and was a burden to move around; that he has the digital files somehow (see Martin P above) transferred onto film and printed the old way.

Can anyone tell me which National History Museum this show is taking place at? Thx.

 

[sparrow6224]

Never mind: it's at the British NATURAL History Museum. Gotta fly to London.

 

[newsgrunt]

think he uses a 5D, not sure which variant

 

[Chuck Albertson]

The pictures should have said next to them "silver gelatin print" or some kind of gobblegook about what kind of digital print one might have been, if one were. My understanding is that he finally went over to digital because his film was getting x-rayed too much and was a burden to move around; that he has the digital files somehow (see Martin P above) transferred onto film and printed the old way.

Can anyone tell me which National History Museum this show is taking place at? Thx.

There was a long article in last month's BJP (which is just arriving in the States) about this project and Salgado's change from shooting film to digital. There was some mention about dissatisfaction with Tri-X after Kodak switched production to the new manufacturing plant back in 2000 or so. Looking forward to seeing the NHM show in July, with any luck just before the Stones concert in Hyde Park. Back about 20 years or so, I remember making a diversion to Brighton (I think) to see his work hanging at a local college -- seeing the prints was worth the trip.

 

[leicapixie]

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=132250

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=132250

On Saturday i went to Salgado's Exhibition at the "Nicholas Metivier Gallery" on King St W,Toronto.Salgado is also at the ROM Museum. The Last on will have a talk by Salgado and viewing of his prints. I was not sold a ticket at the Museum, basically fobbed off! A friend a few hours later, was allowed to buy a ticket!:bang:
So I think your best bet is go to the private gallery.
The Book "Genesis" Taschen is on view.🙂
The show is stunning. The prints in some cases over large! I noticed the grain and assume these were done from film. Then there are some digital prints, which truly are puzzling. It might have been better to print smaller and with less artifacts of digital meddling.One print resembles a charcoal drawing..
I am same age as Sebastio, perhaps only hours apart. I think what he shot and captured is an epic. The printing may simply have been too much..I could not even attempt only a small portion of his stunning achievement.Salgado carries the honors and the negative parts, as he is author.
The gallery also had a few Brochures way nicer printed than the official magazine "Contact 2013". May is is month of photography in Toronto, Canada.
Go see, if you are close to Toronto. The ROM show will be avoided and any memberships to the ROM will not be renewed.

 

[Colin Corneau]

I'm curious to read this - I hope to see Mr. Salgado's show at the CONTACT festival in Toronto in May.
At the risk of talking too early, I'm guessing what will shine through the entire show is his style and choices made as a photographer...I can't wait.

 

[Colin Corneau]

So, leicapixie -- you're suggesting to give the ROM a pass?

I haven't checked what other venues he's showing at -- I'm always happy to see smaller galleries.

 

[leicapixie]

I won't go. It will take a lot to get me in, now. Personally how many shows can one see? Someone said 1500 images on show by various photographers..
Everything that I've seen in the ROM till now was not pleasant. The walls go off at odd angles.. The new section looks exactly like a UFO from "Independence Day" has crashed into a Classic style building.The lighting less than ideal. It's a fun thing to shoot from outside, but a disaster inside.
I certainly think seeing Salgado is important. Hopefully others may be more acceptable to those booking/selling tickets.. I am senior, was well dressed and certainly typical Caucasian..maybe too Caucasian? No idea.
I prefer smaller galleries. They are knowledgeable, interested and providing both good service and courtesy.
King St W is there waiting for you.

 

[sevres_babylone]

I saw the Larry Towell exhibition at the ROM during last year's Contact. There was nothing wrong with the display of the work. I expect the same this year. That said, there were things that were off-putting, as much the fault of Contact as the ROM. I went on the Friday when Larry Towell was performing music in combination with a slide show. I didn't think I had to go to the main entrance, because there was a sign at the south end saying entrance to the Larry Towell presentation. But it wasn't the entrance for me🙂 Had to go to the main entrance, and on Friday evening's there's some kind of disco/techno thing in the new section mentioned above, and had to wait in what seemed like a long line which combined the sale of museum tickets with food/drink tickets for the techno thing. Lesson: avoid Friday evenings.

Anyway, I'll likely see both shows, but start with the Metivier gallery. (Thanks for the heads-up; didn't realize it had started already.)

 

[Colin Corneau]

Sounds like Metivier Gallery it is, then...

 

[FA Limited]

thanks for sharing your comments on this thread! i have a few of his books and am disappointed i can't attend the lecture but i will definitely find some time to check out the Metivier Gallery

 

[jsrockit]

With the time and budget available, we can be pretty sure that the prints look exactly how Salgado wants them to look.

Yeah, and I'm sure he payed someone who knew exactly what they were doing. I would think that if you are a Salgado fan, you would be a Salgado fan regardless of the medium used. If you only like his photos because of grain, then you are most likely missing the point of his photos.

 

[Turtle]

I doubt I need to see the prints (which I look forward to doing) to feel confident in which I would prefer. The differences between film and digital images can be quite fundamental, no matter how much is done to them in post. The capture is not the same, so we should hardly be surprised.

I can understand the immense irritation he must have faced. I made several trips to India with between 40 and 80 rolls of film (UK-Dubai-Delhi-Varanasi) and it was very stressful, especially when dealing with high speed film. I cannot imagine having to deal with dozens of airports with perhaps 500 rolls of film. No matter how much I prefer the results of film, subjectively, that amount of stress is cannot be waved away.

 

[CK Dexter Haven]

Yeah, and I'm sure he payed someone who knew exactly what they were doing. I would think that if you are a Salgado fan, you would be a Salgado fan regardless of the medium used. If you only like his photos because of grain, then you are most likely missing the point of his photos.

I doubt very much that that was the point.
And, I also disagree with the foundation of your argument. "Liking Salgado" isn't necessarily about the subject matter of the photographs. It's a complete aesthetic, that includes both the content and the style with which the photographs are executed. And when one is less moved by one component or the other, the entire work is less appreciated.

There are quite a few photographers I 'idolized' up until they went exclusively to digital capture. Their eyes may be the same, and the subject matter may be the same, but the character of the work is decidedly not the same. I would suggest that if a person is not particularly attuned to that aspect of photography, there may be something lacking in their own images.

As well, it works from the other side. I have been a 'fan' of Elliott Erwitt for a while. He's an old friend of my design mentor and former employer. I had a few of his books before I ever saw an exhibited print of Erwitt. I went to the show in NYC last year, and was blown away by the huge prints from those 35mm negatives. And, indeed, the grain and character in those prints gave me a much greater appreciation for those same images I had known from the books.