AlanG Posted June 15, 2011 Share #1 Posted June 15, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) It's a sad day for Tri-X. From DXO - Legendary black & white film photographer Sebastio Salgado, who recently migrated from film to digital, says "DxO FilmPack has become a must have step in my photographic workflow to render the unique Kodak Tri-X grain on my large format prints." http://dxo.com/us/photo/filmpack/user_testimonial/sebastiao_salgado Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted June 15, 2011 Posted June 15, 2011 Hi AlanG, Take a look here Salgado - faking it.. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
wattsy Posted June 15, 2011 Share #2 Posted June 15, 2011 It's a sad day for Tri-X. Or maybe a sad day for Salgado? His loss. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GLC Posted June 15, 2011 Share #3 Posted June 15, 2011 not looking so bad to me: Another World, Another Planet: Alaska’s North - Slide Show - NYTimes.com Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted June 15, 2011 Author Share #4 Posted June 15, 2011 not looking so bad to me: Another World, Another Planet: Alaska’s North - Slide Show - NYTimes.com I wasn't commenting on the quality of his work which is always outstanding. And I can understand that once you have a certain look you want to maintain it and be consistent. However it is like saying photos need to have grain added to them in order to have the "authentic" gritty photo journalistic look that we have become conditioned to. Now I can't say I'm opposed to manipulation if it helps achieve the end effect - Gene Smith would print really dark and then selectively bleach ares and this certainly made things look much more dramatic or moodier than they actually were. I just think it is interesting that a digital photograph may look more "authentic" when it has been manipulated in this way. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GLC Posted June 15, 2011 Share #5 Posted June 15, 2011 I wasn't commenting on the quality of his work which is always outstanding. And I can understand that once you have a certain look you want to maintain it and be consistent. However it is like saying photos need to have grain added to them in order to have the "authentic" gritty photo journalistic look that we have become conditioned to. Now I can't say I'm opposed to manipulation if it helps achieve the end effect - Gene Smith would print really dark and then selectively bleach ares and this certainly made things look much more dramatic or moodier than they actually were. I just think it is interesting that a digital photograph may look more "authentic" when it has been manipulated in this way. i hear that. but then my dream 10 years ago was to have a digital m and way to emulate film stock. . and its been fulfilled and im quite happy about it. from what i understand about salgado, he avoided digital until he found that airport security was becoming to much of a pain to deal with. xrays messing with his emulsion and the fact of carrying 60lbs of film on board.. . now he has everything converted to b/w then has contacts made then has his edit made into negatives from the digital image and then he prints conventionally. or something. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted June 15, 2011 Share #6 Posted June 15, 2011 What is interesting to me that his work-flow is digital -> film -> print. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted June 15, 2011 Author Share #7 Posted June 15, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) What is interesting to me that his work-flow is digital -> film -> print. I was trying to understand that as maybe it is going from the digital file to a gelatin print and the term "film" is being misused. I do not think this was explained well. I can't see any logic in an intermediate negative considering a lot of printing onto silver gelatin final print material is done with digital printers now instead of enlargers. A digitally generated negative used to make an optical print would only serve to reduce quality. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xmas Posted June 15, 2011 Share #8 Posted June 15, 2011 Hi Alan Agreed , but if you can only wet print and dont have a digital enlarger what else can you do, learn pshop? Noel Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
250swb Posted June 15, 2011 Share #9 Posted June 15, 2011 However it is like saying photos need to have grain added to them in order to have the "authentic" gritty photo journalistic look that we have become conditioned to. Well why shouldn't they have grain added? Its part of the photographic language, it appeals to the eye, it allows areas of tone to have a bite, it has a history, it allows a seamless continuation of a style, it can add emotion, it can calm unwanted detail and make an image more graphic, and it is a photographers choice. Why does it have to be authentic when there is nothing authentic about any photograph ever made? All are manipulated by choice of film, developer, developing time, choice of enlarger, choice of paper contrast, choice of paper developer, choice of toning, not to mention choice of subject and viewpoint in the first place. Even pointing the camera is editing and manipulating the world for effect, what harm can a little added grain do in a digital image compared to all that? Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GLC Posted June 15, 2011 Share #10 Posted June 15, 2011 I was trying to understand that as maybe it is going from the digital file to a gelatin print and the term "film" is being misused. I do not think this was explained well. I can't see any logic in an intermediate negative considering a lot of printing onto silver gelatin final print material is done with digital printers now instead of enlargers. A digitally generated negative used to make an optical print would only serve to reduce quality. but you cant get your hands and tools under the light like you can with an enlarger. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eastgreenlander Posted June 15, 2011 Share #11 Posted June 15, 2011 As far as I know he's shot digital for years but was relatively late to migrate to digital compared to other pros. Personally I dont care what medium he shoots, it's outstanding work. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyril Jayant Posted June 16, 2011 Share #12 Posted June 16, 2011 I wasn't commenting on the quality of his work which is always outstanding. And I can understand that once you have a certain look you want to maintain it and be consistent. You are not alone , he was never scaped from the critic eyes. As far as I know he's shot digital for years but was relatively late to migrate to digital compared to other pros. Personally I don't care what medium he shoots, it's outstanding work. I am with you. He one of the talented photographers in those sevarel decades. His photographs were printed by the well skilled master printers by the most available techniques equipment and methods to get the maximum effects he wanted. Just like Helmut Newton's concept.Lot of images like the famous ( Hand-itched) limited edition photo of the Amazone boy looked a fine art photo rather than the documentary or environmental photos. So that is not how his work looks according to the context people in front of them thought. He is no doubt a great Photographer and I believe he is happy with what he has found .... a solution to compensate consistency between film and Digital.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted June 16, 2011 Author Share #13 Posted June 16, 2011 Well why shouldn't they have grain added? Its part of the photographic language, it appeals to the eye, it allows areas of tone to have a bite, it has a history, it allows a seamless continuation of a style, it can add emotion, it can calm unwanted detail and make an image more graphic, and it is a photographers choice. Why does it have to be authentic when there is nothing authentic about any photograph ever made? All are manipulated by choice of film, developer, developing time, choice of enlarger, choice of paper contrast, choice of paper developer, choice of toning, not to mention choice of subject and viewpoint in the first place. Even pointing the camera is editing and manipulating the world for effect, what harm can a little added grain do in a digital image compared to all that? Steve I am not saying that one shouldn't make an image look this way or any other way. I just think it is funny that after a long time of many people thinking it is "cheating" or non-authentic to alter the look of a digital image to simulate film, that Salgado probably is now making it OK to do it. That's why I think it is a bad day for Tri-X. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
zlatkob Posted June 16, 2011 Share #14 Posted June 16, 2011 Or maybe a sad day for Salgado? His loss. Not at all. He says he is getting better results than with film. So it's a happy day for him. And his approval of DxO FilmPack is a huge honor for them. I think it points out that the medium is just the medium, a means to an end. It's not an end in itself. It's the photograph that matters. It has always been that way. In the film era, we showed our prints, not our negatives. So which medium you choose is entirely up to you. Film, digital or a hybrid process ... it's all good ... IF the result is good. Film is not more pure or true; it has no "soul" -- that overused word. Film creates bad photographs as easily as digital. It happens to be very good and expressive in the right hands, but that's just chemistry being put to work by the a skilled photographer. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
zlatkob Posted June 16, 2011 Share #15 Posted June 16, 2011 What is interesting to me that his work-flow is digital -> film -> print. Yes, that is interesting. It sounds like a crazy, impractical workflow. But he's a master of photography, and he obviously likes the results. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
250swb Posted June 16, 2011 Share #16 Posted June 16, 2011 Yes, that is interesting. It sounds like a crazy, impractical workflow. But he's a master of photography, and he obviously likes the results. He has some very large prints made, and if he has a favourite paper I would imagine that is why he needs a way to transfer the digital image to it. With the explosion in ink jet papers I doubt its because he can't find one that gives a similar quality to his photographic paper in a normal size. But he may also be concerned with the archival quality of silver versus ink as well. Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
plasticman Posted June 16, 2011 Share #17 Posted June 16, 2011 He says he is getting better results than with film. So it's a happy day for him. And his approval of DxO FilmPack is a huge honor for them... Yeah - in a promotional for DxO he would say that the results were inferior, naturally... Even Salgado needs to make a living, so switching to digital and faking-up a close approximation to real black-and-white makes sense for him. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rolo Posted June 16, 2011 Share #18 Posted June 16, 2011 According to Ricardo Yamamoto, who interviewed Salgado in 2009, his prime objective was to replace the bulky 25kg packs of 120 Tri-X film with SD cards, whilst retaining the final characteristics of the silver print. He'd already moved from 35mm to 120 in a Pentax 645 because of the reduced level of silver in the 35mm film. He now uses Canon 1D MkIV cameras and after selecting his images from contact sheets (due to his absence of keyboard skills) and from his selects has 4x5" silver negatives made to print in a traditional wet darkroom. p.s. My own reading of this info is that without the issues with transporting film through X-Ray machines and filling overhead lockers, he'd still be using 120 Tri-X and producing silver prints directly. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpattison Posted June 16, 2011 Share #19 Posted June 16, 2011 Way to go! Apart from the Canon, of course! John Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
alun Posted June 16, 2011 Share #20 Posted June 16, 2011 The interesting thing about Salgado's approach is that it doesn't seem to be based on what saves money but on what gives him precisely the results he wants. I do remember reading the interview where he talked about the increasing problems of lugging a huge weight of film on extended trips... But the solution he has come up with is clearly not an inexpensive one. That he is a master photographer with an acute understanding of exactly the printed product he wants and how it should be achieved obviously helps; that he is also internationally known and working at the height of his powers probably also means that he doesn't need to worry too much about his processing costs. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.