NB23 Posted June 17, 2011 Share #81 Posted June 17, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) Here we are talking about a guy that masters any photography equipment he uses as opposed to the vast majority of "photographers" who talk about equipment but cannot even master 1% of that plastic. If you ask me, Salgado, mistake, I mean God, can use anything and come up with much more then what the equipment even allows. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted June 17, 2011 Posted June 17, 2011 Hi NB23, Take a look here Salgado - faking it.. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
AlanG Posted June 17, 2011 Author Share #82 Posted June 17, 2011 If you've ever seen any of his large prints you'll know about the quality of his final output. I have no doubts that he is intimately involved in their production - and that the people he works with are at the top of their game. Of course I expect Salgado to have first rate prints no matter how they are produced. What I'm trying to say is that when Ansel Adams made a print, I knew the entire process was under his control and reflected his craftsmanship. And even at that time there might have been one or two lab technicians who could have done a "better" job on his negs. As we move further from the individual approach, as many top photographers have always done with film, there is now the requirement of adjusting the raw file and maybe a b/w conversion too. These adjustments make a big impact on the end result. Some photographers may do this themselves and provide the lab with a match print, or a color profiled file, whereas others will leave most of this up to the lab. If a photographer sits next to a technician and directs how every image should be adjusted, or at least makes notes on proof images, that would be another approach to stay involved and control the final image. Years ago, when I did custom color printing, I know I had a lot to do with the final look of the photographers' work because I usually made the prints the way I thought looked best and that is why some photographers used me to make their prints. And I would not be surprised if Salgado has a lab or favored individual printer at that lab which makes the craftsmanship more of a collaborative effort than in the cases of photographers such as Gene Smith, Ansel Adams, or Eliot Porter. Despite appreciating the great images produced by all kinds of approaches, I've always gravitated a bit more towards those photographers who did the entire process. And today with digital photography, I think adjusting your own raw files is the least you can do. Because it is pretty easy for almost anyone to make a good print if you did that right. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted June 17, 2011 Share #83 Posted June 17, 2011 What I'm trying to say is that when Ansel Adams made a print, I knew the entire process was under his control and reflected his craftsmanship. And even at that time there might have been one or two lab technicians who could have done a "better" job on his negs. As far as I'm aware Salgado hasn't done his own printing for some time. There was an interview a few years ago with his Parisian darkroom technician (Salgado lived at the time off Canal St Martin in Paris) in one of the French photo magazines. He got what he wanted then, and I'm sure he gets exactly what he wants now - and is understanding that the importance of raw processing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted June 18, 2011 Author Share #84 Posted June 18, 2011 After reading the article below, I realize there are way worse fake things to worry about than fake grain. "Japanese Make "Delicious", Nourishing Steaks From Human Feces" DailyTech - Japanese Make "Delicious", Nourishing Steaks From Human Feces Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomasis7 Posted June 18, 2011 Share #85 Posted June 18, 2011 After reading the article below, I realize there are way worse fake things to worry about than fake grain. "Japanese Make "Delicious", Nourishing Steaks From Human Feces" DailyTech - Japanese Make "Delicious", Nourishing Steaks From Human Feces something for you to make an extensive research for next 10 years Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
photolandscape Posted June 19, 2011 Share #86 Posted June 19, 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? I agree completely. Every step in the photographic process influences the end product--your life experiences, your vision, your lens choice, aperture choice, filters, type of camera and sensor-, etc.-if digital technology allows one to maintain the look of an analog technology, great. It all comes down to the choices you make and your discretion--avoiding the temptation to abuse the technology--like color over-saturation, over-sharpening, etc. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted June 19, 2011 Author Share #87 Posted June 19, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) I agree completely. Every step in the photographic process influences the end product--your life experiences, your vision, your lens choice, aperture choice, filters, type of camera and sensor-, etc.-if digital technology allows one to maintain the look of an analog technology, great. It all comes down to the choices you make and your discretion--avoiding the temptation to abuse the technology--like color over-saturation, over-sharpening, etc. I do understand this. And each of us may have our own way of deciding what is appropriate. At times I am tempted to take an image and try it out in b/w and then with different tones, or add grain, or whatever other effect I think might "enhance" it. Now I feel I have paid my dues and have a lot of experience and think I try to be somewhat selective and make good and appropriate choices. So have I "earned" the right to work this way? Now what if I find that I can't decide if I prefer one of my images in vivid color or in b/w with some grain and I produce various versions? So when thinking about craftsmanship and skill, how different really is this from a newbie who just quickly throws a bunch of effects at a picture and sees which ones stick? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
250swb Posted June 19, 2011 Share #88 Posted June 19, 2011 So when thinking about craftsmanship and skill, how different really is this from a newbie who just quickly throws a bunch of effects at a picture and sees which ones stick? I'd say experience and experimentation can indeed look superficially like a newbie's approach, but the underlying intent is far different. For instance, how many times did Van Gogh paint the same vase of sunflowers? I mean, if he was any good at painting you'd have thought he'd get it right the first time and move on to doing some nice roses wouldn't you? Or was he an experienced and very good painter working through ideas and seeing which ones he wants to pursue? Its all very well talking about craftsmanship, but a craftsman knows how to do something well and do it consistently. An artist on the other hand can do all that, but is also always questioning his output, very much like a perpetual beginner, because like a beginner he is never so arrogant to believe he ever knows enough. But unlike a beginner an experienced artist should be able to throw even more ideas at a subject, spend more time working at it, to reach a considered conclusion, not just a reliable workmanlike rendition of his art. So there is nothing wrong with seeing what things look like, or to experiment, its not demeaning, its not failure. Its simply using the language of photography that has been developed over nearly two hundred years. Well, that is until (some) film users (like in this thread) decide to tell digital users that they are not entitled to use this language any more. For them the normal progression of art is no longer one of taking a little from the past and moving forward with it, photographic history is now off limits to being used by anybody with a digital camera, the entire gamut of photographic culture has been commandeerd by 'craftsmen' , or so they would arrogantly like to think. I really object to the cultural censorship being waged against using a digtal camera by film craftsmen. History is for all to share and learn from and the photographic language is for all to use. Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted June 19, 2011 Author Share #89 Posted June 19, 2011 I'd say experience and experimentation can indeed look superficially like a newbie's approach, but the underlying intent is far different. Thanks. I'll keep reminding myself of that and hope others appreciate the distinction. I taught a college level class a couple of years ago and I remember watching one student running through a bunch of different effects in Lightroom until she found one she liked. She had no idea about the history or tradition of any of those effects. This is sort of like my skill level and knowledge when choosing typefaces but I don't pretend to be a graphic designer. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KM-25 Posted June 22, 2011 Share #90 Posted June 22, 2011 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. And you would have to waste a crap-ton of your personal time to actually seek out who thinks it is OK or not. Maybe it's OK for Salgado to do it, because he has already made "Brewster's Millions" and does not really even have to shoot another photo for the rest of his life to make a dime, he could still shoot it if he wanted to, but he is in the later years of his career at 67, he can do whatever the heck he wants, who cares? I, on the other hand still have a lot of work to do as a still young-ish photographer and love to work with Tri-X, so it is only a sad day for Tri-X as far as Salgado is concerned, not for the rest of us who are easily making up for what he does not use of it by what we DO use of it. As long as I can keep my fine art / book project work away from a computer unless it is for magazine publication like the attached, I am going to do so. I shoot Tri-X every single day, one frame or one hundred. I think you are making a bigger deal out of this than it really is Alan......there are a lot of other great shooters out there using Tri-X besides Salgado, David Alan Harvey on his ongoing "American Family" project and Mary Ellen Mark for starters... Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/154362-salgado-faking-it/?do=findComment&comment=1710234'>More sharing options...
Rolo Posted June 22, 2011 Share #91 Posted June 22, 2011 C'mon Daniel, that's a RAW file if ever I saw one !! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted June 22, 2011 Share #92 Posted June 22, 2011 I really object to the cultural censorship being waged against using a digtal camera by film craftsmen. History is for all to share and learn from and the photographic language is for all to use. Whilst I don't disagree with your sentiment I'm not sure that this "cultural censorship" is very widespread or deep seated. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebarnman Posted July 9, 2011 Share #93 Posted July 9, 2011 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. He'd probably think differntly if he knew air travel destroys your digital camera. According to Kodak airplane travel destroys your digital camera According to Kodak airplane travel destroys your digital camera [Page 1]: Open Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
250swb Posted July 9, 2011 Share #94 Posted July 9, 2011 He'd probably think differntly if he knew air travel destroys your digital camera. According to Kodak airplane travel destroys your digital camera According to Kodak airplane travel destroys your digital camera [Page 1]: Open Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review I don't think Salgado got where he is today without taking some risks. Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest malland Posted July 12, 2011 Share #95 Posted July 12, 2011 I...When it come to the work by Salgado, I personally will make a distinction between what he shot on film and what he shot digitally because I understand how much more leeway the digital files have for adjustment after the fact than the Tri-X negs have. While this opens more possibilities for him, it also makes it easier...So art that is more difficult to do has more value for you? —Mitch/Bangkok Beijing Rhythms Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NB23 Posted July 12, 2011 Share #96 Posted July 12, 2011 So art that is more difficult to do has more value for you? —Mitch/Bangkok Beijing Rhythms Of course. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
menos I M6 Posted July 13, 2011 Share #97 Posted July 13, 2011 Of course. This makes no sense to me. I don't see also, how a print, produced digitally or with a hybrid workflow is anything less difficult to produce than a picture, produced with a fully analogue workflow. Is it about the picture or the craft? I stray to say, this is faux elitist thinking. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NB23 Posted July 13, 2011 Share #98 Posted July 13, 2011 I haven't read the whole thread but merely the last post to which I responded. But the way I see it is simple: It is difficult being Picasso. If everybody would be Picasso, if it was easy being a Picasso, would our work be highly valued? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest malland Posted July 13, 2011 Share #99 Posted July 13, 2011 No, menos, the point is not that digital workflow is as difficult or as time-consuming as that of the darkroom: it's that its only the image that matters. No one cares how much time was spent, or difficulty surmounted, to produce a painting: no onr cares if a painter spent six months or six hours on a painting — a painstakingly painted Watteau is not inherently better in quality than a Van Gogh landscape painted in a couple hours in one afternoon just because it took much more time and effort to paint. The famous "zen painting", Persimmons "Six Persimons" by Mu Ch'i at Daitoku-ji in Kyoto, an ink and wash painting that probably took all of a minute to paint, is no less great than an elaborate Dürer or Ingres drawing that took days to complete. —Mitch/Bangkok Paris au rythme de Basquiat Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted July 13, 2011 Author Share #100 Posted July 13, 2011 So art that is more difficult to do has more value for you? —Mitch/Bangkok Beijing Rhythms I do appreciate the effort required to some degree in addition to the image itself. I think I explained that clearly. In this case, it does not detract from the power of a good image or what it communicates. Of course he is showing a major effort and commitment to make the images. But if it is important to Salgado that his images have a certain look and some of that look is being provided by another person after the fact, then while I may or may not like an image, I won't be very impressed by the technique itself. Whereas with Adams or Gene Smith and others, I am impressed by the effort and commitment to make the image, the image itself, and the technique. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.