menos I M6 Posted July 13, 2011 Share #101 Posted July 13, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) 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 Mitch - this was exactly my point I think, you misunderstood the quote and posting. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted July 13, 2011 Posted July 13, 2011 Hi menos I M6, Take a look here Salgado - faking it.. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Guest malland Posted July 13, 2011 Share #102 Posted July 13, 2011 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....This thread is about whether Salgado is "faking it" with digital, a subject that seems meaningless to me. In many responses above he is treated, without any doubt, as a great photographer or a great artist; but it is in that sense, beyond the technical quality of his photographs, that I would consider whether he is faking it or not. There is a fascinating review of Salgado's work in an article by Ingrid Sischy in the New Yorker (September 9, 1991), the sense of which is that his work is based on the pathos of the lives of his subject, a type of emotional blackmail, a facile and meretricious aestheticization rather than reportage or honest depiction, and that the "photographs are less than the subjects deserve". Perhaps one of the most damning statements in the review is, "And this beautification of tragedy results in pictures that ultimately reinforce our passivity toward the experience they reveal". In other words, "he ain't no Goya". It is interesting to look at his work in that way. Nachtwey's work shows a lot more truth than Salgado's. —Mitch/Bangkok Paris au rythme de Basquiat Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
250swb Posted July 13, 2011 Share #103 Posted July 13, 2011 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. The award for being in the right place at the right time yes, but lets give a round of applause to their darkroom technicians without whom none of this would be possible Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Randle P. McMurphy Posted July 13, 2011 Share #104 Posted July 13, 2011 In other words, "he ain't no Goya". Salgado changed his brush - not his visions. On the other side we all know about the possibilities of Photoshop and some may fear about his authenticity. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
250swb Posted July 13, 2011 Share #105 Posted July 13, 2011 Salgado changed his brush - not his visions. On the other side we all knowabout the possibilities of Photoshop and some may fear about his authenticity. So after all this time and all the great bodies of work he has done you think he may now start faking it just because he will be tempted by the evil Photoshop? That isn't being very complimentary about anybody who uses Photoshop for procesing images is it? Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest malland Posted July 13, 2011 Share #106 Posted July 13, 2011 Salgado changed his brush - not his visions. On the other side we all know about the possibilities of Photoshop and some may fear about his authenticity.From what I wrote above, it should be clear that I don't consider using Photoshop any less authentic than printing in the darkroom from film. In writing, that "he ain't no Goya" I was referring to his pictures being less true owing to his aestheticization of poverty — the latter being just "shorthand" for what is well described in the New Yorker article cited above — and which is unchanged by the medium used, film or digital. —Mitch/Bangkok Beijing Rhythms Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted July 13, 2011 Author Share #107 Posted July 13, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) The award for being in the right place at the right time yes, but lets give a round of applause to their darkroom technicians without whom none of this would be possible Steve And who were Adams' and Smith's darkroom technicians? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted July 13, 2011 Share #108 Posted July 13, 2011 The award for being in the right place at the right time yes, but lets give a round of applause to their darkroom technicians without whom none of this would be possible Steve Maybe I'm misreading you - but certainly Gene Smith did NOT use darkroom technicians. He PO'd LIFE regularly because of his insistance on doing his own printing (and not the LIFE lab) - which often meant he was months late with assignments. He was famed for being obsessive about doing his own work - to the point of meth addiction and probable alcholism. 24 hours straight for some printing sessions (with bourbon and taped music for company). Once he left LIFE and burned through his Pittsbugh Guggenheim, he was essentially broke for 10 years. Could barely afford to maintain himself, let alone lab help. Smith's loft darkroom c. 1969 - not exactly crawling with lab techs, is it?: http://www.oocities.org/minoltaphotographyw/williameugenesmith-darkroom-02.jpg It's probable he got assistance from his wife Aileen, especially once his health was broken by his beating in Minamata on top of his "chemical" problems - the last 4-5 years of his life. Adams had assistants, but really did most of his own darkroom work up until at least 1960, when his growing celebrity status made the demand for prints overwhelming (and his teaching and consulting commitments absorbed more and more time). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted July 13, 2011 Share #109 Posted July 13, 2011 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. Even tried to work with film unsharp masks? Selective masking? In the darkroom it is a daunting task. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted July 13, 2011 Share #110 Posted July 13, 2011 And who were Adams' and Smith's darkroom technicians? Speaking only of Smith - he manipulated some images to an extent that a photoshopper would find tedious. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted July 13, 2011 Author Share #111 Posted July 13, 2011 Speaking only of Smith - he manipulated some images to an extent that a photoshopper would find tedious. I am not against manipulation... digital or film based. I like Uelsmann's work too. And while I'm not a big fan of landscapes, I admire Adams immensely. I somehow have always had more appreciation for photographers such as Smith, Adams, Uelsmann who because their technical mastery was carried through the entire process making their images more "hand made" by the photographer to me. Of course I also love images from many photographers who did not do this. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
250swb Posted July 13, 2011 Share #112 Posted July 13, 2011 I admire Adams immensely. I somehow have always had more appreciation for photographers such as Smith, Adams, Uelsmann who because their technical mastery was carried through the entire process making their images more "hand made" by the photographer to me. . Rose tinted spectacles at work. Most of Smiths output would have been sent back to Life magazine, dunked in the communal deep tanks, printed by a lowly paid darkroom worker, and put into print without Smith even proofing it. The first time he would have seen his work is when Life landed on his doormat. Clearly there may be some exceptions, but a photojournalist isn't the best example to use for 'craft'. Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted July 13, 2011 Author Share #113 Posted July 13, 2011 Rose tinted spectacles at work. Most of Smiths output would have been sent back to Life magazine, dunked in the communal deep tanks, printed by a lowly paid darkroom worker, and put into print without Smith even proofing it. The first time he would have seen his work is when Life landed on his doormat. Clearly there may be some exceptions, but a photojournalist isn't the best example to use for 'craft'. Steve Are you generalizing or do you know much about W. Eugene Smith? One of his techniques was to print his images fairly dark and then use a brush and reducer to lighten specific areas. I remember reading that an editor of Life magazine told another photographer who was acting like a prima donna that Life could afford one Gene Smith and only one. The stories about him are legion and he had a very crazy life. Regardless of his obsessions, personal life, and other peculiarities, he had unique talent and drive and for me set one of the gold standards in photography. You should read this biography if you want to know more. I got to meet my "hero" in 1975 and was a little let down when I realized how frail and human he was after all. http://www.amazon.com/W-Eugene-Smith-Substance-Photographer/dp/0070311234 I will give you an odd example of technique coming from a third party and affecting the image. When I was a student, my school had a program that featured Bruce Davidson and some people from the college's printing department. (Large press printing.) This was about the book "East 100th Street." It was explained how the book was printed using plates made directly from Davidson's negatives, two different contrast plates per image, and how these produced especially nice qualities in the images in the book. Bruce Davidson said that after seeing the book, he had to go back in the darkroom and reprint some of the images to make his prints look as good. Anyhow, I grew up with sort of a romantic view of this kind of thing but my paying work is all commercial and my clients couldn't give a damn how the images get done. Few of them understand or appreciate the effort involved whether before or after the fact. But I do. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
menos I M6 Posted July 14, 2011 Share #114 Posted July 14, 2011 Even tried to work with film unsharp masks? Selective masking? In the darkroom it is a daunting task. I have a hunch, that in times, some people confuse the craftsmanship, handiwork, sweat and limitations, implied by working in a darkroom opposed to digital with the real challenge of creating the photograph, one has foreseen. I feel, that the photographic decisions from the moment, one is planning (pre visualizing, bla, bla …) the shot through making fine decisions during processing (darkroom or otherwise) are the real substance of making a photograph, not the way, you hold a chisel. The brain makes the shot, not the process or tool, used - there is no difference in making these decisions in a darkroom or sitting on a computer. The only difference in existence is a saving in time over the diverse processing steps as an immediacy is there with digital, whereas one works with chemical reactions in the darkroom, needing more time and that digital processing opens a few more limits. I will never understand the discussion wether or not a silver print is valued higher than a digital print. All photographic decisions and steps in processing are identical. I myself reduce my ethically acceptable "tools" within the digital workflow. One will not find switched faces, deleted people in my photographs. I set myself a strict border, where it all should stop and a photograph should rather be considered not worth it. I will not "doctor" a shot, to make something out of nothing. I think, this is the biggest fear of many people, since digital imaging arrived, valuing the strict analogue workflow higher as the average person didn't acquire the skills, to retouch analogue images. It is not realistic to think in that way though. We all know, that what we see in print is seldom that what has been there, while exposed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest malland Posted July 14, 2011 Share #115 Posted July 14, 2011 Mitch - this was exactly my point I think, you misunderstood the quote and posting. I...I will never understand the discussion wether or not a silver print is valued higher than a digital print. All photographic decisions and steps in processing are identical...Yes, I see that I did misunderstand what you wrote: we're say the same thing. —Mitch/Bangkok Beijing Rhythms Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
250swb Posted July 15, 2011 Share #116 Posted July 15, 2011 Are you generalizing or do you know much about W. Eugene Smith? I envy your meeting Eugene Smith, he was a great photographer. I never met him, but have met Adams and Davidson. Adams long ago back in the 1970's when he was on a lecture tour. I think you are right and its perfectly true to say that Smith was a master in the darkroom, but its easy to be swayed into thinking his blockbuster photographic essays were his bread and butter or even what gave him the clout he did at Life magazine. After all they are all people focus on nowadays. Down below the surface I think he had all the usual one off assignments that any photojournalist had. Is the printing process you are thinking of for Davidson's pictures called duotone printing perhaps? Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paterson Posted July 16, 2011 Share #117 Posted July 16, 2011 I’m sure his endorsement brought him some financial gain. When I switched from film to digital, it seemed the way to go if I want to make a living as a photographer today. Clients want it faster, art buyers and creative’s what it view it via internet and what mock ups posted to use for client presentations. Portfolio’s on Ipads are now the rage, Who knows if some new creative director knows what film is. Salgado is going with the trend and why not endorse a product to make some extra income. There is nothing wrong with that. Film does have a different feel, using a program to mimic film seems silly and redundant. I am also surprised that Salgado would compromise the purity of his work on faking it. Mind you, If you look at some of his older work, the amount work done on the final prints are also manipulations of reality, some dodging here and burning there, a little solarization never hurt anyone except maybe the truth. In the last two years I have switched back to film, my work has never been better and my style has come back to life, there are some things digital cannot replicate, soul and feel are two big ones, so much so that software has to be made to replicate what film gives you for free. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest malland Posted July 16, 2011 Share #118 Posted July 16, 2011 ...I am also surprised that Salgado would compromise the purity of his work on faking it. Mind you, If you look at some of his older work, the amount work done on the final prints are also manipulations of reality, some dodging here and burning there, a little solarization never hurt anyone except maybe the truth...While I certainly understand why people like film — so do I — I have a real problem with the idea that burning and dodging necessarily hurt the truth, for the simple reason that film, or the digital sensor for that matter, does not "see" the same way that the human eye does. In any case, B&W is not "the truth": it's a depiction. On the other hand, I do agree that Salgado was not showing "truth" in his aestheticization of poverty and, as I wrote in a post above, his pictures overall, I feel, have a lot less truth than do those of Nachtwey, for example. —Mitch/Bangkok Paris au rythme de Basquiat Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FiZZ Posted July 17, 2011 Share #119 Posted July 17, 2011 I will never understand the discussion wether or not a silver print is valued higher than a digital print. All photographic decisions and steps in processing are identical. You just asked the one question that keeps me awake at night when it comes to art. Why are some pieces valued in the millions? I don't care who you are, no piece of art is worth 10 million dollars. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
azzo Posted July 17, 2011 Share #120 Posted July 17, 2011 ... I don't care who you are, no piece of art is worth 10 million dollars. You're right. .. Some are Priceless! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.