plasticman Posted June 16, 2011 Share #21 Posted June 16, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) 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. I wasn't suggesting that Salgado was trying to save money in the comment I made - simply that the practicalities of shooting film were too difficult for a pro with the amount and weight of film needed for extended assignments. Good luck to him. The results won't be identical to real film, but if he's satisfied with the result, then that's fine. Why Alan thinks that this has any impact on Tri-X is a mystery? Well, as we know he's a vigorous advocate of film and I guess he was genuinely sad to see the promotional article from DxO... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted June 16, 2011 Posted June 16, 2011 Hi plasticman, Take a look here Salgado - faking it.. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
epand56 Posted June 16, 2011 Share #22 Posted June 16, 2011 In the end this DxO Pack is an alternative to Silver Efex Pro, am I right? Is it better? I'm asking this because the promotional price is quite appealing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
menos I M6 Posted June 16, 2011 Share #23 Posted June 16, 2011 I completely fail to see, why it would be negative at all, to add a certain effect in post processing to one's photographs for personal expression, be it a famous photographer like Salgado just me or somebody else's mummy. This is wrong thinking, seriously. For anybody, who is interested, I add freely al gusto fake vignetting, fake grain, fake black and white conversions, fake sharpening, fake contrast, fake tonal curves, fake dust removal, fake framings, fake crops, fake panoramas, fake lights, … insert many other fakes here … to my photography. I think, many others do, probably most of the one's, who frequent internet forums go shuusshh about it, as it is too embarrassing? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wstotler Posted June 16, 2011 Share #24 Posted June 16, 2011 In the end this DxO Pack is an alternative to Silver Efex Pro, am I right?Is it better? I'm asking this because the promotional price is quite appealing. Yes. I've tested Silver Efex Pro and also DxO. I prefer the standalome TrueGrain product for final look and workflow. Samples here: TrueGrain - a set on Flickr Have a look. OP: Thanks for posting. The workflow he kept is the most interesting part about this for me--not that he's abandoned film for digital. Cheers! Will Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted June 16, 2011 Share #25 Posted June 16, 2011 In the end this DxO Pack is an alternative to Silver Efex Pro, am I right? Not really, as it can only currently be used as a plugin for DxO Optics Pro 6.6. See here... DxO FilmPack - Description, Functionalities, Specifications Plugin versions for Photoshop, Lightroom and Aperture promised soon. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eastgreenlander Posted June 16, 2011 Share #26 Posted June 16, 2011 Im glad he converts his images to BW, as I hate the colors out of box in the Canon DSLRs Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
zlatkob Posted June 16, 2011 Share #27 Posted June 16, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) Yeah - in a promotional for DxO he would say that the results were inferior, naturally... That is so cynical. Give the man some credit. 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. Digital is real black-and-white too. It's just a different medium. Film and digital both capture light; neither is more real. I think we need to just look at the photographs and forget which is "real". Way to go!Apart from the Canon, of course! The Canon seems to meet his needs, so why not. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
plasticman Posted June 16, 2011 Share #28 Posted June 16, 2011 That is so cynical. Give the man some credit. Digital is real black-and-white too. It's just a different medium. Film and digital both capture light; neither is more real. I think we need to just look at the photographs and forget which is "real". I fake black-and-white myself, using Silver Efex Pro nowadays, although I used to do it to digital images before I knew about Silver Efex, it's simply easier to do using a more sophisticated mathematical algorithm with plenty more sliders and 'film-types' to choose from. Doesn't totally erase the differences in the way that film responds to light and the artifacts caused by the way that a digital sensor captures the same scene, but it's not bad. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted June 16, 2011 Share #29 Posted June 16, 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. Reduced quality - well, you might have a point unless unsharp masking is applied. With enlarging, resolution is always lost, but not always significant. For example a camera lens that can do 100lp/mm on a film that can resolve 100lp/mm enlarged through a lens that can do 100/lp/mm will probably output no better than 70-something lp/mm. But that is certainly enough to resolve grain in a 20x enlargement, so (IMHO) it is good enough. Although I've never had such a setup - my hardware is a bit more modest, and I'm moving back to 4x5 to resolve some issues. To quote the article, Alan, Today, all of Sebastiao Salgado’s digital images are processed using DxO FilmPack before being transferred to film using a Kodak imager and baryta paper. But you know that. I don't see where it is said that an enlarger or contact printer is not used. The virtue of transferring the final digital image to film is that he can now reprint the same outcome on traditional paper without futzing with darkroom work such as dodging, burning, bleaching, masking and so-forth. It is a tempting approach. See this. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted June 16, 2011 Author Share #30 Posted June 16, 2011 I can guess at the reasons why he would want a negative. But if you are going to use a digital imager to produce a negative and then have a lab use that negative in an enlarger to make prints, I don't see why you wouldn't just use a lab that uses a digital imager to make the prints directly from the digital file and cut out the negative and enlarger. From a technical perspective, his process is just like the old days when I'd choose either a color inter-negative and a C print vs working directly from the slide onto Cibachrome or Kodak R. There is always a loss of quality when adding an intermediate piece of film but it may be relatively minor in this case if done right. And I'm sure a good 4x5 or larger b/w digitally generated neg could make great prints via an enlarger. I think the charm of Tri-X is that you shot it on film. If you just fake the look, it may seem the same (or better) but is an entirely different medium. Especially because you can later adjust the color image before converting to b/w or do all kinds of other things that you could not have done if you had shot film. Now I'm not against doing this, but I think I value this approach a bit less. The same way I value a lot of what Adams did or the early color work by Prokudin-Gorskii, or all early photographers for that matter... not just because of the results, but because I understand the effort required. I am a commercial photographer who shoots digitally. And I like to explore all kinds of aspects of digital photography as a "new" medium to me. I feel there are many skills that can come into play for digital photography too. However I think it is inherently easier to shoot digitally and "process" images on a computer and that reduces the required learning curve and commitment a bit. (Digital is good for my commercial work because I need to be efficient and want to avoid mistakes.) But don't for a minute think I do not put a premium on the craftsmanship required by shooting film and making prints yourself by hand. And if they involve a complicated processes such as Daguerreotype, carbro, dye transfer, etc. that gets Brownie points from me as long as the photos are great too. However, people who one day pick up a Lomo and then shoot snapshots and have some lab process and print the images do not automatically become artists or craftsmen in my way of thinking. In which case shooting digitally and doing your own raw converting and inkjet printing would show more concern for craftsmanship. None of this takes away from Salgado's skill, effort, and commitment to make great photos. There is a link on this page to a pretty good interview that shows how hard he works even at age 67. http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2011/06/12/magazine/alaska-sebastiao-salgado-14.html Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomasis7 Posted June 16, 2011 Share #31 Posted June 16, 2011 not looking so bad to me: Another World, Another Planet: Alaska’s North - Slide Show - NYTimes.com of course the great photos.. but the look doesnt appeal me. I dont see any grain or something that resembles of film. Me neither like too much clean films too. whether 4x5, 120 It doesnt him stop taking photos, good for him. Bad day for Trix? ROFL .. not Salgado is not everything Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted June 16, 2011 Author Share #32 Posted June 16, 2011 of course the great photos.. but the look doesnt appeal me. I dont see any grain or something that resembles of film... I don't see why you'd expect to see grain on these small images on-line. It is a bad day for Tri-X because if this is acceptable for Salgado, others will feel it is acceptable too. Just as some famous photographers popularized 35mm photography in the first place. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
zlatkob Posted June 16, 2011 Share #33 Posted June 16, 2011 Alan, I agree that it is very significant that he is using this technology. It's a huge stamp of approval and will make it OK for others who were doubtful or resistant. As for Tri-X, the invention of digital was a bad day for Tri-X, and Tri-X has had quite a lot of bad days since then. So this is just one more bad day. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted June 16, 2011 Author Share #34 Posted June 16, 2011 I wonder if any of these programs can put some scratches and dust marks onto your files. Then you could spot them out on the prints. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
zlatkob Posted June 16, 2011 Share #35 Posted June 16, 2011 Yes, Alien Skin Exposure can do that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Broadside Posted June 16, 2011 Share #36 Posted June 16, 2011 Personally, I prefer FP4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
alun Posted June 16, 2011 Share #37 Posted June 16, 2011 I wasn't suggesting that Salgado was trying to save money in the comment I made - No, I realise that. I just meant that the most frequently cited reason (whether by pros or amateurs, and especially who have to bring in jobs at a 'price point') for using digital is the savings this generates. Salgado clearly doesn't have saving money on his mind... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted June 16, 2011 Share #38 Posted June 16, 2011 Personally, I prefer FP4 The same software emulates that film. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
azzo Posted June 16, 2011 Share #39 Posted June 16, 2011 Faking what exactly? IMHO, we should be thankful for people such as Salgado and all the rest. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted June 16, 2011 Share #40 Posted June 16, 2011 I can guess at the reasons why he would want a negative. But if you are going to use a digital imager to produce a negative and then have a lab use that negative in an enlarger to make prints, I don't see why you wouldn't just use a lab that uses a digital imager to make the prints directly from the digital file and cut out the negative and enlarger. Wet printing so he can say "Silver Gelatin" print. II wonder if any of these programs can put some scratches and dust marks onto your files. Then you could spot them out on the prints. By gosh, Alan, we have a new side business. In fact, I have made a photoshop script to create random scratches and dust. Oh it was a cruel lesson. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.