sean_reid Posted October 7, 2007 Share #1 Posted October 7, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) Walt Odets, who many here know from his postings about the M8 and lenses, recently received the 2007 James D. Phelan Art Award in Photography. The award is described by the San Francisco Foundation in this way: "The James D. Phelan Art Award in Photography is a biennial award given in recognition of artistic achievements by California-born artists. Established by the Trust of James D. Phelan, former San Francisco Mayor, United States Senator and arts supporter, the annual competition in a variety of disciplines is sponsored by the San Francisco Foundation. SF Camerawork administers the photography award and displays selected works in its galleries." In conjunction with this Award, Walt's work is being exhibited at the San Francisco CameraWork gallery from 23 October - 17 November 2007. I have a lot of respect for Walt's work and wish that I lived a little closer to CA so that I could see the show. Those of you who do live there might want to take a look. Congratulations Walt. Cheers, Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 7, 2007 Posted October 7, 2007 Hi sean_reid, Take a look here Walt Odets Award and Upcoming Exhibition. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
ChrisC Posted October 7, 2007 Share #2 Posted October 7, 2007 Congratulations Walt, recognition of fine work. And well done Sean. ................... Chris Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gesper Posted October 7, 2007 Share #3 Posted October 7, 2007 Do you know if Walt's work can be seen online anywhere? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted October 7, 2007 Author Share #4 Posted October 7, 2007 Yes, Walt Odets Photography Home Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Walt Posted October 7, 2007 Share #5 Posted October 7, 2007 Sean, Thanks, though a little embarassing. But, yes, if anyone is in the S.F. Bay area, the opening reception is Thursday November 1, 5-8 PM. Details, addresses, etc. are here: SF Camerawork Home | NON-PROFIT PHOTOGRAPHY GALLERY. I'd love to say hello, so please introduce yourself. SF Camerawork is an interesting center for photography and there are four galleries. There will be other concurrrent shows. To keep things pertinent, about half the images are from film Leicas dating back to the 1960's, with a few recent images from the M8. Walt Walt Odets Photography Home Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sparkie Posted October 8, 2007 Share #6 Posted October 8, 2007 congrats Walt. Wish I was there to view your Exhibition. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest WPalank Posted October 8, 2007 Share #7 Posted October 8, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) Walt, I'm a local San franciscan, so I should be able to attend. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
robertwright Posted October 8, 2007 Share #8 Posted October 8, 2007 looking at your website, I am so glad you made those pictures. could you comment on how you felt the recent M8 prints (and how they were reproduced) dovetailed with the silver gelatine/film based prints. What issues did you confront? I think many of us are straddled across (bisected:)) between the chemical and digital. best Robert Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Walt Posted October 8, 2007 Share #9 Posted October 8, 2007 William- Please say hello when you come. Robert- I'm not sure I can fully answer your question here, but I spent about three years first learning to print digitally, literally thousands of dollars in ink and paper, study, experimentation, etc. During this time, I printed about 800 old negatives and 200 new images on two Epsons, a 4000 and 4800, running through about $20,000 in paper alone. My experience is that the digital printing is much more complex, technical and demanding, but offers much more control and precision. Because my tastes are still about the same, I print "traditionally" (for example, with lower contrast and less "sharpness" than is popular now) and, under glass where the surface is not visible, people often think they are looking at silver prints. Digital printing is a huge adjustment from the darkroom. On digital shooting, there is much less adjustment to be made and I use the M8, to the extent that this quirky camera allows, pretty much like a film M. Most of the old images you see on the website were shot with an M4 and a 35 or 50 lens, very occasionally a 90. The exposure paradigm is different for the digital, but that's about it in my experience. I much prefer the digital process and results, despite the complexity, and would not want to go back to film and wet printing. I don't know if I've answered what you were asking. Walt Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
carstenw Posted October 8, 2007 Share #10 Posted October 8, 2007 Congratulations, Walt! I wish I could be there too. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
j. borger Posted October 8, 2007 Share #11 Posted October 8, 2007 Congrats Walt ... i just want to add my admiration for your work. I bookmarked your site the first time you posted at this forum ... and return to it once in while to enjoy! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
robertwright Posted October 8, 2007 Share #12 Posted October 8, 2007 William- Please say hello when you come. Robert- I'm not sure I can fully answer your question here, but I spent about three years first learning to print digitally, literally thousands of dollars in ink and paper, study, experimentation, etc. During this time, I printed about 800 old negatives and 200 new images on two Epsons, a 4000 and 4800, running through about $20,000 in paper alone. My experience is that the digital printing is much more complex, technical and demanding, but offers much more control and precision. Because my tastes are still about the same, I print "traditionally" (for example, with lower contrast and less "sharpness" than is popular now) and, under glass where the surface is not visible, people often think they are looking at silver prints. Digital printing is a huge adjustment from the darkroom. On digital shooting, there is much less adjustment to be made and I use the M8, to the extent that this quirky camera allows, pretty much like a film M. Most of the old images you see on the website were shot with an M4 and a 35 or 50 lens, very occasionally a 90. The exposure paradigm is different for the digital, but that's about it in my experience. I much prefer the digital process and results, despite the complexity, and would not want to go back to film and wet printing. I don't know if I've answered what you were asking. Walt I think you have answered my question-in other words even the film images were printed digitally, so all the display prints are digital, not a mix of wet darkroom and digital. What I have found is scanning negatives tends to make grain more apparent than optically printing negs, I have had to be very careful with my film and get the best processing I can find. I am still torn between the two, all of the last year's shooting has been on the M8, but I am still feeling I would like to use film for my street shooting as I had in the past, allowing for the fact that it needs extra care in development to produce smooth negatives. It sounds awful to say but the extra trouble of scanning negatives is becoming something I don' t want to do. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LichMD Posted October 8, 2007 Share #13 Posted October 8, 2007 Walt, congratulations on thw well deserved award. i find your work very inspirational. Not sure that I'll be able to get to SF in time for your show. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Walt Posted October 8, 2007 Share #14 Posted October 8, 2007 I think you have answered my question-in other words even the film images were printed digitally, so all the display prints are digital, not a mix of wet darkroom and digital. What I have found is scanning negatives tends to make grain more apparent than optically printing negs, I have had to be very careful with my film and get the best processing I can find. I am still torn between the two, all of the last year's shooting has been on the M8, but I am still feeling I would like to use film for my street shooting as I had in the past, allowing for the fact that it needs extra care in development to produce smooth negatives. It sounds awful to say but the extra trouble of scanning negatives is becoming something I don' t want to do. Robert- I missed this issue in your question. Though I have thousands of silver gelatin prints, I did a kind of "retrospective" digital printing of images back to 1965. My last show, in 2006, and this upcoming one are all digital printing regardless of the type of original. Yes, certain types of scanning can exaggerate grain and negative defects, but I think people forget that printing is now much larger than it used to be. While I traditionally printed images at 8 x 5.25 inches (on 11 x 14), my standard print digitally is 14 x 9 (on 13 x 19). I also now print at 20 x 13 (on 17 x 22). I have used both a lab for drum scanning and a Nikon 5000. For the Nikon scans, which *can* be quite good depending on how they're done, I have sometimes used Neat Image for grain reduction. Carefully used, I get very much what I had with direct printing. The digital process has also allowed me to print film that was unprintable before due to negative defects, misexposure, processing problems, very complex dodging or burning, etc. I generally prefer the digital prints, regardless of the type of original. They are much more accurate in terms of my visual intent. I cannot see a preference for shooting film and then scanning for digital printing. I did this for several years only because I didn't have a digital camera I could use comfortably or well. The M8 I can live with. An M8 image has hugely more potential and possibilities than a 35mm Tri-X negative ever had. And I don't at all subscribe to the idea that film and digital "just look different." It depends on how you use them. In a show of my prints, people cannot usually distinguish the film originals from the digital originals because I print them with the same taste and intent. When they can distinguish them, it is usually because the film originals have some visible defects from the negative. On the printing end alone, both silver and digital prints have their strengths and weaknesses. I use only matte surfaces for digital (glossy matte dried for silver) and it took me a while to get used to the matte surface. I now prefer it because it is easier to view without reflections. Bad "digital photography" is bad because of the way people use it, not because of the medium. The digital is just easier to get into trouble with because people don't need a darkroom, they just fiddle on a computer with a range of control that they don't understand and that was unavilable in traditional printing. And digital photography easily engages people who have no photographic experience or developed taste. The idea that good digital photography is a "push button" operation is nonsense, though many people do indeed do it that way. This comes up on the forum when people ask about which raw processor produces the best image, by which I think they mean at default settings. This would be like asking, "What's the best exposure time for a print?" in hopes that everything could be printed at seven seconds. Walt Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
robertwright Posted October 8, 2007 Share #15 Posted October 8, 2007 in the very beginning I had a job with a headshot photographer in Toronto and we made actors 8.5x11's-batches of 100 at a time...our print time was an average of 2.5 seconds... (that included dodging and burning by the way) Thanks for your replies, I agree whole heartedly. the new crop of digital papers from Harman have made me very excited about printing bw. they are truly wonderful papers. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Walt Posted October 8, 2007 Share #16 Posted October 8, 2007 Robert-- I haven't tried the Harman papers, or any of the other "fiber" PK inkjet papers. And I heard today that Epson has announced a paper in this class, something like "Exhibition Signature." I'll get to that at some point, but I don't suppose this forum is the place to exchange information on this. The head shots sound frightening--a hectic printing schedule at best. And to others-- Many thanks for all the kind words. Walt Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.