Kallitype (terryroth@earthlink.net)
Mon, 19 Apr 1999 08:08:08 -0700
Altview@aol.com wrote:
>
> For those who are regular readers of this list have probably gotten some
> inkling about my feelings towards digital and its place in what we do as
> alternative process image makers. I have been thinking a lot about this issue
> lately, both privately and with various colleagues, some supporters and some
> opponents to the whole digital revolution. I would like to clarify some of
> those thoughts and pose some questions to those who favor this new
> technology. It is no secret that I believe that digital is the highway to
> hell and its practitioners minions of the devil ;-). But here are some
> thoughts, in no particular order. And some questions to ponder.
>
> First, let's not confuse easy with time consuming. There is no doubt that
> this is extremely time consuming. However, there is no way to compare the
> experience of loading film holders, carting equipment to its destination,
> setting up a heavy camera, calculating exposures, waiting for the right
> magical moment, then taking it all down again to start once more, to sitting
> in a chair and moving a mouse around. Even though both might take the same
> amount of time to create an image. I have had enough peripheral experience
> with printers, graphic artists, etc. to know the learning curve to photoshop
> and its ilk is enormous. No one appreciates the level of commitment to
> learning a process more than I. And while true, it is relatively easy to take
> an 8 X 10 and get a printable negative in a relatively short time, the time
> it takes to master it can be a lifetime, especially when one is devoted to
> the tempermental, finicky, and precise processes that so many of us have
> dedicated our art to. It took me 6 years of hard work to master the platinum
> process. The problem I keep seeing with all of this digital activity I keep
> hearing about, is where is the work? I am paraphrasing the same question
> asked by Lee Friedlander some while ago. I see small dribs and drabs showing
> up here and there, but most is dreadful, amaturish, and technically
> incompetent. Living in the city of Los Angeles as I do and having access to
> many major photo galleries and museums, I do indeed see a lot of work. Make a
> point of it. So, first question. With many of you spending so many hours
> slaving away at your computers, are any of you, in fact, getting any work
> done? I may have an abnormal perspective on this issue due to my normally
> prodigious production of work. But my many friends who fall more into the
> norm in regards to image production still seem to make vastly more images
> then friends who have gone digital. I know that quantity isn't everything,
> that making many images isn't automatically better then those who make fewer.
> But one of the paradigms in art is an evolution, a refinement, a clarity of
> vision that comes in time as one progresses through one's life. It seems only
> logical to me that the more one works, the faster one travels on that path.
>
> So we firstly have this issue of work production. Secondly, I want to address
> the issue of quality. Granted, I have seen some pretty spectacular digital
> enlargements for platinum. Just recently I worked with a colleague on some
> beautiful portraits digitally enlarged and printed in platinum. There were no
> tell tale signs of the negatives being digital. No lines, no pixels, no
> banding. But he started with original negatives in 8 X 10. However it took
> him three months of back and forth to his lab to get 15 negatives he could
> print. I also saw an exhibition in San Diego curated on the theme of
> photographs of the ocean. As with any group show based on a theme, this one
> was mixed as to how successful they were. But one photographer shot rolling
> waves with a 35mm and digitally enlarged the negatives to 16 X 20 and then
> made platinum prints. They were dreadful. The grain from that small a
> negative almost obscured the image. It reminded me of photos from the 60's
> whose stylistic legacy was to make pictures as grainy as possible. Somehow,
> the desired melding of image and process did not take place here. One of the
> reasons I am so passionate about the process I do is the extraordinary
> subtlety, nuance, and tonal scale platinum is capable of. It's like taking a
> precision performance car, pulling the spark plug wires out of two cylinders
> and driving to your destination just using first gear. Yah, it'll get you
> there, but why bother? I am not basing this on just the observation of these
> two extremes, but so far the vast majority of digital images falls into the
> second category. So my second question is, if the quality still does not
> approach the quality of an in-camera negative, why do it?
>
> The third issue is expense. Right now the going rate for having an image
> scanned, worked on and tweaked in photoshop and outputted onto film runs
> around $100 to $150 a piece. I believe that is a fair and accurate appraisal
> of current prices. I am not counting Epson based negatives here as I think
> all would agree the technology still doesn't compare to a service bureau. Now
> say someone like my friend above does 25 images for an exhibition or to
> complete a body of work. (He did 15 at $150 each) A reasonable figure. Now to
> calculate with the above prices, that would amount to over $2500 invested in
> just the film output, not even calculating the enormous amounts of time this
> all seems to take. Now for that amount of money I can purchase 1200 sheets of
> 8 X 10 film, 600 sheets of 11 X 14, or 400 sheets of 14 X 17. Anyway I look
> at this, it doesn't make sense to me. Am I missing something? So, do you all
> realize the economics of digital? Can any of you simply afford to create any
> serious body of work?
>
> The next issue, which scares me the most, is with the wholesale embracing of
> this new technology to create images, what is to keep the companies we count
> on to continue to supply us with materials in which to do our work? Don't
> tell me that there will always be film. We don't know that. It is corporate
> profits that will determine our future, not the needs of some fringe elements
> of our society. That's all of us by the way. There are already ominous signs.
> Kodak has virtually abadoned its large format customers. They no longer
> supply and catalog large format film (larger then 8 X 10) as they used to.
> They have discontinued several products including Super XX that was once a
> mainstay to many photographers. Even Ilford, who filled this vacuum for a
> while, is no longer stocking large sizes anymore and now require a minimum
> order of 20 boxes. At $188.00 a box for 14 X 17 film, that's a lot of money.
> We still have Bergger now, but how long is that going to last. Secondly,
> camera dealers in the network I work with have reported a significant drop in
> the demand for large format cameras in the last 6 months and my business has
> also been affected. Like a canary in a coal mine, these winds bare no glad
> tidings. I certainly am not proposing every one run out and buy a large
> camera ( though I think that would be great), this interest in digital may be
> appealing in the short term, but will it cause the death of film based image
> making as we know it? Will there still be film available 10 years from now?
>
> Lastly, how will the people who buy photographs think about images made on a
> computer? I was talking with one of my dealers on the phone tonight and he
> has serious concerns about the negative responses many people are having to
> digital based imagery. This was an issue I hadn't thought about. As we are
> all aware, there is still an on-going battle, though largely won, to have
> people accept photography as an art because of its creation by mechanical
> means. Sure, we know many of these people are uneducated about photography
> and lack understanding of how this process works. But think of the
> resisitance sure to come from much of our audience when shown digital based
> photos for their appraisal. He has been surprised at the negative response he
> has gotten from several clients, even though he is a staunch supporter of
> digital based imagery. Again, I know we do not make art just to sell and this
> is no reason to not make the images we make. But something to think about.
>
> The one issue I can never reconcile, is for me, the inherent contradiction
> between the care and craft we bring to alternative printing methodolgies, the
> joy of making something unique with our own hands and the cold unfeeling and
> soulless computer. And yes I know it is just a tool and the perjoratives are
> my own biases. However. For me the entire process of creation is one
> continous circle. It starts with the cameras I use, most of which are a
> minimum of 75 years old, that have been lovingly restored by my hand and who
> retain a soul and has a history. I have always felt so connected to my medium
> by sharing the focusing cloth with those friendly spirits who reside in there
> with me. Then to process the film by hand, to coat my paper and make prints.
> To cut my own matts and to design and make my frames from scratch. To knowing
> that when the print is hung on a wall, everything there is done by my hand.
> Yes, it is only one way to make images and there are many others. I guess I
> like a little purity and consistensy in in my work. And finally, to turn
> around a response from my first post. I am embracing our analog world in a
> way that frees me from the mechanical faults and inadequacies of our current
> crop of digital tools. There is no Y2K in a Goertz Dagor lens. So, my
> question to those out there in computer land, if it takes so long, costs so
> much, has such inferior quality, and is a source of such seemingly endless
> problems, why are you doing it?
>
> Let the games begin.
>
> Patrick Alt
What a thoughtful, well-considered post! Thanks Patrick, for initiating
what will be an interesting and relevant discussion.
I am a computer programmer, working for the Vets Administration, and
have pursued the elusive Photograil for nearly 40 years. Presently
enjoying the delights of Dick's Ziatype process, using 8x10 and 5x7 negs
made the old-fashioned way, and appreciating the help I've goten from
Carl Weese and "The New Platinum Print".
Why don't I use the computer to do my art, even though my computer
skills are somewhat further along than the average user's? It is because
the computer is (not yet, and maybe never) not a good tool for doing
art. It can be a good tool for manipulating data, including pixels.
But it is certainly not time-efficient, nor is it cheap. If you
consider the cost of a digital system that approaches the subtlety of
even a 120-size neg enlarged to 11x14 on gelatin silver, the comparison
begs credulity.
Let's say you shoot ---ooops, photograph----a scene using a $400
Rolleicord on Tri-X, develop in PMK pyro, and print with a $300 Beseler
enlarger on FORTE warm-tone at 11x14. Assuming reasonable care, and a
thoughful eye, the result will be a delicate, long-scale,
high-resolution print which will have microdensities and microcontrasts
which would take about $50,000 worth of computer equipment to
approximate (not equal). The investment in $ to take, process, print
and mount that 11x14 would be about $800 / number of prints produced
over the life of the camera and enlarger---truly just pennies. Maybe
$3.00 for film, 25 cents for PMK, 50 cents for Agfa warm-tone paper
developer, $1 for a sheet of 11x14 paper and about a nickels's worth of
depreciation on the enlarger and dry-mount press, and maybe a dime's
worth of wear on the Rolleicord.
Now take the same scene with your 8x10 view camera and make a contact
print on AZO paper. You have upped the visual ante by an order of
magnitude---the resolution and tonal scale is approaching the ultimate,
(which at this writing is probably the Pt/Pd, hard to imagine anything
possesing more tonal subtlety and fidelity). An 8x10 sheet of film,
developed in PMK, costs me $3.00. A sheet of 8x10 Platine, coated with
ZIA, another $3.00, mounting with museum tape on board, another $3.00 or
so. Am I missing something here? The ultimate in image quality
(gum/bromoil/carbon enthusiasts hold fire) for a ten-dollar bill? You
bet. I can't afford 1/10 the cost of a computer CPU, scanner and
printer that will even come close to the specimen print. It took me
about an hour this past Weds to drive down the road past my place to a
skunk-cabbage patch, shoot 4 frames, and return home. An hour to
develop and wash the film, about 1/2 hour to coat 12 sheets of Arches
Platine, and maybe another hour to make 4 prints in the sunshine (but
you can wait a week for a sunny day in Puget Sound !)
How much time would it take to scan a negative into Photoshop, and
tweak it? Reason totters---I have cracked the manual on this sucker,
and walked away. Apologists will say that once the learning curve is
mastered, results can be "quickly obtained". I disagree. I don't have
enough years left to waste learning this immense and complicated
program. I need to make art, not piddle with software.
How much would an ink-jet printer cost, which can make an 8x10 with a
tonal scale approaching my 'beginner' Ziatype? How much film could I
buy for that amount? My descendants, 500 years from now, assuming I
clear and wash my palladium print with care, will be able to see this
image of that skunk cabbage blossom pretty much as I printed it in the
morning sun in 1999. How fugitive are those inkjet dyes? Will my son,
in 20 years, be looking at a faint trace of an image? Will there even
be an image after 50 years? I doubt it. Could I take this negative
down to Ivey Seright ( a good "pro" processor in Seattle) and give them
a $10 bill as ask them to scan it and make me a print which matches my
Ziatype in richness, DMAX, tonal scale, and permanence?
There is a strong emotional component in the best work, the image as
recorded by the artist and fixed on paper will touch the observer's
heart and mind, the recognitions and associations like a gong struck
gently, reverberate in memory's corridors. The image can link the mind
of the photographer and the viewer across time and cultural distance,
can stimulate deep understanding of our connection to the earth, its
inhabitants, and their spiritual connections. I think the computer is
an impediment, not a facilitator, of these ghostly connections.
Patrick has made a trenchant observation---there just isn't much good
digital work out there. There are some interesting "tricky" images, but
novelty soon wears off. What endures is depth of expression and
emotional richness, things which devolve from the viewer's relationship
to her/his environment and spiritual connection to the exterior. Things
which are absent on all the digital images I've yet seen.
Would Ansel Adams have used digital? Most likely. Would Edw Weston?
He would spit in your eye---the good one. I'll take the old (simple
and penny-wise) way, thanks.
When 4:30PM comes, I turn off my computer. I am grateful that my
computer skills enable me to earn enough $$ to buy film and chemicals,
but for art: Analog Forever!
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Oct 28 1999 - 21:39:31