Re: Digital is not *easier* [Was: Too much equipment]


Adam Kimball (akimball@finebrand.com)
Mon, 19 Apr 1999 12:55:43 -0700


Patrick & all,

Thanks for writing, it seems there are many people on the list who feel a lot
like you do about digital technology. I'd like to make a few comments myself,
and I'll address your points individually.

Altview@aol.com wrote:

> [snip]
> 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.

I agree. But which one is more time consuming and which one is easier? That
isn't clear. Unless you are speaking of physical effort? Sure, pushing a mouse
around in the comforts of a house is easier physically, but does that matter?
Are we in it for the blood, sweat, and tears - or the images?

> 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.

Since we are on the alt-list, I think it is far to say that all of us still use
these tempermental processes. I do gum, pt/pd, and gravure using digital means
often. Even by use of a digital screen and a digital positive in gravure, the
process is still exacting. The digital tools offer me a way around the faults of
my current aquatint box, and keep me printing plates in the beautiful daylight,
not making positives in the dark.

> 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?

Of course people are doing work, look at the work of Pedro Meyer - from YEARS
ago. David Fokos, Dan Burkholder, Neil Foldberg, and many, many others are
producing. And, good work is always a small percentage of total work -
especially in processes which are new and unexplored. I spend some time every
day doing work, and 75% has a digital stage.

> 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.
>

Scanning a print, modifying the image, and outputting a negative can take me an
hour for a gum. How long does it take to make an enlarged negative? Set up the
darkroom, make the positive, develop it, dry it, make the negative, etc.. wash
the trays out... etc. For an imagesetter negative, I usually have to wait a day
to get the film. But I can do other things while it is being printed. Digital
can saves heaps of time, seriously. If anything, once you've acquired the skills,
you will save copious amounts of time.

> 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.

As I said, there is an initial learning curve. The first 15 might take three
months, the next 15 might take 1 month. If this person got his curve down, got
the output's specs down, and knows the process, I see no reason why it should
take this long.

> 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.

I am convinced that a well-done drum scan of a negative can handle high
enlargement factors as well as (often better) than an analog enlargement.
Therefore, I'd be willing to bet that if you saw his 16x20 prints from a analog
enlargement, you'd like them just as little.

> 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?

Maybe this artist wanted that affect. Seems plausible. However, if he didn't -
he is at fault, not the digital tools. He could have made them smaller, he could
have shot a 4x5 of the scene (or even a medium format negative), got a higher
quality scan, modified the image in the digital space to work with the grain.

> 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 assume your friend was getting drum scans to 16x20 or greater. They can run
$80-$100. Output of a 16x20 can cost $50. So, your figures are in line with
local prices around here. Sure, it is expensive, I won't argue with that. You
could buy a lot of film for your big camera, but you have to buy the camera! You
have to get lenses for it. You have to get film holders. You have to get an SUV
to haul it! I very rarely work above 8x10 - so digital affords me the ability to
get nearly perfect enlargements with a minimum of darkroom fuss, and I get the
added benefit of altering the image in ways I could never do. A little sky
peeping through a tree.. get rid of it. Not enough local contrast in one tiny
section, increase it. Crop it, but keep the same image size? Sure. Etc.

> 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?

I can't. And I can't afford a 16x20 camera. Or a 5x7 enlarger for my negs. So,
if I work in 10x14 - I can get a neg made for about $50. A neg that conforms to
my EVERY desire. That is the real issue.

>
>
> 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?

I am concerned about this as well. However, the tiny group of us alt-digital
people will never impact any decision with a film manufacturer. They will do as
they see fit. I voice my opinion by buying 4x5 and 5x7. You voice yours with
the larger sorts. I think embracing digital is the best bet, big film will
become increasingly hard to get. That is just the fact.

>
> 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.

You said it: we don't make art just to sell it. I want to realize (in a print)
something that is in my head. I'll do what I need to to get there.

> 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.

I agree with Dan's sentiments about this. I wouldn't want to see your work done
with 75 year old film. ;)

>
> 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?

Again, Dan covered this very well. I agree entirely.

Best, and thanks for a good topic.
-Adam



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Oct 28 1999 - 21:39:31