Robert Frank: "There are too many images."

[Greg Miller]

I vastly prefer a completely gelatin silver workflow. I enjoy the darkroom environment/process and like my prints made that way. So far, I've only used digital for snapshots and occasional publication illustrations. Nonetheless, what you've posted strikes me as absolute nonsense. You're not the first or only one to make these claims, and you probably won't be the last. I usually don't respond. That ends now.

Silver halide in gelatin on plastic substrates is no less a "sensor" than the electro-optical sensors in digital cameras are. Digital prints are no more reproductions of events that occurred on a photographic sensor than optically made gelatin silver prints are. It's time to move on from this so-called debate and face reality. Photography is photography. The mechanism(s) used to practice it do not define photography. They are mere tools. Like "artspeak," I contend that denigrating any specific mechanism(s) of photography is meaningless babble. I don't think it's possible to utter a more meaningful statement, whether discussing photography toolsets or any given work of "art," than "I like it" or "I don't like it."

Can we all get along? Without trashing each other's methods?

Bravo. Where's the like button on this forum?!?!?!?!

[pdmoylan]

I admit a degree of intense selfishness in taking images. So I am little concerned about the accessabilty and ease of others taking very good images. It is the process of finding something different/new to say that buoys my love of this craft. When I was teaching photography I found many individuals could and did create an occasionally brilliant image, albeit perhaps unknowingly. It is the dedicated visionary who seeks out new options, ideas and brings home frequent successes that makes this an endlessly endearing form of expression.

Visualising the world with a keenly new perspective is like drinking a freezing cold porter after shooting in 90+ degree temps for hours, it's like opening the sun roof of your car near dusk with a cool evening breeze over your head while listening to Miles in the CD player - shooting images is that break from the physical and mental oppression that we feel from having to function in a challenging world. Who cares how many images there are, I only care about the ones that inspire me including the few that I bring home and view with a huge smile. It's all about the process and the freedom to think differently.

Again, who cares whether we are overwhelmed with cameras, images, even with numbers of people; my subjective experience is all that concerns me and if others like it so be it.

If I wanted to make a business of this I could not easily bridge my emotional attachment to the images with what I believe the public might want. Yet for a modest amount of effort I have been somewhat successful.

IMHO it's the journey that counts and bringing home an occasional winner. Let others enjoy the same experience and perhaps it will make them happy enough to co-exist in a tough and for some treacherous world.

PDM

[Preston]

Silver halide in gelatin on plastic substrates is no less a "sensor" than the electro-optical sensors in digital cameras are. Digital prints are no more reproductions of events that occurred on a photographic sensor than optically made gelatin silver prints are. It's time to move on from this so-called debate and face reality. Photography is photography. The mechanism(s) used to practice it do not define photography. They are mere tools. Like "artspeak," I contend that denigrating any specific mechanism(s) of photography is meaningless babble. I don't think it's possible to utter a more meaningful statement, whether discussing photography toolsets or any given work of "art," than "I like it" or "I don't like it."

Can we all get along? Without trashing each other's methods?

Nicely said! I couldn't agree more.

--P

[invisibleflash]

Yes, but there is a difference between the darkroom print and the digital print. The darkroom print is the real thing, the result of light striking and altering the chemical makeup of the substrate. Digital prints, on the other hand are a reproduction of the events that occurred on a photographic sensor. It is one step removed from the actual process. I have no doubt that this difference means little to nothing to the majority of viewers. But it is a critical difference to me. It may be to others.

Yes, this is true. But the ease and quality of digital photography makes up for the 'removed' step. If you want to get closer to the original then go for tintypes. Film and wet prints are one step removed from tintypes. But does that really matter?

Digital opened up a whole different world for me. I shot this project a week ago.

(NSFW)

http://whoopwhoopartistsbook.tumblr.com/

http://familyicp.tumblr.com/

I could have never done the same with film. And digital printing makes hand printed artists' books feasible.

As far as Frank? Yes, we are overloaded with images. Our world I polluted with images. One has to work hard to produce images that stand above the rest. It is tough work, but it IS still our love.

[Ironage]

Robert Frank sounds wise in this quote, but some moments are more meaningful and universal than others. Are the photojournalists the artists who best use the medium?

[h2oman]

There are too many written (and spoken) words, as well , but I don't know that we all need to keep our thoughts to ourselves.

It is up to the consumers of words and images (and all other stimuli, I suppose) to determine how to "use" them. We all set the thresholds of our filters to some level, then determine how long to engage with whatever passes through that filter.

I think I'm just babbling, so I'll stop!

[Brian C. Miller]

Can we all get along? Without trashing each other's methods?

I think there's a difference between "trashing" and upholding something that does have virtues.

Martin Scorsese's statement in regards to the recent deal made with Kodak (Entertainment Weekly) could be seen as "trashing" digital, but I really think that he's upholding the virtues of film (emphasis added):

But film is also an art form, and young people who are driven to make films should have access to the tools and materials that were the building blocks of that art form. Would anyone dream of telling young artists to throw away their paints and canvases because iPads are so much easier to carry? Of course not. In the history of motion pictures, only a minuscule percentage of the works comprising our art form was not shot on film. Everything we do in HD is an effort to recreate the look of film. Film, even now, offers a richer visual palette than HD.

Mr. Scorsese is addressing what he sees as a fact: Film has superior visual and archival qualities over HD. It is also an art form in and of itself. I don't view him as some kind of fanatical APUGer. I'm sure that if HD were superior to film, he would honestly say that.

Robert Frank sounds wise in this quote, but some moments are more meaningful and universal than others. Are the photojournalists the artists who best use the medium?

Is directed and deliberate photojournalism less valid than selfies? Foodies? Lunchies? Twitter, Instagram, and Snapchat? Cat videos? Security cameras?

Robert Frank wasn't addressing Ansel Adams in that comment. I really recommend that you read the entire Vanity Fair article. The search term "cat video" on YouTube results in "About 41,000,000 results." Forty one MILLION videos. Approximately, give or take. Does quantity equal to "best use?"

[Sal Santamaura]

...Can we all get along? Without trashing each other's methods?

I think there's a difference between "trashing" and upholding something that does have virtues...

Indeed there is. What Toyon posted isn't "upholding" anything. It's directly trashing digital.

...The darkroom print is the real thing...Digital prints, on the other hand are a reproduction...

Choice of words is very important. This construction states that gelatin silver is real, digital is not. Utter nonsense.

...Martin Scorsese's statement...could be seen as "trashing" digital...

No, it can't be. You ignore another important part of his statement, namely:

"...HD isn’t coming, it’s here. The advantages are numerous..."

...I don't view him as some kind of fanatical APUGer. I'm sure that if HD were superior to film, he would honestly say that...

First, why trash APUG? Some people enjoy that Web forum dedicated solely to gelatin silver photography. Nobody is forced to visit there or participate. Why the negative aspersions? Not just you, Brian, others here too.

Second, although the discussion was about still photography and you took us down this cinema tangent, Scorcese enumerated the advantages of film and the advantages of digital. As a smart and articulate person, he made a balanced case, praising film's continued availability, but not even remotely trashing digital.

Again, can we all get along? Without trashing each other's methods?

[DrTang]

they are all over (photos) because they are cheap

see something? pull out the phone and take 27 pix of it in a hurry

even in the days before the big silver rush, it was still 3 or 4 bucks for film and processing

now..there is no 'hurt' to shooting as much as you can

then txting 14 photos of your breakfast to all your friends and posting it to face book

one reason I like film.. and BIG FILM..is there is a hurt to pushing the button - at 10 bucks a shutter click.. what you are aiming at better be reasonably good

[DrTang]

Are the photojournalists the artists who best use the medium?

Nope - that would be crime scene photographers, Scientists documenting specimens and police mug shot photographers


everyone else is just wanna be painters