Just straight ND - not graduated ND.Originally Posted by Ben Chase
Just straight ND - not graduated ND.
Shilesh Jani
1
Hey! Get back to photography here! I don't want this thread moved off to the lounge, too!
I think that it would be educational to hear from the darkroom printers about contrast masks, etc., in making prints like Fatali.
Ahhhhh: Tse Bi dah, "The Rock With Wings"
Shilesh, you can claim: "Waiting for the light: 4 minutes
See - the beholders doesn't always want to hear the story behind the photo!
Dakotah,
May I take a more serious note? I understand your logic about rubber soled shoes. That is an issue too. However, everyone knows that fire logs gives off carbon and condensing organic vapors which leave a residue.
To say Fatali brings an aluminum pan as a protective is like raping a young girl but claiming it was O.K. since he used a condom!
The reports of Fatali lighting fires instead of waiting for light made me sick to my stomach! Landscape artist have a job to shine a lantern to the fragile and precious beauty which is our heritage. What apparently he did, if indeed guilty as accused, is utterly despicable and he should be punished and shunned.
That we still discuss the genuine film look or pixel /deception/magic, honesty in selling prints after the discosure of the desecration of a natural wonder, reflects badly on us.
It is merely a conceit that we look at how our ideas are engraved in paper as so important in the light of this disrespect to resources that cannot be repaired!
Yes, art sold as silver gelatin/cibachrome or whatever but really inkjet is deceptive, unethical disgraceful and fraudulent. Still, it's of little pracitcal consequence to the future of art since most people are honest and he'll be exposed if he would do such a thing!
I think the problem here is an almost "religious" differentation as to how electrons are used to inscribe images, for that is all chemistry and computers have to work with! With this we are blinded to the more important issues of moral and artistic values in artistic expression.
I consider the story of setting a fire to illuminate The Arches approaches the path that leads to loss of public consience and at the most extreme, "Snuff Movies"!
Asher
QT - As you well know, there are no doubt a multitude of opinions on this subject.
Honestly - my opinion is this:
I shoot with film and print digitally. However...I think prints that are shot traditionally and printed traditionally carry potentially more value than images printed digitally. Why? I think that the level of effort exerted in images that are printed traditionally has additional value. Whether or not it is superior to digital printing is irrelevant in my opinion. I have a strong appreciation for those who continue to use traditional optical printing methods - especially for B/W. There are just some things you cannot do digitally. I'm sure people will disagree with me, but that's the beauty of an opinion - it's just that
Cheers,
Ben C
I was just in Zion 2 weeks ago (Aggie-if I'd known you lived there, I would have dropped you a line), and was in the Fatali gallery. I've never seen a cibachrome print before, but my breath was taken away. I turned a corner and saw 3 pictures for a much lower price. When I asked about them, the salesman said they were inkjet, to sell to people who didn't want to pay for the ciba (which is what I initially thought they were). I really couldn't tell the difference, but I didn't get overly critical either. I was seriously considering buying a ciba print for its luminosity and longeveity, and now I'm glad I didn't after reading this ethical backstory. Whether or not they truly are cibas, I guess it doesn't matter (other than $$$), as it would have gone in my very dim basement with a low watt track light on it. Seeing those prints spurred me into enquiring at my local lab if they did cibas (which they don't). Their closest equivalent is the metallic paper, which looks darned good, but it doesn't hold a candle to what I saw in Fatali's gallery. If they weren't cibas, they were pretty amazing inkets! I'm not sure what point it is I was trying to make.... Oh yeah- I'll have to look into the other photographers mentioned above who are doing true cibas, and see if I could afford one!
Tim
? Cibas? This is an old myth that Wilhelm propagated and has apologized for. His initial 400 year estimate was so far off it almost ruined his career.longeveity
Thanks,
Kirk
at age 73:
"The woods are lovely, dark and deep,
But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep,
And miles to go before I sleep"
Obviously Fatali is now selling both Ciba AND inkjet prints and it seems that the salespeople do inform the customers about the difference, based on one of the posters inquiry at the gallery. There is nothing wrong with that approach - it would indeed be a different matter if they sold the inkjet prints as Ciba Chromes. The lighting fire under delicate arch is a different matter all together. I have seen his prints in his gallery, but they didn't look like "real" photographs to me - too much "pop" in the colors and they were almost too shiny for my taste. He is succesful though in selling his work and for that you gotta give him credit.
Juergen
I think the previous poster is incorrect about Fatali printing inkjets. I've spoken with Michael many times, and he's told me that his "reproduction" prints, meaning anything thats not on ciba, are Lightjets, printed at Calypso. I'm not sure what paper he is printing on, but the prints i've done on Fujiflex paper closely rival Cibachrome. If you were to put 2 prints together, one ciba and one Lightjet on flex, you'd be hard pressed to see the difference. I think ciba wins when it comes to reds. I've never been able to get reds like I see on ciba, but other than that, I've been really happy with Lightjets especially when I want that ciba look and go with flex.
Adam
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks