Fatali prints: digital ?

[roteague]

I have reviewed Christopher Burkett's book on the static page of this site, and seen the prints in Carmel. To my eyes, the colors do not look "out of this world", and it is not part of Burkett's goal to make them so.

If I remember correctly, I believe that Christopher Burkett uses primarily Provia 100F, not the more saturated Velvia that Fatali uses.

[Aggie]

Maybe I have not stated that clearly, but it is not my wish to pass any judgement on Fatali's ethics, nor stirr a debate in that direction. I find his images superb, but as a photographer, I am wondering how the kind of colors that can be seen in his "Light of Zion" gallery are produced, and if indeed they needed a little help from digital. I have reviewed Christopher Burkett's book on the static page of this site, and seen the prints in Carmel. To my eyes, the colors do not look "out of this world", and it is not part of Burkett's goal to make them so. By the way, I remain skeptical that Fatali would use inkjet for his gallery prints as the evidence reported seems very circumstantial at best.

Come on over, and I will show you one of his prints in his gallery right at the moment that has a band of pixelation. My son with his degree in multi media spotted it before me. As to the colors in Zion, I grew up around that park. I spent several summers living in it working at the lodge. I live in eye sight of it right now. I know it well at all times of the year and every weather condition possible. Those colors for most of his prints do not exist. They are way over saturated. It is not just a matter of what film he uses, even velvia doesn't produce that saturated a color. Yes filters can help, but then all the colors would be as over saturated. These are selective.

Like many have said a lot would probably buy his prints no matter what. I for one like a little truth behind what I purchase. There are many very good photographers in the area, who do color. Bob Parks is very good and just opened his new gallery in St. George. He use to have the competing gallery across the street from Fataili (sp) He now shoots totally digitally. David Petitt has his gallery right below Fatali's. He prints digitally, but shoots with film. I could list many more. At least you know the truth behind what you purchase from the other photographers. They do not rely on false marketing hype.

[Kirk Keyes]

If I remember correctly, I believe that Christopher Burkett uses primarily Provia 100F, not the more saturated Velvia that Fatali uses.

Robert - I seem to remember that Burkett uses Velvia 50...

But also notice, that most of Burkett's work is done with very soft lighting, where as Fatali uses much more direct daylight. That's a big difference between them.

And Fatali does use contrast masks. Read the article on him in Shutterbug from about 15 years ago.

Also, when making contrast masks you can make separate masks to adjust the saturation of the individual colors. Even Burkett does/did this - I seem to remember that on a tour of his studio about 15 years ago he showed us how he made a mask for a show with some red berries in it and he made a mask that was used for exposure to accentuate the color of the berries. Its' just one of the tools that is available to those that mask (at least in color printing).

It's been a while since I've been to Springdale, but last time there (about 4 years ago), he was most certainly using Cibas for prints. There is a "metallic" look to the prints that you only see with reds, orange, purples in Cibas.

[Kirk Keyes]

Aggie- are they "lightjets" onto Ciba, or do you think they are actual inkjets?

[Robert Hall]

Don't forget William Carr down on Main Street in St. George as well. Bill is about the image and does quite well. He has opened a gallery for fine art purposes but makes no bones about he creates the images.

[matthew blais]

I foretell it's an exercise in futility to discuss the future fatality of Fatali's prints...

I couldn't resist.
.

[Chris Strobel]

Burkett uses both Velvia and Provia, as well as contrast mask.No filters on the lens, almost always normal processing, never pull, only occasional push, meters with a Zone VI modified Pentax, has a shutter tester and always test shutters before a trip and writes down compensations for errors.He also has no plans to shoot or print digitally.Just spent about half an hour with him on the phone.He was in a very chatty mood obviously

Robert - I seem to remember that Burkett uses Velvia 50...

But also notice, that most of Burkett's work is done with very soft lighting, where as Fatali uses much more direct daylight. That's a big difference between them.

And Fatali does use contrast masks. Read the article on him in Shutterbug from about 15 years ago.

Also, when making contrast masks you can make separate masks to adjust the saturation of the individual colors. Even Burkett does/did this - I seem to remember that on a tour of his studio about 15 years ago he showed us how he made a mask for a show with some red berries in it and he made a mask that was used for exposure to accentuate the color of the berries. Its' just one of the tools that is available to those that mask (at least in color printing).

It's been a while since I've been to Springdale, but last time there (about 4 years ago), he was most certainly using Cibas for prints. There is a "metallic" look to the prints that you only see with reds, orange, purples in Cibas.

[chris jordan]

If you go to Fatali's website and click on "field notes" for any image, there is a "waiting for the light" category. Many of them are days long (five days of waiting for the light??), and some of them are even YEARS. Whuddup with that, eh?

[Brian Vuillemenot]

If you go to Fatali's website and click on "field notes" for any image, there is a "waiting for the light" category. Many of them are days long (five days of waiting for the light??), and some of them are even YEARS. Whuddup with that, eh?

I think it's just a ploy to make it look like more effort went into the image than actually did. There's a variation of this where photographers tell you on their websites with each image about all the effort they put into it- how they got up in the middle of the night, then hiked 10 miles through rain and snow up the side of a mountain to get to the exact location at the exact right time, etc. It's a form of faulty reasoning implying that the more effort and planning that went into an image, the better it is. Check out Rodney Lough's website for examples of this:

http://www.theloughroad.com/index.ph...fIV.YO5p2E2Pjw

No photo viewer cares how much effort went into an image- they just care about the final result. Most of my best images were made spontaneously, with little planning or effort. It's just recognizing an opportunity.

If Fatali was waiting around for 7 days for the light to be just right, does that mean he did nothing else in the meantime? I think not- he was probably making other images, eating, sleeping, etc. I can honestly say that there are images that I will make in the future that I am currently in the process of waiting 3 years for!

[QT Luong]

No photo viewer cares how much effort went into an image- they just care about the final result.

I wouldn't be so sure. Both the photographers cited appear to be very good at marketing.