Go look at the work of Christopher Burkett. He prints in a traditional darkroom, using traditional processes. He gets some of his rich colors from the multi-levels of masking (to control contrast) as well as his film choices. So, it is possible to get the rich colors he uses. However, I know Aggie quite well, and trust what she says; if she says it was printed from a digital negative, then I believe it was.
Also note in the field notes the date the photograph was made. An ink jet print and digital manipulation from 1992 for "Sunkissed"??
Seriously, lay off the Fatalis envy syndrome!
What has that got to do with when and how the trans is scanned and the prints are made which is QT's point.Also note in the field notes the date the photograph was made. An ink jet print and digital manipulation from 1992 for "Sunkissed"??
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"
For my mind, "No computer imaging" means no scanning. I would definitely define scanning as computer imaging. It should be easy to show fraudulent action on Fatalis' part by simply buying a print for $500, demonstrating that it is from an inkjet printer, and then sue him bloody and splash the results all over the art world.
It should be child's play for a professional to compare Fatalis' prints from, say, ten years ago to the current prints and show that digital manipulation is being performed.
I don't see it as being unreasonable to ask for evidence instead of hear-say.
Why would anyone have reason to doubt the word of the man who claims, "No computer imaging, artificial lighting, or unnatural filtration were used in the creation of these photographs." and then get nailed lighting fires DURING A WORKSHOP to illuminate delicate arch?Originally Posted by Brian C. Miller
come on, fellas, quite being so envious. clearly fatali is a man of high moral standards and principles whose word can be taken without question.
i'm sure you've all read these, but in case you haven't...
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...51C0A9649C8B63
http://www.hcn.org/servlets/hcn.Arti...ticle_id=10948
http://www.canyoneeringusa.com/history/mr2002a.htm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...051000394.html
i'm sorry, but claiming to revere the natural world as he spews every chance he gets, and then pulling a stunt like that - IN FRONT OF STUDENTS no less - is simply repugnant.
---Scott
www.srosenberg.com
Re: Fatali prints: digital ?
I'm all about natural light and minimal manipulation - and I don't mind participating in a bit of Fatali bashing - but I own a flash (somewhere) and I don't mind using GND filters; CS3 is on order and I'm Jonesin' for the new Velvia.
I suppose the key here is to represent your work accurately - I beautiful image is a beautiful image; and a lie will always be a lie.
"The time, they are a changing." - Bob D.
Has anybody here seen a Fatali print, up close and personal? I have - both at his gallery and the one I bought and framed myself. There is no way that these are anything other than hand-printed Ilfochromes of extremely high quality.
A neat sales ploy he does is to lower the lights at the gallery every so often to show how his prints glow in dim light. Try that with an inkjet print....
Regarding manipulations, I have seen evidence of what I took to be a misaligned contrast mask on one of the prints at his gallery and I suspect there may be quite a lot of manipulation happening at the printing stage.
NO artificial lighting?.........Didn't he get in trouble for lighting fires in some park in Utah to facitate some night shots a few years ago? And as a result was banned from the park. The place name escapes me.
Haven't looked at his site lately but he used to put captions with his images ... "waiting for the light - 7 days" - "waiting for the light 7 hours" - "waiting for the light 3 days". Geez.........was there a toilet nearby?
In all fairness I recall at the time thinking, at least on the web, his images were nice and terribly colorful.
My sight would say "waiting for the light - 20 minutes - left my glasses in the truck".
I don't see a problem with anyone jazzing up an image. Painters are not required to be totally realistic so why does a landscape photographer. All I care about is the final image. Even "straight" photographers use filters and darkroom manipulations to produce a print of their own design. Let me confess my crimes right now I use B&W contrast filters, dodge, burn, diffuse. I have even gotten into the habit of having my negs converted to 8x10 digital negs because it's far easier to print from an 8x10 neg when you have large print editions. Who cares? it's the image that matters.
The issue I do have is if he's stating that the print is made with one type of media versus another. There are archival differences between digital and chemical prints and you need to be honest with your buyers about that.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks