6 years......with inkjet

[Kirk Gittings]

Armin, I had some wide ranging phone conservations with AA back in the mid 80's related to an article I was writing for the Journal of American Photography. His interests were broad and his curiosity was boundless. The one thing he said in those conversations that would have any impact now was that he thought resurrecting historic processes was a waste of time. He looked forward. I personally think if he had lived longer he would have delved deeply into modern digital technology and pushed it to a higher level than it is now, BUT what a joke! Do the math-that would have required him to live well past his 100th birthday! Its ridiculous to try and guess with any certitude what he would have done that late in life. He was a man of his time and not of this time. His history is written and beyond that it is all wishful thinking and guesswork.

Can we not turn this into a WWAD thread.

[srbphoto]

Brent - one of the best things you can do is look at as much original work as possible. If you can see a couple of high end shows, you will start to develop your eye. There are some well produced books but original photographs are a great experience.

Not sure what area you are in, but if you can find a great instructor at a college or giving classes that can speed up the process.

I think the statement about people who learned in the darkroom has some validity. To learn to print that way takes a lot of blood, sweat and tears. The people who stick with it will tend to have a better eye. Just don't think just because you try traditional printing you willl be better than someone who starts on a computer. A lot of garbage has come out of darkrooms (even mine haha).

The most important thing is it takes time, effort and patience. Like anything worth doing, you have to put in the time to get good.

[Lenny Eiger]

I would like to think that he would be open to new technology but not give up on the traditional darkroom art form. He was a master printer after all.

I printed for many years for other photographers, both in the darkroom and in platinum. I now do this using an inkjet printer. I am just as obsessive about the quality of what I am producing now as I have ever been.

There are some qualities that inkjets, and other alternative processes have, that can simply not be accomplished with gelatin silver. If that's what you are after, then those qualities will drive your process. What one is trying to create determines the methods that will ultimately be used.

There is nothing holy about being in a dark room with stinky chemicals. I know, I spent many years in there.

I'm with Kirk on this one. Trying to imagine what Ansel would do simply tells you about your own biases.

Lenny

[tgtaylor]

As Bob Dylan put it:

I'm headed for a different choice.
http://www.flickr.com//photos/gallery_alternative/show/

[bob carnie]

With good vent, good music , soft safelight I find the darkroom a very nice place, to spend half my time, the other half is in front of a Mac, with good vent , good music and subdued lights. Both places are fun to be at.

[sanking]

There are some qualities that inkjets, and other alternative processes have, that can simply not be accomplished with gelatin silver. If that's what you are after, then those qualities will drive your process. What one is trying to create determines the methods that will ultimately be used.

Lenny

This is slightly misleading in my opinion. The major issue is whether one prints directly with an in-camera negative or works with a digital file, not inkjet print versus silver or alternative print. As soon as the analog negative becomes a digital file there are vast controls possible in PS and in choice of output that permit vastly different image qualities in both silver and alternative printing.

Sandy King

[Sal Santamaura]

...Adams...was extremely concerned with the life expectancy of prints. Inkjets just don't meet his standard in that regard. They will someday, but aren't there yet.

I really think that trying to guess what a long dead and revered artist would do is exercise at best in self reflection.

...I'm with Kirk on this one. Trying to imagine what Ansel would do simply tells you about your own biases...

What I posted above might reflect those biases, but they were formed from my extensive reading of what Adams wrote over the years. I speculated that, based on concern about how long his work should last, he would not adopt today's inkjets for prints which would be sold or donated to institutions. I'm just as certain he'd be fully involved in all aspects of the digital image capture and processing/printing processes, anxiously waiting for inkjet printing methods to reach those life expectancy standards.

My biases do not include an aversion to the aesthetic qualities of inkjet prints. I find them just as beautiful as, though different than, gelatin silver prints. However, were I a wealthy collector or institution's director of acquisitions, the only photographic works I'd purchase today would be fiber-based gelatin silver, pt/pd or carbon pigment for monochrome and carbon pigment in color. Clearly, given the recent Gursky sale, not to mention numerous instances of inkjet and other works being collected that don't meet my standards, I'm just as out of step with the rest of the world on this matter as on most other subjects.

Note that I share with the late John Cook an understanding that, after I die, my own work will --deservedly -- head straight to the dumpster.

[tgtaylor]

When Adams was starting out in photography pictoralism was the vogue. Rather than competing with the pictoralists, many of whom were far more accomplished in that genera than he was, he choose to specialize in what came to be known as straight photography and, being a master promoter that he was, he tirelessly promoted straight photography over the older genera for the rest of his life. It's understandable, therefore, that he would be equally dismissive of the older processes in his later years.

Would Adams have embraced digital photography as some have surmised? Personally I doubt that. He never, for example, embraced color photography when that process began to flourish in the 1940's and although he shot several thousand color transparencies – many of which were of excellent quality and, I am sure, he was personally pleased with – he was publically somewhat dismissive of color photography and chose to continue in B&W.

http://www.flickr.com//photos/gallery_alternative/show/

[Zaitz]

When Adams was starting out in photography pictoralism was the vogue. Rather than competing with the pictoralists, many of whom were far more accomplished in that genera than he was, he choose to specialize in what came to be known as straight photography and, being a master promoter that he was, he tirelessly promoted straight photography over the older genera for the rest of his life. It's understandable, therefore, that he would be equally dismissive of the older processes in his later years.

Would Adams have embraced digital photography as some have surmised? Personally I doubt that. He never, for example, embraced color photography when that process began to flourish in the 1940's and although he shot several thousand color transparencies – many of which were of excellent quality and, I am sure, he was personally pleased with – he was publically somewhat dismissive of color photography and chose to continue in B&W.

http://www.flickr.com//photos/gallery_alternative/show/

I think his distaste for color photography, especially during that time, stemmed from lack of control. He knew what he wanted to do with b&w and he knew how to get there. But a lot of color photos come out much different than expected and I am guessing it was 'worse' back then. His comment on one of his color photos was something like "the kodachrome sure is strong in the purples!." I think that was his way of saying I don't like it.

With digital processing he'd have unparallelled control over every tone in the photo. I am not sure what he'd choose to photograph on, film or digital, but I think the benefits of digital processing would appeal to him if he had time to learn and master it. Even if he didn't adopt it for whatever reason I still believe he would fully understand and appreciate the extreme control (and non destructive nature) a Photoshop workflow would offer.

[Sal Santamaura]

...would have required him to live well past his 100th birthday! Its ridiculous to try and guess with any certitude what he would have done that late in life...

Speaking only for myself, but surmising that others posting in this thread are approaching the matter similarly, I speculated about Adams' position based on his being an active, perhaps middle-aged photographer in 2011, not a 111 year-old resident of a care home.

...Can we not turn this into a WWAD thread.

Apparently the answer to your question is "no."