Sebastiao Salgado show: The Force of Nature

[jwaddison]

at the Museum of Natural History in London

http://www.economist.com/blogs/prospero/2013/04/sebasti%C3%A3o-salgado?fsrc=scn/fb/wl/bl/theforceofnature

[Nathan Potter]

London Ontario or London England?

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

[pdmoylan]

There are many individuals who I admire in my life but few I would wish to emulate; but Salgado is one. Yet, I don't shoot anything like him - perhaps that is what I most admire in him.

I hope the show gets to the US. It's not something I would miss.

[jwaddison]

London England

[Jim Cole]

Man, I wish I could see this show.

[mathieu Bauwens]

'think to spend some hours in London in few weeks

[Kirk Gittings]

Do you like his landscape work? It seems digitally way over processed to me. Used to love his work.

[h2oman]

Based on what I see when I do search under images, genesis, I'd have to agree with you, Kirk. A few I really like, but most of it looks way "overcooked," for lack of a better word.

That is of course just my opinion, and it is a comment about the man's images, not the man himself! I don't know him...

[ROL]

Do you like his landscape work? It seems digitally way over processed to me. Used to love his work.

Here's an (hopefully) interesting aside to that. I attended one of his talks a few years ago. At that time he was switching over entirely to digital, because, as he claimed, it had become too difficult to transport film through security. People oohed and ahed (and gasped!) over gigantic projections of his work, half of which was film based. I don't think many of the students attending had ever seen much monochrome, decent or otherwise, and certainly weren't able to distinguish analog from D within that venue. I have seen quite a few of his silver prints at the Peter Fetterman Gallery at Bergamot in Santa Monica. I liked his legacy work, though quite "heavily" printed (NTMOM).

[pdmoylan]

Help me with "overprocessed", "heavily printed" and "overcooked". What in his prints creates these impressions.

[Oren Grad]

Don't need to go all the way to London - Salgado will be opening soon at two venues in Toronto:

http://scotiabankcontactphoto.com/primary-exhibitions/1345

http://scotiabankcontactphoto.com/events/1136

[pdmoylan]

Help me with "overprocessed", "heavily printed" and "overcooked". What in his prints creates these impressions.

I guess I am missing the obvious or am being slighted. Either way would someone be courteous enough to explain to a B&W neophyte what you mean by these descriptions of his work.

Thank you.

PDM

[h2oman]

I guess I am missing the obvious or am being slighted. Either way would someone be courteous enough to explain to a B&W neophyte what you mean by these descriptions of his work.

Thank you.

PDM

I have not been purposely slighting you, I've just been very busy. Let it be known that I'm not at all an accomplished photographer myself, and my original comments were only about how I feel about his images, not necessarily how others might (with the possible exception of Kirk). I also need to say that my observations are based only on the appearances of his images on the web - I've never seen his prints.

To me many his images look similar to ones I've seen that are heavily "HDRed." The thing that is bothersome to me about such images is that they seem to have very high local contrast and no global contrast. By this I mean that it seems like you could pick a rectangle of almost any size down to about 1/8 of the overall image size and anywhere on the image, and if you saw a histogram of the tones in that rectangle, that histogram would look roughly the same for all such rectangles. It would also be not entirely uniformly distributed across all tones, but close.

This effect seems to be more evident in his landscape photos, as Kirk suggested. Here's a "people" photo that does NOT "suffer" (opinion, again) from what I am talking about:

http://www.masters-of-photography.com/S/salgado/salgado_covers_full.html

The first of these DOES illustrate what I am trying to convey in words:

http://www.dxo.com/us/photo/filmpack/user_testimonial/sebastiao_salgado

That's my attempt to illustrate what I meant. I have no idea whether that agrees with what the others' commments were trying to address.

Cheers,
Gregg

PS Once again, this is only a matter of taste!

[Oren Grad]

Here's a "people" photo that does NOT "suffer" (opinion, again) from what I am talking about:

http://www.masters-of-photography.com/S/salgado/salgado_covers_full.html

FWIW, that one's pretty heavily manipulated too, just in the old-fashioned darkroom way, with dodging and burning. This is common in his film-based work.

[pdmoylan]

I have not been purposely slighting you, I've just been very busy. Let it be known that I'm not at all an accomplished photographer myself, and my original comments were only about how I feel about his images, not necessarily how others might (with the possible exception of Kirk). I also need to say that my observations are based only on the appearances of his images on the web - I've never seen his prints.

To me many his images look similar to ones I've seen that are heavily "HDRed." The thing that is bothersome to me about such images is that they seem to have very high local contrast and no global contrast. By this I mean that it seems like you could pick a rectangle of almost any size down to about 1/8 of the overall image size and anywhere on the image, and if you saw a histogram of the tones in that rectangle, that histogram would look roughly the same for all such rectangles. It would also be not entirely uniformly distributed across all tones, but close.

This effect seems to be more evident in his landscape photos, as Kirk suggested. Here's a "people" photo that does NOT "suffer" (opinion, again) from what I am talking about:

http://www.masters-of-photography.com/S/salgado/salgado_covers_full.html

The first of these DOES illustrate what I am trying to convey in words:

http://www.dxo.com/us/photo/filmpack/user_testimonial/sebastiao_salgado

That's my attempt to illustrate what I meant. I have no idea whether that agrees with what the others' commments were trying to address.

Cheers,
Gregg

PS Once again, this is only a matter of taste!

Gregg,

For me this is an "awakening". His Sahel image in the link is stunning and I will find some articles which point to the DXOfilm process which I frankly no nothing about. I see what you mean about the HDR look. Would I be correct in saying that he has pushed contrast without dimishing resolution? I have seen some of his genesis work and I note a perhaps unnatural pumping of contrast; but in B&W this to my eye is perhaps more acceptable than in color.

Thank you for the education. Most appreciated.

PDM

[robert liebermann]

... "HDRed." The thing that is bothersome to me about such images is that they seem to have very high local contrast and no global contrast. By this I mean that it seems like you could pick a rectangle of almost any size down to about 1/8 of the overall image size and anywhere on the image, and if you saw a histogram of the tones in that rectangle, that histogram would look roughly the same for all such rectangles...

This is what I have been unable to explicate even to myself about the general creepiness I see in most HDR (or the onslaught of it that's all over the web these days; possibly there's some 'good' hdr that doesn't come across with such massive overload). More of the technical 'according to the computerized specifications' goal so many seem attracted to these days, but so obviously lacking in anything a living soull can relate to. (and maybe a more dark and concerning observation on contemporary aesthetics!) A good description is what I'm saying.

Said that, I haven't followed the links or seen any of SS's recent photos so can't say if I agree or not with the verdict on him or not. I know I dislike hdr though, and Gregg W/H's definition is good!

[h2oman]

FWIW, that one's pretty heavily manipulated too, just in the old-fashioned darkroom way, with dodging and burning. This is common in his film-based work.

I have no problem with manipulation of almost any sort, in terms of whether I approve of the photographer doing it. It's just that sometimes I like the end result, sometimes I don't!


Would I be correct in saying that he has pushed contrast without dimishing resolution? I have seen some of his genesis work and I note a perhaps unnatural pumping of contrast; but in B&W this to my eye is perhaps more acceptable than in color.


I can't honestly tell you what he did to get his results, and I've never used HDR myself. Here are a couple more examples attempting to illustrate what I'm talking about:

http://blog.photoshelter.com/2011/09/its-art-but-is-it-photography-the-work-of-david-bu/

If you look at the two iceberg photos, they have a fair amount of contrast, but over the brod canvas of the images. Some fairly large areas are quite bright, others quite dark. It is possible that both photographers bumped up the contrast quite a bit but, if so, in a way that is pleasing to me.

Now look at

http://noisydecentgraphics.typepad.com/design/2007/11/sebastiao-salga.html

Lots of fairly dark and very light in the sky AND the iceberg AND the water. Perhaps no more natural thatn the others, but in a way that just doesn't sit well with me. You can see what I mean by high contrast and a wide range of tones in all parts of the image, but no larger areas that are overall light or overall dark.

OK, I think I've said all I can about this without repeating myself! :D

[bob carnie]

I am looking forward to seeing these exhibits.

Don't need to go all the way to London - Salgado will be opening soon at two venues in Toronto:

http://scotiabankcontactphoto.com/primary-exhibitions/1345

http://scotiabankcontactphoto.com/events/1136

[ROL]

I guess I am missing the obvious or am being slighted. Either way would someone be courteous enough to explain to a B&W neophyte what you mean by these descriptions of his work.

Thank you.

PDM

Wow. I don't come back to a thread for a day or two, most times never, and you feel slighted. Forgive me for having other things to do than to argue ad nauseum with virtual strangers on the net. If that is your view, you and I are NOT going to get along (i.e., join the club :D).

Your question, however, is a very good one. My comment, was intentionally a bit vague in that it describes a more emotional, than technical aspect of his actual prints, as I have experienced them. I can't pretend to know how or who prints his (silver) work. It may be that this is how the exposed and developed negative best reveals itself, to the artist. Or it may be that this is the way Salgado "sees" light and composes his work – more dark than light. This "style", "feeling" ...whatever, seems closer to Bruce Barnbaum's work. Frankly, I prefer more light in my work, not that it is in the slightest bit relevant to either of these masters. And I love Salgado's work. It's just different from the way I see and express the monochrome world. And so I can only best express its shadow heavy tonalities, as, well, heavy.



P.S. Please excuse my absence from any thread I may participate in during the next few weeks. I will occasionally be running whitewater in my kayak while the spring melt lasts or hiking backcountry trails, and have yet to find a way (or a reason) to communicate with my "fans" (:D) in locations unwashed by electronic communications. I do hope that's OK with you.

[Oren Grad]

I have no problem with manipulation of almost any sort, in terms of whether I approve of the photographer doing it. It's just that sometimes I like the end result, sometimes I don't!

I don't have any problem in principle with basic dodging and burning. When those manipulations are done in a way that leaves obvious artifacts, it can sometimes be distracting.

[bob carnie]

Salgaodo's Prints in person are not as over the top as his books show, I have not seen his new work and cannot comment about his printing style on these new prints until I see them, I am hoping they are still silver gelatin prints from and made on an enlarger.
I will know by mid May.

[RJC]

Salgado was interviewed on BBC radio recently where he described the main reason for abandoning film was due to the declining levels of silver in modern emulsions and he just couldn't achieve the results he had been accustomed to previously.

[bob carnie]

Well I think that is bullshit, as his silver prints were good , the same generation of papers today were used for his show at GEH which I saw.


Salgado was interviewed on BBC radio recently where he described the main reason for abandoning film was due to the declining levels of silver in modern emulsions and he just couldn't achieve the results he had been accustomed to previously.

[Brian Ellis]

Well I think that is bullshit, as his silver prints were good , the same generation of papers today were used for his show at GEH which I saw.

Just curious - why would he bullshit about that? My guess is that he's been misquoted or mis-summarized.

[RJC]

Well I think that is bullshit, as his silver prints were good , the same generation of papers today were used for his show at GEH which I saw.

At no point in the interview did Salgado mention photographic papers being the reason for leaving film to switch to digital.

[Brian Ellis]

This is what I have been unable to explicate even to myself about the general creepiness I see in most HDR (or the onslaught of it that's all over the web these days; possibly there's some 'good' hdr that doesn't come across with such massive overload). More of the technical 'according to the computerized specifications' goal so many seem attracted to these days, but so obviously lacking in anything a living soull can relate to. (and maybe a more dark and concerning observation on contemporary aesthetics!) A good description is what I'm saying.

Said that, I haven't followed the links or seen any of SS's recent photos so can't say if I agree or not with the verdict on him or not. I know I dislike hdr though, and Gregg W/H's definition is good!

The programs that are used to combine multiple images made at different exposures into a single image (which I asume is what you mean by "HDR") can be used in numerous different ways to achieve numerous different looks. Contrary to a statement made in another post, there's no such thing as an "HDR look." There probably is a "look" that you think of as an HDR look but that isn't necessarily what I or anyone else thinks of. And what you consider "good" HDR may or may not be what someone else thinks of as "good."

If you look at a lot of photographs from a variety of sources I'd be willing to bet that you've seen many photographs in which "HDR" was used but you weren't aware of it. Saying you dislike "hdr" is about like saying you don't like photographs in which dodging and burning were used.

[bob carnie]

The paper Salgado used for the shows that I saw are the same paper I am printing this afternoon... Making good silver prints on an enlarger is difficult at Museum level, maybe he has lost that edge, but the papers are certainly still here for him to use if he so desired.
I have no idea if he was misquoted or not but the statement is bullshit and seems to be heard more and more as people lose their desire to work in darkrooms.




Just curious - why would he bullshit about that? My guess is that he's been misquoted or mis-summarized.

[bob carnie]

He was using Ilford or Kodak 400 speed film so what has changed in those emulsions??

At no point in the interview did Salgado mention photographic papers being the reason for leaving film to switch to digital.

[RJC]

I have no idea if he was misquoted or not but the statement is bullshit and seems to be heard more and more as people lose their desire to work in darkrooms.

Interview available here -

http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/worldservice/outlook/outlook_20130411-1629b.mp3

[Brian Ellis]

The paper Salgado used for the shows that I saw are the same paper I am printing this afternoon... Making good silver prints on an enlarger is difficult at Museum level, maybe he has lost that edge, but the papers are certainly still here for him to use if he so desired.
I have no idea if he was misquoted or not but the statement is bullshit and seems to be heard more and more as people lose their desire to work in darkrooms.

I agree the statement as summarized here is bullshit because years ago Richard Henry demonstrated that the silver content of paper has nothing to do with how the print looks (or something along those lines, I don't remember precisely what he was testing but it demonstrated that silver content was irrelevant to some look that was often attributed to the amount of silver in paper). But if someone loses their desire to work in darkrooms I'd assume there's a reason for that and I don't know why they'd invent a reason rather than simply stating what the reason was. Would anyone who likes his work think any the less of Salgado if he said he switched to digital because it was less expensive or more convenient or because he found that he could make better prints that way (rather falsely than blaming the switch on the paper).

I haven't seen the "Genesis" exhibit but I did see an exhibit of the photographs from "Workers" and I have the book. FWIW I didn't think that great printing quality was terribly important to the impact of the photographs. I generally thought it was the content, not the quality of the printing, that was most important.

[RJC]

I agree the statement as summarized here is bullshit because years ago Richard Henry demonstrated that the silver content of paper has nothing to do with how the print looks (or something along those lines, I don't remember precisely what he was testing but it demonstrated that silver content was irrelevant to some look that was often attributed to the amount of silver in paper). But if someone loses their desire to work in darkrooms I'd assume there's a reason for that and I don't know why they'd invent a reason rather than simply stating what the reason was. Would anyone who likes his work think any the less of Salgado if he said he switched to digital because it was less expensive or more convenient or because he found that he could make better prints that way (rather falsely than blaming the switch on the paper).

I haven't seen the "Genesis" exhibit but I did see an exhibit of the photographs from "Workers" and I have the book. FWIW I didn't think that great printing quality was terribly important to the impact of the photographs. I generally thought it was the content, not the quality of the printing, that was most important.

Please listen to the interview ... he is NOT talking about paper.

[bob carnie]

RJC then what is he talking about? The Film, he used Tri X and or Ilford HP5 both still available today and same emulsion. Your words not mine regarding modern emulsion.

[bob carnie]

Brian
I am lucky enough within the month to be able to see two exhibits of SS work here in Toronto, I will have a much better handle on what methods he is using these days to make his prints and will post my thoughts here.
His skills are amazing , and one of my favourite photographers, I hope his landscape work is as good as Workers .
Bob

[RJC]

Unfortunately the interviewer was more interested in the emotional impact of his photographs than technique and materials employed, and failed to ask Sebastiao to expand on this statement regarding the silver content of modern film. I only bothered to mention it because that was the first time I had heard this given as a reason to move from film to digital. Anyhow you can argue the issue with the man himself should you meet him at one of his exhibitions. if you think I've mis-quoted him then check for yourself. I have no more information than what I heard in the interview.

[Brian Ellis]

Please listen to the interview ... he is NOT talking about paper.

See my earlier post, in which I said that I thought he was probably misquoted or mis-summarized in supposedly blaming the switch on paper.

[bob carnie]

Dude I think the statement, not the artist is bullshit and would not have problem telling anyone who uses that crutch to explain their move from film to digital. This is not the first time I have heard these sentiments here and on other sites, I make my living from film and digital and have a vested interest in keeping a level approach to why I use both methods.

Since you brought it up why, don't you phone him up and ask and report back to us.



Unfortunately the interviewer was more interested in the emotional impact of his photographs than technique and materials employed, and failed to ask Sebastiao to expand on this statement regarding the silver content of modern film. I only bothered to mention it because that was the first time I had heard this given as a reason to move from film to digital. Anyhow you can argue the issue with the man himself should you meet him at one of his exhibitions. if you think I've mis-quoted him then check for yourself. I have no more information than what I heard in the interview.

[RJC]

See my earlier post, in which I said that I thought he was probably misquoted or mis-summarized in supposedly blaming the switch on paper.

Sorry, that is my fault for using the term emulsion which I concede can apply equally to film or paper, Salgado specifically said 'modern films' and my report of his statement was not precise enough.

[RJC]

Since you brought it up why, don't you phone him up and ask and report back to us.

Ok, I'll get back to you on that.

[bob carnie]

Thanks

[Eric Biggerstaff]

I just listened to the interview and he was talking about film. He said modern films have had so much silver removed they are no good anymore, that the repeated exposure to xray machines post 9/11 will ruin the film and the companies are no longer investing in film.

That said, there are still a hell of a lot of good images made on this crappy product! :-)

[patrickjames]

I am pretty sure Salgado shoots digitally, massages the files, then has that output to film for printing. Maybe he gets it printed directly, don't know.

I think he has lost the special type of aesthetic that he used to have that really was beautiful with the deep wonderful tones. Now his photographs look rather off. They remind me in some ways of Dobrowner's work which is manipulated to within an inch of it's death in the computer.

I have seen other photographers that were incredibly good, not at Salgado's level, but when they made the switch to digital lost the magic that they had. It is unfortunate. This is not a rail against digital. Sometimes people just can't translate well with all the new words they see in front of them.

[bob carnie]

He had wonderful printers for the Worker Series and the Series at GEH. The books IMO were pumped up dramatically from the enlarger prints, I did not see the incredible contrast in the show prints at GEH.

Finding the same quality of digital printmaker is possible, but like learning how to print traditionally, it takes years to master the computer. I think the hardest thing I have tried to be good at over the last 20 years is PhotoShop. The options are so numerous, and the possibility to screw up endless.
I am looking at invites to the Salgado shows coming up this next month here in TO and the image does look heavy handed, but I will wait until I can see the prints before giving the thumbs up or thumbs down.

[patrickjames]

....PhotoShop. The options are so numerous, and the possibility to screw up endless.....

Bob, I think you will agree with me when I say I think that is where so many people go wrong. People start doing everything because they can, versus because they should. HDR is the latest iteration of that. HDR is meant to be able to pull in tones that otherwise couldn't be shown, not to make an image look like a marshmallow. With Photoshop it is very important to know what one wants before beginning the process.

[bob carnie]

Yes I agree, just because the hue saturation slider is present does not mean you use it.
I do not play chess, but I have been told the great chess players see many moves ahead and work that way.
Knowing where you want to end up is the trick in my opinion when using PS.

I will say that once Lightroom came into the game , 50% of the bad editing was eliminated as Lightroom has constraints( just look at the curve tool for example) . As well all the moves you make are not applied until the end and the Lightroom program will decide the order they are applied. White balance feature is also a great addition in LR , this function alone is a major step in stopping colour fringing due to sharpening over off colour.


Bob, I think you will agree with me when I say I think that is where so many people go wrong. People start doing everything because they can, versus because they should. HDR is the latest iteration of that. HDR is meant to be able to pull in tones that otherwise couldn't be shown, not to make an image look like a marshmallow. With Photoshop it is very important to know what one wants before beginning the process.

[Brian Ellis]

Bob, I think you will agree with me when I say I think that is where so many people go wrong. People start doing everything because they can, versus because they should. HDR is the latest iteration of that. HDR is meant to be able to pull in tones that otherwise couldn't be shown, not to make an image look like a marshmallow. With Photoshop it is very important to know what one wants before beginning the process.

I have to respectfully disagree on both counts. Like any tool, "HDR" (by which I assume you mean making multiple exposures of a subject and then blending them into a single photograph) can be used any way someone wants to use it. There's no "meant to be" about it. Just because you don't like how some people use it doesn't mean it's meant to be used only in the way you like.

It isn't necessarily important to know what one wants before beginning the process of adjusting an image in Photoshop. While some people work that way, others like the fact that Photoshop makes it easy to try, view, then use or discard as appropriate many different variations on an image - some minor, some major - to see what works best.

[Ken Lee]

I remember reading or seeing an interview with Vladimir Horowitz where he explained that during performances he felt obliged to exaggerate certain musical elements: without over-statement, the musical content might not reach many listeners.

By analogy, the Salgado photos referenced here - in my humble opinion - have a slightly contrived or over-dramatized appearance. They'd probably look perfect in a commercial setting. Like spicy food or strong coffee, it's easy to see how they could appeal to those of us who appreciate - or need - a bit of "splash".

[pdmoylan]

Well I am resurrecting this discussion with SS's new book "Genesis" now in my local B&N.

I must say, all scrutiny aside of his process, films, papers, or camera choices, his confidence in his vision, his superb execution including composition, his choice of subjects, and impact of his images is unquestionably stunning. There are so many photographers past and present to admire whose corpus is identifiable and perhaps unique. But SS has taken many risks, financially perhaps and otherwise, to get to places and to find opportunities to express his unique vision of the world. Even his images of wildlife have a certain artistic mastery which defies even the most adept wildlife photographers. He uses the B&W mystique and some clear manipulation to put his vision out there. Frankly who cares if the images are "over the top" from a production standpoint if you are immediately drawn to what he is seeing.

This book will be on my Christmas list unless I can convince my loved ones to fork over $70 for father's day.

There is almost nothing more exciting that extraordinary photography.

Cheers,

PDM

[h2oman]

I say this respectfully - to each their own! I've read quotes from people on this forum saying that Paul Caponigro's, or Brett Weston's, or Sebastiao Salgado's, or William Clift's, or (insert name of famous photographer)'s images do nothing for them.

[Doug Howk]

I understand that there is a collectors edition of the book "Genesis" for around $4000. My much smaller copy (10"X14") was only $42 from Amazon. Even at its smaller size, it is an immense work that benefits from just viewing a chapter at one sitting. Beautiful imagery!

[bob carnie]

I have had the chance to see Salgados work three times now.

First was at the GEH , migrations and workers and it was a stunning show.
Second at a private gallery here in Toronto, some older work and some silver work from digital capture, very nice show.
Third and most recently at the ROM to see the complete Genesis show..

As Fonzy , I believe Salgado has *Jumped the Shark* with this show.

This show had approximately 270 large prints, some 40 inch x 60 inch, but most in the 24 x30 range.

These were poorly crafted inkjet prints that IMO completely missed the mark and for me has changed my opinion of his work 180 degrees.
The imagery is great, but the excecution of the prints is second or third rate, something one would expect from a beginner.
With his stature, and with current printmaking options available to a world class photographer I found this show to be a complete disaster. I think 90% of the viewing public will enjoy this show , for me it was a sad evening to see imagery presented this way.

I will say the framing and 8 ply matts were excellent. And the books are well printed but I could not force myself to buy one as my friends who all have his work could not purchase either.

Maybe over time as the bad taste leaves my mouth I will purchase a good copy of the book.

[andreios]

I was able to browse through the book in recent days in a local bookshop - went there several times just for it - and I was trying to like the book. It's difficult for me to judge print quality - I am no expert on that but I didn't think it was extraordinary. The "worst" bit for me were how the images - some of them I liked very much - were presented - huge! Almost no border, very difficult to "hold the image" in view - I felt almost forced to move my eye hither and thither... as if he tried to overwhelm the viewer but in my case he really has over-done it. I think the book would really benefit from a strong editing hand. Fewer and smaller images could - IMHO - make it a much better book.

[JW Dewdney]

there is ALWAYS POWER in restraint.

[QT Luong]

Bob, I am wondering what weaknesses you saw in the prints which weren't visible in the reproductions - whose shortcomings were perfectly analyzed by Gregg.

[Ken Lee]

Wikipedia's explanation of Jumping the Shark (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jumping_the_shark): a brilliant metaphor.

[Doug Howk]

I am curious about the prints in his exhibit. My understanding is that his digital capture images are converted into film. Then they are printed in a wet darkroom. Are the prints in this exhibit all digital, or are only some?
I will have to wait till the exhibit comes to Atlanta this Winter in order to corroborate the views of others. The only problem I have with the book itself is many images across the gutter. But that is an all too common failing. I suspect the $3000 version doesn't ;-(

[bob carnie]

Clarification

It should be noted that most critics here in Toronto are calling the main show Genesis which is inkjet printed ** brilliant.**
I am not one of those who agree, and its funny , many of my friends feel that the show was brutal.
Maybe I should get new friends.


It sounds confusing but I will try to break down what I saw.

Two shows,

one at a private gallery- Metivier Gallery (Burtynsky's dealer)- these prints were all silver, some were from Migration Series and Worker Series and were printed from the original negatives and on a silver paper that I recognized seeing at GEH.(they may have been the same prints for all I know)
The images that he captured on digital, were converted to LVT negatives**google if you do not know what they are** These LVT negatives were then taken by his printer and put in the enlarger and silver paper was used. Some of these were mural size and held up as expected.
This private show was very good and I was very happy with the transition from his older enlarger work to this newer LVT silver work, they were different but the transition seemed right and appropriate.

Royal Ontario Museum Show- This show had over 275 prints in it, all ink jet. IMO they were very poor inkjets, the workmanship was poor and it seemed that the technician was setting aim points and letting it fly , so to speak, the mid tone transition was missing , a lot of clumping of tones without great separation, as well the dodging and burning looked inept. There were images that did not warrant being in the show. Amongst all of this were complete jewels that stood out .

Some of the sharpening was outrageous and caused artifacts that were complete eyesores. I think the larger body of work was pushed through the system too fast , quite a bit of burnt out highlights that any competent PS worker could have solved.

The framing btw was outstanding, 8 ply mats with nice wood frames...

I have also seen videos that show PT PD images being made from digital negatives, A friend who has seen them up close say they are great.

Not a bash on any technology here folks, I have seen very good inkjet prints ..... these were not.

I have seen very good silver prints..... these were.

[Jody_S]

I went to see Salgado at the ROM yesterday, unfortunately several weeks after I saw the earlier work at the Metivier. I also read the above comment by Bob Carnie before going, so yes I was looking for certain things, but at the same time I do have a child-like wonder while experiencing new (to me, obviously) images.

Some of the work was outstanding. I am in awe. They were everything that I expected from 'large format photography', whether or not the images were in fact made with a large format camera. Others were, well, cartoonish. A couple of images in particular stood out, as if someone had (badly) photoshopped an alligator or whatever into a stock photo background. Some of the images had no business being in a show, IMHO, but I was with my wife (graphic artist, more formal training than me) and we were polar opposites in our assessments of which images didn't belong. So who is to say which images were failures? I was gobsmacked by a few images where he used different parts of animals to create what were essentially abstract images of forms and textures. But that's because of my background in animal photography, where I approached the subject as a portraitist, not as a still life or abstract photographer. My wife liked the pretty pictures of elephants and leopards. I do believe animal photos are his weakness, many of the birds especially simply didn't measure up, even to digicam+spotting scope modern standards.

On the 'National Geographic' Amazon & African tribal photos: my wife called them 'porn'. I thought they were blatant commercial cash grabs. The 300 or so school children touring the museum that day thought they were funny. Some were expertly done, some were exploitative. They didn't really say anything except that some people love their cattle and others like putting plates or dowels in their lips (and there are still a bunch of women in the world who don't wear bras).

Bottom line: Salgado is a commercially successful artist, and as such his photos are engineered products that aim to make money, not impress a bunch of large format photographers (I could say the same for Peter Lik). But I thought I could tell which ones he put his heart into (more than I can say for Peter Lik). Of course without asking him, I'll never know.

[Peter Mounier]

I just found out this morning that the Genesis exhibit will be at a gallery in Santa Monica, CA. It opens on Sat., June 29th, and runs through Oct 19th.

http://www.peterfetterman.com

[David Higgs]

I managed to compare the inkjets and platinum prints that were recently on display in London, and wrote this little article which maybe of interest

http://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2013/05/platinum-in-genesis/

[bob carnie]

David

I started reading and the type started to fade, am I to pay to read your review?

I managed to compare the inkjets and platinum prints that were recently on display in London, and wrote this little article which maybe of interest

http://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2013/05/platinum-in-genesis/

[Erik Larsen]

David

I started reading and the type started to fade, am I to pay to read your review?


Me too? I'd be interested to read more.

[David Higgs]

Apologies - I thought it was published in the free section - let's see if this works



We’ve already discussed Sebastio Salgado’s Genesis exhibition, but this month also sees the release of 50 selected platinum prints also on display in London, at Phillips de Pury. As someone who prints with inkjet, silver and more recently alternate processes, including a recent start in platinum, I thought it would be an interesting exercise to view these exhibitions together on the same day. I have tried to approach it open minded, but realised the artisan in me couldn’t help but want the platinum images to be ‘better’.

So I joined the queue at the National History Museum before opening and went straight to the Genesis exhibition (another review here). This is a vast, epic exhibit, a real ‘blockbuster’ as I heard someone next to me remark. The images themselves focus on the natural world, encouraging us to reflect on our own lifestyles and our impact. Many images also feature indigenous peoples in their traditional dress. Salgado’s inkjets are large and printed hard, very black and white yet managing to retain just enough highlight and shadow detail to make the image sing. This was no display of subtlety in the mid values, this was high impact printing. Most images work perfectly, but a few I found too ‘overdone’ to my taste, with a hint of an HDR type look. The inkjets themselves, are printed on a gloss paper, so that the blacks are incredibly dense.


It is hard to grumble at any aspects of the exhibit, which is incredible. However for my taste some of the images were over large. Not only did this introduce lack of detail and artifacts into the image, it also means you have to stand back. In a busy exhibition people are often walking in front of the image you are viewing, or standing close to the print, forcing you to do the same, and this did detract from the viewing experience. Salgado has tried to retain his tri-x look in a digital age, using digital contrast adjustment and the DXO plugin to add synthetic grain. It’s an amazing admission to make, I’m sure many other photographers would have kept quiet about it, but the effect is incredibly true. I expected to be able to tell film from digital easily, and you can, but in a positive way. The film shots look like Kodak Tri-x on 35mm, with large areas of characteristic grain, and the digital shots have a more detailed, finer ‘medium format’ look about them. I went in with the mind of a sceptic, but left a convert. I’ve never seen digital images look so good. I left the exhibition with the words of one visitor ringing in my ears ‘my faith in black and white photography is restored’.

As I was crossing London, I was a little worried. How was platinum going to compare with these amazingly impactful images? Platinum is known for it’s subtle shadow and highlight detail, for the richness and velvet texture of the art papers it’s printed on. This would seem to be an almost antithesis of the exhibition I had just viewed.

31 Studio were charged with the task of producing the 16 editions of 50 images that are currently on display at Phillips. Platinum had a rebirth in the 1960s in the hands of Irving Penn after it had fallen out of favour after the First World War with the cost and availability of materials. It is of course known for its archival properties, as well as it’s aesthetic, which is of delicacy with almost endless shadow and highlight tones. Historically the images are contact printed from negatives onto hand sensitised art paper and exposed like most alternate processes to UV light. Technological advances in digital printing allows printing negative enlargements of any size from a digital file (from a film or digital original). This new negative is used to contact print Salgado’s images onto 24×16 inch Arches Aquarelle paper. This produces a matt image, which always gives the impression of a less deep black. The best platinum printers struggle to achieve a Dmax of 1.4 on platinum, whilst most of us at home with inkjets can easily achieve a deep dark 1.8 density. This would mean that the platinum prints would be remarkably different to the images at the National History Museum.

This was immediately obvious on entering the quiet and spacious Phillips gallery. With the high impact images of the Genesis exhibition at the front of my mind I was greeted by wonderfully soft and subtle prints of a select 50 images. As I made my way around the images, I felt something wasn’t quite right. Not all the images ‘worked’. The high drama was missing from some of the prints. A lot of Salgado’s images rely on the impact of high density prints, and whilst credit must go to 31 Studio for producing outstanding platinum work, I started to feel that maybe platinum wasn’t the best media for the subject matter. What was interesting was that a few select images, that seemed over done before, now had an ability to show their true potential, to breathe a little.



The prints themselves are at a better size of 24×16, and honestly might actually look even better printed a little smaller. This made the viewing much more personal, helped by the almost complete absence of anyone else in the gallery, it felt like a very privileged experience. If I was really nit picking the lack of anti-reflective glass, the mixed tungsten and daylight balanced lighting and the subtle but present venetian banding effect on some of the prints did detract. However this really seems churlish on what is really a remarkable feat, 2 brilliant but incredibly different exhibits of the same images.

The platinum images are on display at Phillips, Howick Place. The images are sold as a 16 edition, 50 print portfolio, at £1m, with the value increasing as the editions sell. Better get there quick!


Print PDF


David Higgsmilesfromhere.co.uk


0 0 0 21
7 thoughts on “Platinum in Genesis”Ebony1 on May 23, 2013 at 8:15 am said:
Anyone visiting the Salgado exhibition should be prepared for hectoring programme notes from the great man himself, urging us all to lead less materialistic lives. And how does he put his principles into practice ? Why, by giving us the chance to buy a limited edition of his book – for a mere £7,000. Clearly he intends to use the bank notes as simple wall paper.

Reply ↓David Higgs
on May 27, 2013 at 6:09 am said:
To be fair Salgado has some sound humanitarian and environmental credentials. In this world wearing hessian clothing, eating tree bark and living in a hole in the ground are not going to get your message across, so I can forgive him some commercialism. Besides the beautifully printed Taschen coffee table book for mere mortals was in the order of £40.

Reply ↓Pretoret on May 23, 2013 at 10:04 pm said:
I was in London two weeks ago (coming from south of France, forgive my poor english!)and got lucky to visit Salgado’s exhibition as i was on my way to V&A to see D. Bowie’s one!
I found it was really wonderfull, long time since I’ve seen such a combination of powerfull subject and magnificient large black and white prints.
I do not agree regarding the prints size, I think it gives an increased power and it makes you feel like immersed in the landscape! Of course it is true that sometimes I had to change my point of view depending on how many people were standing in front, but anyway this is something that I usually do as it is interesting to stand close to get some details and then stand back for an overall view.

Reply ↓Giles Stokoe on May 27, 2013 at 11:39 am said:
Thanks David. I am a Salgado fan, and I am pleased that the current exhibition is up to scratch after a few years of relative quiet from the man. I am interested to hear how the exhibition and the Taschen book were printed, as getting to the exhibition will incur significant cost and effort on my part and i might have to settle for the book as an xmas present.

I did a quick search on the web and it appears that there are a few ‘old’ images ( from workers, migrants etc) in the new collection, is this true?

It does seem slightly odd that the selection of which images to print platinum might have been badly made ( since it should be fairly easy to work out which would benefit from the treatment and which wouldn’t ). Was it Salgado’s choice, or a money spinning excercise by some foundation or other? I would have thought that Salgado would have retained the last word though… Interesting.

Reply ↓David Higgs on May 28, 2013 at 7:26 am said:
Giles, the older images were present at Phillips, but not at the NHM. The Taschen book was very well printed, the large limited edition books were almost like having originals, very impressive printing at a price.
I think the choice of which images to be platinum printed was more down to content of the image rather than suitability for platinum. A lot of the images worked well, and had a different feel from the inkjets, but some of the high contrast images where black is dominant, were ‘lost in translation’.
All of course, in my humble opinion.

Reply ↓Joe Cornish on June 5, 2013 at 11:50 am said:
Thanks for such an interesting review David. Having seen the NHM show I concur with almost all of your observations. It is indeed a tour de force, but it is difficult not to feel that some of the printing is just “trying too hard”. Nevertheless, huge admiration for the achievement. In all honesty though, perhaps it would have been stronger for being a little smaller? Anyway, the platinum show sounds wonderful and I will definitely try to get to it.

Reply ↓David Higgs
on June 5, 2013 at 12:24 pm said:
The platinum show ends Friday, better be quick. I’m sure we’d all be interested in your views on the smaller more subtle imagery.

[bob carnie]

Hi David

I would be very interested in seeing the pt pd prints for a comparison as you were so lucky to have had.


I have to humbly disagree about the Inkjets, The prints here are not first rate, and look forced and not like any silver gelatin work I have seen from him in the past.
The overall tonality of these prints were off. Yes they did set the aim points at a value that would somewhat hold detail in the highlight and as well the shadow, so I can agree
that this happened but the graduation in between was lacking.
The paper choice may also be what threw me off , maybe a less gloss surface would have helped, I couldn't help seeing a blue cast on the whole show.

Psuedo Black and White, kind of like my impression of the Vivian Maier book Street Photographer .


.

[David Higgs]

Hi Bob, so much has to do with the presentation and lighting, that prints that are supposedly the same can look very different, I was on the other side of the world so might explain some differences but you are far more experienced than I at this.
Also this was an article for general submission, aimed at the middle of the curve, and not a large format forum type of post. If I was to 'put the boot in' I'd expand on my comments that the prints were overdone, that there were obvious artifacts on the larger images that to my eye very much detracted from the overall look. The HDR effect on some prints was very ugly, however on other images, the prints were 'right' and really sang. I mention this in my article in gentler words.
To my mind the exhibition was 'block buster' and not aimed at the fine art eye in any way. The crowds loved it.
The platinum prints were completely different, and not always for the better. Some compositions relied on harsh dark to light transitions and extreme contrast which just wasn't possible. I think the selection of images going to platinum could have been better. Also the larger prints exhibited the venetian blind effect that you can get with digital internegatives - subtle, but present.
Having said all that, fair play on the whole it looked good, and brought B+W to a wider audience.

[bob carnie]

Hi David

I think I may be more disappointed than most as an NA printer, I used his worker and Migration series that was shown George Eastman House as a mark for my own printing comparison.
As well the great printer Brett Weston has prints out there for us to compare our skills against.

This body of inkjet work is not in the same league IMO and actually does high quality B & W a disservice to some of us striving for the highest of quality.
Yes the crowds loved it , somewhat sad but predictable , I just wish he had made the show tighter to better standards.

I am intriqued by your comments about the pt pd as I think you are correct that the selection of images for process may have been underestimated, or not fully understood. I think this may be what is bothering me.


Kind of like saying, put it on platinum, its expensive so it has got to be good. Its the same thing that I see with the ink prints.. set the aim values and everything will fall in place.
There are those here on this forum who know how to make a good inkjet print , and the highlight transition would have certainly been handled better may some here as well the overall look of the print.
This show is going to raise a lot of opinions , that is for sure.
I just hope I don't come off as the Grinch who stole Christmas.






Hi Bob, so much has to do with the presentation and lighting, that prints that are supposedly the same can look very different, I was on the other side of the world so might explain some differences but you are far more experienced than I at this.
Also this was an article for general submission, aimed at the middle of the curve, and not a large format forum type of post. If I was to 'put the boot in' I'd expand on my comments that the prints were overdone, that there were obvious artifacts on the larger images that to my eye very much detracted from the overall look. The HDR effect on some prints was very ugly, however on other images, the prints were 'right' and really sang. I mention this in my article in gentler words.
To my mind the exhibition was 'block buster' and not aimed at the fine art eye in any way. The crowds loved it.
The platinum prints were completely different, and not always for the better. Some compositions relied on harsh dark to light transitions and extreme contrast which just wasn't possible. I think the selection of images going to platinum could have been better. Also the larger prints exhibited the venetian blind effect that you can get with digital internegatives - subtle, but present.
Having said all that, fair play on the whole it looked good, and brought B+W to a wider audience.

[David Higgs]

What I didn't mention were that there were some of his very large scale silver prints from the migration and worker series in the Philips de Puy exhibition of platinum prints. These were of a completely different feel (obviously) to the over glossy inkjets.
The sheer logistics is not to be underestimated though. 250 large scale inkjets in each exhibition in several different parts of the world simultaneously - you wonder how much control Salgado really had. Some of the prints in the Taschen large scale book, were better done than the images hanging on the walls.

[bob carnie]

Same at Metivier Gallery here in Toronto, older work and digital silver prints from LVT negatives, quite successful.

Yes the logistics is mind boggling.

What I didn't mention were that there were some of his very large scale silver prints from the migration and worker series in the Philips de Puy exhibition of platinum prints. These were of a completely different feel (obviously) to the over glossy inkjets.
The sheer logistics is not to be underestimated though. 250 large scale inkjets in each exhibition in several different parts of the world simultaneously - you wonder how much control Salgado really had. Some of the prints in the Taschen large scale book, were better done than the images hanging on the walls.

[anglophone1]

Was in London last week so took in the show on Sunday AM-Of course it's impressive but frankly I felt it would have been better with a 25% or even 50% further edit-less is more!
The 5x100 art edition EUR 8500 book ( with "silver gelatine print overseen by SS" - not inkjet!) might be a good investment-Taschen also published Sumo by Helmut Newton ( then the worlds largest conventional print run book-10000 signed copies at EUR 10,0000- so this is a deal!
The EUR 3500 edition ( 2500 copies no print) is clearly a steal.;-)

[pdmoylan]

Salgado is interviewed with display of some of his Genesis work in the current issue of "Black and White" magazine. This may have been stated in other threads in detail, but he transfers digital images to 4x5 negatives and works them in PS to increase the grain. Says the images are better quality with this process. It wasn't clear if he was taking 4x5 images of post-card sized digital prints or otherwise. I wonder what 4x5 taking lenses he uses? Sounds like a tedious process to produce improved quality prints.


Comments and further clarification welcome.

PDM

[bob carnie]

He is using a LVT recorder to make negatives then put in enlarger... I wonder why he is not going direct to silver from his digital files... the only reason I can imagine is the type of paper ... or he just wants to feel like he is controlling the process by putting recording negs in an enlarger.



Salgado is interviewed with display of some of his Genesis work in the current issue of "Black and White" magazine. This may have been stated in other threads in detail, but he transfers digital images to 4x5 negatives and works them in PS to increase the grain. Says the images are better quality with this process. It wasn't clear if he was taking 4x5 images of post-card sized digital prints or otherwise. I wonder what 4x5 taking lenses he uses? Sounds like a tedious process to produce improved quality prints.


Comments and further clarification welcome.

PDM

[ROL]

Hey Bob, I've been dancing around this digital to GSP process fairly ignorantly for some time now. Could you elaborate on LVT recorders, types and sourcing, differences from "direct to silver"? Could an individual of not so modest means employ this technology or does it pretty much come down to using a professional lab?

[bob carnie]

There are a few here who have a LVT recording system which images digital files directly onto silver halide emulsions (colour and BW) these new negatives or positives if one is printing Ciba
would then be put in enlarger and magnified to printing size... Advantage--- several different printing processes as well paper selections. Dodge and Burn is done on Photoshop,but still the advantage
of more work at enlarging stage to fine tune.

Light Jet , Chromira Led (this is what Burtynsky uses) ,Lambda Laser device which I own... direct exposure onto silver halide emulsions (colour and BW) there is no intermediate step from Photoshop and I believe the printed image is sharper. Advantages is that the dodge and burn is done in Photoshop, profiling for screen to print accuracy is possible. Disadvantage is that only certain paper works for Black and White silver, ( I prefer a warm tone paper but the paper we are using is cold tone).

Lambda Laser device to silver negative / positive to make enlarged negatives for Contacting.... Same advantages as the LVT in regards to applications for various processes, Contact process which avoids flare from enlarging optics.. Also low end setup for end user , basically think Azo printers and you can see immediately the space restrictions are very good.

You may be able to find a LVT recorder for home use , but I have never investigated the possiblity... finding a Lambda though is another issue, high price, space / power and maintenance is required.

[pdmoylan]

Thank you for the explanation Bob.

Can you explain to a complete neophyte the fundamentals of how the LVT recording technology works and allows the digital to film transfer?

PDM

[bob carnie]

Larry G who has one here on Large Format would be the better person to answer this question....I have never used one, but I can give you a brief history from MY vantage point of when these systems came available and by who.


For making multiple composed blended images onto colour / Black White internegative or Transparency from a commercial Lab Rat perspective.


1980's - I worked on a Lisle System which composed the images (slides, negatives, printed copy) together using a complicated overhead frontlight and backlight copy camera.
Inside the film room a vacumn easel that rotated and moved in any direction with blades cropping within 1/1000 inch accuracy. System was driven by an x y bubble memory computer sequence .
We custom made masks in register to then put on the vacuum easel and pull each image into position by using a loop in the back of the camera.
This was the same idea as what Jerry Ullesman was doing except the equipment we used wereon steroids and the usage was for commercial purposes.
Each element or image/pantone was calculated at approx $100 each and it would take three operators, myself and two assistants a day to complete three 20 element images.
The Lab I worked at spent $500.000 getting this system into place.

Labour intensive, use of red ruby , masks, Micro Modifiers, tones of lith film and a monster lightbox with one main tool the 1/1000 ruler to move the blades in thousands of an inch.


1990's Kodak and others started making the Premier and LVt recorders, these systems allowed a negative to be imaged via a (then sophisiticated) photoshop system.... This is the system
Salgado is using and it is in the hands of those who basically knew how to operate them... I never used this imaging system... These systems also were in the $500.000 K range to bring into the working lab.


Late 1990's Durst designed the mother of all systems .. Durst Lambda, (which I now own) followed by Cymbalic Science Light Jet... Both systems are ultimate in laser technology and still to this day not improved on as far as image quality.... Yes there are faster , cheaper, smaller but certainly not better.
Think HAL the Lambdas are big and are still maintained by an top notch crew of technicians.... Light Jet has stopped producing parts and will be gone soon. These systems also were in the $500.000 K region and today you cannot buy a used system turnkey with good lasers for under $100.000


Durst Thetas, Epsolans and ZBE CHROMIRA think Burtynsky are now dominating the market. They are LED technology and the output rivals Lightjet and Lambda. This technology is driving all commercial labs including Lambdas and Lightjets and for all intents and purposes the same. This is where the Price Changed and all these systems used can be had for $50.000


2000 and beyond - Inkjet technology which needs no explanation the common vendors would be Epson- Cannon- HP and Roland... this is what most on this forum are using.

Now hold onto your hat for my predictions.....Durst Omega is now a flatbed system that is printing directly onto substrates, All new R&D is coming down with this technology and KODAK (my prediction only and you heard it hear first) will come onto the scene with incredible imaging systems on a flatbed system... IMO and mine only they will blow away the three or for current vendors of ink systems and force the market into a more competitive and possibly more creative system of applying pigment onto paper... Think the old days of Chromalins and you will see where I am going with this... Now we are back to the $500.000 price range btw ... funny how this works.

So I did not answer your question about the LVT recorder as I am not familiar with the equipment other than a Lab Rats understanding how this all falls into place.

I would think this type of technology will be coming back... I am making enlarge film for contacting to all processes now with my Lambda.... When RA4 falls on its knees in submission to
inkjet then I will still have a use for my machine.

This is worth exploring if you are inclined to work with machinery and have a complete understanding of the working parts... I unfortunately only know how to expose some kind of light onto a sensitive printing material. There are those with the skill to fix and have bought as many as they can and I believe still viable to find and use..


Thank you for the explanation Bob.

Can you explain to a complete neophyte the fundamentals of how the LVT recording technology works and allows the digital to film transfer?

PDM

[pdmoylan]

Fascinating discussion and insight.

The Lamdba produced the best quality prints by far for my color work, but local labs in NJ shifted to chromira which rarely hit the mark for me. I always struggled with labs to get it right until I moved north of Baltimore. There, for several years, I found a lab with a Lambda and became reacquainted, and the passion for great prints returned. Unfortunately they like others have closed.

Working 60+ hours a week for three years now, I tend to prefer shooting to scanning and printing when I have free time. But one can always dream of having their own Durst to create world class prints.

In fact if I ever get around to it I would enjoy having you produce a few for me if you do work for individuals photographers still.

Interesting thoughts about Kodak. It would be great to see the company rebound a bit and produce fine printers.

Cheers and thanks again.

PDM

[bob carnie]

Blatent plug for out services but go to www.pressandgo.ca its our printing service for digitally aware photographers, very good pricing and we work with clients all over NA

I think we are in for some major surprises with imaging systems over the next few years, very exciting times to be a printer.

Fascinating discussion and insight.

The Lamdba produced the best quality prints by far for my color work, but local labs in NJ shifted to chromira which rarely hit the mark for me. I always struggled with labs to get it right until I moved north of Baltimore. There, for several years, I found a lab with a Lambda and became reacquainted, and the passion for great prints returned. Unfortunately they like others have closed.

Working 60+ hours a week for three years now, I tend to prefer shooting to scanning and printing when I have free time. But one can always dream of having their own Durst to create world class prints.

In fact if I ever get around to it I would enjoy having you produce a few for me if you do work for individuals photographers still.

Interesting thoughts about Kodak. It would be great to see the company rebound a bit and produce fine printers.

Cheers and thanks again.

PDM

[pdmoylan]

Great. You are presently offering a Aztec scans, is that correct? Or did you switch to a Cezanne?

[bob carnie]

Currently I am looking at two different systems to add to our Imocan and Fuji systems.

Great. You are presently offering a Aztec scans, is that correct? Or did you switch to a Cezanne?

[ROL]

Thanks, Bob.