Altview@aol.com
Mon, 19 Apr 1999 06:03:14 -0400 (EDT)
For those who are regular readers of this list have probably gotten some
inkling about my feelings towards digital and its place in what we do as
alternative process image makers. I have been thinking a lot about this issue
lately, both privately and with various colleagues, some supporters and some
opponents to the whole digital revolution. I would like to clarify some of
those thoughts and pose some questions to those who favor this new
technology. It is no secret that I believe that digital is the highway to
hell and its practitioners minions of the devil ;-). But here are some
thoughts, in no particular order. And some questions to ponder.
First, let's not confuse easy with time consuming. There is no doubt that
this is extremely time consuming. However, there is no way to compare the
experience of loading film holders, carting equipment to its destination,
setting up a heavy camera, calculating exposures, waiting for the right
magical moment, then taking it all down again to start once more, to sitting
in a chair and moving a mouse around. Even though both might take the same
amount of time to create an image. I have had enough peripheral experience
with printers, graphic artists, etc. to know the learning curve to photoshop
and its ilk is enormous. No one appreciates the level of commitment to
learning a process more than I. And while true, it is relatively easy to take
an 8 X 10 and get a printable negative in a relatively short time, the time
it takes to master it can be a lifetime, especially when one is devoted to
the tempermental, finicky, and precise processes that so many of us have
dedicated our art to. It took me 6 years of hard work to master the platinum
process. The problem I keep seeing with all of this digital activity I keep
hearing about, is where is the work? I am paraphrasing the same question
asked by Lee Friedlander some while ago. I see small dribs and drabs showing
up here and there, but most is dreadful, amaturish, and technically
incompetent. Living in the city of Los Angeles as I do and having access to
many major photo galleries and museums, I do indeed see a lot of work. Make a
point of it. So, first question. With many of you spending so many hours
slaving away at your computers, are any of you, in fact, getting any work
done? I may have an abnormal perspective on this issue due to my normally
prodigious production of work. But my many friends who fall more into the
norm in regards to image production still seem to make vastly more images
then friends who have gone digital. I know that quantity isn't everything,
that making many images isn't automatically better then those who make fewer.
But one of the paradigms in art is an evolution, a refinement, a clarity of
vision that comes in time as one progresses through one's life. It seems only
logical to me that the more one works, the faster one travels on that path.
So we firstly have this issue of work production. Secondly, I want to address
the issue of quality. Granted, I have seen some pretty spectacular digital
enlargements for platinum. Just recently I worked with a colleague on some
beautiful portraits digitally enlarged and printed in platinum. There were no
tell tale signs of the negatives being digital. No lines, no pixels, no
banding. But he started with original negatives in 8 X 10. However it took
him three months of back and forth to his lab to get 15 negatives he could
print. I also saw an exhibition in San Diego curated on the theme of
photographs of the ocean. As with any group show based on a theme, this one
was mixed as to how successful they were. But one photographer shot rolling
waves with a 35mm and digitally enlarged the negatives to 16 X 20 and then
made platinum prints. They were dreadful. The grain from that small a
negative almost obscured the image. It reminded me of photos from the 60's
whose stylistic legacy was to make pictures as grainy as possible. Somehow,
the desired melding of image and process did not take place here. One of the
reasons I am so passionate about the process I do is the extraordinary
subtlety, nuance, and tonal scale platinum is capable of. It's like taking a
precision performance car, pulling the spark plug wires out of two cylinders
and driving to your destination just using first gear. Yah, it'll get you
there, but why bother? I am not basing this on just the observation of these
two extremes, but so far the vast majority of digital images falls into the
second category. So my second question is, if the quality still does not
approach the quality of an in-camera negative, why do it?
The third issue is expense. Right now the going rate for having an image
scanned, worked on and tweaked in photoshop and outputted onto film runs
around $100 to $150 a piece. I believe that is a fair and accurate appraisal
of current prices. I am not counting Epson based negatives here as I think
all would agree the technology still doesn't compare to a service bureau. Now
say someone like my friend above does 25 images for an exhibition or to
complete a body of work. (He did 15 at $150 each) A reasonable figure. Now to
calculate with the above prices, that would amount to over $2500 invested in
just the film output, not even calculating the enormous amounts of time this
all seems to take. Now for that amount of money I can purchase 1200 sheets of
8 X 10 film, 600 sheets of 11 X 14, or 400 sheets of 14 X 17. Anyway I look
at this, it doesn't make sense to me. Am I missing something? So, do you all
realize the economics of digital? Can any of you simply afford to create any
serious body of work?
The next issue, which scares me the most, is with the wholesale embracing of
this new technology to create images, what is to keep the companies we count
on to continue to supply us with materials in which to do our work? Don't
tell me that there will always be film. We don't know that. It is corporate
profits that will determine our future, not the needs of some fringe elements
of our society. That's all of us by the way. There are already ominous signs.
Kodak has virtually abadoned its large format customers. They no longer
supply and catalog large format film (larger then 8 X 10) as they used to.
They have discontinued several products including Super XX that was once a
mainstay to many photographers. Even Ilford, who filled this vacuum for a
while, is no longer stocking large sizes anymore and now require a minimum
order of 20 boxes. At $188.00 a box for 14 X 17 film, that's a lot of money.
We still have Bergger now, but how long is that going to last. Secondly,
camera dealers in the network I work with have reported a significant drop in
the demand for large format cameras in the last 6 months and my business has
also been affected. Like a canary in a coal mine, these winds bare no glad
tidings. I certainly am not proposing every one run out and buy a large
camera ( though I think that would be great), this interest in digital may be
appealing in the short term, but will it cause the death of film based image
making as we know it? Will there still be film available 10 years from now?
Lastly, how will the people who buy photographs think about images made on a
computer? I was talking with one of my dealers on the phone tonight and he
has serious concerns about the negative responses many people are having to
digital based imagery. This was an issue I hadn't thought about. As we are
all aware, there is still an on-going battle, though largely won, to have
people accept photography as an art because of its creation by mechanical
means. Sure, we know many of these people are uneducated about photography
and lack understanding of how this process works. But think of the
resisitance sure to come from much of our audience when shown digital based
photos for their appraisal. He has been surprised at the negative response he
has gotten from several clients, even though he is a staunch supporter of
digital based imagery. Again, I know we do not make art just to sell and this
is no reason to not make the images we make. But something to think about.
The one issue I can never reconcile, is for me, the inherent contradiction
between the care and craft we bring to alternative printing methodolgies, the
joy of making something unique with our own hands and the cold unfeeling and
soulless computer. And yes I know it is just a tool and the perjoratives are
my own biases. However. For me the entire process of creation is one
continous circle. It starts with the cameras I use, most of which are a
minimum of 75 years old, that have been lovingly restored by my hand and who
retain a soul and has a history. I have always felt so connected to my medium
by sharing the focusing cloth with those friendly spirits who reside in there
with me. Then to process the film by hand, to coat my paper and make prints.
To cut my own matts and to design and make my frames from scratch. To knowing
that when the print is hung on a wall, everything there is done by my hand.
Yes, it is only one way to make images and there are many others. I guess I
like a little purity and consistensy in in my work. And finally, to turn
around a response from my first post. I am embracing our analog world in a
way that frees me from the mechanical faults and inadequacies of our current
crop of digital tools. There is no Y2K in a Goertz Dagor lens. So, my
question to those out there in computer land, if it takes so long, costs so
much, has such inferior quality, and is a source of such seemingly endless
problems, why are you doing it?
Let the games begin.
Patrick Alt
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Oct 28 1999 - 21:39:31