• Please use real names.

    Greetings to all who have registered to OPF and those guests taking a look around. Please use real names. Registrations with fictitious names will not be processed. REAL NAMES ONLY will be processed

    Firstname Lastname

    Register

    We are a courteous and supportive community. No need to hide behind an alia. If you have a genuine need for privacy/secrecy then let me know!
  • Welcome to the new site. Here's a thread about the update where you can post your feedback, ask questions or spot those nasty bugs!

Masters & A.Gursky …why film?

Status
Not open for further replies.
T

Theodoros Fotometria

New member
There are a number (hundreds ?) of discussions on film vs. digital quality in the past all over the web… They seem to all end up on the superiority of digital. Yet..., the world's most successful artists are using film and digitise it…

http://d-sites.net/english/gursky.htm

Gursky, is a good example on the visualisation he puts on a photograph and the (very hard work) path he follows to achieve the (visualised ) result:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AK9Vzeks35Y

What is interesting from this video, is that the whole process that will be followed for the result to be achieved, has being interpreted into the visualization it self…. hence the whole process has been decided with the capture. I wonder though why the media is digitised film (even when multiple captures are involved to create one image) and not a large digital sensor…

People in forums, tend to agree that digital is sharper, has more DR, workflow is more accurate, time saving and easier to work with… Why is it film the choice then? What is that pixel peepers miss? …Is it "the look"? and is "the look" included into original visualisation? ….Or is it that many of us have the wrong idea of what photography (as an art) really is and are dealing with trivial matters (like sharpness) while missing the point?

I would like to put some wonders under discussion:
1. Is an image on a monitor a photograph? …or a photograph is only the printed thing on paper?
2. Is lighting the most important aspect in a photograph? Is it lighting that underlines the subject the two being tight together, or is lighting irrelevant to the subject which it may "work" alone?
3. Is photography without visualisation possible? Can one shoot a great photograph without having the whole process pre planned?
4. What is (IYO) the "look"? …what is "film look", "digital look", "Kodak look", "Dalsa look", "digital but like film look" …etc? …and how is the "look" related to DR extension and lighting in a photograph?
5. Could (IYO) Gursky use digital and achieve the same results?
6. How important is sharpness in a picture and how important is detail? What is enough sharpness and what is enough detail?
7. , 8. , 9. , …………etc: Whatever you may think relevant…..

EDIT, (I forgot an important IMO enquire): Can (IYO) excessive sharpness, or excessive detail, or excessive DR have a negative impact on a photograph?
 
T

Theodoros Fotometria

New member
Jerome Marot said:
The pictures of Andreas Gursky that you are probably thinking about where made in the 80s and 90s, that is before digital technology had evolved to a point where it could emulate large format film. Today Andreas Gursky uses a Phase One digital camera: http://www.profifoto.de/aktuelle-ausgabe/artikelarchiv/410-phase-one/.
Click to expand...

Jerome, all the published pictures of A. Gursky up to now, are shot with film and he still works with his Linhof, he did get an ALPA/Phase one combination a couple of years ago, but this is used more instead of a polaroid to compose a shot, he does very little serious work using digital sensor (the Bankong images?) which are much simpler (and much cheaper) single shots and are print using inject printer… Never the less, if Andreas has a digital camera too (even J.Kudelka has one now, he still shoots film though) is not the kind of conversation I would desire for this thread.
 
T

Theodoros Fotometria

New member
Jerome Marot said:
"is not the kind of conversation I would desire for this thread"

How unfortunate, Theodoros.
Click to expand...
Please concentrate on your view on the "look" enquire and what is your opinion on the subject Jerome… the conversation will be more beneficial if people have an alternative discussion on non trivial things, than arguing on what camera Andreas, or Jerome, or Theodoros, or Asher, or Bart, or Joseph is using or prefers…
 
T

Theodoros Fotometria

New member
Jerome Marot said:
Are you real, Theodoros? If you are, I sincerely worry about you.
Click to expand...

Sooo… what you think of the "art blart" look Jerome?

mindfuck-supermarket.jpg​
 
Jerome Marot

Jerome Marot

Well-known member
There never was a discussion, Theodoros. A discussion implies that the participants can learn and you won't.

Let me summarize: you start with a strange theory about the essence of images and analog film and chose Andreas Gursky as an example of your theory who, by sheer coincidence I suppose, happen to be the photograph who sold the most expensive picture on this planet. I point out that the first axiom of your theory is flawed, since that particular photographer apparently did change his practice to use a digital camera recently. You answer that you desire another conversation and ask me what I think about an image resembling 99 Cent II from Andreas Gursky. I find the correct source, despite a spelling error on your side. You complain that I ruined the discussion.

What did you want to achieve by posting that image, Theodoros?
 
T

Theodoros Fotometria

New member
Jerome Marot said:
There never was a discussion, Theodoros. A discussion implies that the participants can learn and you won't.

Let me summarize: you start with a strange theory about the essence of images and analog film and chose Andreas Gursky as an example of your theory who, by sheer coincidence I suppose, happen to be the photograph who sold the most expensive picture on this planet. I point out that the first axiom of your theory is flawed, since that particular photographer apparently did change his practice to use a digital camera recently. You answer that you desire another conversation and ask me what I think about an image resembling 99 Cent II from Andreas Gursky. I find the correct source, despite a spelling error on your side. You complain that I ruined the discussion.

What did you want to achieve by posting that image, Theodoros?
Click to expand...

What are you talking about Jerome? ...you said it before, the man was shooting all film until 2 years ago and he still does most of it! ….many others do! What is that you don't understand? Is it that you think that one goes out, buys him self a Hassy, starts shooting some forms of clouds and that makes him a photographer? ….what is photography Jerome? …what is it to you? Is it how much better res a P1 has from an APSc compact? …or how much better DR it has? …What is that makes some people beg to buy a print, as to pay some millions for it Jerome? …is the nice clouds over "Rhine II"? …is it the DR? …is it the res? ….You really should review what photography is and what art is Jerome… you really should!
 
M

Michael Nagel

Well-known member
So it is this thread...

Just a recapitulation on how this looks to me.

There is a link on an essay - one data point among many others.

Then there is the assertion that the most successful photographers all still use film.
What is the base for this? How do you define art and economic success? Is is just the highest auction prices where the money does not necessarily got to the artist like it was the case for Rhein II and the large majority among the top 20 as most of the artists are no longer among the living, which also answers in my eyes the question of the prevalence of film or is it actual income generated - this is more difficult to find out...
The Economist has also a nice article on A. Gursky and the art market.

Then there is a truckload of questions, some are related to the difference between digital and film, the large majority applies to photography in general and is independent of the medium chosen.
Answering all these questions at once would result in a book - I don't think you will see this.
This was by the way one of the majors reasons for me not to revisit this thread after a first look.
If you want to have a fruitful discussion, it is IMHO better to concentrate on few and clearly formulated questions. Mind that answers to your questions can only be formulated as opinions.
A discussion based on opinions can only be fruitful if it is governed in a way that respects contradicting opinions - I did not see any framing in the first post that helps to gain this impression.

Jerome challenged your assertion that A. Gursky still only uses film as primary medium (for taking the photos). Now I have to debunk your answer - the series Ocean I-VI is based on satellite pictures (all digital), this is something you can easily find out -> related Zeit article (German) and Kultur Port article (also German as the majority of information on the artist).

On a final note - why don't you simply answer the question asked by Jerome and actually engage in a discussion? Questioning assertions made is part of an open discussion, but here your refusal looks to me like what we call in German 'Denkverbot'. This scares me away from any real contribution to this discussion here apart from these words about the 'how'.
There is another German word - 'Streitkultur'. There is not direct translation into english I am aware of, but it can be described as an attitude for a tough, but respectful and open discussion that puts aside any kind of personal attack or words to make appear people with a different opinion less knowledgable etc.

I hope for more Streitkultur in such discussions here. This is also healthier for everyone involved...

Best regards,
Michael
 
Cem_Usakligil

Cem_Usakligil

Well-known member
Jerome and Michael,

You are two very reasonable and intelligent guys which I respect a lot. I would urge you to stop feeding this troll. The is no way to conduct any sensible discussions with this anonymous person (which is against the number one rule of OPF). Only based on that fact alone, I would urge Asher to finally ban him rather than allowing him to remain anonymous and on top of that giving him unique rights to add attachments to his posts which nobody else here can. I'll refrain from further posting until this is taken care of. Enough is enough, as far as I'm concerned. I know that this will anger Asher and he'll delete these posts as he always does. But remember that I've said this for once and all. If I don't resurface, you'll know why.
 
Jerome Marot

Jerome Marot

Well-known member
Cem_Usakligil said:
Jerome and Michael,

You are two very reasonable and intelligent guys which I respect a lot. I would urge you to stop feeding this troll. The is no way to conduct any sensible discussions with this anonymous person (which is against the number one rule of OPF). Only based on that fact alone, I would urge Asher to finally ban him rather than allowing him to remain anonymous and on top of that giving him unique rights to add attachments to his posts which nobody else here can. I'll refrain from further posting until this is taken care of. Enough is enough, as far as I'm concerned. I know that this will anger Asher and he'll delete these posts as he always does. But remember that I've said this for once and all. If I don't resurface, you'll know why.
Click to expand...

I know that you give particular value to the obligation to use real names, but I don't really see the problem here. Theodoros name and even address and phone number are relatively easy to find. Besides, there is evidence that forcing people to use their real name does not necessary help to keep them civil. For example, youtube (google) forced commenters to use their google+ accounts recently, and that lowered the level of comments considerably. The Internet is apparently full of people willing to be obnoxious under their real name.

Besides, there is something inherently unjust in names: some people have very common names (e.g. John Smith…) and that render them de facto anonymous. Others may have a very uncommon name and that makes them uniquely searchable.

As to Theodoros unique ways of using photo forums, he has apparently been banned from more forums than I care to count, but as long as he behaves according to the terms of this forum, I don't see a reason to act for our moderators.

As to the capacity to post attachments to opf posts, Asher has announced something of the kind for the near future. I suppose that Theodoros is a beta tester and I hope that the capacity will be extended to all.

In other words: stay with us, Cem. It is more fun that way.
 
Cem_Usakligil

Cem_Usakligil

Well-known member
Jerome,

You know well that using real names has been the cornerstone of OPF from the very beginning. I'm not interested in the fact that one can google info about a person's pseudonym. I'm also not interested about whether or not being anonymous has any effects on the level of civility. I'm just stating the number one rule of OPF which we have all chosen to respect when we've registered. If Asher chooses to bend the rule just because some troll doesn't want to give up his real name, I have do a problem with it. So should you. Because these special privileges turns those who obey the rules into fools. I gave up on my privacy for what, eventually?

Secondly, I know for a fact that Theodoros isn't a beta tester of attachments based on my communications with Asher. He has simply bullied Asher into giving him the rights because Asher wanted to see pictures by him and he wouldn't do so that unless he could attach them. Do I have a problem with it? You bet I do.

I'm not having fun with these discussions Jerome. Especially when you turn the tables on me. You go ahead and enjoy the company of trolls, if that's what motivates you. But then don't complain about his behaviour either.
 
T

Theodoros Fotometria

New member
Michael Nagel said:
So it is this thread...

Just a recapitulation on how this looks to me.

There is a link on an essay - one data point among many others.

Then there is the assertion that the most successful photographers all still use film.
What is the base for this? How do you define art and economic success? Is is just the highest auction prices where the money does not necessarily got to the artist like it was the case for Rhein II and the large majority among the top 20 as most of the artists are no longer among the living, which also answers in my eyes the question of the prevalence of film or is it actual income generated - this is more difficult to find out...
The Economist has also a nice article on A. Gursky and the art market.

Then there is a truckload of questions, some are related to the difference between digital and film, the large majority applies to photography in general and is independent of the medium chosen.
Answering all these questions at once would result in a book - I don't think you will see this.
This was by the way one of the majors reasons for me not to revisit this thread after a first look.
If you want to have a fruitful discussion, it is IMHO better to concentrate on few and clearly formulated questions. Mind that answers to your questions can only be formulated as opinions.
A discussion based on opinions can only be fruitful if it is governed in a way that respects contradicting opinions - I did not see any framing in the first post that helps to gain this impression.

Jerome challenged your assertion that A. Gursky still only uses film as primary medium (for taking the photos). Now I have to debunk your answer - the series Ocean I-VI is based on satellite pictures (all digital), this is something you can easily find out -> related Zeit article (German) and Kultur Port article (also German as the majority of information on the artist).

On a final note - why don't you simply answer the question asked by Jerome and actually engage in a discussion? Questioning assertions made is part of an open discussion, but here your refusal looks to me like what we call in German 'Denkverbot'. This scares me away from any real contribution to this discussion here apart from these words about the 'how'.
There is another German word - 'Streitkultur'. There is not direct translation into english I am aware of, but it can be described as an attitude for a tough, but respectful and open discussion that puts aside any kind of personal attack or words to make appear people with a different opinion less knowledgable etc.

I hope for more Streitkultur in such discussions here. This is also healthier for everyone involved...

Best regards,
Michael
Click to expand...
This is not a film vs. digital discussion Michael, I myself haven't used any film for 2&1/2 years now… It is purely a questioning on how visualisation relates with a print's "look" and if the "look" is more influential on a recipient of a print because of its unique appearance… In other words, I wonder if the recipient cares if a print has more or less DR, if colour is accurate, if sharpness is great, if there are "burns" or LL detail in the print, ...or if he finds it more "communicative" to buy a print that has a special "look" which gives a unique aesthetic approach to the subject and thus he feels that:

A. He buys into something unique although the subject can be repeated.

B. The photograph has some specialty which (is artistically accepted from recipients that) underlines the subject to a maximum.

Best regards,
 
Jerome Marot

Jerome Marot

Well-known member
Cem_Usakligil said:
I'm not having fun with these discussions Jerome. Especially when you turn the tables on me. You go ahead and enjoy the company of trolls, if that's what motivates you. But then don't complain about his behaviour either.
Click to expand...


I am not trying to turn the tables on you, Cem. I am trying to persuade you to stay on board.
 
M

Maris Rusis

Member
I propose that some of the questions posed by Theodoros are easier to answer that might be supposed. The identity of photography can be known without ambiguity or contradiction by reasserting its origin. "Photography" is a neologism devised by Sir John Herschel in 1839 and he told us it meant "the application of the Chemical rays of light to the purpose of pictorial representation". The originator of a well formed neologism cannot, even in principle, be wrong or become wrong through the passage of time. So, acknowledging that there are other notions of what photography is, I'll go to the questions.

Theodoros Fotometria said:
....I would like to put some wonders under discussion:
1. Is an image on a monitor a photograph? …or a photograph is only the printed thing on paper?
Click to expand...
If you point at a thing and ask "Is this the surface that was struck by light that as a consequence bears a pattern of marks that forms a picture?" and the answer is "yes" then the thing is a photograph. If "no" then it is something else with a different name. A monitor image could be a picture but it is not a photograph.

2. Is lighting the most important aspect in a photograph? Is it lighting that underlines the subject the two being tight together, or is lighting irrelevant to the subject which it may "work" alone?
Click to expand...
Light is essential to a photograph. It is not possible to make photographs on a planet where there is no light. On that same planet it is possible to make paintings, drawings, and digital pictures; just not possible to see them. Lighting as opposed to light makes one photograph different from another and artistic success or failure may be a consequence. The history of art admits examples where all the merit of a picture lies in the content. I think of Robert Capa's photographs of the 1944 Normandy landings: technically execrable but momentous in impact. I think of an ancient icon of the Madonna that radiates religious power however badly it is painted.

3. Is photography without visualisation possible? Can one shoot a great photograph without having the whole process pre planned?
Click to expand...
Yes, a photograph can be made without visualisation and its greatness can become apparent later. Greatness through discovery may perhaps be inferior to greatness through sentient creativity but personally I'll respect both.
4. What is (IYO) the "look"? …what is "film look", "digital look", "Kodak look", "Dalsa look", "digital but like film look" …etc? …and how is the "look" related to DR extension and lighting in a photograph?
Click to expand...
The photographic medium like all physical media offers a characteristic "look" for each of its multitudinous variations. This is in sharp contrast to the digital "medium". An electronic file has no native appearance and it can be edited and output to resemble any of the physical media: paint, pencil, photography, whatever.
5. Could (IYO) Gursky use digital and achieve the same results?
Click to expand...
As suggested in my answer to question 4 digital methods can be used to mimic the appearance of any medium. The deeper question then becomes does "looks like" mean "same as"? For the superficial purposes of the art world and for routine picture-making I tend to think yes. At a deeper level I suggest the picture-making medium carries information about the relationship between subject and picture. And this information also informs the relationship between picture and viewer.
6. How important is sharpness in a picture and how important is detail? What is enough sharpness and what is enough detail?
Click to expand...
Sharpness is but one component of a picture that the artist can use to persuade the viewer's eye in a preferred direction. A competent artist in full command of their medium will always deliver the right amount of sharpness and detail. Kazimir Malevich's very famous Black Square of 1915 has zero detail while one of my much less famous 8x10 contact photographs has more detail than the eye can resolve.
7. , 8. , 9. , …………etc: Whatever you may think relevant…..
Click to expand...
The thesis is is in preparation but....
EDIT, (I forgot an important IMO enquire): Can (IYO) excessive sharpness, or excessive detail, or excessive DR have a negative impact on a photograph?
Click to expand...
All of those things could be considered a detriment if not controlled. I'm reminded of a conversation that the famous early photographer P.H. Emerson had with a painter. The question was which is superior, painting or photography. The painter explained that a photograph of a scene may have ten thousand details while the painting of the same scene may have only one hundred details. But those hundred details are the only ones that count. All else is dross and clutter. The painting is superior to the photograph. Emerson's faith in the supermacy of photography was shattered and his career faltered for years.
Click to expand...
 
Asher Kelman

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Everyone,

This thread is going to be closed and edited so all references that seem untoward and not fitting with our purposes are removed.

If you have an opinion or experience on some advantage of a medium for some purpose, then share that in a new thread I'll start that is focussed on practicality and actual use of each medium, here.

Or one could discuss one's impressions of certain film and digital results. I even enjoy Maris' Rusis' purity to the word Photography as it is self contained, not diminishing anyone else's view of the world.


To Theodorus,

Your subject would make a good illustrated essay. Why don't you just write that and send it to me.

Asher
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top