"People keep asking me when I'm going to start shooting digitally," like other makers of big prints such as Andreas Gursky and Thomas Struth, Burtynsky said. "And I say when I'm no longer able to avoid it. Sensitive digital equipment doesn't perform very well in the harsh environments in which I work."
Meanwhile, he continues to do his own printing at the Toronto photo lab he established many years ago, using digital technology only to refine what the negative-to-print technique can achieve.
"In extending my ability as a printer and photographer, it's a great tool, " Burtynsky said of digital technology, "but the ethics of image manipulation is a whole discussion that I haven't engaged."
Jorge said:He makes ink jet prints David, not chromira or lambdas. Even so a C print of this size would require a digital negative, I dont know of anybody who is doing traditional color enlargement this size anymore.
He may be starting to print with Lambdas or LightJets, but I can assure you what you see on the web site is all Analoge of the highest quality.
Bob Carnie said:Hi Jorge
I believe Ed only makes traditional colour prints, *no digital* he may of changed but all the work I have seen from Ed is done traditionally, which is amazing as TIW is one of Canadas largest digital Labs.
Toronto Life said:I ask to see how a Burtynsky print is made. Unlike much contemporary painting or sculpture, where the individual artist is sole author of every detail, an art photograph today is a collective enterprise, produced somewhat the way a large painting was in a 17th-century European studio. There, under the guidance and vision of the artist, assistants and apprentices would do a lot of the fill-in work. Here, Dan Ebert, Burtynskys custom printer, does all of the physical production of Burtynskys photographs. I watch Ebert work with an eight-by-10 negative in one of the darkrooms designed for large-format printing (the enlarger is one hefty piece of machinery, equipped with a 2,000-watt bulb, that moves horizontally on tracks). The image is from a series taken at the Carrara marble quarries in Italy. Burtynsky is with us, though Ebert would normally work alone. After some four years of working together, Ebert says, I know what hes looking for. When he gives me a negative, I can get 90 per cent of the way with it.
With the help of charts, the two of them calculate the length of exposure, the lens opening, the distance the enlarger must be from the wall. Then lights out. In the dark, Ebert removes a 50-by-50-inch piece of colour photographic paper from a dispenser, affixes it to the wall, throws the switch. All I see is a vague pattern projected onto white paper, but it obviously means more to Ebert. His hands flutter like moths in the 14.9-second beam of light, shielding parts of the print, allowing others to darken, a technique known as dodging and burning. The paper is then fed into a large processing machine. Five minutes later, a perfectly dry, flat print curls out the other end.
It looks wonderful to mea vertiginous glimpse into a white and ochre wound we have inflicted on the earth, a chapter in what Im beginning to think of as a celebration of loss. But when Burtynsky examines it, this photograph of an Italian marble quarry in use for more than 2,000 years, he suggests that Ebert reduce the exposure by five-tenths of a second and burn in the top left corner a little bit more. He fears that section, mostly rubble, is too bright, will lead the eye astray and off the image. Back to the darkroom, a second round of fluttering hands, a second print. It is almost what he wants, but he suggests that Ebert reduce the exposure by another two-tenths of a second. The next print, he says, will be fine. When he is satisfied (and with Ebert, it rarely requires more than three attempts), the photograph will then move into the hands of Rose Scheler, a woman with exquisite colour sense. With paint and very fine brushes, she will spot out any small imperfections produced by particles of dust on the lens. Burtynsky will then sign it on the back, write its title and date of printing, and voilàa Burtynsky print is ready for exhibition.
bjorke said:Well I am off to see these prints up close in the next hour or so.
Thanks Jim for being at least one person on APUG who bothers to write about the pictures.
David A. Goldfarb said:Let us know what you think of them, for those of us who have only seen the web versions. One can hardly write about the sublime experience of a storm when looking at a snow globe.
Helen B said:How's that then?
Best,
Helen
Bob Carnie said:Thanks David
Though I have made thousands of murals in my life, I would surley love someone describing the process as elequently.
All I remember from my long days on the horizontal enlarger, is taking the paper off the magnetic wall , gracefully yet skillfully walking in the dark passage to the processors entry port, only to walk into a fr>>> post some idiot put in the middle of the darkhall. Picking myself off the floor ,dazed and confused, to finish my chore.
Maybe this is why Ed has made millions and I have not, he has protected his head in that most crucial part of printmaking ,*the long dark walk to the processor*
You need to recognize the difference between being provocative and trolling. Trolls are either one-sided absolutists or start arguments in which they don't bother to participate, choosing instead to simply lean back and observe the fireworks. Provocation in the hope of reasoned dialogue is never trolling even when the responses border on histrionic.mrcallow said:I feel compelled to ask if there isn't a bit of trolling in Bjorke's original post. Why mention digital and why get upset when that portion of the post is addressed?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?