Clyde Butcher

[Tom Taylor]

I'm going to start learning to make digital negatives. I don't feel that inkjet prints can yet give us the print quality we need, but digital technology can certainly give us the negatives to print that will yield prints just as good as those from film.

If the inkjet print is unable to give you the quality "(you) need", then how in the world is the inkjet negative going to give you a negative that "will yield prints just as good as those from film"?

Thomas

 

[Roger Cole]

Humm. That's a bit much Ken. I was never able to type worth a damn on a manual (or electric) typewriter, and writing by hand makes my hand cramp in short order, but I can blaze away on a keyboard because I can fix mistakes so easily. I type much faster than most people I know, but I make a lot more mistakes because I learned in the early days of computers that I could overall go much faster if I didn't slow down to be error free but rather made them and fixed them as they happened. The result is no more error laden than before and almost certainly less so. So I think the word processing program enabled me to write creatively when I wouldn't have before. And I'll certainly see shot-on-digital movies. I really don't think it has any bearing on the plot quality as the filming is pretty removed from the writing. I'm not sure if it has an effect on the acting but if it has, I haven't made the association. And besides, with that kind of rule you're going to be limited to older films, for the most part now increasingly so.

Besides, I get them on Blu-Ray and watch them on my home theater projector which is, of course, digital. Now if I stand close to the screen, too close to watch without eyestrain from eyes darting back and forth, then I can see a dot pattern. But from my viewing distance, which is at the inside limit of the THX calculated acceptable distance, it looks great.

I like film but I'm far from dogmatic about it.

OTOH, I totally agree that digital has become so easy that many people just don't pay attention. Then again, most people didn't pay attention in the days when film was their only choice, either. How many snapshots were made with distracting backgrounds, things growing out of people's heads, face dead center in a vertical image with 1/2 the frame above wasted etc? If anything we probably see - not take but see - fewer like that now because the instant feedback allows a slap on the forehead and a re-shoot.

There used to be a saying that "film is the cheapest thing in photography" and editors would go mad trying to pick one frame from a contact sheet of 36 near identical shots. I imagine that's far worse now. But film wasn't that cheap then. The cheapest thing then was a look through the viewfinder and paying attention before you released the shutter. It's just as cheap (free) to do that now, but digital provides a different sort of negative feedback loop, at least with a stationary or posed subject. You can see it reduced to a small screen right away. It would certainly save time and many shutter actuations if those folks would pay attention to the entire frame, the background and the composition before tripping the shutter though.

 

[c6h6o3]

And what if you were that prospective buyer? Would you want to know before purchasing the work?

Ken

As I said, if it's an inkjet print I can tell by looking at the print and I wouldn't want it in the first place. If it's a carbon print or a Pt/Pd print, why should I care how the negative was produced? Frederick Sommer made prints from pieces of cellophane made sooty from holding them over a candle flame. They're gorgeous. So no, I wouldn't consider it important how the negative was made. The print, yes. Very important. But not the interim steps.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

I doubt he is going back to film. These days, once people slide into the easefulness of digital imaging, they rarely go back. They also tend to produce work that is less studied and more scattered. That is my opinion based on seeing it many times. Some people just don't make the jump very well. I think a lot of people fool themselves. One of my favorite photographers made the switch in the last couple of years and the images look dead compared to decades of his film work. Such is life.
----------------------------------------------------
Well I have to disagree with this statement 100%... for the record this morning I am going into the darkroom to make silver gelatin prints via enlarger, yesterday I was making ink on paper(giclee-inkjet) call them what you want- last week tri colour gum over palladium via digital negatives.
Currently in our exhibit showing at the front of the shop , I am exhibiting silver gelatin, pt pd and ink on paper prints , they all work together very well.

personally I shot thousands of sheets of colour and BW - 8 x10 and 4 x5 , solarized all the film, for the direct prospect of scanning them all high resolution(done) then breaking them apart in separation negatives to produce applied colour over palladium , cyanotype or silver.

So my switch to Digital was done completely relying on mixing digital (wonderness) with analoque (traditional) process.

If one studies Irving Penn's work you will realize immediately that applied colour over palladium and silver process was something he did and did well, Steichan's famous image of lilly pond is applied colour over palladium. I tend to think that both these artists if with us would immediately use any tool at their disposal..
Mr Butcher will find a way to combine silver and digital, its a natural progression, one that many here make light of but IMO should embrace.
It should be noted Shelby Lee Adams has been making digital colour images for the last 6 years- I think he will also find a good balance with this work.

Well Bob, you are a printer, and you haven't converted to digital. You mix the two so you are not in the group of people I am talking about. The reality is once someone gets use to shooting and printing digitally, they rarely go back to film in this day and age. I doubt Clyde will because he is 72 and has that as a reason why he doesn't want to carry his large cameras around. Disagreeing with me 100% based on your own personal hybrid workflow is a bit much. There are countless photographers out there that switched and never went back. You can't deny it.

 

[c6h6o3]

If the inkjet print is unable to give you the quality "(you) need", then how in the world is the inkjet negative going to give you a negative that "will yield prints just as good as those from film"?

Thomas

Good point and I have no answer. All I know is that the carbon and Pt/Pd prints I've seen from digital negatives are just as high quality as ones made from in camera negatives. Maybe it won't work for me with gelatin silver printing, which is what I do. In the meantime I'll continue to shoot with my Hasselblad, 5x7 and 8x10 film cameras.

 

[c6h6o3]

It should be noted Shelby Lee Adams has been making digital colour images for the last 6 years- I think he will also find a good balance with this work.

Bob: How is Shelby printing his digital work?

 

[MattKing]

If the inkjet print is unable to give you the quality "(you) need", then how in the world is the inkjet negative going to give you a negative that "will yield prints just as good as those from film"?

Thomas

Most of the work using digital negatives involves using them as an intermediary when preparing contact printed alternative process prints.

When it comes to the use of digital negatives vs. film negatives for contact printed alternative process prints, the more appropriate comparison is between contact printing from film intermediaries or large or ultra large format camera negatives and contact printing from digital negatives made for the purpose of those prints.

The materials available for preparing film intermediaries are quite limited now, and large format and ultra large format negatives involve other challenges (including $$$$).

In addition, many of the alternative processes work well with the lower resolution of digital negatives (vs. the highest resolution film materials).

The qualities of the alternate photography printing processes are significantly different (IMHO significantly more desirable) than the qualities of inkjet prints. However, most of those qualities can be achieved using digital intermediary negatives prepared from scanned film.

Historically, inviting discussion of digital intermediary negatives into APUG turned out to be disruptive to APUG, and are thus now prohibited here.

That disruption is unfortunate, because the analogue procedures at both ends of that hybrid procedure are very interesting.

 

[Bob Carnie]

I am a priner and a photographer so I wear two hats.. you are right I have not converted to digital (camera) as I solarize all personal work on film colour and black and white.

But- If I decided to venture as a photographer into any other type of series in colour I would definately use a high end digital camera over film.. For black and white no as I like the darkroom experience and as long as Ilford keeps their 20 x24 paper around $8 bucks a sheet where it is I will continue to use silver paper..
We are making pt pd prints for clients using only digital capture and it is amazing quality to say the least. As well I have the luxury to be able to make silver gelatin from digital files and that too is amazing. Both these
processes offer digital and traditional workflows and are easier to do in a more open space.

One of my fave photographers is Russell Monk, he has completely switched to digital for most of his colour work but he still sends me film for Black White process and print. I could name quite a few that
even though they switched to digital still shoot film.... If we were all honest on this site the majority of APUGers own and use a digital camera.. I own one but have never use one.

For Mr Butcher I imagine the weight of the cameras is the reason for switching... maybe I should give him a call and let him know I can make 30 x40 silver film and he can contact print rather than enlarge ..
I will admit that it is harder for me to move around a darkroom like I did , and I am 10 years younger than Mr Butcher , therefore I am making a concentrated effort to mix digital and traditional print methods so as I get older
I can do contact prints under a light unit rather than trying to bend down 50 times a day to work a mural print.

Yes there are countless photographers who switched and never went back, but the ones I know who respect what I do still shoot occassional shoots in film to make enlarger prints.

Well Bob, you are a printer, and you haven't converted to digital. You mix the two so you are not in the group of people I am talking about. The reality is once someone gets use to shooting and printing digitally, they rarely go back to film in this day and age. I doubt Clyde will because he is 72 and has that as a reason why he doesn't want to carry his large cameras around. Disagreeing with me 100% based on your own personal hybrid workflow is a bit much. There are countless photographers out there that switched and never went back. You can't deny it.

 

[Bob Carnie]

Bob: How is Shelby printing his digital work?

When I saw him a few years ago he was using the inkjet process to proof his prints.. I am not sure if he has ever shown them as a body of work.

 

[David Brown]

As a general rule of thumb, when things become easier, when they take less effort, then people can do more of them with less involvement, and pay less attention during the time spent doing them. The more automated a thing becomes, the less we pay attention to that thing, because we don't have to. In the extreme case, completely automated stuff we pay no attention to at all.

And so it is with photography. Digital imaging is less studied and more scattered because it can be. All of the previous film technology-related negative feedback loops have been removed. It doesn't cost anything more to press the button again. Or to just hold it down. And it's no longer more cost effective to think a little deeper before pressing that button. Sadly, that incentive has now been completely reversed.

And all of these things are that way because they can be. The current technology pushes them to be that way.

But it doesn't have to be. I have no doubt that many camera owners let the gear work for them, but I seriously doubt that any good photographer makes lesser quality work if they switch to digital because "it is easier".

Nothing personal, I just happened to pick this example to quote, but we have all seen the statements on APUG 100s of times about how much easier digital printing is than the darkroom. I do both, and this is simply not the case if one is attempting to do quality work.

Anyone who thinks making an exhibition quality digital print is less work than a darkroom print has never made digital exhibition prints.

 

[removedacct1]

...I think creative writing has suffered enormously with the demise of manual typewriters. Who knew that the negative feedback loop inherent in those little bottles of white-out was so damned powerful? But it was. Digital speed-writing all reads depressingly similar to me.

Quite right. I think we should be having these conversations via hand-written letters sent through the Post. This dreadful instant gratification electronic communication is sucking the life out of the well-crafted editorial content we should be creating!

 

[removedacct1]

Anyone who thinks making an exhibition quality digital print is less work than a darkroom print has never made digital exhibition prints.

Precisely.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

......

Anyone who thinks making an exhibition quality digital print is less work than a darkroom print has never made digital exhibition prints.

I would have to disagree with you on this David. It is a lot less work if you know what you are doing and how to do it. But this is APUG so that is pretty much all I will say about it.

 

[c6h6o3]

Bob: How is Shelby printing his digital work?

When I saw him a few years ago he was using the inkjet process to proof his prints.. I am not sure if he has ever shown them as a body of work.

They certainly look spectacular on his website

 

[Bob Carnie]

I hope someday to talk him into tri colour over palladium.. His work IMO is very strong and he is a great person to boot.
QUOTE=c6h6o3;1953724084]They certainly look spectacular on his website[/QUOTE]

 

[DREW WILEY]

Here's the way I tally the score. Back when darkroom prints were the only common option, millions of mediocre prints were being routinely
made. Now that inkjet and so forth is dominant, millions of mediocre digital prints are being made. If Einstein were still alive, maybe he could
discover some mathematical formula that allows us to perceive that the problem is just too many mediocre photographers on the earth at any given time.

 

[blansky]

Not sure why the righteous indignation. Nobody is telling Mr. Butcher he can't use any tool he pleases. We all get old. That includes every single one of you reading this. If you think you're exempt, you are not.

So if he has simply reached the point in his journey where the use of a different tool now makes more sense, then why the hysteria here as if he's heroically defeated some vast conspiracy of evil to do so?

Those who enjoyed his analog creations may mourn the passing of that era. Nothing wrong with that. Those exact same mourners will arrive at the exact same place he has in due time. Guaranteed.

And it's not as if Mr. Butcher comes to APUG and calls us all callow, condescending, sanctimonious twerps for still enjoying film. He obviously and thankfully has far more class than that...

Ken

Ken. Is that you???

Ken.

I know it's not you.

Who is this???

 

[ParkerSmithPhoto]

If you put a really fine quality digital inkjet print next to a really fine quality gelatin silver print from film of the same image, I'll always pick the silver print. But if you put a carbon print or a Pt print from an enlarged digital negative next to one from an in camera negative, I can't tell the difference. And after all, what we're after is beautiful prints. The means to obtain them is irrelevant to me. But I'm seeing some incredible hybrid work from photographers who formerly used film exclusively so it can't hurt to attempt learning some of these techniques.

Agreed. Digi Negs are the best thing to ever happen to alt processes like Carbon and Platinum. The number of people working with these processes compared to just ten years ago is astonishing.

 

[ParkerSmithPhoto]

These days, once people slide into the easefulness of digital imaging, they rarely go back. They also tend to produce work that is less studied and more scattered.

My personal hit ratio is much, much higher with film. There's a discipline in knowing that it cost about $0.75 every time you click the shutter!

 

[Bob Carnie]

At $8 per sheet Ilford Warmtone 20 x24 I use the same approach, I never go in the darkroom unless I am totally prepared.

My personal hit ratio is much, much higher with film. There's a discipline in knowing that it cost about $0.75 every time you click the shutter!

 

[ParkerSmithPhoto]

Nothing personal, I just happened to pick this example to quote, but we have all seen the statements on APUG 100s of times about how much easier digital printing is than the darkroom. I do both, and this is simply not the case if one is attempting to do quality work.

Here in Atlanta, master printer John Dean makes large format prints with Piezography Carbon, which is pretty much the state of the art for digital monochrome.

He made several prints for my Relics series and they are stunningly beautiful, somewhere between Platinum and Photogravure.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

Ken. Is that you???

Ken.

I know it's not you.

Who is this???

Aye 'blanksy'... It's truly me...

I've never had a problem with other people using digital photo technologies for themselves. Only with their perverse insistence on bringing it into the APUG analog arena and implying the rest of us are too stupid to understand.

It's selfish and boorish and rude to do that. Especially to those who have paid their subscriptions in good faith in an attempt to find a small island of analog peace and quiet in a sea of endless screaming digital cacophony.

And to my knowledge Mr. Butcher has never tried to come here and tell us we all need to get off our backward Luddite asses and get on with the inevitability of rampaging modern "progress".

Bless him for that...



Ken

 

[amellice]

Aye 'blanksy'... It's truly me...

I've never had a problem with other people using digital photo technologies for themselves. Only with their perverse insistence on bringing it into the APUG analog arena and implying the rest of us are too stupid to understand.

It's selfish and boorish and rude to do that. Especially to those who have paid their subscriptions in good faith in an attempt to find a small island of analog peace and quiet in a sea of endless screaming digital cacophony.

And to my knowledge Mr. Butcher has never tried to come here and tell us we all need to get off our backward Luddite asses and get on with the inevitability of rampaging modern "progress".

Bless him for that...



Ken

+1
actually Clyde is still using his large format film camera extensively. All the images on his Facebook page has the large format camera (he's really active on facebook)

 

[Whiteymorange]

I cannot imagine anyone wanting to disparage an artist of Mr. Butcher's calibre for his choice of tools. Sometimes, the purist attitude creates an obstacle to creativity, not a doorway. How someone arrives at a completed piece is quite irrelevant as long as the piece is successfully crafted into being.

I remain technology agnostic, for the sake of my creativity.

+1

 

[DREW WILEY]

75 CENTS per click of film?? That's astonishing. Guess you don't shoot 8x10. That will cure the machine-gunners and make them think twice
about what they are doing.