Clyde Butcher

[amellice]

http://www.guideposts.org/faith/sto...th-photographer-clyde-butcher-heals-his-grief

 

[doughowk]

http://www.miamiherald.com/entertainment/visual-arts/article9725729.html
and
https://www.facebook.com/clydebutcher/posts/10152235044632007
Oh well, at least Michael Kenna is still using film.

 

[removedacct1]

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.

 

[amellice]

http://www.miamiherald.com/entertainment/visual-arts/article9725729.html
and
https://www.facebook.com/clydebutcher/posts/10152235044632007
Oh well, at least Michael Kenna is still using film.

he's not giving up his view camera

 

[ParkerSmithPhoto]

By no means is he giving up the large-format view camera, Butcher says. But digital has the advantage of easy portability. As he gets older, Butcher can no longer go mucking around in the swamp or hiking Yosemite with 80 pounds of photo equipment strapped to his back.

When Brett Weston was in his 60s, he moved to medium format. Matisse was cutting paper art in his sick bed, not painting. The great Emmett Gowin has been shooting digital for years now; he showed me his prints when I met him two years ago. Can you imagine how insulting it would be to have some callow, condescending twerp remark "Oh, you're shooting digital now?"

Clyde's move to digital seems the natural evolution of an artist who wants to keep making art, rather than adhering to some mystical, self-defeating sense of sanctimonious purity.

 

[removedacct1]

Clyde's move to digital seems the natural evolution of an artist who wants to keep making art, rather than adhering to some mystical, self-defeating sense of sanctimonious purity.

YES! Thank you.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

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

 

[c6h6o3]

I recently visited Sandy King in his South Carolina studio. He showed me numerous new 16x20 carbon prints of stunning quality. They were made with either a Nikon D800 or his Sony a7r, the camera that Clyde uses. I can't tell the difference between these and his prints made from in camera negatives. To be honest, I like the ones from digtital negs more. They have more contrast. This probably comes from the fact that Sandy can control things better in the computer than he can with wet chemistry.

I think this has nothing to do with age. If Sandy could get the prints he wanted from his 16 x 20 film camera, he'd use it. Technology gives us more creative freedom, not less. And the results can be just as beautiful or even more so. 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. I have no doubt that if Ansel Adams were alive today, he'd be using a digital camera.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

However, I believe Mr. Butcher has explicitly referred to age as being a contributing factor in his move. Something about no longer being quite as able at age 72 to hump 60- or 80-pound backpacks across the swamps? Or something like that.

But regardless of his reasons, the choice is solely his to make.

In the same way that it's Mr. King's choice to make. If he has decided that computers and software and sensors and abstract user interfaces and hard-copy output devices and USB drives and hard disks and mouse clicks and touchscreens and monitor calibrations and upgrades are a better match for his artistic vision, then I am all for it.

But it also shouldn't come as a surprise that on this particular forum there are at least a few who opt for more traditional means and methods. And I'm not so sure that calling them names serves any constructive purpose. That they may not be as enamored with all of the glitzy computerized high-tech push-button solutions should not be perceived as a threat that must be vanquished. Nor as a personal or intellectual failure on their part.

It's true that computers can make many previously time-consuming and manual-skill-based tasks much easier and more accessible. But that does not always mean that everyone wants to go down that path. Sometimes people seek out more difficult paths for other more personal reasons.

Ken

 

[CropDusterMan]

As far as I'm concerned, Clyde has more than cemented his place in the respect category for his amazing
work in Large format film photography. He could tattoo "I shoot Sony Digital" across his chest...I'd still hold him in
the highest respect.

 

[mitch brown]

I just had Alan Ross spend 4 days with me at my house in south Ga and this discussion came up at dinner . Alan stated that AA would have loved digital and used it with out a doubt.
mitch

 

[ParkerSmithPhoto]

Not sure why the righteous.... 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...

My point was not to insult anyone personally, but to illustrate how everyone has to split off into their camps, like Animal Farm. It's either "film great, digital bad"; or, "film bad, digital good." And everyone has a smug smile of satisfaction on their faces as if they've received the true revelation of the Photographic Gods. It's very self defeating. It's like deciding that you're never, ever going to use a Phillips head screwdriver.

I use both tools on a weekly basis. Both make me a better photographer and that commercial digital work buys a lot of film for my personal projects. I ran 30 rolls two weeks ago and now have ten more ready for processing. I'm also hanging Sheetrock to finish my first official darkroom; no more bedrooms with black plastic over the windows.

It's an amazing time to be a photographer.

 

[Roger Cole]

I don't think Ken was talking about you Parker, but about the same people you disagree with, more or less, though he does point out (correctly) that some "film, rah! rah!" is to be expected on this forum.

I wouldn't equate it to a phillips head screwdriver, more like hand tools versus power tools, or something like that. That said, if I wanted to build small pieces for my own enjoyment, as much of the building as the result, I might use only hand tools. If I were building things to sell where quantity counted, especially bigger things, power tools it would be. Similar situation - in another thread I talked about my life long love of astronomy and how, if I ever have both the time and the reasonably light pollution free skies to indulge that again, any imaging I do is likely to be digital, simply because it is far, far, vastly superior for that purpose (maybe some film shots now and then for the hell of it, the way they used to do it before both digital and film hyperventilating, IOW when the results from amateur efforts pretty much sucked.) I've also said I'm often tempted to get a DSLR for those family/vacation shots that everyone wants me to do but that frankly aren't worth the time to print myself in the darkroom and not worth the money of having professionally done when most would just be scanned and shared electronically anyway.

I agree, use the right tool for the job. I particularly enjoy darkroom work anyway, so oddly enough I think I shoot film BECAUSE I can print it in the darkroom!

 

[ParkerSmithPhoto]

I agree, use the right tool for the job. I particularly enjoy darkroom work anyway, so oddly enough I think I shoot film BECAUSE I can print it in the darkroom!

And as nice as the other options can be, there's still a quality to the B&W silver print that for me says "that's what photography is all about, Charlie Brown." I almost never get that feeling from color photography of any origin.

Oh yeah, I kind of need that sink I sold you...

 

[Roger Cole]

Considering how the build out of plumbing has been delayed I'm tempted to sell it back to you. But I'd best not - I really hope to get that done in the coming year.

Oh and I agree totally - a B&W silver print has a beauty of its own (as do platinum and such as well, of course.) That's something very dear to my heart.

 

[amellice]

My point was not to insult anyone personally, but to illustrate how everyone has to split off into their camps, like Animal Farm. It's either "film great, digital bad"; or, "film bad, digital good." And everyone has a smug smile of satisfaction on their faces as if they've received the true revelation of the Photographic Gods. It's very self defeating. It's like deciding that you're never, ever going to use a Phillips head screwdriver.

I use both tools on a weekly basis. Both make me a better photographer and that commercial digital work buys a lot of film for my personal projects. I ran 30 rolls two weeks ago and now have ten more ready for processing. I'm also hanging Sheetrock to finish my first official darkroom; no more bedrooms with black plastic over the windows.

It's an amazing time to be a photographer.

+1
I also do digital and film, I started with digital around 2007 and film around 2012 but I enjoy both. I think I enjoy film because I love to print in the darkroom, when the photo comes out it gives me more satisfaction that I get when I move couple of photoshop slides

 

[jerrybro]

I am very late to digital, and use it for 2 purposes. First as a tool for photos that will reside on the web, second as a way to practice sunny 16. For my personal "art" I prefer film.

I also own wrenches and ratchets. Cars and trucks. Boots and shoes. ...

 

[DREW WILEY]

Sandy King makes enlarged digital negatives for the sake of UV contact printing processes, often hybrid from actual film. Again, age has been a factor in downsizing his camera gear over the years. But it's still basically a very hands-on form of "analog" printing at the end. In such cases re-contouring film curves to match the specific characteristics of the carbon tissue is both easier in certain cases, and certainly more cost effective, than doing it the old-school way using several large sheets of film. But it still can be done that way. And of course, many great Pt/Pd and carbon printers of the past simply printed their sheet film originals directly. Some still do. It's all good. What's not so good is seeing certain marketing interests making blanket claims that the newer technologies are inherently "better", because the definition of "better" is highly subjective, and I choose to make my own rules about that.

 

[c6h6o3]

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.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

And after all, what we're after is beautiful prints. The means to obtain them is irrelevant to me.

But not irrelevant to everyone else. To some perhaps. But not to everyone.

For example, investing a significant sum of money let's say one purchases a sculpture from a well-known artist, then discovers months later that it was actually created using a 3-D printer running the artist's programming code. It still looks beautiful. And the artist generated the code. But it was virtually printed, not physically sculpted.

Would this be a problem?

Would it be a problem if the work was a photograph and the printer was 2-D?

In either case would one ask for a partial refund? A full refund?

Or would it make no difference?

And if it made no difference, when the time came for the new owner to sell it, would he have an ethical obligation to disclose in advance its method of creation to the prospective buyer?

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

Ken

 

[Patrick Robert James]

I have found in life that I like things made by hand, preferably mine if possible. I was always kind of dissatisfied with digital imaging. I use it though for color but I still prefer output on color RA-4 paper. For black and white, a great silver print is just the best. I tend to prefer silver over other processes too. All personal choice of course. You can do whatever you want as far as I am concerned. It used to be a joke when people would say that digital is just as good as film. Now they are relatively equal and it is more a personal choice.

I have seen the Butcher digital prints. At first glance they look like his other work. Taking a closer look they have a bit of that antiseptic digital look to them. Just my opinion. They are still really good prints though and I am not bashing them by any means. I would say to the vast majority of people, they look the same. I didn't notice the difference (behind glass) until I really looked.

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.

 

[Roger Cole]

Ken makes some good points.

The other one, which has been made over and over but I feel compelled to make again when this topic comes up, is that of enjoying the process. *I* enjoy printing in the darkroom. Working with a computer, no matter what I'm doing with it, I put close to the level of doing my laundry on the fun and rewarding scales. I'm a network engineer. I work in an office for an ISP. My bread and butter is earned running a terminal program to connect to routers and switches, troubleshoot issues with them and make upgrades and configuration changes. I like my work ok, meaning I find it interesting and rewarding but still I sure wouldn't do it if I didn't need a paycheck because there are other things I find MORE interesting and rewarding (that won't pay the bills, though.) All of which is to say I get a belly full of computers, especially considering a lot of my free time is also tied up in keeping in touch with both friends and larger communities of people I share interests with, like this one, ALSO by computer. The last thing I want is another hobby messing around with computers all the time. Getting in the darkroom under a dim safelight with some jazz playing and making prints, with hands and tools under the light of the enlarger, seeing the image come up in the tray, toning for just the right image color, all very old school old fashioned technology, I find immensely rewarding and relaxing. And I do that for ME, because I enjoy it, not for someone else who might, just maybe, buy my prints (I sold one in the last year, at an almost give away price - hey, get your name out there locally - I'm certainly no Clyde Butcher!)

So it doesn't even matter to me if others could tell a digital print from my silver print, or even if they preferred the digital print. I do it because I enjoy it, and I use film mainly because I enjoy working with it and feeling like I'm actually crafting something, not just sliding a mouse around my desk, which I do far too much of already.

EDIT: Of course that is in NO WAY to belittle or criticize someone else's choice to work digitally or hybridly. Not everyone works 40+ a week burning out on computers, among other things! And, as I've said, I've been tempted to get a DSRL for some purposes, things that don't really warrant my darkroom time. Use what you enjoy and/or gives you the results you find it rewarding to produce.

 

[j-dogg]

Being a Florida photographer and shooting similar work, I can't blame him. He's not getting any younger and those 11x14's aren't getting any lighter and it sure as hell isn't getting any cooler here. I met him personally a year or so back. He's good people and we BS'd about the little Canon Rebel film camera I was wearing. He was happy to see young early adopters of film in the digital age.

I shoot medium format mostly but I'm doing more and more digital work. I'll shoot film until its very last days though. I am in love with my RB67 it was a game-changer for me.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

They also tend to produce work that is less studied and more scattered. That is my opinion...

...and mine as well. And not just in still photography. But also in many other creative—and non-creative—pursuits.

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. That's just human nature at work.

Drive an automobile with an automatic transmission for long enough, and one no longer pays attention to, and so loses the feel for, when the engine is running outside its power curve. Because you no longer must judge when to shift gears, cultivating an understanding of this inner aspect of an automobile is no longer necessary. Over time one's deeper understanding of the overall essence of automobiles is thus diminished, and eventually suffers a slow death by a thousand newly automated cuts.

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.

Like the engine's power curve, there is also a sweet spot in most creative pursuits. 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. Does that ring familiar?

Another example? I won't go see a digital motion picture. Why? Not because of the recording technology. Rather because of that technology's overall deeper effect on the art work itself. The plots now suck. The subplots now suck. The characters are shallow. The messages are more shallow, and less subtle. Thinking audiences are ignored. But lots of crap jumps out of the screen at you. Literally and figuratively. Even in non-3D presentations.

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

And they aren't not that way because they doesn't have to be. The current technology no longer disallows it.

Ken

 

[Bob Carnie]

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.