Ctein goes digital!

Tim Gray · Feb 26, 2010

His book Post Exposure is definitely worth picking up for anyone who works in the darkroom. While I've gotten a lot more out of other books I've read, it does collect some interesting facts all in one place.

arealitystudios · Feb 26, 2010

As far as Im concerned he should use whatever materials he is most happy using to get the final print he is most happy showing. If that means going digital for Ctein so be it.

What bothers me though is when people arent entirely honest with the reasons why they shift. For example, I was recently at a gallery here in Portland that carries a lot of prints by Jock Sturges. Some of the prints are traditional fiber base silver gelatin prints. Others are digital based off of a scanned negative. There is an obvious difference in quality, even to the casual print observer.

So I asked the gallery owner why the shift from traditional prints to digital prints and she replied, well Mr. Sturges feels there arent any high quality Fiber papers left so he is scanning his negatives now.

I just about jumped out a window at that moment.

Now granted this was the gallery owner speaking, and not Jock Sturges himself but to go around and make the claim that one has switched work flow because there is nothing available in the traditional medium is both untrue and unethical in my opinion.

If you switched because you find it easier that is fine. If you switched because you think it looks better that is fine. However, dont make the claim that your traditional materials are no longer available or you cant find anything of high quality when clearly that is not true.

Curt · Feb 26, 2010

I believe that if Ansel Adams had lived long enough he would have been one of the first leaders to "go" digital, in fact he alludes to it in his later writings about future manipulation of his negatives. To post here you need a computer, to post photographs you need a scanner, the electronics and digital World is all around and it can't be ignored. In one video Ansel Adams was sitting in front of his computer while typing, not his IBM Selectric but a computer. What do you think he would have done with a modern computer, scanner and printer? This site is for the discussion of Analog photography and is restricted to that subject and here the 10,000 pound Gorilla in the room is digital. Don't be shocked when others choose to use the new technology, you are not required to use it yourself.

Curt

Chris Nielsen · Feb 26, 2010

I'm not surprised, really. In fact I'm more surprised he didn't do this sooner. Not after hearing him talk about how much trouble it is to produce one of these prints, also how much trouble it is getting the material. I was just blown away by how *hard* the whole thing seemed. I get the idea of art not being easy, but really, just how hard does it need to be???

jglass · Feb 26, 2010

I agree that 1) it's irrelevant what Ctein does personally (both because his images are uninteresting TO ME and because of the incredible amount of ego expressed in his writings that is not -- TO ME -- justified by the work) and 2) whatever any photographer chooses to use as his medium, more power to him or her, it's no skin off my teeth (nose?).

The point for me is film availability and how this and a thousand other quitters affects it. I guess I wanted to hear (respectfully expressed) opinions about whether this could impact film use. The more high profile guys who quit (and whether or not you know of him, he is fairly high profile in color printing circles and darkroom technical circles) the more I worry about being able to buy Tri-X and Portra NC and Provia 400X, etc etc. I guess "worry" aint that great a reason for posting a new thread, but hey, I've got allergies today and I'm feeling sensitive. Soothe me people, don't yell at me! I come here to feel good!

To Curt: It's also uninteresting TO ME what Ansel Adams would have done. He had good technique and made good photos, but he's no Saint and he's no prophet and if he contributed to killing film, I would question him.

jovo · Feb 26, 2010

AshenLight said:
My, what a stunningly narrow view. The general intolerance here for any photographer that uses any medium but film is amazing.

Ash

My, what a stunning misinterpretation of my comment. I could care less what Ctein, or anyone else chooses to "capture" with, or print with. My point was that his images will now no longer have at least the distinction of being made by a difficult and arcane process to elevate them above the average, and will have to compete with legions of inkjet printers and their prints. I wasn't impressed with them as dye transfers, and still would not be if he were to continue that process, but now there's no reason at all to even give them a cursory look. Film, pixel...whatever...mediocre images remain mediocre.

Jeff Kubach · Feb 26, 2010

So who gives a $hit what he does. He is a bigger loser than me!

Jeff

David A. Goldfarb · Feb 26, 2010

I hope that some of the people speculating about his plans actually read the statement he posted on The Online Photographer. He will continue making dye transfers with the many negatives he has in his collection and presumably for clients as well until he runs out of materials. I don't know whether he is making digital separations from digital originals, but he hasn't mentioned it.

I think Ctein's most significant contribution to the field is as a technical writer, personally. His prints are quite nice, but I suspect more people will have read his writing than have seen his prints, and _Post-exposure_ has been a significantly influential book.

pentaxuser · Feb 26, 2010

I recently bought Post Exposure for a fairly modest amount of money and there is no doubt that it is worth the effort of reading. He has a different "take" on a number of things in trad photography. I got the impression that he would not be the greatest group instructor ever; that isn't his forte and while the pictures he uses in this book illustrate what he is saying, they aren't the kind I would be enthralled about in an exhibition.

Nevertheless not getting his book simply because he has "switched" is denying yourself something worthwhile IMHO. It still ranks amongst those photographic works that re-pay several readings over time.

pentaxuser

frdrx · Feb 26, 2010

So what? The end of the world will come when I `go digital' .

doughowk · Feb 26, 2010

I read his book once a few years ago, and was impressed especially with his knowledge of the dye transfer process.
As to his conversion, he has become irrelevant to my methods & workflow. I don't read articles on watercolor techniques, so why would I read his articles? Different media.

makanakijones · Feb 26, 2010

He has been always an equipment geek; this is a normal step.
Unfortunately I have never seen great photography from him, something more important.

Ektagraphic · Feb 26, 2010

Maybe he shall return sometime in the future.

Sanjay Sen · Feb 26, 2010

A lot of good, and not-so-good, photographers have "gone digital". Honestly, I don't keep track nor do I care. I choose to shoot on film, and will continue to do so as long as the materials are available and cost effective to me. After that, who knows?

I have one of Ctein's dye transfer prints. While I do not think the image is anything great, I bought it when he offered some at very discounted prices because I wanted to see for myself (and own) a dye transfer print, a dying process. I wouldn't hesitate to buy his book - "Post Exposures" - if I feel I'll learn from it.

To each his (or her) own.

Just my two cents.

njkphoto · Feb 26, 2010

Well, sorry I have never heard of this guy. He might be a great printer, technician, etc....I am more concerned as to what a photograph does to the viewer, its composition, the art of it, etc,. His work does not impress me at all and I don't really care if someone wants to go digital, especially someone who takes photographs that don't move me. I was looking some magnum photographers on the magnum site last night from the 30's, 50's 60's and that my friend is photography. Nobody talk about the quality of the photograph any more..Too much tech talk from an overpriced photographer.

Film and rock n roll will never die.
my2c

makanakijones · Feb 26, 2010

Sanjay Sen said:
A lot of good, and not-so-good, photographers have "gone digital". Honestly, I don't keep track nor do I care. I choose to shoot on film, and will continue to do so as long as the materials are available and cost effective to me. After that, who knows?

I have one of Ctein's dye transfer prints. While I do not think the image is anything great, I bought it when he offered some at very discounted prices because I wanted to see for myself (and own) a dye transfer print, a dying process. I wouldn't hesitate to buy his book - "Post Exposures" - if I feel I'll learn from it.

To each his (or her) own.

Just my two cents.

I think this is the answer, That is only his option We don't have to make the mistake to do it extensive. Anyway, if he don´t notice differences moving digital Why to move?
I am a bit tired of photo gurus, persons who use more time discovering material than making photos. If I want an advice I prefer to receive it from a person who is photographing, enlarging or printing much of his time with good results than from technical-material geeks.
Reichmann, Johnston, Reid, Rockwell, Ctein..., who cares

There are wonderful photographers who uses both digital and film or one of them. May be They are too busy to write a blog.

Tom Kershaw · Feb 26, 2010

njkphoto said:
Well, sorry I have never heard of this guy. He might be a great printer, technician, etc....I am more concerned as to what a photograph does to the viewer, its composition, the art of it, etc,. His work does not impress me at all and I don't really care if someone wants to go digital, especially someone who takes photographs that don't move me. I was looking some magnum photographers on the magnum site last night from the 30's, 50's 60's and that my friend is photography. Nobody talk about the quality of the photograph any more..Too much tech talk from an overpriced photographer.

Film and rock n roll will never die.
my2c

That some may not perceive suitable image quality or aesthetics as important doesn't mean that it isn't.

Tom

Jedidiah Smith · Feb 26, 2010

I'm always "bummed out" when anyone leaves film photography - we have a fun hobby, that I hope is around for a long time to come. However, I can honestly say I'm not surprised by this in the least. Ctein is a printer. In fact, as much as he has been a "photographer", he spends much more time / energy on the print than the negative (we probably all do this to a certain extent, but not to his). I do NOT say that to demean any of his photographic talent, but it's quite apparent where his real strength and talents lay.

The Achilles heel of analog photography, to me, has always seemed to be the print. As a capturing device, film is fine. It's beautiful. It's not the problem. Film itself is not necessarily the reason people are "going digital". Getting what you've just got on the film back OFF the film - that's the problem.
Let me explain my point of view: have you ever looked at a high resolution film under a microscope? I've seen pictures of T-Max 100 and Velvia this way, and the amount of "data" captured on that film is just incredible. It's almost insane the detail that's on the negative itself. But HOW do you get that all into a good looking print? There is the problem...and to a large extent, digital doesn't really have that problem. What you see on the computer screen, (if all the color management variables, etc, are taken care of), is pretty much what you get.
Not to say digital capture gets it any better / worse than film. That's for a different discussion, obviously. But, with digital, it's just much easier to make a print out of the information you've captured.

And that, I think, is why Ctein "went digital". The Print - it's just easier.

My .02,
Jed

Michel Hardy-Vallée · Feb 26, 2010

David A. Goldfarb said:
I think Ctein's most significant contribution to the field is as a technical writer, personally. His prints are quite nice, but I suspect more people will have read his writing than have seen his prints, and _Post-exposure_ has been a significantly influential book.

I bought two of his DT print, one last year and one this year, I own a copy of Post Exposure, and I concur with David. There has been reams of excellent to horrible books about B&W photography, but very few ones solid enough for colour, and Post Exposure is one such example.

He's not the finest photographer ever, but he's the only one that ever allowed me to own two DT, on top of understanding quite a lot with respect to image quality, archivability, etc. without burdening his work with undue mythologizing about "vision."

Would I prefer a dye transfer print from a much more significant photographer such as William Eggleston? Of course, but when I can afford one, I'll probably be in position of owning the lot too... And I don't think Eggleston will ever put out a book with text in it--the guy is far from loquacious.

That said, who care if he goes digital? Mike Johnston has come back to film, if anyone cares!

delphine · Feb 26, 2010

Oh dear.... It is probably relevant to the subject.. but there was a wonderful podcast on APUG radio with Ctein, 1h20 long, but so fascinating, that I actually listened to it twice (.. and I think that I have a life in case you wondered..). In it, Ctein explains wonderfully dye transfer printing, how colour printing evolved from carbon colour to modern optical printing, and his relationship with dye transfer print, and also that with digital printing which he adopted a long time ago. He explained their respective limitations etc...and why he liked digital printing.
I found this interview deeply interesting....also one cannot be insensitive to Ctein's enthusiasm and passion... he is a true printer, as it happens a color master printer, and the value of his input in the theorisation of the craft.

http://cdn3.libsyn.com/insidemedian...31&nva=20100227203931&t=0b8234edbca132f50d8fc

Sean · Feb 26, 2010

I suppose 6-7yrs ago I had a militant attitude towards this sort of thing. There was uncertainty whether traditional was going to survive. These days, given the circumstances (digital popularity and the poor economy) our survival has exceeded my expectations. It may be a shrinking market but it seems to be consolidating where it counts. Some photographers will change direction and 'go digital' but it no longer bothers me. I like to focus on the fact that in the last 2 months we've broken all records on APUG for visitor traffic, new accounts and overall member activity. Some folks in the digital side have even 'gone traditional'. On a side note vinyl record sales are booming lately.. People will always be drawn to tangible real world objects and the hand crafted methods used to create them. We are those people, and APUG with nearly 40k registrations is still just a tiny fragment of them. I've said before that digital could surpass the quality of traditional 10x over and I would still not choose it as my method for creating art. It simply doesn't 'do it for me' to use those methods but I can understand it has appeal to others and am fine with that. Also, several traditional companies have feet in both camps now, for example Ilford and their laser compatible papers, labs like Elevator with both workflows in play and notice the digital products for sale at Freestyle. These are good examples of how our market is evolving and finding ways to survive. Sorry for the rambling but I guess my point is most of us know what we like, know we are going to continue doing it and losing sleep over others actions could be counter productive..

AshenLight · Feb 26, 2010

jovo said:
My, what a stunning misinterpretation of my comment. I could care less what Ctein, or anyone else chooses to "capture" with, or print with. My point was that his images will now no longer have at least the distinction of being made by a difficult and arcane process to elevate them above the average, and will have to compete with legions of inkjet printers and their prints. I wasn't impressed with them as dye transfers, and still would not be if he were to continue that process, but now there's no reason at all to even give them a cursory look. Film, pixel...whatever...mediocre images remain mediocre.

John,

It was the vehemence of your post that led to my comment. I'm sorry if I misinterpreted your intent.

Regards,

Ash

André E.C. · Feb 26, 2010

I do hope guys, when I switch to digital, you honour me with 5 pages of a thread also!

I wish alot of fun to the guy and many frames of pure pleasure and ecstasy.

Does someone knows if he's selling his outdated analog stuff on a low?

Ian David · Feb 26, 2010

Sean has it right. Photographers will do what they want to do with whatever methods they want to use, and there is no way (or good reason) to stop them. Just do what you want to do, and don't angst about what is turning everyone else on. They will come back to film if they want to. (I think a bit of angst and a reversal or two is part of a photo-blogger's toolkit - makes their blog like any other soap opera.)

Ian

p.s. Hey, when did people start beginning sentences with "Understand..." ?

Vincent Brady · Feb 26, 2010

If I change over that's when I'll care about other people abandoning analog for digital.

Ctein goes digital!

Tim Gray

arealitystudios

Curt

Chris Nielsen

jglass

jovo

Membership Council

Jeff Kubach

David A. Goldfarb

Moderator

pentaxuser

frdrx

doughowk

makanakijones

Ektagraphic

Sanjay Sen

njkphoto

makanakijones

Tom Kershaw

Jedidiah Smith

Michel Hardy-Vallée

Membership Council

delphine

Sean

Admin

AshenLight

André E.C.

Ian David

Vincent Brady

Ctein goes digital!

Membership Council

Moderator

Membership Council

Admin

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency