Ken Rockwell and the popularity of film photography

blansky · Aug 27, 2013

MatthewDunn said:
It seems like a lot of people are twisting Ken's argument into what they want it to be and then proceeding to knock down their own modified version.

Personally, I think both analog and digital are "photography", they both can be "art", and they are equally capable of creating compelling, emotional images. I truly believe that. Having said that, the processes of getting there are not the same. They may feel similar and they may be trying to accomplish the same thing for the same purpose, but at a step-by-step process level, I think the considerations that go into the image-making are just different.

That may be a distinction without a difference to some and if all you care about is the end-product and whether it is compelling, emotional, honest, etc., than that is fine - a completely valid perspective. But I think it's hard to make an argument that the processes are not, if nothing more than at a physical, "what you actually do" level (i.e. stand in a darkroom vs. sit at a computer), different.

I agree 100% and have stated so. I have done both processes. FOR ME one replaced the other for reasons I described. (30 years compared to 7)

I know that there are process people that turn out stunning work.

But Ken's initial argument and continuing argument goes beyond viva la difference to the point where one has worth and the other does not. Don't believe me read his earlier posts.

So I simply added that a beautifully processes boring picture has little real value and a poorly processed impactful picture, no matter the way it was originated, can have incredible value ( not talking monetary). I agree value us a subjective term but you get the drift.

And I don't think the genesis of photography had much to do with process, (just do whatever works), and more to do with the magic of stopping time and getting an image. The impact of the image. As much as Ken wants to love the glass plate, the originator cared about the image. It was all about getting the image.

MatthewDunn · Aug 27, 2013

blansky said:
But Ken's initial argument and continuing argument goes beyond viva la difference to the point where one has worth and the other does not.

FWIW, I don't agree with that. If I see a compelling, emotionally-charged image, I could not care less how it was made. Asking whether or not it is digital or analog would be akin (to me) to asking the artist "what f-stop did you use?" (i.e. maybe technically interesting and a question worth asking once you have asked the 20 questions that were *really* worth asking, but...).

I've looked at the work of a lot of conflict photographers recently (e.g. Tim Hetherington). I think "Restrepo" was basically shot on handy-cams from WalMart. Could not make less of a difference as the subject matter is so overpowering that the medium is totally transparent.

Ken Nadvornick · Aug 27, 2013

MatthewDunn said:
It seems like a lot of people are twisting Ken's argument into what they want it to be and then proceeding to knock down their own modified version.

blansky said:
As much as Ken wants to love the glass plate...

Michael R 1974 said:
I think if you just stuck to saying the processes are different (ie excluding the seeing)...

Sigh...

blansky · Aug 27, 2013

Michael R 1974 said:
Ken, would anyone actually argue the processes are the same? I think if you just stuck to saying the processes are different (ie excluding the seeing), plain and simple, that's about all there is to it. All due respect, it doesn't seem like you really stopped there.

That's what confused me. On PAGE 14 comment 135 he states that vive la difference and he gets it. Different people have different goals.

Then on PAGE 15 comment 142 he's back at it. Talking about one having "authenticity".

Anyways it's been fun.

Later.

Ken Nadvornick · Aug 27, 2013

And you think those two expressions are somehow mutually exclusive?

How about "authenticity" (in the sense we've been discussing it) matters to me, but not to you? And not mattering to you is just as valid a state as is the state of mattering to me?

Ken

MatthewDunn · Aug 27, 2013

blansky said:
...Talking about one having "authenticity".

Anyways it's been fun.

Later.

The problem is that you are making it hard for us to take your side when you engage in the exact same tactics that you accuse others of using...

blansky said:
Sadly, that comment illustrated a lot about you.

After pages of discussion and a sort of a meeting of the minds that different photographers have different goals and ideas of photography, you need a parting shot across the bow like that.

An absolute obsession and an unwillingness to let something go.

If you really have had your fill, it would seem that you are perfectly capable of stepping out of the thread without taking the same parting shot that seem to bug you so.

Ken Nadvornick · Aug 27, 2013

Michael R 1974 said:
It's a slippery slope.

[...]

I'm confused as to whether Ken views digital/analog as different processes, or different media entirely.

It is??

Dunking CCDs into D-76 to extract images...???

Ken

Klainmeister · Aug 27, 2013

This is becoming nonsensical.

Klainmeister · Aug 27, 2013

Michael R 1974 said:
Apologies I edited my previous post (although the jist is the same). I don't want to get anyone too aggravated (at least not today) so I should probably stop here and admit my failure in this thread . Clearly you can't get much out of a CCD by dunking it D-76, or even Pyro.

Saddly, since the chip is mostly silica and holds part of a charge from the photon, I bet one could if they spent enough time and money on it.

cliveh · Aug 27, 2013

Would HCB have used a digital camera if available in his time? Almost certainly. I prefer to use film, even in this digital age, but the image however produced and printed is what people judge. Although images produced by historic techniques still have their place in the world of art.

Ken Nadvornick · Aug 27, 2013

Klainmeister said:
This is becoming nonsensical.

Oh God yes. That's the most 'sensical' thing I've read in the last hundred posts.

Ken

ntenny · Aug 27, 2013

blansky said:
If photography is not about the subject then why don't blind people make more photographs for other blind people?

For all I know they do (what was that movie about a blind photographer?), but stipulating that photography enjoys little popularity among the blind, it might be because it communicates visually---which is not at all the same as being "about the subject".

In Barthes's terms, I think you're saying "it's all about the studium" and neglecting the punctum. I'm not nearly as French as he was, so I just think you're giving too much weight to photos as representations of things, and not enough to photos as visual objects in their own right. (That's "too much" and "not enough" for the purposes of making generalities about the medium, rather than for your own work and enjoyment.)

-NT

ntenny · Aug 27, 2013

blansky said:
That's what confused me. On PAGE 14 comment 135 he states that vive la difference and he gets it. Different people have different goals.

Then on PAGE 15 comment 142 he's back at it. Talking about one having "authenticity".

I'm confused by that shift too, but I get the feeling he doesn't mean "authenticity" to be as value-loaded a concept as it sounds to me (or I guess you). I get the "provenance" framing, but I'm not sure about the "authenticity" framing, which seems all tied up with photos being a way to document Truth.

On the one hand, I don't think that the ability to document Truth is a particularly important trait of a medium one way or another (outside a few specialized uses), and on the other, I don't buy Ken's conviction that the film/digital divide aligns with the presence/absence of that ability.

-NT

ntenny · Aug 27, 2013

MatthewDunn said:
I think this thread has become an outlet for a harmless argument that won't go quietly into the good night because it is the very process of arguing (as opposed to the actual intellectual point of the argument) that has become fulfilling. Does anyone in this thread *honestly* care whether someone on the internet whose name you do not know and whom you will never meet in real life think that what you do is or is not photography? If so, I might suggest you have more significant problems that you need to attend to.

This is about getting frustration and anxiety out in an anonymous way and without consequence. You can't (or at least shouldn't) kick the dog or beat your kids or your wife, but hey, yelling on the internet...sure.

Who's yelling? I thought we were having a pretty interesting discussion about different aspects of photography, sensu lato, and which ones are important to different people and how much they have to do with specific media and processes. I don't think I'd even say "argument".

If this thread is anyone's substitute for kicking the dog, that would be a pretty mild kick or a pretty sensitive dog.

-NT

Roger Cole · Aug 27, 2013

cliveh said:
Would HCB have used a digital camera if available in his time? Almost certainly. I prefer to use film, even in this digital age, but the image however produced and printed is what people judge. Although images produced by historic techniques still have their place in the world of art.

I've no doubt HCB would have used digital. He hated the darkroom and never did his own printing after he could pay someone else to do it, and digital would have enabled him to shoot in lower light, with faster shutter speeds, maybe autofocus might have helped him do his work "only more so" in some cases.

Ansel was interested in the future and wondered what digital versions of his images would look like and almost certainly would have used it. Whether he moved completely to it would be a very different question from HCB, I think.

Weston - somehow I doubt it but it's an academic question.

DREW WILEY · Aug 27, 2013

I just love that wonderful tactile quality that digital storage provides. Who want some flimsy flat piece of film or print paper. And just think of
what all those discs will be worth to Antiques Roadshow in few decades? But yes, so tactile ... you can play frisbee with em (ever try that with
a real print?)..Your retriever will have much more fun fetching a disc than a piece of film... or better yet, they're wonderful for skeet shooting.
Yes, just soooo collectible too....

Marvin · Aug 27, 2013

chip j said:
Thanks to Him, I have a N75 and a N80, which are my favorite cameras for shooting, ever.

I have 2 each of these great cameras!

Chris Lange · Aug 27, 2013

there's not much point in debating what the dead "masters" of photography would have done if they were living today, because if they were living today their collective experiences would have been different and they, more probably than not, would be different people. Do not seek validity in a medium because a certain someone used it, seek validity in a medium because it makes sense to you. Who gives a fuck if Avedon used a Rollei, or Cartier-Bresson used a Leica, or if Peter Lindbergh used Plus-X. If you think these people are great photographers because of what materials they had available, you are insulting their legacy, as well as displaying a completely inept perception of every aspect of photography.

If only I had a Super Ikonta B and a box of Portriga Rapid (with cadmium, naturally), then I could REALLY show those bastards from the 1950s what's what.

Seriously? That shit is weak.

We should take all the time that we've spent reading this mostly pointless thread and spend double that making photographs with whatever equipment is closest at hand, and not wondering if the ghost of Andre Kertesz is judging us for not using his preferred brand of film.

Smoking Gauloises to look French doesn't make you French, it just makes you look pretentious.

MattKing · Aug 27, 2013

Chris Lange said:
Smoking Gauloises to look French doesn't make you French, it just makes pretentious.

Actually, I think it just makes you smell really bad.

I agree with APUG Ken that there are differences and that the differences matter to me.

But whether or not something matters is different than whether or not it is valuable.

The least persuasive argument in favour of any process is one that says essentially that it is "just as good" as another process.

And as far as I am concerned anyone who thinks that it is only the subject and content of a photograph that matters is probably just looking at photographs on computer screens, telephones, televisions, magazine pages or maybe 4x6 prints from the drugstore.

removed account4 · Aug 27, 2013

Chris Lange said:
A) Anyone that editions their work at 50 is a dumbass.

what are they supposed to edition their work at ?

removed account4 · Aug 27, 2013

i am really at a loss seeing how a film - negative makes something "authentic"
but i understand it is the basis of what some versions of chemical photography are based on ...

Truzi · Aug 27, 2013

markbarendt said:
Does it matter what tools get it from scene to wall?

It can. It depends on what one wants. If I were rich, I'd love to commission a painter to produce family portraits. I know, not the same thing, but for some people it does matter, and it is valid to them.

My brother had a photographer use film at his wedding (though ti was more common when he married). He made sure he used B&W for some photos - it mattered to him and his wife. I know other people who would pass on a wedding photographer if any sort of B&W print was even suggested. it doesn't matter how good it looks or what "feel" it produces - different things matter to different people.

MatthewDunn said:
I was just thinking that this thread didn't have enough petty bickering as it is and that we needed to start throwing innocent people under the bus to make our point...

I know what you mean... I'm beginning to feel like I'm at work.

So, am I the only one paying attention to people's style in this "argument" (rather, debate) and using it when interpreting their posts in other threads, especially the ones where their comments are mostly contrary?
(Damn, there doesn't seem to be a flame-shield smiley.)

Ken Nadvornick · Aug 27, 2013

Truzi said:
So, am I the only one paying attention to people's style in this "argument" (rather, debate) and using it when interpreting their posts in other threads, especially the ones where their comments are mostly contrary?

(Damn, there doesn't seem to be a flame-shield smiley.)

Whether that's me or someone else you are referring to, regardless of their position or opinion I would cut them some slack.

People engaging in intense debate often adjust their positions because they learn something new, or someone else said something that clarified a certain facet of the issue in their thoughts, or they meant to say the same thing as they said earlier not realizing they actually didn't, or they even just momentarily drifted mentally and forgot.

Fortunately these discussions are really all in fun, even though they can get heated (albeit heated at a distance). Luckily this is not a court of law. And the death penalty is not in play here.

Ken

Chris Lange · Aug 27, 2013

jnanian said:
what are they supposed to edition their work at ?

50 is a huge edition for any piece of art. 25 is still quite sizable. Unless you are a major figure in the art world who would command large prices even from an edition of 100 prints, it doesn't make sense from a value perspective to create such an edition. 10-15 is a far more sensible figure for any piece that exceeds 16x20". I am discussing this from a business/economics vantage-point however. Very little of what I have said in this thread is of any use outside of the context of that of a working artist who subsists on their art. To those of you who do photography simply because it is enjoyable and challenging, then you are free to work in whatever manner you wish, with whatever tools you wish...which is a beautiful thing.

Those of us with student loans who are trying to eke out a living without having to sling booze (for others, at least) have to consider the intrinsic value of our work from a multi-faceted perspective, however the fact that I use a film camera does not make my work more valuable. If this were the case then surely Richard Prince's xeroxed shit wouldn't sell for millions of dollars.

markbarendt · Aug 27, 2013

Ken Nadvornick said:
That depends on each individual, and whether any of the obvious differences between the two tool sets matter to them.

For example...

If 'blansky' manages to tame the newborn and creates a stunningly insightful portrait, Mom isn't going care how that scene made it to her wall. As far as she's concerned, she's thrilled and 'blansky' is a freakin' genius.

However, if Ken has finally decided to spend $10,000* to buy that vintage Ansel Adams Clearing Winter Storm that he always wanted, it's probably going to make a BIG difference to him how that scene made it to his wall. The process differences between the hand-made-by-Ansel-in-1980 version and a negative-scan-and-inkjet-in-2013 version could not be more meaningful.

In the first example, process could not be more irrelevant. In the second example, process could not be more critical. But in both examples, the core differences between the two photographic processes do still exist. That's a fact that is not open to interpretation.

As noted earlier, one does not dunk CCDs into D-76 in order to extract images...

Ken

* or whatever, I didn't actually Google it...

There are two reasons that I see for the value of Clearing Winter Storm.

One is the reasons is the image, the other is the Adams mystique.

Adams, like other successful artists, marketers, hucksters; sold "us" on his process. (As evidence I offer his books.) Silver gelatin printing is only important in the market valuation of clearing winter storm because "that's how Ansel did it", its how the original was made. Anything else would be "a fake".

Elliot Erwitt and Steve McCurry don't need to worry as much about the exact how of processing as the Adams estate might.

Ken Rockwell and the popularity of film photography

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency