New ILFORD Silver Gelatin Products ( Laser )

[JBrunner]

 

[kjsphoto]

kjsphoto, I think if you take a moving picture, most of the population (read: not photographers or art critics) will not care or even spend a second thinking about what medium it was shot or printed on. Isn't it silly that we all argue about this kind of stuff and the most important people (the viewers) don't care?

You are missing point...

digital cameras aren't putting photographers out of business, photographers are putting photographers out of business. produce brilliant work, give it a few years for this digital craze to likely average out, and you will somehow scrape on. we've all got bigger things to argue with eachother about.

Really? Go talk to a lot of studio photographers. Many have lost their business due to the client they once had now do everything in house with a digital camera and Photoshop. No more skill required just a decent Photoshop person and you are good to go.


Go talk to the wedding photographer that now have to deal with this digital nitwits that give away the CD for $500. Unfortunately most people think the $500 is good enough but what they forget to realize is that down the road, say 10 year form now they will have nothing to look back on form their special day as the CD is damaged, no longer to be read or lost. In the old way of doing it the photographer would keep the negatives on file for years. You know when I used to get call from potential wedding clients the first question out of their mouth was, “How many image do I get and can I keep the CD?”, I replied I shot quality not quantity and that is why I don use digital and there is no CD. Conversation ended, as they didn’t care about quality only special Photoshop effect like, coloring a BW via photoshop, soft focus, etc… and how many images they got on a CD.

Talk to the portraits studio that are out of business thanks to places like JC Pennies, Wal Mart, etc.. that only use Digital. Or the mom down the street just turned photographer with the new D100 in her hands charging $25 for a session and all the images you want. The list goes one.

Digital has created a world where now anyone and everyone is a supposed fine art photographer but without their beloved Photoshop they would be noting more than a hack at best. Ask many of those guys what a light meter is, what 2 to 1 light ratio is. Most will reply with, “who cares I can Photoshop the effect I want”.

A few weeks ago I was down on 395 and stop to get gas at the gas station at the backside of Tioga pass. I heard these guys talking about images they made and how they will Photoshop in skies and take out parts of the scene and how they can fix it when they get home in Photoshop. Talk about lazy. What ever happened to waiting for the light or the clouds to roll in, taking pride in capturing the image rather than hurrying it along? This the typical American instant gratification I want it now and don’t want to learn how to really do it or don’t have the patience factor. To me this is not art nor will it ever be as it is pure graphic design.

Need I say more? Unfortunately the way the thread is going most likely.

 

[r-s]

Wow, what a thread! (Yes, I read the whole thing *burp*!)

Speaking as someone who really does raise and slaughter his own food (not all of it, but enough to qualify as having "blood on my hands"), and, as someone hooked on Kodachrome, worried that I'll miss out on next year's "fall color" due to inavailability of K14 processing (having missed this season due to the inability to get my lousy health and the few days of good weather to coincide), I'll jump in with a few comments. Very few, I hope.

First, before I forget -- I got a real LOL moment out of the "film versus movie" debate. Several years ago, I was discussing a certain movie (I forget which), with a friend, who is "in television" (or should I say "in broadcasting", since "television" sounds so ghastly commercial? LOL!)

I forget most of the conversation, but one part was seared into my memory. I recall having expressed a high degree of admiration for the quality of the movie, at which point, my friend, in full mock stuffed-shirt-mode, interjected that it was so good that we should call it "film"; something of that quality did not merit the scornful "M-word". We both laughed -- and I laughed again as I read this thread.

Really, folks, let's get over ourselves. It's starting to sound like a bunch of college "art students" trying to out-cool each other. The end of that road invariably takes us to hip-wader territory.

I used to "work as a photographer". I guess some would say that I "prostituted myself"; I did weddings and portraits, with the occasional industrial/commercial job landing in my lap. It wasn't "art", and it wasn't hardly "fun" at all. It was work! "I did it for the money."

Now, when I wasn't "doing it for the money", I'd wander off into the woods, and take landscape shots for pleasure.

But, I'm digressing, and close to voiding my "few comments" intentions, so I'll cut to the chase.

This product from Ilford is a good thing, at a very basic level. It will help keep them in business. It will help keep their suppliers in business. And, it will help keep their suppliers suppliers in business.

It will help keep the raw materials (necessary for the production of sensitized materials) in production, and, it will help, due to economies of scale, to keep their prices lower than they'd be otherwise.

That's all.

 

[Bob Carnie]

Matt
the answer is no, I have been taking loupes to my lambda cibas to see if I can see pixelation*sp* what I see is the original film grain.
Unlike most labs that have these devices we run only at 400ppi it, is much slower but the results are better.
The same goes for the digital fibre. * I guess someone could say Gallerie paper has a destintive look but that would be the only clue.
Although remember garbage in garbage out, if the file is lacking you will definately see the problems.
I would have to say that at its best quality input, application and finish it is impossible to tell the difference. *My eyes are older but some of the younger dudes/dudettes here cannot see any difference.
Any digital file note properly processed stands out like a sore thumb, but then so too does a poorly printed traditional print.

Hi Bob,
do you think you can pick a Lambda print from a line up? LightJet prints have always had a certain look, does this new material and process have a particular visual signature?

Thanks, Matt.

 

[Harry Lime]

Or the mom down the street just turned photographer with the new D100 in her hands charging $25 for a session and all the images you want. The list goes one.

Digital has created a world where now anyone and everyone is a supposed fine art photographer but without their beloved Photoshop they would be noting more than a hack at best. Ask many of those guys what a light meter is, what 2 to 1 light ratio is. Most will reply with, “who cares I can Photoshop the effect I want”.

Don't get me started...





HL

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

It's remarkable to watch. What's art? Well, you decide! Art has no rules, art is an expression. The tools can be whatever the artist deems appropriate, or even what they can afford. It's the result of passion and urge to either document a moment, or to express a feeling.
Inkjet neg or film neg? In the end, viewing the final print - what difference does it make? Really? No, really? Just because this discussion takes place in an internet forum that promotes traditional photography doesn't mean that the 'definition' of art changes. What you as an individual think is good art is just that - individual. Someone 'on the dark side' might think a traditional print is crap, and vice versa of course. What we should strive for is always to appreciate good art, no matter how it came about. If you're passionate about traditional photography, like I am, then at least respect the work of other artists, and judge their work based on the final print. If you still don't like it, it should be for artistic reasons, not whether it was made in a darkroom or on a computer.

My two cents. I still think what Ilford is doing is great. This new paper will help assure the existance of them as a company, and that will directly, or indirectly benefit any traditional photographer.

- Thom

 

[sanderx1]

What has the opinion of collectors got to do with photography? What kind of a photographer would allow the opinion of a collector to influence what they produced?

The sellout kind ;-)

 

[kjsphoto]

It is apparent that neither of you sell your work for a living by your comments and most likely not maybe not for a hobby either but I could be completely wrong. But as usual you put in your two cents without knowing what I am even talking about. Collectors of or art (Painting, Photographs, Drawings, etc.. ) want to know how the artwork was created, as to many they value a hand done piece of art more than one that has digital involvement in any point of the creation game. Digital = mass production, by hand without any computer involvement = uniqueness which = value as the artist is involved form start to finish using his/her (political correctness) OWN (keyword OWN, not a computer program) skill and mastery of the craft with every piece of art he or she creates. If it is a painting then there is only one unless it is a reproduction, which is exactly what digital art is. A perfect reproduction every single time.

Now watch you will start seeing these digital nitwits start making each and every image slightly different with there new special Photoshop filter called, “make it look like film and like it was done by hand so we can continue to lie and deceive the public filter.”

Oh, by the way you digital users do not work in digital darkrooms, again more lies and deceit to make people that you are doing what us traditional artist do. You work in the light on a computer called a workstation using a digital workflow to output your work to inkjet or a digital file to upload to print at a lab OR make a digital neg to try and fabricate a real print by using a digital print called a Hybrid print or Digital Scan from Film Negative to output medium. Fill in the blank.

If you really want to be accepted by everyone then call your work what it is and I bet you will see the hostility go away. If I saw digital ARTIST ( for the sake of argument ) call the work what it rally was then there would be no problems as you are telling the truth and not blatant lying by making the buyers think they are buying something they are not..

Sure, to many Ilford may be doing a great thing, but to others they are not as they are making it even easier for the unethical to remain unethical by now really being deceitful to the person buying his or her art. If people were honest then yes this new paper is a wonderful thing to have but unfortunately it will just make it even easier to lie about what you produce therefore devaluing the work of the ones that do it for real without computer assistance.

 

[livemoa]

Kevin, by saying "us traditional artists" what do you mean? Is there some sort of rule that says unless you produce work that looks like an Ansel Adams clone you are not a traditional artist? Well, all these years working on my art, exhibiting, selling my work to private and public collections and getting it in art journals and I am a fraud because, with few exceptions, most of the people bought my work not caring what it was printed on, how I took it or if I used the blood of a dead cat to produce it. They bought because they liked it, or it moved them. I had better give up now and ask these people to get rid of my fraudulent work.

And what makes traditional? Will you allow RC prints or do they have to be fibre, or how about contact only.

Heck, lets get real serious, salt paper and glass plate only, but then photography is not traditional compared to painting, then its oils only, no hang on, there was something before that, maybe egg tempura only, or ochre. Get my point?

Art is art is art.

 

[kjsphoto]

Did you even read what I wrote? Apparently you didn’t as I clearly stated what I am talking about clearly and precisely above.

Since you didn’t read what I wrote I will say it again and again and again!

Traditional is anything created without the aid or use of a computer from start to finish period. If you use a computer it is called Digital Art. So no, art is not art.

And this has nothing to do with AA or anyone else.

 

[livemoa]

Traditional is anything created without the aid or use of a computer from start to finish period. If you use a computer it is called Digital Art. So no, art is not art.

Wow, such narrow, narrow vision. Something created in a computer can not be art? Thats as ridiculous as saying a photograph can not be art.

I will keep my mind open to new ideas, you just go ahead and keep yours closed now.

 

[kjsphoto]

Narrow-minded? What are you talking about? Again it appears you cannot read or refused to read so let me post it for you one more time!

Traditional is anything created without the aid or use of a computer from start to finish period. If you use a computer it is called Digital Art. So no, art is not art.

READ WHAT I WROTE!

If you use a computer it is called Digital Art.

Computer = Digital Art not Traditional Art.

So no, ART IS NOT ART! They are completely different. One is digital done with a computer and a program and the other is Traditional done WITHOUT the AID of a computer! One is traditional ART the other Digital AKA reproduction art.

You can try to classify them both as the same but they are not. That is like saying a oil painting and a digital painting are the same. They are not. One was done with mastery of a skill, the other was done with filters and Photoshop using a computer. Give the digital painter a brush and a canvas and I will bet they wont have a clue what to do with it let alone figure out how to paint something for REAL in a non virtual world!

Step back and look at the whole picture, which unfortunately it seems you and other just cannot or refuse to do. Truly sad as it is this line of thinking that will do away with real traditional art and the loss of human perfection through the mastery of skills that will be forgotten..

 

[livemoa]

Narrow-minded? What are you talking about? Again it appears you cannot read or refused to read so let me post it for you one more time!



READ WHAT I WROTE!

If you use a computer it is called Digital Art.

Computer = Digital Art not Traditional Art.

So no, ART IS NOT ART! They are completely different. One is digital done with a computer and a program and the other is Traditional done WITHOUT the AID of a computer! One is traidiotnal ART the other Digital AKA reproduction art.

Well, obviously you have a view, thankfully mine is different. Keep selling your "traditional" pretty pictures. I will keep doing the work that drives me and will use what best represents my vision.

Bye, nice talking with you.

 

[JBrunner]

Somewhere back you will see that I posted that you could create art with a computer, that an artist can create art with anything at his/her disposal. Oils are oils, and watercolors are watercolors. So why aren't digital prints, digital prints?

There are people that think that the medium of the work is important, and that traditional photography, ie film originated and printed from the negative in a wet printing process by hand, is its own medium, and images that result from a digital or film/digital hybryd process are a different medium. Once again, if this were not true, APUG would not exist. Your reading these words at this wonderful website, dedicated to traditional analog photographic processes, proves it beyond any reasonable doubt.

That being the case, would it not be proper to reserve the term "traditional" for the traditional film/negative wet silver processes? We certainly have no problems calling alternative proccess by name, nor do those who work with it. Why is there a problem with "digital proccess"? It seems the problem doesn't lie with those of us who use traditional or alternative processes. I hereby propose the term "digital process" as a blanket term for work that involves computers, in the way that "alternative process" encompasses cyanotypes, pt/pd, etc. processes. See how easy that was? The subsections are like any other process, for example "digital silver gelatin " instead of "platinum contact print" and "hybryd inkjet print" instead of "traditional silver gelatin" If something that simple and honest is a problem, well it shouldn't be, and shame on those that would misrepresent their work. Are you ashamed of your methods? If not, whats the problem?

 

[kjsphoto]

Bye, Nice talking to you? No it wasn’t nice talking with your condescending attitude. And thank you very much; I will keep selling my TRADITIONAL images as long as the materials are available, as I want to remain TRUE to myself and to my buyers!

So what are you exactly saying? Are you saying that you would misrepresent to your buyers so you can best represent your visions even if that meant telling someone that you had a traditional print even though a computer was involved in some stage of the game?

Well, obviously you have a view, thankfully mine is different.

You are right and my view is to be as HONEST to anyone and everyone that buys my work. If I sold a digital print I would call it a digital print. If I used a computer I would say I used a computer to make, create or manipulate the print. If I sold a print printed on ink I would say this is an Epson Ultrachrome Inkjet Print and not falsify it by saying this is a fill in the blank.

So yes I can see our views are completely different and I will stick with mine.

 

[kjsphoto]

It seems the problem doesn't lie with those who use traditional or alternative processes.

Exactly!

 

[livemoa]

OK, so I just had an interesting conversation over lunch with some friends.

I posed a question which went something along the following lines "When you view an art work are you interested or concerned with how it is done. Do you care if it is oil on canvass, acrylic on card, dye coupler or silver gelatin." The consensus (and this is from people who are not artists but do know about and collect art) was no. not really. The dissenting opinion from one person was that she is interested in technique and might enquire. I then asked if they would be affected in their purchase. None would not buy work based on the medium/process if the work appealed. This being Hong Kong one said size would be the biggest issue....

As to calling something traditional and codifying it, I think we have problems. To some, and staying with photography here, silver gelatin is not traditional as it is still in common use. Traditional would be salt prints, albumin, cyanotypes et al. Others would say silver gelatin is a traditional practice, but only fibre as RC is to recent to be included.

Kevin, we won't agree, you think I am condescending, I think you are too wrapped up in process. As to me lying to people who buy my work, no I would not. I would be happy to talk with them about the entire process involved in my work. In my experience, as I stated before, the only people who seem to care about the medium are curators and other photographers.

And Kevin I did enjoy your point of view, but I think this conversation has gone far enough in an online state. If you are in Hong Kong (or Wellington New Zealand in early December) I would be happy to sit down and talk with you about my work. Who knows, we might find something we agree on.

 

[JBrunner]

If you look, for example, in a Sotheby's catalog, or even in B&W magazine you will see the work clearly described as what it is- "silver gelatin contact print" or "oil on canvas"

Clearly it does matter.

Those that ignore this, and try to pass machine made prints as the same result as a photographer in his darkroom, will do themselves, and all of our art and craft, and especially those who use digital and hybrid methods honestly in their art and craft, harm in the end.

I hope at least this paper has printing on the reverse, so it can readily be identified. Simon, I will use it, for sure, but I won't be misrepresenting the prints I create with it.

 

[livemoa]

If you look, for example, in a Sotheby's catalog, or even in B&W magazine you will see the work clearly described as what it is- "silver gelatin contact print" or "oil on canvas"

Clearly it does matter.

Yes, to some people, especially museums and some collectors. It is also "tradition" for auctions to describe the medium. But then my experience as far as sales go is limited mainly to Australasia and Asia. As I said, the curators want to know, mostly the private collectors don't seem to care.

Is that good or bad? Don't know. Me, when I buy a work, or swap for one, I do it on the "finished product". I have a wide range of work in my collection and to an item I don't much care what they are made of or how they were done (though my wife did draw the line at the work I wanted that included dead rats). I judge each one on its own merits. A photograph that was digitally altered is, to me no less an art work than an Edward Weston Azo print (of which I have none of unfortunately).

And as I posted earlier, when I use this wonderful sounding paper I will no doubt call it a silver gelatin light jet.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Collecting Art

Kevin,

I used to work at The Minneapolis Institute of Arts. The curator of photography, the man who runs one of the best photography collections in the nation, accepts inkjet prints as art. Yes, they consider inkjet prints in the collection.

It strikes me as odd that you just can't see beyond your own vision. I understand that you're upset that digital may not be as pure a form of art as an analog capture, and as fanatic as I am of the traditional silver based photography, I still have to accept that digital is storming into the lives of people. If you disclose the way you make your prints, I know many good photographers who produce digital images, sell their prints as art, and there's no problem making a living for them. Look at Jim Brandenburg, look at Alec Soth. Collectible artwork created digitally. I'm sure some collectors bought these photographers' work, knowing they are printed digitally, and live happily everafter. Why is it so hard to accept?

If I was to choose between a hand made print by a master printer, and one that was created digitally, I would pick the hand made print. I like craftsmanship, tangible work. A computer file actually doesn't *physically* exist. It's an electronic charge on a data carrier medium. That to me robs the final result of some soul and I like the way a traditional print looks, if it's done right. On the flip side of that coin, if I had enough money to be a collector, if I was impressed enough by the end results, and I knew the artist had created the photograph on a digital camera, or on film and scanned it, then printed it on Ilford fiber paper via digital exposure, I would have no problem with that. To me, it really is the end result that matters. The process of how the image was made will be a very careful one either way. The digital domain does require a lot of work before the output can be successful, as does the traditional domain. Crap will be crap, and great photography will always be great photography. Don't lose sight of that, because that's how most people view art. Collectors - well read comment above.

- Thom

It is apparent that neither of you sell your work for a living by your comments and most likely not maybe not for a hobby either but I could be completely wrong. But as usual you put in your two cents without knowing what I am even talking about. Collectors of or art (Painting, Photographs, Drawings, etc.. ) want to know how the artwork was created, as to many they value a hand done piece of art more than one that has digital involvement in any point of the creation game. Digital = mass production, by hand without any computer involvement = uniqueness which = value as the artist is involved form start to finish using his/her (political correctness) OWN (keyword OWN, not a computer program) skill and mastery of the craft with every piece of art he or she creates. If it is a painting then there is only one unless it is a reproduction, which is exactly what digital art is. A perfect reproduction every single time.

Now watch you will start seeing these digital nitwits start making each and every image slightly different with there new special Photoshop filter called, “make it look like film and like it was done by hand so we can continue to lie and deceive the public filter.”

Oh, by the way you digital users do not work in digital darkrooms, again more lies and deceit to make people that you are doing what us traditional artist do. You work in the light on a computer called a workstation using a digital workflow to output your work to inkjet or a digital file to upload to print at a lab OR make a digital neg to try and fabricate a real print by using a digital print called a Hybrid print or Digital Scan from Film Negative to output medium. Fill in the blank.

If you really want to be accepted by everyone then call your work what it is and I bet you will see the hostility go away. If I saw digital ARTIST ( for the sake of argument ) call the work what it rally was then there would be no problems as you are telling the truth and not blatant lying by making the buyers think they are buying something they are not..

Sure, to many Ilford may be doing a great thing, but to others they are not as they are making it even easier for the unethical to remain unethical by now really being deceitful to the person buying his or her art. If people were honest then yes this new paper is a wonderful thing to have but unfortunately it will just make it even easier to lie about what you produce therefore devaluing the work of the ones that do it for real without computer assistance.

 

[Bob Carnie]

Kevin
In Toronto there are over 15 labs using this digital technology, I worked in five of them and in each and every case the operators of these devices are the best analoque printers that each lab has. In fact the accumulated real work experience in photographic printing is daunting. To call these people digital nitwits is showing a critical flaw in your arguments. In fact I am one of those nitwits and I can assure your there is not too much that I havent done in the darkroom.
Before digital, these labs did photcomp, Donald Miller on this site would be someone who has done this and knows what I mean. Each main function of PS was developed by using traditional methods, sensitometry and maskmaking techniques and applying them to a digital format.
To work in one of these Labs in the Repro Depts one had to have a very, very strong photographic background and believe me each person did have to push the envelope to survive and make the salarys offered back then.
Just for note, 1988 the best operators were taking home 75K to 120k per year.
These folks are the nitwits of today you speak of , myself included, Some of us shoot film , process it ourselves, print traditionally and digitally and as well sell our work.
Lurking on this forum is a Lambda operator from Toronto who I have personally known *a nitwit* who I think could match technically any one of us on this forum, yourself inculded. His knowlege goes back 30 years and when I worked with him, he was the master printer in Toronto's largest lab which at that time had over 220 employees and over 30 darkrooms producing work for the best photographers in the area.
Times have changed , He now is in charge of the same labs printing department and works the Lambda but the workflow has changed . I think there is a big misconception being argued here and I feel a bit pissed on when being called a nitwit and deceitful with a product that I am using.
You may have a lot of good points in your argument but name calling and outright wording that those of us who use this product are decietful should stop.

It is apparent that neither of you sell your work for a living by your comments and most likely not maybe not for a hobby either but I could be completely wrong. But as usual you put in your two cents without knowing what I am even talking about. Collectors of or art (Painting, Photographs, Drawings, etc.. ) want to know how the artwork was created, as to many they value a hand done piece of art more than one that has digital involvement in any point of the creation game. Digital = mass production, by hand without any computer involvement = uniqueness which = value as the artist is involved form start to finish using his/her (political correctness) OWN (keyword OWN, not a computer program) skill and mastery of the craft with every piece of art he or she creates. If it is a painting then there is only one unless it is a reproduction, which is exactly what digital art is. A perfect reproduction every single time.

Now watch you will start seeing these digital nitwits start making each and every image slightly different with there new special Photoshop filter called, “make it look like film and like it was done by hand so we can continue to lie and deceive the public filter.”

Oh, by the way you digital users do not work in digital darkrooms, again more lies and deceit to make people that you are doing what us traditional artist do. You work in the light on a computer called a workstation using a digital workflow to output your work to inkjet or a digital file to upload to print at a lab OR make a digital neg to try and fabricate a real print by using a digital print called a Hybrid print or Digital Scan from Film Negative to output medium. Fill in the blank.

If you really want to be accepted by everyone then call your work what it is and I bet you will see the hostility go away. If I saw digital ARTIST ( for the sake of argument ) call the work what it rally was then there would be no problems as you are telling the truth and not blatant lying by making the buyers think they are buying something they are not..

Sure, to many Ilford may be doing a great thing, but to others they are not as they are making it even easier for the unethical to remain unethical by now really being deceitful to the person buying his or her art. If people were honest then yes this new paper is a wonderful thing to have but unfortunately it will just make it even easier to lie about what you produce therefore devaluing the work of the ones that do it for real without computer assistance.

 

[mark]

:rolleyes: I can see this thread is going somewhere.

 

[clay]

I still maintain that if it is printed on silver gelatin paper it can legitimately be called a silver gelatin print. If you are unable to tell the difference between a print with a digital provenance and one with a film provenance, then insisting that people attest to the 'purity' of an image's heritage is about as futile as trying to piss up a rope.

 

[removed account4]

if an image created with film and camera are
the only things considered a traditional print
... silver or alt-process --
what about images created without a camera negative printed on photo paper by enlargement or by contact ... ?

 

[Harry Lime]

kjsphoto Oh, by the way you digital users do not work in digital darkrooms, again more lies and deceit to make people that you are doing what us traditional artist do. You work in the light on a computer called a workstation using a digital workflow to output your work to inkjet or a digital file to upload to print at a lab OR make a digital neg to try and fabricate a real print by using a digital print called a Hybrid print or Digital Scan from Film Negative to output medium. Fill in the blank.

Actually we do work in a dark room. Not pitch black, but certainly dark and for the most part without windows . The color temperature of any lamps in the room should be calibrated and furniture and wall paint is kept neutral. In my last office the walls were painted a cheery shade of grey chart grey.

HL