Sally Mann switches to digital from 8x10.

[Alan Edward Klein]

Getting old isn't fun.

Sally Mann explains why, aged 74, she has finally switched from 10x8in sheet film to using a digital camera

After decades of working with sheets of black-and-white film, the large-format photographer recently experienced a 'Wizard of Oz' moment.

www.digitalcameraworld.com

 

[Pieter12]

Getting old isn't fun.

I don't think that's why she has adopted digital. It sounds like she is enjoying it more.

 

[Richard Man]

$12/sheet + development. Not for the faint of heart.

And color is $20+/sheet

 

[Pioneer]

I don't think it is going to get any cheaper with the price of silver climbing to the moon. I am down to my last couple of boxes of 8x10. When they are finished I may set up my Beseler enlarger again and go back to 4x5 instead of contact printing 8x10.

 

[Cholentpot]

I think it might have to do with being 74 years old possibly. But never ask a man his salary and a woman her age.

I don't think the cost of film and development bothers a successful artist all that much.

 

[Taylor K Nankervis]

I don't think the cost of film and development bothers a successful artist all that much.

It is actually, considerably.
Cost and processing of film is very significantly higher than it was e.g. 5 years ago ($4.00 to process E6 120 film; now $18). Wages don't keep in line with increases in all other expenses, quite beside film etc.! Expenses across the board in analogue practice are giving rise to a migration away from film; not unforeseen by many of us in the industry, and the exodus is picking up each year.

 

[Pieter12]

I think it might have to do with being 74 years old possibly. But never ask a man his salary and a woman her age.

I don't think the cost of film and development bothers a successful artist all that much.

If you read her latest book, Art Work, you realize how much film she burns through. So the expense is a consideration when compared to digital. I wonder if she is using a digital tech camera to still have some access to movements.

 

[thinkbrown]

Honestly, these days if you're not shooting film for the love of the process, it's hard to justify not shooting digital. I've made the comment before a number of times: the reason I shoot film is for what happens after the shot. I love the chemistry, I love the zen, and I love working in the darkroom.

If I lived in a world where I couldn't process and print my photos at home, I'd 100% be shooting a digital workflow.

 

[Paul Howell]

At 76 I can relate to how age impact how someone understands his or her work. From little is reported seems that the cost of 8X10 married with something new, old lens with a digital body provides a new perceptive.

 

[MattKing]

But never ask a man his salary and a woman her age.

More likely to be meaningful to people of Sally Mann's age then what I understand your age to be @Cholentpot .

 

[Peter Schrager]

I think it might have to do with being 74 years old possibly. But never ask a man his salary and a woman her age.

I don't think the cost of film and development bothers a successful artist all that much.

actually I met Sally recently and gave her some of my homemade POP paper
here's what she said
"do you need to tone with gold?"
I.E. she likes getting things done on the cheap!!!

 

[Peter Schrager]

If you read her latest book, Art Work, you realize how much film she burns through. So the expense is a consideration when compared to digital. I wonder if she is using a digital tech camera to still have some access to movements.

read the article..she uses a small D camera with an old lens

 

[Cholentpot]

It is actually, considerably.
Cost and processing of film is very significantly higher than it was e.g. 5 years ago ($4.00 to process E6 120 film; now $18). Wages don't keep in line with increases in all other expenses, quite beside film etc.! Expenses across the board in analogue practice are giving rise to a migration away from film; not unforeseen by many of us in the industry, and the exodus is picking up each year.

You can move from 8x10 to 4x5 or even roll film. Ditching film entirely seems like it was more a bother than a cost issue.

If you read her latest book, Art Work, you realize how much film she burns through. So the expense is a consideration when compared to digital. I wonder if she is using a digital tech camera to still have some access to movements.

If film was integral to her art it wouldn't matter. Artists find a way. Find a more affordable format. Have a client pay for the film when commissioning work. It's just odd to me that someone who shot film all their life would go from the largest common format to kicking the whole thing to the curb because 'teehee it's suddenly expensive lol' Us poors figure out a way to make our art with film. Would I love to shoot everything on 8x10? Sure. Do I compromise so I can still shoot film? Of course.

actually I met Sally recently and gave her some of my homemade POP paper
here's what she said
"do you need to tone with gold?"
I.E. she likes getting things done on the cheap!!!

Then why shoot 8x10 all these years? Shooting on the cheap is rolling your own 120 from unknown dated 70mm stock, developing and scanning at home. Printing on who knows from where paper. Eventually you nail the right combo.

I can and do shoot 4x5 on the cheap. Xray film cut down from 8x10 sheets. It works and looks nice. Does sally process her own film or it's shoot a few boxes and send off to a lab for develop and scans? I mean that is the old school way of doing it for a pro.

It just seems an odd jump to me going from 8x10 to a digital camera. I mean good for her for embracing the tech 20 years in.

 

[Pieter12]

read the article..she uses a small D camera with an old lens

It only says a digital camera, that covers a lot of types and formats.

 

[Taylor K Nankervis]

You can move from 8x10 to 4x5 or even roll film. Ditching film entirely seems like it was more a bother than a cost issue.

That will not improve or ease economy, either of scale or cost (consumption). All of the formats are expensive, and the expense rises exponentially with consumption — especially LF.

 

[Richard Man]

Geez, Clyde Butcher did the same a few years ago, due to health reason.

Artists do not make that much money. Mary Ellen Mark had to shoot milk commercials so she could do her projects.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Honestly, these days if you're not shooting film for the love of the process, it's hard to justify not shooting digital. I've made the comment before a number of times: the reason I shoot film is for what happens after the shot. I love the chemistry, I love the zen, and I love working in the darkroom.

If I lived in a world where I couldn't process and print my photos at home, I'd 100% be shooting a digital workflow.

I don;lt have a darkroom but still enjoy the process of using film. The process of shooting is interesting, contemplative, and spiritual. But I also shoot digital when I'm on vacation or for family shots of get-togethers.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

When you get older, you begin to want to simplify. Getting rid of stuff frees the mind and spirit. It's like losing twenty pounds. You feel lighter. Downsizing is nice.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

You can move from 8x10 to 4x5 or even roll film. Ditching film entirely seems like it was more a bother than a cost issue.



If film was integral to her art it wouldn't matter. Artists find a way. Find a more affordable format. Have a client pay for the film when commissioning work. It's just odd to me that someone who shot film all their life would go from the largest common format to kicking the whole thing to the curb because 'teehee it's suddenly expensive lol' Us poors figure out a way to make our art with film. Would I love to shoot everything on 8x10? Sure. Do I compromise so I can still shoot film? Of course.



Then why shoot 8x10 all these years? Shooting on the cheap is rolling your own 120 from unknown dated 70mm stock, developing and scanning at home. Printing on who knows from where paper. Eventually you nail the right combo.

I can and do shoot 4x5 on the cheap. Xray film cut down from 8x10 sheets. It works and looks nice. Does sally process her own film or it's shoot a few boxes and send off to a lab for develop and scans? I mean that is the old school way of doing it for a pro.

It just seems an odd jump to me going from 8x10 to a digital camera. I mean good for her for embracing the tech 20 years in.

Clyde Butcher shot larger than 8x10 often. Because of age, carrying all that film equipment became too much. He now shoots digital with attachments that provide movements. He's also printing now digitally as well as chemically but has a staff that does that for him.

 

[Rayt]

I shoot old buildings like the usual grain silo and decrepit gas station nothing complicated so just use the front rise. With digital and the built in perspective correction I can do what LF can especially for walking around and vacations with family. I no longer feel horrible about a shot I can’t take because the LF gear is at home. I haven’t gone on a solo photo trip in years and dread those days are behind me. The last time was to NM with a 5x7 4 years ago.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Old age is a big part of it, but lets not forget the price, too. I shot two sheets of 8x10 HP5 yesterday. When I release the shutter, I hear the little voice in my head say, $13... click.... "another $13...
Before I give up large format, I'll give up 8x10...then 4x5 (that's $4 sheet now!), and focus on medium format more. I'll also have the challenge of off-loading gear, too. That said, I'll keep doing it for as long as my health and pocket book allows...
I'll be curious to see how a digital workflow will influence Sally's work.
And finally, we need to be grateful that we have the digital option for old age.

 

[sir_pece]

At least for myself, I can say that if I were to shoot in 6x9 format, it would substantially influence my decision on whether it is worth shooting a particular subject or not. Such a constraint is sometimes useful, but sometimes distracting. In this case, I think it would negatively affect the creative aspect of my photography.

However, I still have the option of switching to, say, 6x4.5 format, or 35 mm in extreme case. If I decided to switch to digital media (and immediately spend around $6,000 on new equipment), the reason for this would undoubtedly not be purely economic. I think the same is true in the case of Sally Mann.

 

[Cholentpot]

That will not improve or ease economy, either of scale or cost (consumption). All of the formats are expensive, and the expense rises exponentially with consumption — especially LF.

Shooting 120 or 35mm is substantially cheaper than 8x10. I'm not sure what you're driving at.

Clyde Butcher shot larger than 8x10 often. Because of age, carrying all that film equipment became too much. He now shoots digital with attachments that provide movements. He's also printing now digitally as well as chemically but has a staff that does that for him.

Old age is a big part of it, but lets not forget the price, too. I shot two sheets of 8x10 HP5 yesterday. When I release the shutter, I hear the little voice in my head say, $13... click.... "another $13...
Before I give up large format, I'll give up 8x10...then 4x5 (that's $4 sheet now!), and focus on medium format more. I'll also have the challenge of off-loading gear, too. That said, I'll keep doing it for as long as my health and pocket book allows...
I'll be curious to see how a digital workflow will influence Sally's work.
And finally, we need to be grateful that we have the digital option for old age.

So like I said, age is more a factor than anything else. There are a few cameras I'll have to give up pretty soon, my eyes are telling me it's almost time. It's the way it goes. But when I have to give up the XA I'm not going to blame my vision getting a little worse, I'll say it was too expensive or fiddley or something.

 

[loccdor]

With fine films like Acros and others, you can certainly get medium format to look similar to large format of yesteryear's films, in many respects.

However, it won't have the ease-of-use of digital.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

You can move from 8x10 to 4x5 or even roll film. Ditching film entirely seems like it was more a bother than a cost issue.



If film was integral to her art it wouldn't matter. Artists find a way. Find a more affordable format. Have a client pay for the film when commissioning work. It's just odd to me that someone who shot film all their life would go from the largest common format to kicking the whole thing to the curb because 'teehee it's suddenly expensive lol' Us poors figure out a way to make our art with film. Would I love to shoot everything on 8x10? Sure. Do I compromise so I can still shoot film? Of course.



Then why shoot 8x10 all these years? Shooting on the cheap is rolling your own 120 from unknown dated 70mm stock, developing and scanning at home. Printing on who knows from where paper. Eventually you nail the right combo.

I can and do shoot 4x5 on the cheap. Xray film cut down from 8x10 sheets. It works and looks nice. Does sally process her own film or it's shoot a few boxes and send off to a lab for develop and scans? I mean that is the old school way of doing it for a pro.

It just seems an odd jump to me going from 8x10 to a digital camera. I mean good for her for embracing the tech 20 years in.

She has a full darkroom at her farm. She also sometimes does wet plate. So she's fully capable of doing everything wet process that she wants to.