Sally Mann switches to digital from 8x10.

[Cholentpot]

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.

Sooo...is cost the factor here? Did she get rid of the dark room?

Look, if she wanted to go digital that's fine. Nothing wrong with it, but waking up in 2026 and saying 'Huh, this is expensive now' sounds kind of dimwitted. Oh really, you just figured it out? Welcome to earth.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Sooo...is cost the factor here? Did she get rid of the dark room?

Look, if she wanted to go digital that's fine. Nothing wrong with it, but waking up in 2026 and saying 'Huh, this is expensive now' sounds kind of dimwitted. Oh really, you just figured it out? Welcome to earth.

It really hit home for me soon after I retired (last June), and got my first pension cheque.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Sooo...is cost the factor here? Did she get rid of the dark room?

Look, if she wanted to go digital that's fine. Nothing wrong with it, but waking up in 2026 and saying 'Huh, this is expensive now' sounds kind of dimwitted. Oh really, you just figured it out? Welcome to earth.

Well, she's had major grants before that helped cover those costs. And she has good gallery sales figures to help subsidize it too. I don't know why she suddenly realized it was expensive, since it has been getting more expensive for a decade now.

 

[Chan Tran]

She said $12 for a shot of 8x10 it seems cheap to me.

 

[Pieter12]

Well, she's had major grants before that helped cover those costs. And she has good gallery sales figures to help subsidize it too. I don't know why she suddenly realized it was expensive, since it has been getting more expensive for a decade now.

Grants may not be as plentiful as in the past. And with the recent furor over her work displayed in Texas, it could be the sales are not doing well either. Who knows? Maybe she has major medical bills--her husband has MS and has not been able to work for years now. Maybe all the chemistry she has been using for collodion has finally caught up to her. Or maybe she has just now found that she can use some of her 8x10 lenses with a digital rig and likes the look. It does not have to be the same, a new stage now.

 

[Cholentpot]

It really hit home for me soon after I retired (last June), and got my first pension cheque.

Ain't getting no pension when I'm done. In fact I don't think anyone in my generation is getting a pension of any sort. Enjoy it. I'll be working until I'm dead.

Well, she's had major grants before that helped cover those costs. And she has good gallery sales figures to help subsidize it too. I don't know why she suddenly realized it was expensive, since it has been getting more expensive for a decade now.

Do you think she ever paid attention to the costs or just YOLOed it? She reminds me of a lot of people I know, they never had to fill a tank of gas since 1997. One day they're forced to fill up and they have a shell shocked look on their face. $3.25 a gallon? And then I inform them it was closer to $6 at some point. Some people just float on a different plane of existence.

Film is expensive, but so are fountain pens, top of the line digital cameras and lenses, guitars and every other hobby or art making tool. Taking digital photos in the long run isn't that much cheaper if you factor in programs, computers, storage, upgrades etc...

 

[bjorke]

She's been using digital one way or another for some time, an old friend of mine (and dedicated film shooter) has helped her with digital printing, he got an appreciative call-out in her most-recent book.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Ain't getting no pension when I'm done. In fact I don't think anyone in my generation is getting a pension of any sort. Enjoy it. I'll be working until I'm dead.



Do you think she ever paid attention to the costs or just YOLOed it? She reminds me of a lot of people I know, they never had to fill a tank of gas since 1997. One day they're forced to fill up and they have a shell shocked look on their face. $3.25 a gallon? And then I inform them it was closer to $6 at some point. Some people just float on a different plane of existence.

Film is expensive, but so are fountain pens, top of the line digital cameras and lenses, guitars and every other hobby or art making tool. Taking digital photos in the long run isn't that much cheaper if you factor in programs, computers, storage, upgrades etc...

Many get pensions, including Gen Zeds, who are entering fields such as education, nursing, etc.

 

[Milpool]

Correctamundo. Unless you’re a politician.

Ain't getting no pension when I'm done. In fact I don't think anyone in my generation is getting a pension of any sort. Enjoy it. I'll be working until I'm dead.

 

[MattKing]

Many get pensions, including Gen Zeds, who are entering fields such as education, nursing, etc.

Plus of course the public pensions that all Canadians pay into if they are employed or have self employed income.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Plus of course the public pensions that all Canadians pay into if they are employed or have self employed income.

Once those kick in, maybe I'll be able to buy some 8x10 film heh heh heh

 

[warden]

Do you think she ever paid attention to the costs or just YOLOed it?

In her recent book she shared pics of receipts: she tracked every penny as a younger artist, and I imagine those habits are still present today.

 

[Peter Schrager]

Sometimes it's just healthy to switch off and do something else. She also used digital for a book she published on a famous artist friend of hers
A camera is a tool. A box with a lens or a pinhole..

 

[Cholentpot]

In her recent book she shared pics of receipts: she tracked every penny as a younger artist, and I imagine those habits are still present today.

Ok, interesting. Another piece of the puzzle falls into place.

 

[Pieter12]

Puzzle?

 

[Cholentpot]

Puzzle?

The puzzle that is Sally Mann

 

[Pieter12]

The puzzle that is Sally Mann

She seems no more a puzzle than anyone else. Maybe even less so. Quite forthright.

 

[NortheastPhotographic]

I wonder how many artists are still doing even BW darkroom prints. I hate to admit that I've been scanning and printing my large format work with a Canon Pro-1100. The prints are actually pretty marvelous. I have a beautiful 8x10 Kienzle enlarger with an LED head but no time to set up a darkroom and bang out prints.

 

[Peter Schrager]

I wonder how many artists are still doing even BW darkroom prints. I hate to admit that I've been scanning and printing my large format work with a Canon Pro-1100. The prints are actually pretty marvelous. I have a beautiful 8x10 Kienzle enlarger with an LED head but no time to set up a darkroom and bang out prints.

actually there is quite a resurgence of community darkrooms all over the world
Even in your state there is a coop in Portland that does shows and I believe they also have a darkroom
Even I have admit I've been fooled by digital prints but still prefer silver gelatin..LOL

 

[logan2z]

I wonder how many artists are still doing even BW darkroom prints.

I was speaking to a well-known gallerist/curator the other day and she told me she was recently speaking to an equally well-known photobook publisher and the both agreed that 'the days of the $2000 inkjet print are over'. Based on their opinions, at least, collectors are starting to reject expensive inkjet prints in favor of analog prints (silver gelatin, Pt/Pd, etc.). I wonder if that might drive artists back into the darkroom.

 

[Don_ih]

She seems no more a puzzle than anyone else.

True. There's no puzzle presented in the article. She said it was too expensive. She's also using an old lens mounted on the digital camera because of the "glow" it gives (probably uncoated). She's also doing the current project in colour - something she may or may not want to do herself in a darkroom. Some things are about colour.

People think that someone like her is a certain way, of a certain mindset, and will never change. All those assumptions are usually wrong.

 

[Disappointed_Horse]

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.

I see comments like this posted fairly often, but I'm not sure I agree. Have you seen the prices of digital cameras lately? Just one example that comes to mind, the Ricoh GRIII came out in, I believe, 2018 at a price of $900, and the new GRIV came out last year at a price of $1,500. That's a 67% price increase in seven years.

With the passing of the DSLR and the move to mirrorless it's hard to even find a new enthusiast level digital camera for less than $1,000. . Another example, [not checking prices so don't hold me to exact figures] the entry level Nikon DSLRs (D40 series and onward) used to go for around $600 or so with the kit lens. The Z50II is about $1,100 with the kit lens, which is about 80% more than the entry level DSLRs. (I know I should be taking inflation into account; again, don't hold me to exact figures.) I don't think even slide film has increase that much over the same time period.

Of course, sales of digital cameras are only a small fraction of what they were at their peak about 10–15 years ago.

My point is that I don't think we're seeing an exodus away from film and towards digital. I think what we're seeing is an exodus away from photography, or at least from dedicated cameras. I think everyone is feeling the pinch of inflation, stagnant wages, and rising cost of living. And since it seems a smartphone is required for day-to-day life in the 2020s, most people are just using their phones as cameras.

 

[Cholentpot]

I see comments like this posted fairly often, but I'm not sure I agree. Have you seen the prices of digital cameras lately? Just one example that comes to mind, the Ricoh GRIII came out in, I believe, 2018 at a price of $900, and the new GRIV came out last year at a price of $1,500. That's a 67% price increase in seven years.

With the passing of the DSLR and the move to mirrorless it's hard to even find a new enthusiast level digital camera for less than $1,000. . Another example, [not checking prices so don't hold me to exact figures] the entry level Nikon DSLRs (D40 series and onward) used to go for around $600 or so with the kit lens. The Z50II is about $1,100 with the kit lens, which is about 80% more than the entry level DSLRs. (I know I should be taking inflation into account; again, don't hold me to exact figures.) I don't think even slide film has increase that much over the same time period.

Of course, sales of digital cameras are only a small fraction of what they were at their peak about 10–15 years ago.

My point is that I don't think we're seeing an exodus away from film and towards digital. I think what we're seeing is an exodus away from photography, or at least from dedicated cameras. I think everyone is feeling the pinch of inflation, stagnant wages, and rising cost of living. And since it seems a smartphone is required for day-to-day life in the 2020s, most people are just using their phones as cameras.

As someone who earns a little money from digital photography, I've never bought a new camera for work and I've never bought the latest one. I get 'em used when all the other people upgrade. Currently I use a 5D4 for work. I have two of them and 6D for backup. They're holding around $800 used which means I should pick up a few more. While I would love me a mirrorless full frame for the dozens of film era lenses that I have, I'm not justifying the scratch to invest in one. Yet.

I was speaking to a well-known gallerist/curator the other day and she told me she was recently speaking to an equally well-known photobook publisher and the both agreed that 'the days of the $2000 inkjet print are over'. Based on their opinions, at least, collectors are starting to reject expensive inkjet prints in favor of analog prints (silver gelatin, Pt/Pd, etc.). I wonder if that might drive artists back into the darkroom.

I have all the equipment and materials. I don't have the space. Darkroom prints are incredible. I would never pay $2k for any print let alone an inkjet. But then again, there are people that will. I have photos that will at some point be worth it to someone only because of the subject matter and I'm one of the few that has had access and good high definition photos of the subjects. I hope.

I've done on own prints in the past and would dearly love to do it again. I guess I'm banking all my b&w negatives for the day I can print again.

 

[Cholentpot]

True. There's no puzzle presented in the article. She said it was too expensive. She's also using an old lens mounted on the digital camera because of the "glow" it gives (probably uncoated). She's also doing the current project in colour - something she may or may not want to do herself in a darkroom. Some things are about colour.

People think that someone like her is a certain way, of a certain mindset, and will never change. All those assumptions are usually wrong.

The whole art world in general is a puzzle to me. I'm self educated in this stuff and until this day would be considered 'outsider' I was never informed what makes something great or bad. It's all a mystery to me.

 

[Don_ih]

The whole art world in general is a puzzle to me. I'm self educated in this stuff and until this day would be considered 'outsider' I was never informed what makes something great or bad. It's all a mystery to me.

The art world may or may not coincide with the way successful artists think or with what they believe. The art world is primarily marketing but artists themselves are usually about creating - they channel a drive that brings art into being. But that it's even called "art" is sometimes more the result of marketing than anything the artist believes or says. Ontologically, it's a mess.