"The Digital Myth" a true story!

Las month, while driving back to Vegas from Photographer's Formulary in Condon Montana. I stopped in Sun Valley Id to visit Thomas D. Magelsen's Gallery, being familiar with his work as he also has a gallery in Vegas.

While viewing the selections on the wall of the gallery with my lower jaw hanging way way down and exhibiting a bit of drool, a young gentleman walked in dressed in the latest fashions suitable for hiking in the great out doors or for sipping a cappuchino latte in the nearby cafe with others like himself, having flown into town via private jet...........

Gliding into the gallery and taking a slow 360 degree turn, he contemplatively rested his hand beneath his chin and knowingly exclaimed...."beautiful, absolutely beautiful....isn't is astounding what is possible now with digital photography!"

The sales manager politely informed him that Thomas D. Mangelsen was a photographer who worked in film and did not feel he could get the quality and beauty from a digital process.........

Could it be the public is so bombarded with digital images that when one views a good analog production, they are astounded by the beauty of the process that they are caught off guard and assume...gotta be digital?


I think so.

www.mangelsen.com

see for yourself

p s it is raining in Vegas today.....that is a good thing.

LOL...I guess everybody is gun shy about talking about anything digital now... I would post my opinion, but I am afraid it would shut down this thread right at the start...

When one exposes , print and present with analogue properly and with commitment , there is nothing that can compare, I can only imagine how nice these photographs are. Jorge don't shy away this is truly analoge at one of its best presentations . and they are alive!!!

Well, you know how people are... comes from the same mentality as "is that a hasselblad?"

Dave Wooten said:

Gliding into the gallery and taking a slow 360 degree turn, he contemplatively rested his hand beneath his chin and knowingly exclaimed...."beautiful, absolutely beautiful....isn't is astounding what is possible now with digital photography!"

Click to expand...

Well, what can one say? You've got real gits anywhere, but maybe more so amongst people who profess to know and buy art. Being contemporary artists, we are quite familiar with this phenomenon. We have developed a special look in the eyes to meet phrases like these. The steel doors of your mind close with a barely audible 'swhoosh' and a pleasant but vacant smile spreads slowly on the face. All a matter of self protection.

What I mean to say is, this phenomenon is not so much a problem of digital vs analog, it's a much broader problem you find in any field of art. Very few of the art clientele have actually educated themselves in the art of seeing with a discerning eye.

Last time I talked to Tom, he declared, it will be a 'cold day in h**L' before he goes digital, I am glad to see him sticking to that position, Tom is a fantastic photographer, and I glad he continues to do what he does so well!

Dave

I believe that James (first name?) Buffet who is in the same lofty league as Mangellsen also uses film exclusively.

Thanks for sharing that, Dave. It made me laugh, a good, clean laugh.

Nate

Satinsnow said:

Last time I talked to Tom, he declared, it will be a 'cold day in h**L' before he goes digital, I am glad to see him sticking to that position, Tom is a fantastic photographer, and I glad he continues to do what he does so well!

Dave

Click to expand...

I know he shoots film, but you're sure he doesn't print LightJet/Lambda/Chromira?

I first encountered his work in Jackson Hole. Great stuff. I didn't know anything about his 'tools' but if they're all analog (or at least all film) so much the better.

David A. Goldfarb said:

I know he shoots film, but you're sure he doesn't print LightJet/Lambda/Chromira?

Click to expand...

David,

It has been about a year, since I talked with Tom in Jackson Hole, I really don't know how he is printing his prints at this time, but at the time I talked with him, he was very strong on the fact, he was not going to buy or use a digital Camera, actaully if you look at his work, the very strongly remind me of Ciba's, but like I said, it has been about a year since we talked in person.

Dave

David A. Goldfarb said:

I know he shoots film, but you're sure he doesn't print LightJet/Lambda/Chromira?

Click to expand...

Could not recall this either...from his web site it states that all prints are either Type-C or Ilfochrome, but it does take a little digging to find out. In today's market who knows, it may make more sense to NOT say what the final output process is.

I haven't seen his work for about two years , but whilst I have no doubts that he does shoot film, I could understand that people might assume otherwise from his prints. To me , his more recent prints, when I last saw them, looked kind of surreal and too glossy. Could have been Ilfochromes on high gloss; could have been LightJets or similar on Ilfochrome paper. Might have been LightJets on high gloss Crystal Archive. Personally I don't much mind what tools he uses but I was somewhat disappointed with his prints after having liked his work some years ago.

I've seen the galleries at Jackson Hole and Las Vegas as well, and wasn't sure. There are a couple of threads on photo.net--not entirely reliable--which have suggested that the C-prints at least are likely LightJets or something along those lines. If he's selling C-prints and shoots slide film, I'd more likely believe that the C-prints I saw were LightJets rather than prints from internegs. Here's one of the relevant threads--

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=008WE1

Interesting. Its kind of like people who believe that cars with ABS stop in a shorter distance, or that cars with traction control are faster than without. Its a common belief, one perpetuated by the businesses trying to sell this stuff. Digital anything - not just cameras, are a product of a different marketing mentality based on manufacturing percieved need for product x. Its detrimental to people who are serious digital image makers and to photographers - neither "camp" has anything to gain frm ignorance among the public, I think. Its just that right now "we" have a little more to lose. Which leads me to rehash my point from the "ITAH" thread: swallow your pride and put on your "sales man's" hats - lets promote our passion (because I know to some its a hobby, to sme a proffession - but I think its of more than a passinginterest to all here?). Lets educate. Lets be proactive. Not militant - this is not about telling a guy why he is an idiot for using digital or thinking its better than film - its about lending a guiding hand, showing our side of the story. I know that many areas of interest have become personal playgrounds of zealots and fanatics and have really, truly suffered for it! On the other hand, I see booths at community events from local model airplane clubs or equestrian clubs, etc. where people can gain exposure and hopefull, swell the ranks. I am not saying "lets all sit in booths with our cameras and enlargers" (although I can see the benefit of that too...) - but with a little education, perhaps that couple at the gallery would not have been so misinformed. Granted, they may have been despicable morons who deserve to wallow in their ignorance - there are plenty of those out there - but assuming that everyone is, is not at all heloing our cause. And I think we all have to open our eyes to the fact that, in the light of our disappearing resources and dwindling numbers - it has become a cause.

Peter.

Sean you were right, but only because NZ tomorrow is today in the States. This thread just took the turn for the digital verses analog road. Want to make another bet on how long before it gets locked too?

medform-norm said:

...Very few of the art clientele have actually educated themselves in the art of seeing with a discerning eye.

Click to expand...

How true!

aggie said:

Want to make another bet on how long before it gets locked too?

Click to expand...

Not before I can hit "Ignore Thread"

just got back in...my point in the post was, how impressed potential clients are with the photography before them in Tom's gallery, indeed a commercial success, and in my mind not a bad thing at all.

The fact that one would assume such quality was with out a doubt digital, I found revealing and amusing......and a positive plug for what we all believe....the inherent beauty and individuality of film based images.

Clients are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to purchase and cherish Tom's images....from 16 staffed galleries....in high rent retail outlets.......all galleries showing the images of one photographer shooting film! My hat is off.