What a disappointment....

bjorke said:

Is the "disappointment" in that Lanting doesn't choose to do what he does based on your own desire about PROCESS, which should almost never be a consideration when looking at someone else's work? (with the occasional niche exceptions like dag's and sx-70 or platinum printing) Is it productive? Can it be channeled into some way of making your own new work?

kb

I know I've said it many before, but there's a difference between loving analog and its processes and hating digital. Those are two completely separate things. One impulse is about making, one is about destroying. Why waste your heartbeats on resentment?

Click to expand...

I thing the disappointment is just seeing another well know film photographer going digital. Especially, someone as influential as Frantz Lanting. FWIW, it doesn't bother me; I'm surprised he didn't go years ago. What would be telling, IMO, would be to find out what he shoots for his personal work - a lot of people here shoot digital for work, but film for personal work.

I agree with you about being resentful, although I do understand it in some respects. For example, Fuji introduces this nice new film, Provia 400X, expected to start selling in September, but hasn't because the existing stocks of 400F haven't been sold (good business really), and they haven't sold, because film sales are still falling (especially for 35mm film). It is disappointing to see a new film announced, only to wait and wait for it to appear on the shelves.

Personally, I don't like digital, I don't think digital is as sharp as film or has the color depth that film has. But, I wonder how long I can continue to shoot film in 35mm, and I wonder if I will eventually be forced to go to digital (for small camera work) when it no longer becomes possible to get 35mm transparency film

RAP said:

Who is this guy? I never heard of him until now. Goes to show what a little controversy can do for pr.

Click to expand...

actually, the only controversy about this exists in this thread... so i don't think it's had any impact on his PR at all.

If you've been in any bookstore with a photography section, or you've read much of National Geographic, you'll have seen his work. a quick google on his name will bring up a lot more. in short, he's probably one of (if not the) best wildlife photographers out there.

Jim,

I had already googled his name before I posted, but thanks just the same.

Good afternoon Early Riser,

Early Riser said:

You really think that he'd switch over from a manner in which he has worked for decades, potentially compromising the quality of his work for which he has received acknowledgement and rewards, if the switch to digital is not actually advantageous to his image making? Risk his work, his legacy, for an endorsement? This is like conspiracy theorists. Oh he can't possibly be using digital because it works better for him, he must be using it because he's been bribed/corrupted/lazy to use it!!

Click to expand...

Yes to all your questions above. Is that surprising? I have met enough other fine art photographers that did the exact same thing I spoke about, so no conspiracy theory. Most of those that took on equipment or work methods for endorsements or gear still evaluated that gear. The risk was in each case something each one of them likely considered small, otherwise I doubt there would have been a change. Perhaps calculated risk would be better terminology? Many of those making the change over feel it allows for many improvements in their workflows or sales abilities.

If ColorSpan gave me full free use of their latest giant printer for my images, you bet your a** I would sign up to do endorsements. This is a business decision that has little room for emotions. There would be no bribing, because I have already seen the capabilities and decided there is nearly no quality risk for me. Anyway, this is just an example. I don't think I would be selling out nor do I think Franz Lanting sold out . . . . . if you got that from my post, then I apologize profusely for the misinterpretation.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with finding an advantage in anything. If he suddenly figured out that wearing Burkenstocks or Rockports allowed him to capture more images, then I am not the person to refute his choices. If Canon came to him and wanted to sign him up under their Explorers of Light Program, then the following year Nikon wanted him on their endorsement program for advertising, why wouldn't he take the opportunity?

Early Riser said:

I can tell you from personal experience as I have done endorsements for products I use and have turned down endorsements for products I don't use, that the last thing I would do is use a product for my photography that didn't work for me just because I might get some money to use it.

Click to expand...

Sure, but you still try it out. If it works, then great. When it doesn't work, then that could reflect badly upon your images, then those that were buying your images, or hiring you, would notice. Turning things down when they do not help you is a good business decision.

I never meant what I wrote to be an all or nothing 100% choice. Some flexibility is required in anything, even whether or not someone continues using gear that may have been loaned for evaluation. There are quite likely some cameras and gear out there that no amount of money could convince some photographers to adopt . . . the gear still needs to fit with how each photographer wants to capture or print their images.

Early Riser said:

The guy is a world class photographer who's career many here would envy and he's made a choice about his working materials. Why is this such a big deal. Just wish him luck and continued success and get over it.

Click to expand...

I wish him no ill will nor am I envious of him. I have no desire to be the next Franz Lanting; quite simply I just want to be the best Gordon Moat I can become. Further, I have nothing to get over with any of this; we are in a discussion in a forum in which people write their opinions, so I wrote mine. I can be wrong, and I will admit when I am wrong, but without hearing it from Franz Lanting in person I can only make statements what I have seen numerous times from many other fine art photographers.

It is not a big deal except that this is APUG, so when non-traditional printing comes forward with any implied concept of it being better, whether or not it really is better, then you can expect some discussion. Recall that better will always be subjective; the things I find best are probably quite different than what you or Franz Lanting consider best.

I don't think Franz Lanting needs me to wish him luck, since he looks to be doing quite well, but I will wish him all the best in his future in photography. I also wish you and your life in photography become all that you hope to achieve in the future. I don't know you nor your work, but I sincerely hope you accomplish your goals. Best of luck, and stay an active photographer. if I have offended you in any way, please understand that I have a right to express my opinion, and I mean no ill nor harm to anyone, and I apologize if you took offense to anything I have written.

Thank you,

Gordon Moat
Dead Link Removed

It's dissapointing.
Now I would like to see some high profile digital shooters switch over to film.

It is not surprising that Frans has switched from film to digital. My work used to go through the EverColor workflow with his and many other well known photographers including other editors for Outdoor Photographer. He was supposed to be difficult to work with. But, because of the amount of film and working for magazines such as the National Geographic it probably was inevitable. Other friends of mine that are pros have sold all or almost all of their film based cameras as well and gone digital.

Rich

My gripe with the story was not that he switched - he has perfectly legitimate reasons to do so. My gripe was that he was pitching it as "you amateurs, go out and buy yourself a digital; it will cure all your ills!" . While you can pre-process your work in the field, and get an idea if you need to re-shoot the next day, rather than come back next season, I would be rather concerned about dragging laptops, satellite modems, and other fancy electronics into a jungle or onto a high desert plain where they are susceptible to dust, heat, humidity, and insects.

TheFlyingCamera said:

My gripe with the story was not that he switched - he has perfectly legitimate reasons to do so. My gripe was that he was pitching it as "you amateurs, go out and buy yourself a digital; it will cure all your ills!" .

Click to expand...

Many well-known photographers in pretty much in all genres in Japan seem to be using digital for their exhibitions partly because they are sponsored by the companies like Canon and Epson. Some of these photographers always show on the ads saying the same old "digital is better or catching up film" thing.

I don't know what these photographers are honestly thinking about their new digital work, but at least in the ads, they say what they have to say...

TheFlyingCamera said:

While you can pre-process your work in the field, and get an idea if you need to re-shoot the next day, rather than come back next season, I would be rather concerned about dragging laptops, satellite modems, and other fancy electronics into a jungle or onto a high desert plain where they are susceptible to dust, heat, humidity, and insects.

Click to expand...

I'm not bothered by the need to carry additional electronics as I am with the attitude that I need to double check what I do - when I am in the field, I don't spend my time looking back at what I've done, I spend my time looking to what I am going to do the next day. I have enough experience and confidence in my technique that I don't worry about the current day. That doesn't mean everything I shoot is perfect, but I am willing to bet that if I spent the time looking back, I would miss many opportunies the next day.

"Could it be because of the manipulation available with photoshop."

Could be, but more likely because of the instant feedback in knowing he has the shot and the real ability to shoot hundreds of images without the recurring film processing cost. High end digital quality is there and the convenience of using it is not to be ignored. Especially in wildlife work.



"I'm not bothered by the need to carry additional electronics as I am with the attitude that I need to double check what I do - when I am in the field, I don't spend my time looking back at what I've done, I spend my time looking to what I am going to do the next day."

In the field many of us have out own workflow. Pixelography allows one to proof and check as they work and takes away the worries involved with transporting film, shipping film and the uncertainties of lab processing. It isn't necessarily 'better' but it is a workflow that some find beneficial.

As for quality concerns. They just aren't part of the equation any longer with Frans Lanting images as good as you will find anywhere. Same with Arthur Morris ( birdsasart.com) in his switch to pixelography for his work.

The proof is in the printing as final output or the printed page as final output. I have not seen a digital camera that will match my 8x10 contact prints. But I shoot it partly for the feel of the whole process all the way through- from choice of subject to camera feel to the final print in pt/pd or silver. A lot different from the Epson printer or Lightjet/Lambda.

Both have a place and if I were doing only wildlife work I would be 99% pixelography as the workflow and freedom to shoot so much more is a big attraction. Most of the pixelographs I take this way do not get photoshop alterations. I don't combine and mix and match. I still try getting it right in the camera and find this works for me just as it does from film. Whether a pixelograph or a real 8x10 negative I seldom have to do much to an image to make a final print I like.

Both have their strengths and weaknesses and pixelography won't make you better if you are lousy anyhow. Nor will film. We all know that it takes time and effort. I still think the best explanation of what photography really involves comes from the signature line Jorge used to use: If you buy a camera, you are a photographer. If you buy a piano, you own a piano.

WarEaglemtn said:

Could be, but more likely because of the instant feedback in knowing he has the shot and the real ability to shoot hundreds of images without the recurring film processing cost. High end digital quality is there and the convenience of using it is not to be ignored. Especially in wildlife work.

Click to expand...

As an IT professional, I can tell you that a proper digital workflow is a lot more expensive than recurring film processing costs. Not just hardware costs, which can be considerable, but most people forget the recurring manhour costs - doing such chores as making backups, transporting backups to off site storage, testing and copying disks, cataloging images, etc. Not even mentioning the cost of the equipment.

High end digital quality is arguable as well, because if it does make that big of a difference, then why do most of the magazines I buy have lower quality of images that they did when they were all film based.

WarEaglemtn said:

In the field many of us have out own workflow. Pixelography allows one to proof and check as they work and takes away the worries involved with transporting film, shipping film and the uncertainties of lab processing. It isn't necessarily 'better' but it is a workflow that some find beneficial.

Click to expand...

And adds the worry of doing backups in the field, hardware crashes in the field. I guess some do find it beneficial, but I don't see much problems in "old" methods transporting film to the field. In many ways it is now easier to transport film than it was in the past. I can FedEx my film from almost any remote part of the world, directly to the processor. I've never had any uncertainties with my processor, Calypso Inc, in all the film I've sent them over the years, both 35mm and 4x5, I've never had a single roll or sheet with any sort of problem; even so, I do split my film into batches, the same as most pros over the years have done. It is no more uncertain than having a hard drive crash.

The final story is in the work that makes it into print. I've been reading National Geographic, the magazine that Franz Lanting does a lot of work for, for 30+ years, and I can truthfully say the quality of the images has not gone up since they went almost totally digital, IMO it has gone down.

There is an old saying "If it isn't broken, don't fix it" that suits me just fine. My Nikon F5, loaded with Velvia, produces images that far exceed anything needed by any magazine, including National Geographic, published.

Totally hits the nail on the head-I've had exactly the same thoughts re magazines.

TheFlyingCamera said:

...he was pitching it as "you amateurs, go out and buy yourself a digital; it will cure all your ills!"

Click to expand...

Did we read the same article?

He only mentions digital near the end, almost in passing. And as a business decision. Never as a cure-all. Not for amateurs. The purpose of the article is clear in the header: Career Track.

Anyone generally advocating film as the primary medium for a young, starting nature photographer who has hopes of building a business is clearly deluded - unless they are a LF shooter. And Lanting most definitely is not. Don't think he ever was.

As I know mayority of professional wild life pictures today are made in zoo or botanic garden and "adjusted" accordingly by computer to sell. Magazines do not care where it is made but rather can they make money on the same. He probably realized that zoo is more convinient than wilderness. Otherwise who is so stupid to take digital camera battery+..+.. depend into some dangerous places, for they are not enough reliable. Hex, you really have to open eyes today when some picture is in question.

www.Leica-R.com

Daniel_OB said:

As I know mayority of professional wild life pictures today are made in zoo or botanic garden and "adjusted" accordingly by computer to sell. Magazines do not care where it is made but rather can they make money on the same. He probably realized that zoo is more convinient than wilderness. Otherwise who is so stupid to take digital camera battery+..+.. depend into some dangerous places, for they are not enough reliable. Hex, you really have to open eyes today when some picture is in question.

Dead Link Removed

Click to expand...

Reminds me of a situation I read about not long ago. From my blog page:

Recently, National Geographic Adventure magazine published an image to accompany “Hawaii’s Wild Frontiers” [February 2006 issue]. This image purports to show a snorkeler swimming next to a breaching whale. National Geographic Adventure writes in its April 2006 issue “We received several letters questioning the authenticity of the image of the whale and swimmer that opened “Hawaii’s Wild Frontiers” [February]. Early in the selection process we were assured numerous times by the photographer and his agency that the photo was real. While Hawaii is a place where magical things happen, further technical analysis proved – and the photographer eventually admitted – that the image was a digital composite.”

Daniel_OB said:

As I know mayority of professional wild life pictures today are made in zoo or botanic garden and "adjusted" accordingly by computer to sell. Magazines do not care where it is made but rather can they make money on the same. He probably realized that zoo is more convinient than wilderness. Otherwise who is so stupid to take digital camera battery+..+.. depend into some dangerous places, for they are not enough reliable. Hex, you really have to open eyes today when some picture is in question.

www.Leica-R.com

Click to expand...

I am not sure what percentage of wildlife and animal photos are in captive settings for sale and for publication. Unless things have changed, those of us selling stock images of animals (myself included) were/have always been paid based upon whether the image was of a wild or captive animal. Of course, wild animals would also apply to those taken in National Parks and National Wildlife Refuges.

Rich

I always would have figured Digital cameras would be a little too delicate for wildlife work, dropping a $10,0000 camera in a lake while trying to get a look at a hippo sounds like a bad move. That and the constant need for electricity on location, seems like more trouble than it's worth. But to each his own I guess, I quite liked a few of his photos, name sorta rings a bell...

When I organised the LF gathering in Norway last year, I was asked if LF with scanning back was welcome.

The answer was simple: "Yes, but you'll have to bring your own 5 km extension cord".

Ole said:

When I organised the LF gathering in Norway last year, I was asked if LF with scanning back was welcome.

The answer was simple: "Yes, but you'll have to bring your own 5 km extension cord".

Click to expand...

Ole,

They don't need such a long extension cord, only extra batteries, inverter, and/or solar cells.

Rich

Yes Rich - but the extra batteries, inverter, PC, et cetera would be a lot more difficult to bring to some of the places we were going. And solar cells tend not to be too much use at the bottom of a 1800m "valley" - more like a canyon, really.

Ole said:

Yes Rich - but the extra batteries, inverter, PC, et cetera would be a lot more difficult to bring to some of the places we were going. And solar cells tend not to be too much use at the bottom of a 1800m "valley" - more like a canyon, really.

Click to expand...

Hi Ole,

I do realize that. I was just poking a little fun at the problems for shooting in the field without mentioning the computer (and batteries) to be tethered to the digital back for the 4 X 5. I tell people at the Art Shows in which I participate all the time that I will continue to use film because of the alarming costs involved ($16,000 to $30,000), being tethered to the the computer, the need for new wide angle lenses (since the sensor is less than 4 X 5), and the approximately 20 lbs added to my already 25 - 45 or more lb pack.

Rich

Fleath said:

I always would have figured Digital cameras would be a little too delicate for wildlife work, dropping a $10,0000 camera in a lake while trying to get a look at a hippo sounds like a bad move. That and the constant need for electricity on location, seems like more trouble than it's worth. But to each his own I guess, I quite liked a few of his photos, name sorta rings a bell...

Click to expand...

Truth is, good quality(rugged and weatherproof) digital cameras dosn`t cost $10K anymore, you can get up to 2000 images on a single battery, you`re not so electricity dependant anymore, and I guess he can travel with lots of spare batteries and portable HD`s.. Good for him...

But that doesn`t make me want to go digital for my work. No way.
I do own a DSLR, but it`s not used for anything but making snaps of stuff I`ve been selling..

I wonder if he considered such things as longevity of his digital files as this article will bring out;

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-archive13sep13,0,2466257.story?coll=la-home-business

If the link is expired, here is a clip;
Unable to Repeat the Past
Storing information is easier than ever, but it's also never been so easy to lose it -- forever. We could end up with a modern history gap.
By Charles Piller, Times Staff Writer
September 13, 2006

Digital records from government archives to baby pictures are disappearing due to glitches in digital storage methods. Computer disks and tapes can be destroyed by heat and humidity in less than a year. Personal documents and images are lost every day when hard drives crash. Much of the digital tape used to record NASA space flight data from the 1960s and 1970s has degraded beyond recovery. "If we don't solve the problem," said Kenneth Thibodaux of the National Archives, "our time will not become part of the past." (Los Angeles Times, free registration required)


It was posted on a thread that Sean closed.

Anyway the integrity of digital files should be of concern for those who are considering making the change.

Also, with the billions of dollars that these tech companies have that are pushing digital, I wonder if he and others were approached by any one of them and offered a buy out, incentive fee for making the change, money plus equipment. A famous photographer doing so is a big endorsement for digital companies. It gives the impression to the rest of us, especially younger ones, that digital is the only way to break into professional photography.

Given the control and essentially, the monopoly that stock houses have, Corbis/Microsoft/Gates, they can pretty much dictate the market. It seems these companies, the Getty's and Corbis' are buying up all the analog collections they can get their hands on and digitizing them.

Essentially forcing the rest of us to go digital or give up photography all together.