uk Posted April 27, 2006 Share Posted April 27, 2006 In a question and answer session at his exhibition opening in Bradford last night, Elliot Erwitt said the following: モDigital manipulation kills photography, Itメs enemy number 1.ヤ (Not referring to Photoshop I don't think). Asked about tips for starting out, he said, モStart rich..... The field is very crowded and you should be aware that itメs not likely you will succeed.ヤ モDigital is so simple. An image without effort.ヤ モTo get a good picture, you have to have lots of bad ones.ヤ モLuck is the most important factor.ヤ モCommercial work is always shot in colour, personal always in B&W. Colour is descriptive, B&W is interpretive.ヤ モI shoot B&W because it looks better.ヤ モAssignments are easy, (compared to personal work), they follow a logical procedure with a known end requirementヤ. モI like photography that captures the human condition.ヤ Any comments? Gary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uk Posted April 27, 2006 Author Share Posted April 27, 2006 Apologies, Firefox thinks a quote mark is a question mark. Gary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terry_rory Posted April 27, 2006 Share Posted April 27, 2006 "written with firefox" 'written with firefox' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terry_rory Posted April 27, 2006 Share Posted April 27, 2006 About the only thing I agree with is... "Start rich" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terry_rory Posted April 27, 2006 Share Posted April 27, 2006 "Digital manipulation kills photography, It's enemy number 1" Absolute tosh. And to back that up I have enlisted Ralph Gibson (a veteran Leica M and B&W photographer of equal stature to Elliot Erwitt in my humble opinion)..... http://bermangraphics.com/press/ralphgibson.htm Especially the part where he says.... Ralph: "Photoshop is a magnificent, magnificent experience. I have a laptop at home and I learn new moves every night. While surfing I seek out Photoshop tutorials. I did all the scans for the book, モDeus ex Machinaヤ, and I did all the duotones and color seps in CMYK, everything. Photoshop enabled me to create and set inking levels that remained consistent throughout the entire book. The first page had the same density as page 768. For me, Photoshop is about unifying my body of work for either output to lithography or Iris prints. Now I want to introduce another idea here. I believe that the computer has evolved technology that has accelerated and enhanced the quality of the emulsions of our black and white and color films. " Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nesrani Posted April 27, 2006 Share Posted April 27, 2006 Ain't that the truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spot_. Posted April 27, 2006 Share Posted April 27, 2006 "Photoshop is a magnificent, magnificent experience. I have a laptop at home and I learn new moves every night" Weird. Gibson should get a life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terry_rory Posted April 27, 2006 Share Posted April 27, 2006 Spot, I could agree wholeheartedly were it not for this lot.... http://www.ralphgibson.com/resume/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uk Posted April 27, 2006 Author Share Posted April 27, 2006 Trevor, I should have made it clear that (IMO) his reference to 'manipulating' was to change the substance of an image - adding a different head etc, rather than performing traditional darkroom skills of colour balance, burning cropping etc. But, he may not have been as everyone's line in the sand is different. Removing pylon wires is OK by me, but he may have included that in his comment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raymond_tai Posted April 27, 2006 Share Posted April 27, 2006 It is just the old film v. digital debate all over again. Anyone who think himself as a b/w purist would shy away from digital. I love the smell of Dektol in the morning and c**p like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
working camera Posted April 27, 2006 Share Posted April 27, 2006 No its not just another film v digital thread. It goes to the heart of photography and how it is practiced. Its about process. Digital is just another way of doing what can be done with film. But it has made certain techniques more accessible. In skilled hands a powerful tool. It provides unbridled freedom. That freedom has an edge. By that I mean there's a large amount of stuff done out there in the name of digital photography that's undisciplined dross. Basically unsupervised kids in chocolate shop syndrome. C. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulmoore Posted April 27, 2006 Share Posted April 27, 2006 trevor, that ralph gibson link was back in 2001.. I would love to here from him now. I'm sure leica has or will provided him with a dm to play with. sorry gary, but a lot of the quotes need more context regarding digital. but I didn't get the feeling he was too deep.. I heard duane michaels a few years back and that was inspiring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
travis1 Posted April 27, 2006 Share Posted April 27, 2006 sometimes when i dodge or burn too fast with the mouse in photoshop elements, my laptop crash...dunno why. Seems like it is getting sick of it and kills itself when that happens.. �Digital is so simple. An image without effort.� agree, but so what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ross_wilson1 Posted April 27, 2006 Share Posted April 27, 2006 I don't judge anyone on their list of awards or achievements given them by a comity who I don't know and who's opinions are no more valid than those of an illiterate Mongolian. Sorry they count for nothing in my world. Gibson probably likes Photoshop given his terrible ability to dodge and burn, something in itself I don't really consider part of genuine photography. As for his technically good 'images', I don't really find them particularly inspiring. As for Erwitt, he's one of few people who understands what photography really is, or at least oriniginally was, and doesn't confuse it with digital imaging. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ellis_vener_photography Posted April 27, 2006 Share Posted April 27, 2006 Glad to read that Elliot Erwitt is still running around making provocative comments, scratching your ears and making the fleas rise up in protest. My favorite Erwittism is: モIt's just seeing - at least the photography I care about. You either see or you don't see. The rest is academic. Anyone can learn how to developヤ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spot_. Posted April 27, 2006 Share Posted April 27, 2006 Trevor, RG has an impressive resume (and some great pics - thanks for the link) and I wonder if any of his awards were won using digital equipment - no award since 2002. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_r._fulton_jr. Posted April 27, 2006 Share Posted April 27, 2006 I heard Ralph speak in around 2002. At that time he had <I>never</I> put one of his negatives in a scanner. He still printed them conventional. He scanned only his prints. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_r._fulton_jr. Posted April 27, 2006 Share Posted April 27, 2006 ...........oh, and I agree with all that Erwitt says. He's nailed it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie lemay Posted April 27, 2006 Share Posted April 27, 2006 Art is about personal vision. Paint, Film, Stone, Clay, Photoshop.... these are just the means to that end. To each their own, None is better, or purer, or right, except for you. Let each follow their own heart.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nesrani Posted April 27, 2006 Share Posted April 27, 2006 "I don't judge anyone on their list of awards or achievements given them by a comity who I don't know and who's opinions are no more valid than those of an illiterate Mongolian. Sorry they count for nothing in my world." Comity... illiterate... Point taken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
khi Posted April 27, 2006 Share Posted April 27, 2006 Darn! Here I am without my favorite fishing pole again! Boy do I feel silly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frederick_muller Posted April 27, 2006 Share Posted April 27, 2006 Elliot remains one of my "heroes" of photography. I grew up with his work. Part of growing up is coming to realize that your heroes have weaknesses too. Some of his remarks quoted above are great and hold real truths. Others show a narrow minded dogmatism that I would just chalk up to his being "old school". Nobody's perfect, and his body of work stands for itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrewlamb Posted April 27, 2006 Share Posted April 27, 2006 I second Frederick's remarks. There's a warmth and humanity to many of Erwitt's pictures that I love. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terry_rory Posted April 27, 2006 Share Posted April 27, 2006 Yes Pete and worse than that, many of my greatest photographic heroes are totally clueless about digital. They are totally clueless about anything, being dead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terry_rory Posted April 27, 2006 Share Posted April 27, 2006 hahahahaha (sniff!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now