Sebastio Salgado switched format on Genesis

Discussion in 'Leica and Rangefinders' started by pierre_claquin|1, Aug 16, 2009.

  1. "On a more technical front, Sebastiao Salgado spoke about film vs. digital.
    He no longer shoots with film as the reasons to go digital mounted up.?The silver in current medium format films, are currently at levels that 35mm was 25 years ago.?The 600 rolls of 220 he carried on shoots weighed about 60 lbs.?After 9/11 the security checkpoint that he goes through with exposed film (he told us 7 on the last trip) has affected the grain and contrast of the exposed film.?Plus there was the inevitable fight at each checkpoint to hand check the film. His assistant almost quit on his last trip from the constant battles.?So now it’s a Canon DSLR for him. 21 megapixels strong. But he is also looking at that new LeicaS2 with 37 megapixels.?And his “film”? about 1.5 lbs of cards."
    http://www.examiner.com/x-4887-Photography-Examiner~y2009m6d17-Sebastiao-Salgado--The-Genesis-Project
     
  2. If I shot 600 rolls of 220 on a trip, I would shoot digital too. He sounds like the perfect candidate for the S2 though.
     
  3. I wonder how many cards that is?
     
  4. Nice to read, though, that the reasoning to go to digital had nothing to do with image quality. I really get tired of hearing the digital converts proclaim how their digicam "blows away" 35mm and even MF film.
     
  5. What type B&W 220 was he able to procure?
    These days in the US about all you can get in 220 is Tri X 320
     
  6. Personlly, I think he was just done with film. Ditto David Allen Harvey. They must feel they died and went to heaven its so much easier with digis.
     
  7. >>> I wonder how many cards that is? About 68. Roughly 41,000 images with 16GB cards. Double that with 32s.
     
  8. Another working pro chooses a digital workflow due to convenience. No surprise there. Cost of production might be another contributing factor.
    Pros with a production budget can always "ship" their unexposed, and exposed, film both ways. At NG, film photographers always shipped their take blind, and they probably didn't even have overnight tracking. After all, the manufacturer AND the reseller have to ship in bulk, and it doesn't hurt the film.
    As was pointed out, many photographers are changing from their "preferred" methods to more "convenient" methods...that's really too bad for the shooter. There's nothing worse than being told what to shoot with after you're hired for your look and style.
     
  9. Assistant almost quits because of the constant battles while working with an internationally regarded master who uses film.
    The absolutely WORST reason to switch technology I could ever imagine.
    How good were the technical reasons? Is the silver content of film related to its quality? What does it mean that "The silver content of 220 is at the levels of 35mm 25 years ago"? Does that mean it isn't as good as 220 film 25 years ago? Or does it mean that 35mm film is worse now?
    I can see a reluctance to run exposed film repeatedly through x-ray machines. But that should be surmountable by shipping with tracking.
     
  10. Well, our own Rowland Mowrey disproved one of his problems in this thread: http://www.photo.net/black-and-white-photo-film-processing-forum/00U9qV
     
  11. Makes sense to me. I remember "halation" used to be a problem in the old days ... light hitting the emulsion like a rock dropped in a pond. Less silver, less of a splash.
    He doesn't need excuses to switch to digital. If digital is easier for him and provides a more efficient workflow, so be it. Maybe it's so much more efficient he won't need an assistant.
     
  12. I wonder if this project actually ever finishes. It starts to look more and more like Gene Smiths Pittsburgh that got so overblown that it was never finished and never published. Sometimes great artists get so involved in their art that they lose reality. I hope this does not happen and at least there seems to now be some progressive shows coming up.
     
  13. The photographically enlarged, fiber silver halide and selenium toned print is still the gold standard for art photography. Sebastion Salgado has (hopefully only temporarily) forgotten which side his bread is buttered on.
     
  14. it

    it

    Why do people get so angry about other people's working methods?
     
  15. Something tells me Salgado knows what he's doing and is unlikely to accept compromise...
     
  16. it

    it

    Exactly.
     
  17. Ian, who's getting angry other than you? Anyway, I'm not doubting this but I'd like to see the source of the information beyond this report.
    Salgado is a photographer of Grand stature... I don't know how he gets some of his pictures- particularly the sweeping landscapes. It's as if some of them are taken from the heavens.
    It's well worth the time to view the video with Salgado and John Berger that's linked in the article.
     
  18. it

    it

    I'm not angry at all, I just think it's kinda funny that people get so worked up when someone goes digital.
     
  19. OK. I am curious myself though about the silver issue. Sounds odd.
     
  20. "Salgado knows what he's doing and is unlikely to accept compromise..."
    Well let's say when you use PS to enhance your pix and render them more "iconic" (sth he wasn't allowed to do at Magnum of course) digital is the way to go : no more need to scan the negs...
    Therefore you can get away with murder : no one can compare the silver contact sheet with the exhibition print
     
  21. >>> Well let's say when you use PS to enhance your pix and render them more "iconic" (sth he wasn't allowed to do at Magnum of course) digital is the way to go : no more need to scan the negs... Really. Are you saying Magnum has a no ps/digital policy and told him how to process his photos? >>> Therefore you can get away with murder : no one can compare the silver contact sheet with the exhibition print Why would you want to look at a tiny contact? I look at prints...
     
  22. Seems to me much of Salgado's net worth might be tied up in negatives, which are real physical entities of his travels and travails which he witnessed and which can't be duplicated easily (much like Chim's Mexican suitcase). Can the same be said of some hard drive somewhere with RAW files on it? I'm a digital shooter for editorial/commercial stuff, but at the end of the day it seems a fine-art photographer would want something tangible to bequeath or whatever. In this case, I think much of the premium we place upon Salgado's work is based upon his methods of creation.
    I know...another way to open up the same film-digital can of worms. But Salgado's impact always relied upon his stark b&w film work. Will his exhibition prints, which were hand-printed gelatin silver, command the same premium when they are all exactly the same, and produced by computer?
     
  23. Spearhead

    Spearhead Moderator Staff Member

    If I had the money to buy a Salgado print, which I admit I don't, I would buy it because I enjoyed looking at it on my wall, not because of some chemical analysis and documentation of how it got there. Maybe I'm warped, I like looking at photographs more than I enjoy a materials analysis.
     
  24. >>> Will his exhibition prints, which were hand-printed gelatin silver, command the same premium when they are all exactly the same, and produced by computer? Sure. If of a similar vintage, edition size, and executed by his hand.
     
  25. I don't know, old processes have a particular value and interest, which is what silver prints will be. Ever seen a printed out Atget print? Something special, like a jewel, and it's partly because of the process.
     
  26. Spearhead

    Spearhead Moderator Staff Member

    I didn't see him say anything about how the photos will be printed.
     
  27. Jeff, I think collecting photographic art has as much to do with perceived value of the investment as the image itself. I'd feel much better knowing I invested in a hand-made silver-gelatin print, than I would if I paid a premium price for a numbered inkjet, or even a Durst-printed "machine" print. This is probably why original Ansel Adams prints command huge prices, but you can buy a duplicate image from a poster shop for very little.
    That being said, I'm definitely on the sidelines of this sport. Just an opinion, though.
     
  28. Spearhead

    Spearhead Moderator Staff Member

    I think collecting photographic art has as much to do with perceived value of the investment as the image itself.​
    I really don't think much of people who buy art for the "investment" rather than for the art itself. Strikes me as incredibly shallow and anti-art.
     
  29. Cupla notes (not necessarily of interest). I wonder how Joel Meyerowitz's "C" prints from the 1970's are fairing these days? I was told years ago that part of the "collectability" of the C prints was their eventually fading.
    I believe it was Capa, not Chim whose negatives recently were found in the "Mexican suitcase".
    I agree that Salgado would be a prime customer for the S2. 'Hope it works for him.
     
  30. Like it or not, the people who buy photography are not immune to wondering if what they are buying can be resold. That's natural. With photography, which in theory allows infinite reproduction, there is a natural tendency on the part of collectors (or whatever you want to call them) to look to some quality that makes their purchase special, not one of identical thousands. This could be as straightforward as being signed, part of a numbered edition, or something more intangible like (ironically) the fact that silver prints are not precisely identical. I'm not saying it's rational, but since when is art about rationality?
     
  31. I really don't think much of people who buy art for the "investment" rather than for the art itself. Strikes me as incredibly shallow and anti-art.​
    I don't think there would be much of an art market if everyone seriously subscribed to this somewhat puritanical view.
     
  32. Jeff, tomato, tomahto...art is finicky, so are it's buyers. Glad you know what you like.
    Not wanting to start a flame war (and I know we have different viewpoints on many aspects of the photographic arts), I find your comment odd, though, considering that some people who spend enormous sums to collect cars rarely, if ever, drive them...but I don't consider them "anti-car." Some people on this forum, in fact, spend enormous amounts of money buying Leica gear, with no intention of shooting with it, for the investment and satisfaction of owning. I wouldn't consider them anti-photography. Looking at art is appreciating art, certainly...but buying art includes a business decision. They don't have to be mutually exclusive, by the way.
    John, check this interesting read out:
    http://www.zonezero.com/exposiciones/fotografos/ziff/
    Page 15 recognizes that everyone fixates on Capa's work, but negatives from David Seymour (Chim) and Taro were found in the same suitcase. But, in checking my facts, it does seem to be regarded everywhere as Capa's Mexican Suitcase. No biggie, an interesting find nonetheless.
     
  33. I am low-tech and a fairly late adopter of digital. Are there standards for archival storage of digital files? Are digital files susceptible to corruption over time and proximity to electromagnetic "polution"? Is RAW format "pure" and the best storage medium? I have read somewhere (and did not fully understand why) that JPEG files actually lose quality each time they are opened and saved back down.
     
  34. Spearhead

    Spearhead Moderator Staff Member

    I don't think there would be much of an art market if everyone seriously subscribed to this somewhat puritanical view.​
    Far more money is spent in the secondary market (sold after the artist sells the work) than in the primary market. As a result, this does little for artists. Also, what makes it a good thing to have an "art market" that is based around collectors rather than artists?
     
  35. Back on topic, I just think that it's too bad that a photographer who based his work upon social consciousness will not be leaving tangible evidence of what he's witnessed. Bits and bytes have been misused by miscreants to the point that many people wouldn't trust a digital file as much as a negative. This has nothing to do with art or workflow.
    I do recognize, though, that his work will have the same impact regardless of what format or medium he uses to record them. After all, I haven't personally seen a Salgado exhibition, but I've seen lots of his work online, which is bits and bytes in the end run.
     
  36. <i>I really don't think much of people who buy art for the "investment" rather than for the art itself. Strikes me as incredibly shallow and anti-art.</i>
    How do you feel about people who buy investments that aren't art, instead of putting their investments into an enjoyable form? Hanging a stock certificate on the wall is so 20th century ironic, you know.
     
  37. It is 100% possible to get a B&W fiber base silver print, archivally processed, gold toned, from a digital file.
    For instance, http://www.digitalsilverimaging.com . Prices are even very reasonable for the services provided.
     
  38. It starts to look more and more like Gene Smiths Pittsburgh that got so overblown that it was never finished and never published.
    Salgado has a history of massive projects that he actually finished. I hope he is able to go on doing these for the rest of his career, leaving behind a final, unfinished project that he was able to work on right up to the end.
    Gene Smith, on the other hand, was an alcoholic and an amphetamine addict who had a history of being unable to complete even a short project.
    On the subject of Smith: I'm always a bit unhappy at the way his biographers tend to mutter about his "artistic temperament", as though a habit of using amphetamine and alcohol to work for 72 hours is a normal thing for an artist, instead of a warning sign that someone is in need of psychiatric help. It doesn't matter too much in his case, because in the 1950s the help he'd have gotten wouldn't have been very good, but these days it's very likely a future W. Eugene Smith could get help that would let him/her remain creative without destroying his life and his health in the process.
     
  39. "what makes it a good thing to have an "art market" that is based around collectors rather than artists?"
    One thing I can think of is that "collectors" have money which is used to support "artists." If "artists" were the only buyers of "art" then most "buying" in the "art market" would be confined to exchange of empty beer cans.
     
  40. Spearhead

    Spearhead Moderator Staff Member

    As I pointed out above, artists seldom make a lot of money from collectors. Most of the money is in the second and later sales.
     
  41. Rick K makes an interesting point about Salgado. David Alan Harvey went on record (at the time) of telling Salgado that the "Workers" subject and story were too big and it couldn't be done. SS has an interesting task of doing 32 stories each with a 100 pictures. He is prolific.
     
  42. Just a note: his name is SEBASTIAO, not Sebastio, OK!
     
  43. "As I pointed out above, artists seldom make a lot of money from collectors. Most of the money is in the second and later sales."
    That's just wrong. What are most gallery sales? If you're well-known enough to command secondary sales, you're well-known enough to get gallery representation and make original sales you split with the gallery. If you're not, there won't be secondary sales unless you're dead and discovered later. For artists that are producing contemporary work I'd be interested in data that shows the appreciation in the secondary market you're alluding to.
     
  44. Which inkjet printer he will use? That is the question!
     
  45. And what size cards? If 1 1/2 lbs is equivalent to 600 rolls of 220 one could of course calculate that. But one would think that field backup on hard drives is better option than to carry a bagful of compact flash cards back home.
     
  46. "I'd feel much better knowing I invested in a hand-made silver-gelatin print, than I would if I paid a premium price for a numbered inkjet, or even a Durst-printed "machine" print. This is probably why original Ansel Adams prints command huge prices, but you can buy a duplicate image from a poster shop for very little."
    Have you gone to a gallery sale lately? I find your view somewhat parochial since the great majority of every successful emerging photographer is selling digital prints. Also many more traditional artists are also moving to digital printing and are doing quite well. Your reference here to Adams is a little disingenuous as you have no reason to believe that if alive today, he wouldn't be using digital. Adams' prints command prices today, not because of the media, but, from a collectors point of view, he's dead. So sorry.
    My personal view is that generally, great photographers will produce great work no matter what type of camera or print process they use. I'm sure, we can all think of specific examples where the photogs work cannot be separated from the media but it's rare.
     
  47. >>> And what size cards? I answered that question up at the top. Roughly 41,000 images with 16 GB cards. Double that with 32 GB cards. >>> ... the great majority of every successful emerging photographer is selling digital prints. That's right! >>> My personal view is that generally, great photographers will produce great work no matter what type of camera or print process they use. Bingo! Interesting that many feel that Salgado still has things to learn about photography, the photography business, art markets, etc.
     
  48. 600 rolls of 220 is about 14,000 shots. What does 41,000 have to do with it?
     
  49. >>> What does 41,000 have to do with it? That's how many exposures can be made with 1 1/2 pounds of memory cards (assuming 16 GB cards), the amount that Salgado apparently carries now - rather than 60 pounds of film that he used to carry; according to the story.
     
  50. You weigh your cards? ;) ??
     
  51. >>> You weigh your cards? ;) ?? No.
     
  52. I like that he's digging the S2 though.
     
  53. "... he is also looking at that new LeicaS2"
    "Something tells me Salgado knows what he's doing and is unlikely to accept compromise..."
     
  54. Salgado used Pentax 645 which should give 31 exposures on 220 film (or was it 33?). Anyway, that would be about 18 000 images. With digital that can go either way. Some people shoot a lot more because 'it is free', while others shoot less because they can chimp and ensure they got the image, reducing unnecessary bracketing. I don't bother with the math, but I assume the 41 000 images would come from 16Gb cards shooting raw on the Canon camera he mentions now using. Still, it does not make any sense to carry that many cards and not back them up on couple of hard drives. And that would reduce the number of cards he needs to carry. Something does not add up.
     
  55. Brad - wrote: "Interesting that many feel that Salgado still has things to learn about photography, the photography business, art markets, etc."
    There is always something more to learn. Or is he omniscient?
     
  56. 100 images per project out of 41,000 = 0.2% hit rate.
    100 images per project out of 18,000 = 0.5% hit rate.
    Sounds reasonable for someone with high standards to meet, but it's a daunting amount of blank canvas. (Good thing he isn't a painting in oils!)
     
  57. jtk

    jtk

    That was a lot of 220, but I recall a photographer dropping several hundred (200+) rolls of Kodachrome off for processing...one big box...after a month-long "California Drought" assignment...it was for an unpublished "Life" special issue. I don't see the advantage of 645 vs 35mm, given the wonderful quality of Salgado's 35mm work, but that's another discussion.
    Obviously he'd "go digital" given the fact that he produces big prints full of small details...DSLRs excel there, whether or not one agrees that the files rival the look of film. Obviously the ultimate results would be some sort of digital prints and digital reproduction in publications ...either way.
     
  58. >>> There is always something more to learn. Or is he omniscient? Hardly. But it is funny re how many are second guessing his decisions with respect to *his* business with many decades of experience.
     
  59. Brad wrote: "...it is funny re how many are second guessing his decisions with respect to *his* business with many decades of experience."
    Unsolicited advice from those with dubious qualifications is a photo.net tradition.
     
  60. "The photographically enlarged, fiber silver halide and selenium toned print is still the gold standard for art photography. Sebastion Salgado has (hopefully only temporarily) forgotten which side his bread is buttered on."
    What an 'incredible' comment. He has seen and forgotten more than we'll ever know. Nevertheless - obviously, because he was reluctant to supply you with more fuel for contempt, Salgado did not abandon silver prints. The digital camera is only the first part of the new work process. You needn't have assumed he was 'merely' running out inkjets.
     
  61. I'd like to state this clearly...this is a personal opinion...
    I'll always think a custom-made, optical enlargement is worth more, both personally and as a hypothetical photographic print art collector, than any kind of digital output, whether that digital output be a one-off, hand-signed, numbered, or whatever. A hand-printed enlargement includes elements of the entire "craft" of photography, something that current digital technique lacks. Don't misunderstand, I'm NOT saying film is better than digital, or digital is better than film. That doesn't matter. But I truly believe film photography is harder to get from the photographer's mind to the final print, and THAT's what I would find worthy of investment (if I could afford to invest in photography).
    Again, personal opinion, but I would rather pay for a Picasso painting, than a numbered, signed, digitally scanned and printed Picasso copy. After all...that's exactly what digital prints are...copies of an image file. Photographic prints are each unique, no matter how closely you follow your darkroom notes. And I feel that the highest form of photography, as an art, is the final print on the wall.
    But again, back on topic, I think it's sad to see a photographic visionary change his methods for the sake of convenience. BUT...if he's okay with it, that's what matters. Everything else if Monday-morning quarterbacking.
     
  62. it

    it

    Ed Burtynsky switched to digital output for his $50K+ prints and the market didn't blink. As long as it's archival I don't think people care.
     
  63. "After all...that's exactly what digital prints are...copies of an image file."
    No more so than a darkroom print is a copy of a photographic negative. I think it's great that you subjectively value silver prints, that's your choice, but please don't muddy the argument with half-truths. I've done both type of work and it takes a lot of photoshop skill to produce a fine art print and I'm talking about what I refer to as traditional darkroom treatment of photos. I'm not talking about created images/posters with PS manipulation. I think the problem is that somehow you don't understand, and/or value or under value the "craft" part of digital reproduction and thus dismiss the process. Another way of saying it is that digital printing is now part of the "entire craft of photography". That is photography as it is done in the 21st century. You best get used to it.
     
  64. Barry, I think what's being said is that aside from the effort and knowledge involved- that because of the process prints tend to each be slightly different from each other produced out of the darkroom. With digital once you get everything set up to preference you can run off 100 prints or whatever that will be virtually identical.
    "You best get used to it."
    Sounds a little harsh, especially coming from you. ;)
     
  65. This is a string that should be cut and terminated. This endless debate of film v. digital is so boring and repetitive that it becomes only a venue for witless personal preferences without regard to the merits of either process, which can be stated in a couple of short paragraphs. I invoke the good sense of the editors of this forum, assuming there are any and that are awake, to cut the cord on this drivel.
     
  66. I agree wit you Peter Mann. Often the mods are lightening fast to censor, wish they do that here. Cut this one by half. THKS - Paul
     
  67. Carlos: apologies for mispelling.
     
  68. Well Ray, you know in the darkroom, that once you dial a neg in, you can make several very similar copies. But point taken. I just think the whole thing nonsense that darkroom prints are some how better or more valuable. But to each their own. Myself, truth be told, I love darkroom prints, but I wouldn't turn down a digital print from let say David a.Harvey because it was not a C print. My point is its the artists' work that counts, not the media.
     
  69. My 2 cents worth.

    I have made digital negactives via inkjet, Photoshopped them as an artisticv exercise and then made full size 8 x 10 or 6 x 9 inch negtives, then contact prints on Pt/Pd or Azo.
    Don't tell me those prints are not as valid as ones made from film through an enlarger, only with different outpuit media & chemicals.
    Cheers
     
  70. I don't think it's s a film vs. digital debate, really. It's not even an art debate. I just think that it's sad that another critically-acclaimed photographer has changed his methods for convenience sake.
    That siren call of convenience and speed is a strong pull, for everyone from shooters to funding sources. I'm waiting to see which photographers will stick to their tried-and-true methods, convenience or budget be damned! There were a couple of NGS shooters still sticking to their own legacy methods, and so far NGS is backing them/funding them. That publication is now the minority.
    I hope I never see Salgado chimping. He'll probably do it, like we all do, but I don't want my minds' eye tarnished! (spoken in jest).
     
  71. >>> I don't think it's s a film vs. digital debate, really. That's right, it isn't - it's about a remarkable photographer. If he had switched from digital to film, I suspect people would not be seeking censorship from the moderators. >>> I just think that it's sad that another critically-acclaimed photographer has changed his methods for convenience sake. Even assuming that that was the only reason, and he's getting results that meet/exceed his high standards, what's there to be sad about? He's an extraordinary social documentarian. He tells stories through his eye and photography, not capture and output technology. If you really care about his work, stories and photographic documentary mission, you should be happy he is able to continue to do so in a manner without compromise. Give the man some credit for his decisions and be happy that he's able to carry on.
     
  72. Surely expert processing will take care of whatever he uses. In the end I don't care what somebody else shoots though.. it's just something to shoot the breeze about.
     
  73. it

    it

    He isn't switching "for convenience sake"!
    He's Sebastião Freaking Salgado, he's not going to compromise on quality 1%! You have to get over the fact that most photographers have made the switch and are happy they did.
    If you don't want to, that's your business.
     
  74. I wonder if Salgado had changed to digital without anyone knowing, whether anybody would have ever guessed? :) Or would they still be saying "You can't beat film, look at Salgado's work" :)
     
  75. "His assistant almost quit on his last trip from the constant battles.?" That is why you have an assistant.
    "The 600 rolls of 220 he carried..." Is that almost 10,000 photographs per trip?
     
  76. David Manning wrote: "I don't think it's s a film vs. digital debate, really. It's not even an art debate. I just think that it's sad that another critically-acclaimed photographer has changed his methods for convenience sake."
    How many of us are using an 8x10 view camera? Isn't there some convenience in roll film or memory cards, and in a greater degree of portability? Let the photographer, no matter how well-known or how obscure, decide for himself how much convenience (s)he wants.
     
  77. Since I am the one who initiated the post I might explain why I did it. I have a lot of respect for the work of Salgado. I am a public health doctor who has been working in development in the majority world for more than 35 years. I am also a photographer and, among other things, have documented the smallpox eradication program and the polio control program. Salgado is a witness and his work is a testimony of human misery, misguided priorities but also resilience and dignity. I have in my office a picture of the African child being vaccinated with his distressed attendant and with the dog howling.
    Because Salgado is a hight-level professional I have always been interested in his techniques (shooting, printing, etc.). He has given many interviews, a lot in French. I noticed with interest his switch to medium format for Genesis and recently his switch to digital. He is a professional and he knows what he is doing. Period. This thread is not aimed at starting a debate on film versus digital or whatever just to pass information to interested colleagues as I had not seen it on the forum.
    But obviously every forum is like the proverbial Spanish inn where we eat what we bring.....
    Let us close the thread when all have received the information.
     
  78. i hate him and his photographs. itd be better if he used an etch-a-sketch. he can absolutely kiss my ass.
     
  79. Tom??
     
  80. How much money does he owe you?? ;>}
     
  81. Must have gotten a digital print...
     
  82. lol...finally a comment i can understand.
     
  83. I wonder if Tom hates Salgado but is not in hate with him.
     
  84. I wonder if love is eternal is hate transitory??
     
  85. Salgado sure is transitory (that bast*rd), he's transitioned to digital.
     
  86. I should qualify that post, I was being humorous, albeit obtuse- with 70-something replies to "sebastiao salgado switches to digital", i figured it was as valid a remark as any. Obviously he's a talented successful photog, and not knowing him, could hardly hate him, now could I? tongue in cheek lads, tongue in cheek.
     
  87. I wish I could short some of this art market..
     
  88. Sorry to correct your math, Steve: 600x32=19200 pictures; Salgado used a Pentax 645 for the Genesis project.
    That's maybe 100 rolls per week or 530 pictures per day, shooting Monday through Saturday, and Sunday off. Not much considering that he was primarily shooting animals.
    I'm pretty convinced too that the interviewer or some translator got it all wrong with the silver content quote. Just doesn't make any sense having read what was reported about the project by Salgado himself and by his lab guy in the french magazine Photo Reponses. After some trials he opted for Tri-X320 in 220 format and stuck to it until the end of the project.
    Can't help but think the quote about his assistant is mistaken too. Those battles are not that bad after all. (OK, haven't been to Africa lately, I admit.) And either there IS a fight because you want and get your film hand-controlled OR it gets scanned with the hand luggage. Thus, having his assistant near a nervous breakdown AND reporting problems with the x-ray affected film doesn't sound coherent. Salgado often shot his 'studio Tri-X' at around 800. I wouldn't want those films to get x-rayed seven times either!
    My question: how competent in photo technical matters was the person who did the synopsis and/or translation of this interview?
    I wonder what his next (then all-digital) project will be about!
    (My bet: it is going to be shot with a Leica S2 camera. Leica will superglue a S2 body to his hands – they need Salgado that much to pull their marketing cart.)
     
  89. I think the enormous release delay of the S2 is nothing for the Salgado kind of photography.
     
  90. What enormous release delay?
     
  91. Well, a couple of weeks ago I played with the S2 and the release delay was really shocking. It was a prototype but the Leica representant defented the delay and argued that the S2 will not be an reportage camera.
     
  92. Aha! Also known as shutter lag.
     
  93. Sorry, I'm not from Sacramento;-)
     

Share This Page