Sebastio Salgado switched format on Genesis

<p>"On a more technical front, Sebastiao Salgado spoke about film vs. digital.<br>

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."</p>

<p>http://www.examiner.com/x-4887-Photography-Examiner~y2009m6d17-Sebastiao-Salgado--The-Genesis-Project</p>

<p>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. </p>

<p> I wonder how many cards that is?</p>

<p>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. </p>

<p>What type B&W 220 was he able to procure?</p>

<p>These days in the US about all you can get in 220 is Tri X 320</p>

<p>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.</p>

>>> I wonder how many cards that is?

 

About 68. Roughly 41,000 images with 16GB cards. Double that with 32s.

<p>Another working pro chooses a digital workflow due to convenience. No surprise there. Cost of production might be another contributing factor.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Assistant almost quits because of the constant battles while working with an internationally regarded master who uses film.</p>

<p>The absolutely WORST reason to switch technology I could ever imagine. </p>

<p>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?</p>

<p>I can see a reluctance to run exposed film repeatedly through x-ray machines. But that should be surmountable by shipping with tracking.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>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<a href="../photodb/user?user_id=889981"></a></p>

<p>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. </p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Why do people get so angry about other people's working methods?</p>

<p>Something tells me Salgado knows what he's doing and is unlikely to accept compromise...</p>

Exactly.

<p>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. </p>

<p>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.</p>

<p> It's well worth the time to view the video with Salgado and John Berger that's linked in the article.</p>

<p>I'm not angry at all, I just think it's kinda funny that people get so worked up when someone goes digital.</p>

<p>OK. I am curious myself though about the silver issue. Sounds odd.</p>

<p>"Salgado knows what he's doing and is unlikely to accept compromise..."<br /> 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...<br>

Therefore you can get away with murder : no one can compare the silver contact sheet with the exhibition print</p>

>>> 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...

<p>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.</p>

<p>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?</p>

<p>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.</p>

>>> 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.

<p>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.</p>