</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Aggie @ Jan 15 2003, 09:35 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> I feel better and half the people in the classs commented on how digital will have to go a long way to ever beat one of Gary's prints. </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
If you talk to Gary you'll find out that he prints using a LightJet 5000 (it's mentioned on his site as well). This printer does indeed expose traditional photo paper but does so from a *gasp* digital file that's carefully and meticulously edited... *gasp* digitally before being sent to the printer.
This printer achieves more accurate color and better tonal range than most traditional processes thanks to its *gasp* digital profiles. The paper is exposed using a computer-guided laser and automatically developed. There is no darkroom involved.
Digital doesn't need to beat Gary's prints. Gary's prints *are* digital.
Yes, but Mr. Crabbe also seems to have decided to run photo paper through an INKJET PRINTER (if I am reading what Aggie posted correctly).
That alone deserves a smack!
I don't think anyone here has a problem with Lightjet or Frontier prints. I use Frontier myself. I shoot analog, just have the negs developed, then scan the negs. This saves me $$$. If I just want a print, I crop and touch up in Photoshop, burn to CD and have a bunch of prints made. I can get them done in bulk on a Frontier for just a few bucks per 8x10 that way.
Now, if I want a REALLY GOOD print....I mean an ART print, I have it done by hand on fibre paper at the shop. It is VERY expensive. But the quality is amazing and the print should last a VERY long time. I also like the softness of fibre.
Point being, I use what works and fits the situation. Mr. Crabbe on the other hand seems to be of the "Film is dead" school. Digital is the future! Burn your Deardorff now!
Well this isn't true. Film cameras still outsell digital. Film sales are still very high, and film is a very valid medium. It always will be. Especially with B/W.
I just don't have any truck with those who say otherwise.
Besides that Crabbe REALLY needs to find a vision. I agree with Jorge. This isn't to say I am any better or anything. But at least I don't try and sell my trite crap. In fact I have maybe 2 or 3 images that I would even CONSIDER selling and only one that I have. All are better than what Crabbe is selling.
And I suck!
I hate to say it, being the new guy, but your recent post sounds like unfounded mud slinging to me. Do you know anything about this person and his opinions to make such observations?
I'm hoping Gary finds the time to weigh in on the discussion personally. From what I know he does use film and I have never heard him speak out against film cameras, let alone burn anything.
As for vision - you can't really judge that from a stock showcase of someone who makes his living off photography. His site contains images made to sell, which tells you nothing about his personal "vision".
Interesting. Film is dead, digital is king, Crabbe used up an entire package of paper trying to prove it, and came up empty. Just for grins I looked at his website, and basically it's mediocre. One shot is an almost direct copy of the cover of Popular Photography from last year, and too many of the others look like he simply copied the framing techniques of other better photogs. Blah. I bet most people right here on APUG throw away better work than what I saw there. My approach is the usual... take the "snap" on film, print it on paper, and then scan it and burn a CD. It works. It sounds like this "professor" needs to come down from his ivory tower, learn some humility and rejoin the real world. He also needs some basic lessons on the proper use of different materials and media. There is room for traditional and digital both, but too many of the anti-film folks really annoy me with their superior attitude. Too bad some of his students will take his word as Gospel.
" I will often spend hours and days agonizing over a drum scan to get it exectly the way I want."
So what happens when photoshop version 12 has the new "photographers filter set"? You take a digital pic, load it into photoshop, apply the Ansel Adams filter, then print out 100 identical copies. I'm not saying you will use that filter, but it will sure be tempting to most. Maybe even better you have a wireless digital camera in the field. You snap 500 pics, choose the best 3, then it's wired directly to your printer which then applies your filter of choice. You get home and the fine prints are there waiting for you. I think at this early stage of digital a lot of tweaking is involved, but in the not to distant future we'll see an age of click image, apply filter preference, print, done. I'm not anti-digital, I just like to explore how the two mediums will continue to evolve. I use a digital cam for family snapshots and it's been a real cost saving device and is good enough quality. I can't see using any digital for fine art work because I enjoy the craft of it so much. Anyway, gotta run! Ross
Guy - I will admit that I am going off of what Aggi says. But in my mind anyone who talks about discontinuing analog classes and runs the wrong paper through an inkjet, needs to reasses their outlook.
My statements about his work stand though. I don't see anything great about those pictures. They seem trite and sort of "been there done that". This isn't to say I haven't done similar things. I will sometimes take a picture that reeks of cliche'. Mostly to play around with a technique or something like that.
I would never though sell them. Especially as "art". I mean 'Colorado River canyon from Navajo Bridge, Arizona' is NOT a particularly good landscape. I would never ask money for that.
Then again the only time I have sold anything, it was because someone saw the image and liked it, not because I offered it. I am not claiming to be "better" here.
But I am miffed about the continuing decline in the quality of work out there. It seems that people have bought into the concept that a digital image is INHERENTLY better than an analog one. Get a digicam, shoot some pictures, Photoshop the colors and make a webpage. Better yet, Add a bunch of surreal and extraneous crap and you will be lauded by some as a 'genius'.
Point being it seems the point of photography is getting lost. The tools don't matter so much as the final image. Now it seems to be the other way around with some people. And honestly, when a teacher starts getting into the digital vs. analog debate, they are not doing anyone a service. The CORRECT answer to the "which is better" question is "both can take great images, it is the photographer that matters". PERIOD.
Guy, I have nothing against digital, as a matter of fact I am of the idea that to each its own and use whatever is best to make your art, I dont think digital is the issue, IMO it is the quality of the images shown and the fact that this guy is supporting the "digital is better" when I would have first concentrated in making good images, with a digital or regular film camera. I think I can speak for many people here when I say that APUG is not a "digital is the devil" site, as a matter of fact I think most here have a more open mind about it than those who spouse the use of digital for whom traditional photography is "dead", just give me 5 more years so we can fix the bugs...lol. Seems that every time I see something not working in the digital realm this is the usual response. But that is another thread of which we are all tired about.
My opinion stemmed from the fact that most of the images shown in the site are very amateurish at best, not withstanding how they were made, digital camera or film camera. We have a person who is in a position to infuence people telling them digital is better and then he tries to print on enlarging paper with an ink jet printer....how silly is that? Fokos, David J Osborne, Burkholder have some of the most beautiful images I have ever seen and I for one admire their use and the taste with which they produce their digital images, but this guy...sorry lets call a spade a spade. If he is going to say "digital is better" then he better have some outstanding images to prove it, just as an example check out the images by our member b.e.wilson in the gallery, IMO his are much better images and he is not spousing the "traditional is better" position, he just goes and does his thing. This is what I want from digital proponents, just go an create art and forget which medium is better.
</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Ross @ Jan 16 2003, 09:30 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
So what happens when photoshop version 12 has the new "photographers filter set"? You take a digital pic, load it into photoshop, apply the Ansel Adams filter, then print out 100 identical copies. </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
Not sure I see what the problem is. Are you threatened by other people being able to create images similar to yours with less effort?
My belief is that a true artists will continue to create original work, regardless of what techniques and tools are available.
If someone can run a filter in Photoshop and create an image that meets or exceeds the quality of my own work, I would say *I'm* the one doing something wrong, not the other way around.
Gary Crabbe's response (posted at his request):
TO APUG / re: Traditional vs. digital & Art
uuhh, I think I need to clear up a couple quick facts related to this
thread, since it's obvious that some here have a very convoluted
interpretation of AGGIE's post.
First, I am NOT the digital instructor referred to.
I've never even USED a digital camera, nor do I have plans to buy one.
All of the images on my site match my original film transparency.
I NEVER would be so STUPID as to run photo paper thru an inkjet.
Second, I am not an "ART" photographer. I am a working commercial and
editorial photographer, and my images are tailored to that market.
I do sell high-end commercial photographic prints that I label as "Fine
Art Prints". If you want to debate the artistic value of my work, fine.
Call my work amateurish and unoriginal, fine. Even call me an artistic
whore; I don't care. I use my pictures to help pay for raising my
family. Nothing more, nothing less. I have a nice long string of clients
that will pay $2,000.00 - $30,000.00 for my amateurish photos. If the
client likes them, that's all I'm concerned with as far as viewers go;
that, and the resulting check puts food in my children's stomachs and
clothes on their backs.
Steve, You're right, my shot is almost a copy of the cover, except the
photos were taken a year before. So how did I copy a shot made a year
before the one that was published? Maybe it was just two photographers
in the same place & time.... gee, more than one photographer in
Yosemite, who'da thunk.
Personally, I don't try and COPY anyone's photos. I go to a place, shoot
what catches my eye in a way that I think is marketable to my clients.
In other words, I just go out there and do my thing (as was said in this
I've seen Jorge's work, along with some of the others mentioned in this
tread, and Nothing I've seen is any better or any worse than what I see
at local camera clubs, and none of which I would call truly impressive
or original, even though they may be artsy. My pictures may be common
and trite, but no more so than a B&W mission facade or single lit flower
against a black background. You may consider it art, but it is totally
unoriginal; but your "art" does serve it's place to a particular segment
of viewers. My "work" simply serves a different purpose and segment of
You like chocolate mocha with a pecan carmel swirl, and I like vanilla.
Finally, I don't consider myself a "master of Photography" or an
"Artist". I get 50,000 people a month through my web site, and I'm proud
of my accomplishments. I certainly don't need to label other peoples
work as crap, trite, or amateurish to make me feel better about my own
"art". As for what constitutes art, that's a debate that this forum is
way to small (and perhaps too biased) to properly handle.
Happy new years to you and yours.
Gary (one hell of a sucky non-digital artist) Crabbe