I believe Salgado Jumped the Shark with his inkjet show. Some may be enamoured with his prints, I thought they were medicore to say the least, I am being really kind here.
The original silver gelatin, and LVt silver prints were up to standard but the bulk of this project is really dissapointing to me. I have followed his work for years,and
this new work is a major let down.
He has released, silver from enlarger, silver from LVT , pt pd from digital negatives , and inkjets.
This is very confusing and some of us are seeing the good work, some are seeing the bad..
I think I would call his new work... The Good, The Bad and The Ugly.
If we are discussing just picture aesthetics, does it matter how it was produced?
Originally Posted by MaximusM3
“The contemplation of things as they are, without error or confusion, without substitution or imposture, is in itself a nobler thing than a whole harvest of invention”
I went to a reception at the Peter Fetterman Gallery in Santa Monica CA for "Genesis" this weekend. Yes, they are remarkable looking prints but they are labeled silver gelatin. Can a traditional print be made from a digital file? I do know when he started this project he went to medium format, a 645 I see to recall.
It seems that in the private galleries he is showing silver gelatin from LVT negatives from digital capture.
They are quite nice .
There are a few ways to do this, Ilford digital silver paper on a Lambda direct from digital file then processed wet , Digital silver negative from a Lambda and contacted on paper of choice , LVT negative from digital file then put in an enlarger and printed on paper of choice.
He has put out a lot of different processes with Genesis.
Originally Posted by marcmarc
That's good to hear your pro opinion, Bob. I have only seen online images and honestly, not my cup of tea regardless. From what I can see on a screen, some of it is good and some of it really not. Not a lot of consistency and as you say, it may have to do with the mishmash of printing. Overall, I can clearly say that his film/darkroom output looks superior to me, for whatever the multitude of reasons may be.
Originally Posted by Bob Carnie
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
I am a big fan of Salgado's , I saw his impressive show at George Eastman House, of Migration and Workers, that was incredible work.
I think his editing of Genesis is a bit off and the printmaking has suffered with his move to digital.. There are really good inkjet prints out there, don't get me wrong. But this body of work seems rushed and not up to the quality level of 15 years ago.
some of the imagery , or to be honest a lot of the imagery is first rate, the finish is where I have problems.
I suspect your opinion is a problem of having too much knowledge about the process. Kind of like the Folgers taste test: everyone loves it until they find out it's Folgers, which is, in many minds (including mine), synonymous with doodoo. "Gads! I'd never drink that crap! It wasn't distilled in a darkroom!"
Originally Posted by Bob Carnie
So he switched to digital? We're talking about one of the greatest, most dedicated photographers of our lifetime. Plus, he's 69 years old!
As Austin Powers would say: "cut me some fricking slack, people!"
It's refreshing to know some Great Pictures were taken w/a Nikon and not just that L camera.
This is BS.
The airport X-Ray scanners degrade the quality of film
and this is also BS (unless he was exclusively shooting Delta 3200 in 645 format or something).
so I decided to change to digital and was quite surprised. Quality was better than the one I had with negatives in medium format
I could care less that it was Salgado who said it, honestly. I'm also quite certain digital will cost him long term in more ways than one.
Stop worrying about grain, resolution, sharpness, and everything else that doesn't have a damn thing to do with substance.
If is smells like it , if it taste like it , it probably is.
Originally Posted by ParkerSmithPhoto