Topic: Portrait of Nature - Myriads of Gods on Platinum Palladium Prints

[Jack Johnson]

The fine folks at Ferrania retweeted this several days ago, and I'm just now watching it. So far, so good.

（English sub）Portrait of Nature - Myriads of Gods on Platinum Palladium Prints - on Vimeo
(English sub）Portrait of Nature - Myriads of Gods on Platinum Palladium Prints

[LT]

Interesting Jack.  Thanks for the link. I really enjoyed it.

Slight question, and I know he addresses it to some degree in the film ... But why go to all that effort and cost of 8x10, to then use a hybrid technique and print on a textured substrate that kills all the benefits of such LF? I guess the answer is, "because he can". But he could be using medium format or even 35mm and I doubt the end result would be that different, especially given he is scanning and not contacting the original negs.

Also, I wonder what the film is he wants to keep buying? The LF mono market isn't that dead is it?


Final point. He seems to be motivated by paranoia, and a grandiose notion that he is the chosen one to pass down the story of nature? Or did I just get out of bed the wrong side this morning ? Maybe the point was lost in translation.

I did enjoy it. Honestly.

[ManuelL]

I really enjoyed this film. And I think the prints are quite beautiful.
Somehow I like the approach to use an extremely cumbersome and expensive process and then print on a paper that give very low definition.

The idea of the work still being there in a thousand years is a bit optimistic in my opinion. Not sure how many photographers working today will become part of a cultural heritage that lasts over generations.

[FiatluX]

Wonderful video!

I always had this thing about making a single, just 1 photograph that would survive me and show the future how the world was in my day, who knows? The archaeologists study human feces a 1000 years old because it tells them a lot about the person that "dropped" it. So I might just have a chance..
Imagine that let´s say 5-10% of the photographs taken since the birth of photography survive those 1000 years, people then will react to them with curiosity and awe as we do today when ancient artifacts are found, preserved and exhibited..

He´s on to something in my opinion! 

[Andrej K]

Watched and enjoyed it too a few days ago.

I have to say that I too was saddened when I saw the scanner and things. I have nothing against digital negatives even though I do not use them (mostly because I am crap at photoshop etc...) but I think it is a trend nowadays - I saw somewhere even folks making digital negatives from ULF negatives... That is something I really don't understand - is it snobbishness? For me it just about spoils the point...

But in the end, what really matters is the print with the look and the feel you are after, not the means how you get there.


PS: An interview came to my mind with another japanese artist Kenro Izu who was bothered even by the air substance when enlarging which motivated him to use the huge 14x20inch camera just to be able to make "real" contact prints...

PPS: As for the film - I think he mentioned using Kodak 8x10 stuff, which is now only custom order item and quite pricey (I think recent discussion somewhere mentioned more than 10USD per sheet...). But maybe the film was shot during the "Kodak-crisis" when nothing kodak-related seemed sure and there was something near panic among some photographers...

[Francois]

I watched it last night and was quite impressed.
I observed his workflow and understand why he scans the negatives.
Let's not forget that the bigger the negatives the more prone to dust spots they are. By scanning he can easily remove those. Then, he adjusts the curves to get the most out of it. He also does the required dodging and burning at the same time. Let's not forget that it's very hard to dodge a print when contact printing. Then he inverts it and applies a custom curve to better match the tonal and density range required by the platinum print.

[LT]

what about the dust on the inkjet negative?

[Francois]

Well... when its fresh out of the printer, it shouldn't be a problem... but I get your point.

The best way to do things would be to adjust film development to match the required curve of the platinum print. That would definitely be the best.

I was thinking about it while having dinner and there's one thing I couldn't figure out... and its a big one.
Why shoot 8x10, carry around a huge camera and use insanely expensive film when in the end you scan the print and output it to a printer which has only a small fraction of the resolution of the original and then print it on a paper that lowers resolution even some more?

He could get all the same from a 4x5 negative using a smaller camera, cheaper film and still get the same quality output.

The human eye can't distinguish more than 300 DPI at arms length. No matter how much more resolution you get, you still end-up seeing the same!

[oldwino]

I think the point of the 8x10 lies in the density of information it can capture.  While all of the information may not be accurately represented in his choice of print/paper, that info is still there, and affects the image, whether you consciously "see" it or not.

[Francois]

Well, yes the negatives contain a lot of information. But the printer used strips out most of it.
The Epson scanner sure can resolve a lot of it, but for the sizes he prints he probably doesn't need to scan at a resolution much higher than 600 DPI.

The big limit on the resolution lies in the inkjet printer he uses. Most printers don't really get a resolution much higher than 1440 DPI. I know it sounds really great but we have to keep in mind that the advertized resolution measures individual ink drops and that the printer has a minimum of four colors to fit in using either a pattern or a stochastic model. 1440/4=360 real DPI.

A top of the line Epson printer with 9 inks has a resolution of 5760 DPI. 5760/9=640 real DPI.

Just as a comparison, a negative can get plenty of detail at over 3200 DPI.

[LT]

really good point Francois. It does seem counter intuitive given his ethos.

[Francois]

But as I always say, if it works for him...

[LT]

But as I always say, if it works for him...

Exactly that.

[Jack Johnson]

Then, he adjusts the curves to get the most out of it. He also does the required dodging and burning at the same time. Let's not forget that it's very hard to dodge a print when contact printing. Then he inverts it and applies a custom curve to better match the tonal and density range required by the platinum print.

I was thinking about that when I watched it. I know some people do the same for cyanotypes and I assumed he was doing something similar, either due to the platinum printing or due to the paper or the combination of the two.

I also considered that even though he's losing this detail from the paper, could it be possible that the combination of the "noise" introduced by the paper choice would make an enlarged negative that much worse?

For me, I appreciated it on multiple levels. I liked the insight into his motivation for the capture. I liked his attention to his craft. And, whether or not he's successful, I liked his attention to the longevity of his work. Though, in the end it's all ephemera, I think I would probably waste less film if I thought I were actively shooting for more than one future generation.

Has anyone seen Daido Moriyama / Near Equal? ( http://youtu.be/KUAk84LDFVA ) It might just be the filmography, but the parallel I found there was a depiction of real appreciation for the labor of the darkroom.

I haven't seen The Silver Footprint yet. I should probably throw it in my Amazon shopping cart....