Видео

No problem, glad you enjoyed it!

That's a bit complicated, in my opinion. Obviously the development of his style is tightly connected to Kodachrome and he used to go out of his way and use dye transfer printing to get more lush colours. But then he also said he's enjoying inkjet more, because finally he cam get his prints to where he wants them to be. This means he's open to manipulating those famous Kodachrome colours and he's quite particular about his prints too. Following this logic, it's up to him to vote for consistency, even on digital. The difference interests non-photographers very little. I don't think it's that important/interesting.

@@andras_ikladi I wasn't really commenting in respect to his work when it comes to color manipulation, but mine or any other photographers contemporary work. I think the kodachrome look is associated with a specific time (and some well known photographers) and attempts to replicate it nowadays could be a bit... inauthentic? It's a valid discussion at the moment since so many photographers, myself included, are working with film nowadays. Sometimes that work can lean into film colors heavily to sell a nostalgia for an era the photographer hasn't even experienced. It just strikes me as a bit dissonant, a shallow infatuation with the past. Not with Gruyaert himsef though. He lived the era, worked with that film, and as you said - it's part of his career and style.

@@Armitage01101 ​ Thanks for the clarification - I was misguided since your comment appears under a book that also has a mix of colour and digital and it's pretty hard to tell the difference in most cases (other than looking in the back for the labels). About the “Kodachrome look”: I think there is a bit more to the issue that you label "authenticity" than just Kodachrome or other film simulations and that's a complete lack of distinct voice in the content of the work, not only in the formal elements, in a lot of photography that's popular on social media. They’re more similar to signifiers to well-known work and the icing on that cake is trying to match the visual look (proceeds to shoot petrol stations in the Midwest -> shoots it on Portra -> grades it in a certain way -> instant like). About recreating Kodachrome in digital: It's entirely possible to recreate any look. I had a good laugh for two decades, while these “film vs digital” debates were the clickbait of the year, our daily work was integrating computer graphics elements or entire shots/sequences into film footage. The same audience never even noticed it (if executed well). Is it harder to create an entire portfolio with a 100% Kodachrome look? Yes, but once you're in that context as the consumer, it doesn’t have to be a complete match, consistency is more important. About using "film look" in digital: I think everyone needs to answer this to themselves. Is digital a different medium? If so, emulating one medium with the other is probably a no-go. Ralph Gibson, who had a very long career built entirely around grainy black and white and a masterful darkroom printing practice, switched entirely to digital around 2010 (or whenever the Leica Monochrom came out). For him, digital is a different language that, he believed, didn’t find its voice yet. His language changed, but he’s still talking about the same things in his photography. Some go all the way with trying to match “the film look” (whatever that is) as much as possible - mostly due to external validation. And then there is the middle ground (which I believe in) that in certain cases there is merit in borrowing from a deconstructed film look - either colour profiles or grain to highlight a certain mood. I use digital grain quite a bit in my work for various reasons - in Blackout, it’s to underline the blurry feeling of memory loss, in Crows Nest to play with the dichotomy of surface and representation, in Midnight Eclipse to add some grit - but I would not claim these look like film. They just look like how they look for a reason.

@@andras_ikladi Those are some good points. I agree that the medium is a means to communicate something with photography and if the result is good, a discussion on how a project was executed, digital, film, or something in between, this or that technique, is adjunct to appreciating the art for what it intends to communicated and more of interest to photographers than to the general public. In struggling to make something of a disparate collection of random images that have no particular theme, which I've accumulated over the past few years I progressively realized how many of the discussions surrounding photography are, past a certain point, a surrogate for actual creation: this or that technique, camera, lens, medium, genre conventions - all of it there to provide the feeling that the hobbyist is engaging with photography and the gear mill going, but which does little to nothing for the individual to improve in their actual art, because, fundamentally, the act of communicating with photography (as I suspect with any other art) is - bloody hard.

@@Armitage01101 Hard indeed - I consider avoiding getting more serious about art a defence mechanism. Staying with the hobbyist attitude can be much more gratifying, contained in time and mind space and even healing than the self-doubting, all-devouring next step into "art," when things get exponentially harder, exponentially less satisfying and less about taking photographs. And the worst part: there is no way back, it's like slowly ratcheting up the pain and desperation levels. YT gets blamed a lot for this, but this is nothing new, you can go back to the roots of popular photography, read books from the mid-19th century (archive.org has a few) and you'll find similar concerns. I've even noticed it in a similar field (computer graphics/visual effects), where the feeling of linear progress by ticking off tutorials with well-defined topics often acts as a roadblock to real, usable knowledge and comes with a lot of resistance to step out of.

You're welcome! That's what I always think, nothing can replace a physical book. You'll enjoy it!

Thank you for the kind remarks! I wish I could give you a better answer, but so far (due to where I live temporarily) I haven't figured out how to make it available. What you see is just a dummy, only made in a single copy (partly for an exhibition).

I'm sharing the same feeling with his work, that was the reason I bought this book. Normally I'm not a huge fan of the (American style) portrait+landscape, "one image on the right page of the spread" kind of books but Halpern is hitting a sweet spot, that interesting no-mans land of documentary and surrealism, (subjectively) better than in his other books. Looking back, I always find my sequences too...obvious? affected? Too much focus on moving from one spread to the other but eventually leaving less space for the viewer. I think within the spread, I can generate some interesting content but it's hard to extend it to surrounding pages, let alone to the broader sequence of 50-60 images. Also, I found that after spending 20+ years in the film industry and looking at countless storyboards and animatics, I cannot get away from the narrative aspect, even if the overall structure of the book is not following the traditional 3-stage structure. But one thing I'm sure of. After a few years, he's not happy with his sequencing either! :D You hear this from people who are almost entirely defined by photobooks, spend years making one and the best they can hope for is that they can get it "right" at that moment...and then we all move on and (hopefully) develop. Some, like Renato D'Agostin, are willing to openly admit it, and some just release a second edition :) If someone else is reading this, I can recommend his Magnum workshop called _Documentary sur/realism_ and some RUclips videos: ARTIST TALKS - GREGORY HALPERN-ygp2rYoA5Qs In Conversation - Gregory Halpern and Michael Mack-6HhqJMDDkOg On Sequence - Gregory Halpern & Stanley Wolukau-Wanambwa-M7_giEBdiHg

Yeah it's the one in conversation with Mack Books. Great to hear more behind the process

Yes! Part of the reason for this archive is that I also move regularly, sometimes between countries, on average every couple of years and some of these books have been in 4 countries already. Keeping a good library helps to (painfully) remove those I notice to be less frequently read. Obviously, nothing replaces reading the physical book at your own pace, but luckily so many of the insane number of publications are online. The 15,000+ book videos I got are only the tip of the iceberg...a fifth at best. Every time people compare posting on IG is like pouring a glass of water into the sea, I think..maybe making a book is pouring a glass into a large lake.

Thank you!

You're welcome!

Indeed ^_^

De rien!

He doesn't get the recognition he deserves in this regard - at least on the internet, where the street photography brotherhood hijacked his diverse heritage. I agree, some of the best portraiture I've seen: very calm, discreet, and fully revealing of personality of the sitter.

You're welcome! I think that's a general concern with books that attempt to retrospectively look at a larger portion of a long and fruitful career. Even though this has a somewhat edgy title implying a similar editing style, the clarity of the guiding principle of the edit is compromised and too open for vanity decisions to seep in, maybe for the sake of biographical completeness. That probably explains it - but I haven't seen his Istanbul book yet, so only guessing. The other thing I find difficult to understand is how can someone basically do the same thing for an entire lifetime. It's also possible that the hunger is gone but the formula remains and occasionally something is missing but the momentum of long-established greatness carries it forward.

They're beautiful indeed. I'm not sure about the size in this case. Usually, I'm not a huge fan of museum practices when they frame 6" prints in a 24" frame - they're trying to push too hard to give it more space and become comical. But in this case, the white space does seem to elevate the (occasionally, superficially mundane) pictures and provide them with some repose... I think it fits the work quite well when leafing through the book, especially that you have time to stop and contemplate the imates...but it might not come across in video format. What I definitely don't like though is the captions...why, MACK? They're playing off the formal relationships...who cares if it's Rome or Salzburg? Put that in the separate volume of text.

@@andras_ikladi Yes, looking through a book that you are holding in your hands is a different experience, immediate, tactile. I just meant that I want the pictures to be bigger, it's not so much about the space, I phrased it wrong. I want to take in the pictures more. Like seeing a film at the cinema is a more immersive experience than watching it at home. I want to be completely taken over so that I forget myself for a moment, like all good art does. The pictures are stunning and deserve to take up more space.

I agree it's a bit on the small side. Given his images are mostly horizontal, if laid out in a vertical book, the page size would have to be larger (I think there is room to play, the book is a little small)...or use a landscape format but then run the risk of losing some of the...floatiness? (is that a word?). I have another of his books where they've done it and I much prefer them on a vertical page (I have the same issue with many of Martin Parr's books). For a wall, I would even go with vertical frames. A propos theater: a projection of these slides would be magical! There is a photographer I know who's working in series but has given up on making books (due to cost, distribution, interest...etc) and now books a cinema (surprisingly cheap) once in a while to present his new work, supported by music and a short presentation.

You're welcome!

Thanks for the comment! I understand what you're saying and sort of agree...but that's only one way to look at it. As someone who is designing books I prefer to see the cloth, typography, colors...etc on the hard cover and even the folding of the jacket can be important (Gibson seems to like the French fold for example). I consider this as a sort of archive and a collection of ideas/reference too. But to be honest, if I look at the statistics, the average viewer doesn't have the patience to watch videos like this anyways, usually they get to the 30% mark, 40+% is already outstanding, only a few have more than that. And interestingly it doesn't matter if the book has 400 pages and takes 20 minutes to flip through or it has 40 and takes 3 minutes, it's always the fist third that's of interest. But I think in general most YT videos are not watched front to back.

@@andras_ikladi thank you for the additional context and reply. Cheers.

Thank you for asking! You can find a link to my website (andrasikladi.com) on the info page and there is also a playlist with my (short run) books and dummies.

Indeed he's and this book is one of the bests. Glad you enjoyed it!

It's not silent, there is a very low frequency humm that emenates from Tomatsu's photography

My pleasure

No worries!

Used online bookstores should have it I think. Try Abe books, they have a few

🤣

Usually, it's driven by scarcity, greed, wishful thinking and cluelessness :) This book should be easily available for around $80, you might need to look around. Abe Books has a new one for $96 right now, I can recommend them.

I saw! Another place has it for sale brand new for 65 and it’s the same edition as a used book that’s going for 300🥴 I never seen such inconsistency for a book

It could be autographed or maybe the first printed edition.? Anyway willing seller and buyers

Like every book, it works better in its tactile form where you can proceed at your own pace. But it's a bit unwieldy, not easy to fit this kind of content in a book.

GX617 .. what else do you expect?

I had the chance to see his Ruins exhibition (also full of large panos), it was very impressive. Catalogues sometimes don't represent the body of work well and panos are an extremely hard material to present - you'll fail either way, just just have to choose how to fail. We have the Wall, Chaos, Ruins and Black industries. Chaos is massive and maybe could do with a little less (but for a living historical figure like Koudela, public archiving is also important), Walll has more narrative but less impressive design and Black industries is just too small to impress.

Exactly. The same with well sized prints hanging on a wall.

You're welcome!

De rien