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.
He's using some of the higher-speed Kodachrome variants, which I think is always grainy, but this work has a lot of open seascapes with large mid-tone areas, so it shows more.
![Harry Gruyaert: Edges (Thames&Hudson, 2018) [REUPLOAD]](/img/n.gif)
Here is another version of the video that shows the whole book:
th-cam.com/video/fJjZk7wIqnw/w-d-xo.html
I had never seen that photo with translucent glasses and a bunch of sailboats in the background. It blew my mind!
Thanks for sharing 🙏
Glad you enjoyed it!
His work is mind blowing in so many ways, everyone can find something for themselves.
Thanks for sharing 😊
You're welcome
Good shit.
Indeed ^_^
Love the kodachrome colors, but it would seem so fake editing current digital photos to get that look, presuming its even possible
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.
Some images are extremely noisy, I wonder why
He's using some of the higher-speed Kodachrome variants, which I think is always grainy, but this work has a lot of open seascapes with large mid-tone areas, so it shows more.
"noise" smh