40"x60" Pt/Pd print ! Well done ! Cutting up the original 8"x10" negative seems a bit affected though, as you've already scanned it to make the large negative for the contact print. Even so, I know very well that a bit of theater is necessary in art and business. No disrespect to anyone intended.
Ummm yea so it's 6o inch pictorico. Where is that negative? I might have been more enthralled actually with the 8x10 neg as a contact print and then the neg destroyed. I mean at least get a 30 by 40 camera if you want to wow and then re wow.
You don’t need to shoot analog you can actually use your digital negatives to do large Platinum Palladium prints and they came out pretty good. I actually wonder if he had saved that negative digitally for future prints. There are many different mediums that a person could choose to express oneself, and this is one of them.
What a title! Expected a cinematic masterpiece with never seen before content about an almost unicorn like skill set. Still trying to find the right words.
that film was scanned to make a large digital negative, right? so the film cutting is just a ceremony and you can still make another print if you would like.
You have two options: enlargement on giant film, or digital negative. Either way you had lose information, so you will never be able to reproduce another print without losing detail. If you kept the enlarged negative you would be able to make, potentially, an exact copy of the print, but that is, obviously, not very desirable.
@@LaViejaConsolada please, cut negatives is pointless, you should know. First: any kind of negative can be reproduced exactly as the master or even better, the process is widely known. So you can do an internegative and from that internegative produce a variety of different types of negative for different techniques or again the exact negative copy. So this procedure is pointless. And, in the case of platinum, you use a cotton paper and isn't required a great detailed negative to obtain that print.
He destroyed the negative in order to increase the value of his print since now it's the only one that exists and there cannot be another one. But here is the thing: I would argue that artistically nothing changes. A bad image is not going to get any better by becoming the only one. It is only going to be a very unique bad image. But no one is going to enjoy looking at it because of that. And an image that has a unique idea that is executed perfectly is always going to beautiful.People are going to appreciate it regardless of whether there is another one or not. So the only thing that really changes is a concept that concerns the buyer mostly. There is only one print and thus the price for it is justified. So i would argue that this is an artificial way of boosting the perceived value of a work of art that is based on how we as a society value things mostly within the confines of our economic system. Now, this is not some kind of anti capitalism comment. I am just trying to state it as i see it. Besides, i myself am conflicted about it. I do not really like the idea of exclusive art but i do get the idea of creating something that is unique and one of it's kind. I guess i feel that in this case it is somewhat forced because it goes against the photographic reality: there is a negative that you can reproduce unlike say a painting that is unique by its nature. But obviously it is his choice.
Tyler. the 8x10 neg that you cut up at the end of the video is for a 8x10 Platinum Palladium print, not for the 40x60, right? I don't think you can make a Pt/Pd print by projection using an enlarger (at least very difficult if not impossible). Maybe it's just me but it isn't too clear in the video.
Precisely. The cutting up of the negative is largely theatrics, unless he personally ensured every copy of the scan used to make the enlarged digital negative was also destroyed.
But that was not the negative used for the print itself... The negative used for the print is as large as the print is and I guess it's been conserved somewhere.
The photo and the print are amazing, great work! But to cut a negative is against the real nature of photography, which in its nature is reproducibility. Ansel Adams did never cut his negatives. I found this process only commercial to keep the price of the print high.
@@padesig I just told them above. Print neg is a digital enlargement of the original 8x10 unless I am missing a new piece of magical equipment that has been designed and produced recently that allows for the enlargement of 8x10 negatives onto pt/pd thereby eliminating the negative the size of the final print. show that 40x60 negative and cut that into pieces. On the other note Brett Weston BURNED all his negs when he was 80 because he did not want anyone else to print them. AP covered it. For the record I have not destroyed any of my negatives. But then no one gives a damn if I have or have not haha. This Tyler guy is a bit of a showman and a salesman.
Very impressive! It is bugging me but somewhere online I have seen multi-layer platinum/palladium printing done on a large scale. May have been a variant of the Kosel method but I am no expert. The paper was bonded to a huge aluminium sheet to maintain structural stability and registration and rye process carried out from there. I don’t recall how many re-coatings were done. The d-max is significantly enhanced by the process. I am sure there are a host of issues to deal with, not least being adequate washing.
But the print sized negative for the contact print still exists, so another print could still be made. Also what about the digital file used when scanning the 10x8 original. So that’s two ways to create another platinum print. I am assuming the models lips were originally shot on 10x8 and not as a smaller format image, say medium format Hasselblad and then enlarged 10x8. It all seems a bit cloudy and lacking transparency.
So he is the best printer in the world for this technique? What is you metering for this? Maybe the size of the print? Please, see many (many!) other stunning printers in the world using platinum-palladium process...
The Hidden Light guys are pretty good but Penn was better, I would argue that the people in the Platypus group are 'better" but personal taste an style is important. There is the Russian guy in NYC -forget his name- that did pretty massive prints of Elliot Irwin"s work. HP was promoting their printers the z3200 to make the enlarged negs. there was avideo on the youtube a while back.I think the guys name was Dmitry - have to look it up.
interesting video, a bit over stated but got to love the devotion...Think he overplayed the pour danger a tad...a motor for the agitation? Tray to heavy?..Destroying the neg is arrogant artist artsy fartsy salesman crap...more interested than sales are we?
Great video, but after you have developed your print what do you do with the developer? Do you recycle it or discard it? If you discard it, how do you discard it? Reason being, I don't want to start pouring a pollutant down the drain. Thanks.
Developer on platinum process can be reused illimitate times. Many aged platinum printers keep large bottle with many years because the developer contains platinum and increase the final contrast of the image without the needs of large amount of fresh platinum solution.
this is needless drama. the "throw" as they say or the pour is nonsense. Fill the tray with enough devloper and submerge the print as usual, face down and agitate a bit. Turn it over and develop for 3-4 mins no need to make a mess throwing expensive developer around. I have developed 26x38 sheets of KOZO this way and that medium is far more difficult than the paper used in the video. The HiddenLight guys are pretty good I must say though.
Cutting the negative can look impressive but you've no proof that the photographer dind't have: - make many times the same shot - made hi resolution scan of the negative (from what you can make a new negative). Not saying that the photograph did it, just that the possibility exists.
The only way to make a print that big is to have a digital negative the same size as the print. Unless he also cut up the digital negative and then deleted the scan he used to make it, he'll still be able to re-print that image.
These people have to be rich starting off. I mean.. who the hell says, "I'm getting a business loan for a few hundreds of thousands of dollars, buying all this equipment, paper, chemicals and start offering photo printing that's soooo outdated that no one does it professionally." I'm guessing other rich hipsters are the ones that give them all their business. I mean.. don't get me wrong, I think it's great this old way of printing is being kept around, if for historical purposes only, but as a business? How is this even viable??
Actually, shooting in medium or large format can be started for less than $2000usd. I had two 4x5 cameras with lenses and sold them both because I couldn't be bothered with dealing with chemistry or paying for film and processing anymore. Digital is great, but it has limits.
@@RobertXPhotography Do you know how expensive restaurants are to start up? The staff, the equipment, the stocking of ingredients? And how successful are start up restaurants? Not very. This is much more expensive than setting up you run of the mill darkroom. But I doubt the equipment it's that much more expensive than these boutique higher volume film labs. There are no developing machines. They're using the same enlarger techniques that lots of hobbyists use (pioneered by Adams). The only difference is they have larger development trays and the cost of the chemicals. The difference in rent and taxes alone between LA/NY and Arizona would probably more than cover those costs.
I was impressed right up until he cut the negative into bits and said why! That's just ego of the printer, the photographer just lost his image. I as a photographer would never allow any printer to destroy a negative that has the ability to be used in fifty, one hundred years from now! WTF
nothing wrong with cutting up the neg-pretty sure that was the photographer doing that. His choice. But unless there is proof that the digital file that created the enlarged negative (this is a contact print people) and that inkjet or scitex neg or whatever is cut up then another print can be made whenever.
Can confirm that's the photographer and he wanted to make his image a 1/1. I've seen other videos with him and his work. The printer is the one with the beard.
This is the best comment on this topic. Even without the original negative, more prints can be made with the internegative. If this is correct, Tyler should explain it and not give the buyer the illusion that she/he buys “one of a kind”.
I submit that it was Edward S.Curtis blows him away. My opinion based on history. Ansel Adams over rated, many printers as good as Adams then and now. Zone System What put him on the map was the controversy folks created around him. He was criticized because while all were busting there asses during WWII he was out making beautiful idilic images. I also submit there is no such thing as the best platinum printer ludicrous. As a fine art photographer and photography historian I find that laughable as does anyone versed in the methods history and use. Want to see an even more difficult process look up the daguerreotype. There are a handful that still practice this. Sooooo uh yeah.... Wonder if Mat uses fumed silica? By the way palladium and platinum printing though laborious compared to the fast food digital printing it is an easy process to do. The only thing nescessary for a large print is a large negative, large contact printer and the ☀️ sun. The original UV light source and one does not even need a dark room to do the process. One may coat and dry the paper under tungsten light. The more you know..... Credit to Mat for continuing the tradition! Hopefully he does not screw up big prints by not doing test strips. The developer drama was funny because it develops until it does not lol and it is done. The only way to screw that up is not having the contrast proper via the emulsion being mixed proper or unproperly exposed to the sun. Oh the drama.... But for the uneducated it sucks em in I suppose like so much of the media today. Thanks for the post even though it’s full of hyperbole lol. My mentoring teacher was John Scarlatta God rest his soul.
I've worked with John for over 30 years, we were colleagues at CalArts, he would despise your distasteful use of words here. There is absolutely no need to be hostile like this. Rest in peace.
I'd have to go with Irving Penn as the all-time master, though Curtis and his darkroom assistant at the time (Imogen Cunningham) were really excellent, and Frederick Evans, maybe the best of all-time. The issue with the developer pour is real - you have to cover the exposed image virtually instantaneously, otherwise you get a solid pour line, or immersion line, that does not "develop out" - so yes, that drama was real. Did you study with John at Va Intermont or Appstate - he was a great guy and photo teacher, and a colleague of mine.
