'The Book Will Surely Prevail'

My friend and former teacher Joe Cameron, in his post "H.C.-B. in Ink" last Friday, mentioned Ralph Gibson:

But I also remember hearing the photographer Ralph Gibson suggest once that the deep rich black of printer’s ink came closer to conveying his ideas than the silver of printing paper. He was glad to sell 'original prints' to collectors but he implied that the book pages holding his images were truer to his vision.

As I often try to do when people are mentioned or referenced in our posts—I am forever casting lines into the water—I emailed the link to Ralph, saying, parenthetically, "I know you love books." Here's his reply, which came in yesterday morning:

Michael,

Apropos your invitation I will respond by adding that now, 20 years later, the digital revolution is coming of age in the truest sense. We are beginning to understand exactly what the net does and does not do... Obviously many forms of communication and research have been massively enhanced via electronic media. However it seems that the photography book is holding strong. Very strong indeed. Let's examine why this is the case.

I believe that the alchemy of light on film informs a kind of content that is not remotely duplicated by electronic imaging systems. These systems transfer information with great precision but a silver gelatin photograph transcends the subject and leads one into much higher levels of content. For this reason the photograph per se remains firmly positioned in the social aesthetic matrix.

The exact same is true of the photography book. Issues such as tactility, luminosity and rhythm on the printed page are not in any way equaled by the image on the digital display.

I don't want to sound like one of those cave-men who resented the invention of papyrus...I own several computers and love doing the layout and scans for my books as well as composing music and burning CDs etc. It's all great. I only want to state clearly that the book will surely prevail....

I only hope that these sentiments are shared by future generations.

Ever Onwards!

Ralph Gibson

Of major photographers, Ralph Gibson is even more closely identified than most with the printed page. He founded Lustrum Press in 1970 to publish his own work as well as a series of "process-oriented" technical books and monographs by other photographers, the most famous (or infamous) of which was probably Larry Clark's pioneering portrait of the drug underworld, Tulsa, reprinted in 2000 by Grove Press. Along the way, he helped make the reputations of a number of photographers who are well established now, such as Mary Ellen Mark.

A spread from Ralph Gibson's 1973 book Déjà-vu. Photo courtesy CCP.

There was a show at the Center for Creative Photography in 2007 called "Ralph Gibson and Lustrum Press, 1970–1984" which chronicled Gibson's influence as a publisher.

Where his own work is concerned, Ralph Gibson works through the medium of books—with design, sequencing, and juxtaposition—such that his printed books are essentially single artworks. Ironically, though, his website has an archive of his work that is more comprehensive than the online gallery of almost any other photographer of his stature.

Mike

Send this post to a friend

Note: Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. More...

Featured Comment by CK Dexter Haven: "I would be thrilled to have an email from Ralph Gibson. Certainly, one of my photographic 'heroes.' However, an actual letter from him would be just the cat's. Something about the luminosity of ink on paper that just can't be reproduced by pixels on screen."

Comments

[Kirk Decker]

This comment really adds nothing to the discussion, but I really like this post. I don't know why. I'm not a Luddite, I think digital is helping me make the best prints I've ever made. Maybe this is the post that will get me move "make photo book" to the top of my to do list.

[Edd Fuller]

Most of my career was spent in the printing and publishing industry and ink on paper is my first love. As for photography, I do not feel I have completed a photograph until I hold a print in my hand.

However, I cannot be as optimistic as Mr Gibson about the future of print. As computers and electronic devices become ever more ubiquitous, fewer people have long term exposure to print. Electronic media are habit forming, and habit always prevails.

[misha]

"Something about the luminosity of ink on paper that just can't be reproduced by pixels on screen."

bada-bing

[Ken Tanaka]

I agree with Gibson that the printed forms of photography will endure at the pinnacle of the viewing totem. The more virtual our conveniences become the more valuable real experience becomes. Yes, there are plenty of crappy-looking books. But the print/printed book remains the medium that holds the greatest promise for photographic expression and presentation. That seems such a self-evident truth that it's not worth debating.

The bigger issue is whether or not such publishing will remain as economically viable in the coming years. Not to stray into dark woods, but it's likely that the world, particularly the Western world, has seen it's economic heyday come and go. No forecast for the coming 50+ years suggests optimism for markets such as publishing expensive art books.

[David Dyer-Bennet]

I'm sure we'll have people saying "something about the luminosity of a good LED-illuminated LCD screen that blobs of ink on paper just can't match" soon. If the high-end stuff comes down in price, or other technologies match its performance (and at least one of those is very likely just in general), we'll have computer displays that have a wider brightness range and color gamut than any printed material. I think this issue will more likely be fought on resolution.

[Rob Atkins]

I think CK Dexter Haven is writing The Philadelphia Story.

Gibson makes an eloquent argument, and his books are truly Beautiful.

- Rob

[Dave Sailer]

I like books. I like print. One mistake I made was to resubscribe to "Lens Work" on DVD instead of print. Now I have a stack of unopened DVDs. I preferred the paper magazine. I couldn't wait for each new issue to arrive, and spent the whole evening wallowing in it. I believe it's been dropped now anyway, like my subscription.

But check out today's blog post by Seth Godin: "Who will save us?" (http://3.ly/tLuA) I think it was he who did another, similar, earlier post about print, that it was really about selling paper. Or maybe that was Phillip Greenspun, or both. Anyway, the main idea is that you pay the same per-page fee for print regardless of content quality, an idea that stopped me in my tracks.

Print is different, both better and worse than "e" versions. Print is familiar, it is known, and we all have an attachment to it, and we will see less and less of it. I can't change that either.

[Luke]

What?? My screen is luminous by its very nature, and makes ink on paper look flat and lifeless.

It glows! Rimshot, indeed.

However, seeing subtle tonal gradations and detail on it is a problem.

[John Sarsgard]

"...the luminosity of ink on paper that just can't be reproduced by pixels on screen...". They are certainly different, and they each have a place, for me. But Ralph Gibson (whose work I love...I have all of his books) doesn't address digitally created works on paper, except to acknowledge his own use of computers to do layout and the like. As he digitally creates a book, which is really his favorite medium for his work, we wonder how he feels about capturing the image in a digital camera in the first place. You don't have to be a Luddite to acknowledge that images on a display are fundamentally different from those on paper. But does he think they still have to be captured on film?

[Michael Seltzer]

“I believe that the alchemy of light on film informs a kind of content that is not remotely duplicated by electronic imaging systems. These systems transfer information with great precision but a silver gelatin photograph transcends the subject and leads one into much higher levels of content.”

I agree with the first, not with the second. I have all along thought there are subtle qualities to film, and traditional prints from film, that digital doesn’t have (and maybe never will). However, to imply that what we now consider traditional techniques produces “higher levels of content” than digital is capable of I think is wrong.

New technology always changes the aesthetic, changes what expressions are possible, so something is always lost. But something is usually gained as well. Perhaps tempera painters thought the new oil-based pigments produced paintings of less strength, less visual subtlety. But oil painters went on to produce some decent images. Not tempera, of course, but not bad stuff. It might be valid to say that digital is new enough that we aren’t often producing images imbued with such content… yet (though I think we have some artists producing examples to help show us the way). But to deny that possibility is to privilege an older, more familiar mode—one we can “see” better because we are better trained to see it—over something new. Technology is just a tool, and artists always take what tools are available in a given period to produce art (and if it doesn’t have those “higher levels of content” I’m not sure it is art).

At least, I hope so. I am an old film-based photographer myself (practically crocodilian), and resisted the move to digital for a long time, but finally I succumbed. If the implication I find in Mr. Gibson’s statement above were true, then I’d be in trouble, as I still hope to have a chance at producing art (of course, I may be misreading it, for which, if true, I apologize).

[Mike Johnston]

"we wonder how he feels about capturing the image in a digital camera in the first place. You don't have to be a Luddite to acknowledge that images on a display are fundamentally different from those on paper. But does he think they still have to be captured on film?"

Well, tell me, John, if Leica had produced a special limited-edition "John Sarsgard Signature MP" to your personal specifications (down to the choice of strap), with your signature engraved on the top plate, what would you use?

http://www.ceotom.com/tag/Ralph%20Gibson

Mike

[Calvin Amari]

Far be it from me to argue with Ralph Gibson, but I suspect that the social aesthetic matrix in which the traditional photographic print remains firmly positioned is the small (albeit vitally important) ghetto of fine art. The photo book, in contrast, comes considerably closer to rubbing shoulders with popular culture and, in this regard, I fear that Mr. Gibson may underestimate the totalitarian grip that the web and related media have on the psychic cajones of younger (extant and future) generations. Moreover, although the medium may well be suboptimal, I've made the case time and again (including on these virtual pages) that perusing the archive section of the Gibson webpage that Mike mentions is a terrifically rewarding exercise.

[James Ha]

For the longest time, I've been playing with Tri-X and Rodinal 1+25 to get the Ralph Gibson "look," but I could never come close enough. Or is it the way he prints? I don't know! My generation is witnessing the immense loss of all so much darkroom wizardry and knowledge as masters retire or move over to Photoshop and Epson, or sadly, pass away. There are no more people to teach us how to soup up Pyro, or proper ways to split filter print, etc. Many question the decade in which I'm living, but there is a certain joy and magic in the wet darkroom that computers will never, ever replace. Also, there is no printer that comes close in quality to a fiber print for me.

Mike, can you do me a huge favor and ask Ralph Gibson for some tips on how he gets that look? Grainy, very high contrast without loss of detail, but ultimately not gimmicky. Just timeless. I've heard he overexposes and overdevelops, but I've never gotten it down nearly as awesome. I love his printing style, as well as Lillian Bassman's.

[Dennis Allshouse]

LensWork is still available in print, I just checked their website.

Also in the Nov-Dec 2007 issue, Brooks Jensen wrote about advances in offset printing which he believes may well redefine the meaning of an original print. He claims that offset printing is capable of producing a result that is superior to a gelatin silver print! or damn near it. Now couple this capability with print on demand and high quality photo books may be more possible now than less.

[Bernie]

I'm not commenting on this post but just wanted to let Ralph Gibson know, if he reads this, that he played a major part in inspiring me to become a photographer back in the 70s or early 80s.

I bought a photography book published by Life that had a single image from him from a book called "The Somnambulist". It is a picture of a woman's hand on a door handle. If you've seen the picture you'll know the one I mean. The thing that hooked me was the mystery as to what was happening. Was it an invitation to a bedroom? At the age of about 20 that was where my imagination took me!

[Luis Carlos Aribe]

Re James Ha's question, Ralph Gibson describes his methods in his Lustrum Press book, Darkroom. This book is available used at a reasonable price (http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=Darkroom+Lustrum+Press). The book contains articles by well-known photographers on their darkroom methods, including the Gibson article. There is another Lustrum Press book, Darkroom 2, but the simple 'Darkroom' is the one with Gibson's article.

[M. LeClerc]

Gibson's work changed from his influence after seeing Michael Martone's work which he published in 1974 a book called "Dark Light".

I would wish that people would review
Robert Frank's comments about that post Martone influence Gibson(and Frank) realized. in "Occasional Papers #2 The Pictures are a Necessity" by William Johnson from Eastman House NY.1988
Many Martone images which some said were in
the Gibson style which appear in Dark Light were in fact made by Martone in 1960-1961.
yup! no one knew Gibson then.

Historians do your research.